Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 August 10)
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10 edit


Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box 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) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template. There is unlikely to ever be more than two articles in this "series". B (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Delete. I recently untranscluded this from its two members. No need when mutual internal links to eachother do the job just as well. –xenotalk 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also gives undue weight to the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident in Mr. Gates' bio. –xenotalk 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is adequately designed for its purpose of informing the reader that an article series exists. Since article series navigation templates are to assist our readers find subarticles that are not blessed with intuitive sounding names (which article viewership stats clearly indicate are comparatively rarely accessed, in comparison to a main article) and since it is not disputed that this template works just as well for this purpose whether a series has two articles in it or three-or-more articles in it, unless a new rule is instituted that there needs to be more than two articles in a series, I say let's keep it. ↜Just M E here , now 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two articles don't make a "series". --Conti|✉ 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could define a series as having two articles, but that's a stretch. Regardless, there's no use to this template. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful, seems to highlight a controversy in a WP:BLP article. I don't oppose to re-creating the navbox when more articles about Prof Gates are created (maybe about his academic research) --Jmundo (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've carbon copied the following "!vote" (such as it is) from the Gatesgate article talk page, with permission of its author.

    Either way is fine A few quick reverts on adding and removing a navbox template for Gates-related articles, all two of them. It's nicely done and I'm normally a fan of navboxes but I do think it's a little unnecessary to have a navigation system for just two articles. I don't see the harm if everyone agrees, but we have two editors with good faith objections so I wouldn't push it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    ↜Just M E here , now 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xeno and Jmundo hit on the main point here, aside from the template's lack of usefulness. If we dump the template into Henry Louis Gates (as in this version) we create a problem in terms of undue weight. The text of that article reflects the fact that the arrest incident, despite the flurry of coverage, is a minor incident in a long career. A nav box that highlights Gates' arrest will tend to direct readers to a fairly trivial aspect of his life (one which many will have forgotten a year or two from now). If we had sub-articles about his scholarship, his work for public television, etc. then that would be different, but we don't and we almost certainly won't. The situation here is quite analogous to having a nax box at the top of Mel Gibson that directs readers to the main bio article and to Mel Gibson DUI incident (which was obviously a lot worse than the Gates situation). The DUI article seems to be the only sub-article dealing directly with an aspect of Gibson's life, but I don't think many would argue for including in in a nav box at the top of the main bio page, and therefore implicitly giving it more weight than his entire film career. Templates are just as capable of violating our core NPOV policies as article text, and I think that's what's going on here which is why we need to delete it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, BigTimePeace, strong, well-reasoned points. (But since I'm the one who filled in and saved the navigation template -- and have already "!voted" to keep, I'll just leave my !"vote" alone. Embarrassin' ta vote against "my own" template!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing embarrassing about accepting a well-reasoned counter-point and putting a {{db-g7}} on an unnecessary template that was created in good faith. It will allow a speedy closure of this TFD as well. –xenotalk 13:22, 11 August 2009 (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:The Humanx Commonwealth 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) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Humanx Commonwealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked articles similarly nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets. Lack notability. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see similar nomination for remaining articles related to fictional planets (and species) in this book series here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets
  • Oppose. Remove the entire template because of the possibility that some of the linked articles within it be deleted? No. Modify the template if some of the linked articles are deleted? Yes. Zotdragon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is clearly a step or two ahead of itself. First let's see if any or all of the nominated deletes pass, then we can make an assessment about whether enough of the template remains viable for preservation. RandomCritic (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this is a bit premature but it's starting to snow over in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets.--RadioFan (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better not rush things. The template can be deleted only if the articles are deleted or redirected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have notices is not snowing in the Afd. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zotdragon. And I've read most of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely Delete—most of the stuff linked in this template will either be deleted or merged somewhere and this will render the template moot. Let this drift until the AfDs close and sort it appropriately then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:02, 11 August 2009 (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:Family guy road trip 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) 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family guy road trip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need this template? All it lists is five or six out of a multitude of Family Guy episodes which are only linked by their title. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I think I was probably disrupting Wikipedia to make a joke there. It's just, well, some things I am sad to see gone because they're just sweet, or cool, even if they're not encyclopedic. But in my heart I do know this template should be deleted. Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (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 Disney character 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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Disney character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stripped down duplicate of Template:Infobox character. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wait even worse, hardcoded duplicate of said template. Speedyable? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Heavily used on several articles and useful for categorization as under the scope of the Disney WikiProject. The Flash {talk} 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also would like to note that the main template has too many fields that would lead inevitably to edit wars. The Flash {talk} 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, should be a speedy delete. Hardcoded instance of an existing character. Really pointless. Templates are not just for adding categories. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Categorization can be done through, well, categories. --Conti|✉ 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: Some characters that are major yet not be allowed into their own articles have to be allowed their own existance on this site, and the Character Lists is the only method possible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. And Template:Infobox Lost character? -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete We really do need to consolidate the series specific templates into the main template. There is no need to have 500 templates when one does the job admirably. And since this is just a pass-through for {{Infobox character}}, replacing it via template substitution is trivial. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Characters that are notable yet not notable enough to have their own category need to be placed in a larger category i.e., Disney character Infobox. Ardavu 19:09, 11 August 2009. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.71.185 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template does not put any character into a category. The objections to deletion citing categorization are just red herring arguments. --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the meaning is that a search for pages that transclude this template provides a list of articles that should be tagged as part of the WikiProject. Flimsy, but not a red herring. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is already in use across a cast array of articles. For many of the reasons already stated, and also the plain and the simple, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I say we keep it. Bigvinu (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Standarisarion is a reason to replace it with a more generic one. Categorisition is not a reason to keep an infobox. --Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since {{Infobox Disney character}} is merely a pass through for {{Infobox character}} and can therefore be easily replace by using template substitution, the number of times it is currently in use is a poor reason to keep the template. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete seems like a perfect solution here. The Disney WikiProject can set standards if such are necessary (such as for the color of the infobox title). I would encourage anyone who thinks this template should be kept to be much clearer about why, because right now most of the objections are rather muddled and hard to understand. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delet per above. BOVINEBOY2008 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete solves the problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (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:YouTube show 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 replaced by {{YouTube}}. JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely inappropriate linking template for making it easier to link to YouTube videos. Whether official or not, such links violate WP:EL and should not be encouraged through such a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new template is in the spirit of {{YouTube user}} but it is an improvement. The content index by these "show" pages is high-quality and copyright but clearly available with permission. These "show" indexes often correspond closely to their many corresponding WP entries. It is at a more encyclopedic level in the style of {{Imdb title}} and {{TV.com show}}--Writelabor (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB and TV.com do not fail WP:EL; YouTube does. And the existence of another bad template is not a valid keep reason for this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are simply grouping this "show" content with the bulk of amateur videos on YouTube. That is not fair. The "show" content is clearly much more in the spirit of a quality encyclopedia. One of the most complete (and iconic) examples is http://www.youtube.com/show/startrek as compared to [List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes]. Just like the IMDb and TV.com templates, there is a simple id within the URL that is associated with the entity. This linking style is efficiently and neatly handled with the template. Spock would approve.--Writelabor (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube links almost always fail WP:EL and duplicates {{YouTube}} as well. I would also suggest adding {{YouTube showid}} to the nomination as it is another duplicate. --Farix (Talk) 11:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The links don't belong, and template should not be made to support them being added. Besides the IP user has already posted so many links to youtube it's impossible to remove them all.Deus257 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this show system seems to only be for "official" shows and partners. I see no issue here, WP:EL only prohibits linking to copyvios. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL prohibits linking to many sites, not just copyright issues (which is covered by WP:COPYRIGHT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, YouTube is developing new features like the "show" feature whose content is distinct from the bulk of the amateur videos. The show content deserves a separate review rather than just being lumped together with the rest of the site.--Writelabor (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in beta? Then delete. If not, then merge it into {{youtube}} and then delete it. --213.168.121.154 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube "show" feature, while fairly new, does not label itself as beta, so I guess you mean merge. It is not clear to me that merging the template makes sense. I am not a fan of merging because such efforts do not seem to always include repairing the references. For example, look at the references to {{AMG}}. That was merged but many of the artist references were never updated and even to review the situation requires that you examine redirects such as {{AMG Artist}}.--Writelabor (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. AMG is not the same sort of site as YouTube or any other video. Again, YouTube links, official or not, are not encouraged in articles except in very rare cases. There is no valid reason to have a template for linking to these shows. Rather than arguing why other templates exist (and attempting to edit EL to support this template), please actually argue why you feel that these show links should be encouraged through this template, and how this template is not encouraging EL violations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to keep this template, but I'm pretty sure that official youtube links are often perfectly acceptable per WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this template's creator is a banned user and was just blocked and many of his contribs deleted. Presuming this template will also now be speedied? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and an attempt at a guideline end run. 2005 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with {{YouTube}}. I can attest, as I have just checked, that none of the articles using this template or {{YouTube showid}}, which was just speedily deleted, are copyvio links. This template is not redundant as it links to YouTube shows instead of individual videos. Most of the links are like the one on Sherlock Hound where it links to the officially uploaded series. Also YouTube does not fail WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". It also says under the Links normally to be avoided section that "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking [not copyvio]—one should avoid:...[criteria]", from what I can tell this is exactly the way this template is used, for linking to officially uploaded videos and series associated with the subject. Deleting this template is not going to stop copyvio links as one can just use a standard external link, and I do not see how having this template is going to encourage it. If anything it would a convenient way to check YouTube links to ensure that they are not copyvio and "If the url format of the database ever changes, it is sometimes possible to quickly fix all links by rewriting the template." RP9 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that {{YouTube showid}} was mentioned as a duplicate of this template, it is not, it is for linking to shows that use IDs instead of names. But that could probably be merged into this template using a parameter. RP9 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With what? I suppose that show and show id links could be added as a parameter to the {{YouTube}} template but that has not happened yet. RP9 (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging as long as it gets done. I have actually already suggested this before here, although before I knew the show and showid templates existed. RP9 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RP9 and I have been working on a possible merger solution here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Resolution – Now that a "show" option has been added to {{YouTube}}, all calls to this template, {{YouTube show|foo|bar}} can be replaced by {{YouTube|show=foo|bar}}, making this template redundant. Thanks for RP9's help in making this possible. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which bears the question of why is that template anymore appropriate than this one? It has the same problems as this one - it promotes the violation of EL and YouTube links should be far and few in-between, not something that warrants a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought YouTube shows were authorized by the copyright holder? For example see http://www.youtube.com/show/2020 for 20/20. This is certainly different from a random YouTube video clip. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status doesn't really matter for this discussion (and many of the show pages do not actually show anywhere that they do have permission). The issue is that even if they are "legal", the links still go against EL the same as links to Hulu, Voeh, Crunchyroll, or any other video sharing site would be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". If the links are entirely legal, the only problem I see is that some of the videos/shows can only be watched from inside the US. But when the shows are uploaded by the copyright holder and are viewable worldwide, I don't see how they violate WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:48, 22 August 2009 (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:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers 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 and replace all transclusions with {{cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was originally nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), but a deletion discussion never got posted as far as I can tell.

I'm re-nominating because (while IANAL) I don't think this template is interpreting the licenses correctly. GFDL 1.3 (particularly section 11) says nothing about custom warranty disclaimers (which GFDL does allow) carrying over to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA has its own disclaimer section built in, which would always apply. But the special "subject to disclaimers" never transfers, and thus this template should be deleted in favor of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Superm401 - Talk 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TFD was on hold because we were waiting from a response from Mousier Godwin. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur, I think, not mousier. :-) —Bkell (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when/where was Monsieur Godwin invoked? Should we remind him? Superm401 - Talk 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 16. —Bkell (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bkell. I missed it, since it was moved from July 8. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dragons flight (talk · contribs), who was contacting Mike Godwin, is on Wikibreak, so he's not available for followup. I'm leaving a request at User talk:MGodwin that he comment here. --B (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear folks, I am flattered to be invited to resolve a question of nuance about integrating GFDL and CC-BY-SA, but my experience has been that the best resolutions come not from resort to authority (me), but instead from consensus. I can say with assurance that the FSF, Creative Commons, and the Wikimedia Foundation were aiming very much to create smooth transitioning and compatibility going forward. This generally means trying to avoid a focus on formalism and formalities if the right outcome (interoperable freely licensed content) is achieved. I ask that you continue your discussions here in that light , and allow my to continue my practice of letting consensus evolve without my imposing my own reading on the issue.MikeGodwin (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ... I guess that means we get to settle itself. My contention on the previous TFD was that although both licenses require maintaining disclaimers, because we are the original publisher for the limited, one-time, case of license migration, there aren't disclaimers unless we put them there. So we are free to delete the template. If any content creator feels strongly about it and really wants the disclaimers there, they are welcome to fix it, but it was only there to begin with because of a dumb mistake and not any affirmative choice on the part of content creators, so I doubt very many people will care. --B (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but re-tag all uses with the "real" CC-BY-SA 3.0 migrated tag), the license migrtion allow the content to be re-licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, there is no such thing as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 + disclaimers" as far as I know (the license come with a "built in" disclaimer insead), it's either GDFL + disclaimers or vanilla CC-BY-SA 3.0. The disclaimers in question apply to all of Wikipedia so it's kinda moot I guess, but the disclaimers are not attached to the CC license when it's used elsewhere. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to my point. {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} was basicaly a mistake that unintentionaly added an extra restriction to re-use, and it could not be removed from existing images once added because the GFDL license firbid the removal of disclaimer sections. See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for background. If we are not actualy legaly compelled' to copy the "subject to disclaimers" stuff to the CC-By-SA-3.0 license when re-licensing we should absolutely not do it, it's an extra burden on re-use for absolutely no good reason. --Sherool (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (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_deletion/Log/2009_August_10&oldid=1142563423"