Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 4

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

June 4

edit

Template:CGNDB

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 and   stale. No prejudice toward future discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CGNDB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite cgn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:CGNDB with Template:Cite cgn.
In a nutshell, I am proposing to redirect {{CGNDB}} to {{Cite cgn}}, and merge original template history of {{CGNDB}} into {{Cite cgn}}. I see this as establishing a bit of a precedent for other related GNDB (geographic name database) templates (e.g., {{BCGNIS}}). The extended rationale may be a bit TLDR. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about history The CGNDB template was nominated for deletion on February 3, 2010, and I closed this discussion as delete. After looking back at the template's history, it appears as though this nomination was a result of it being deprecated on February 2, 2010. There has been extensive discussion about this on various user talk pages, with Droll firmly in favor of replacing all uses of CGNDB (created in 2007) with Cite cgn, which is partially why he created Cite cgn in January 2010. The rationale for creating the new template, as far as I can tell, is to unify the names and usage of citation templates. Recently, this plan was met with some resistance by Skookum1, and I subsequently restored the old template as shortcut/frontend to {{Cite cgn}}. Upon further reflection, I do not feel as though the frontend is required and a simple redirect would suffice. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about technical template details If {{CGNDB}} were redirected to {{Cite cgn}} the only thing that would break would be uses of {{CGNDB}} which do not explicitly specify the name/title for the link. The reason for making this mandatory, rather than allowing it to be automatically determined from the PAGENAME, is that pages are sometimes moved to allow for disambiguation. Once a page is moved, all the link titles would change, and the name parameter would need to be updated. This adds a few keystrokes for the user who is adding the template, but it is generally a better practice. It has been argued that some places have a unique name and "there will never be another place" with that same name. This is speculative, which is why the use of PAGENAME in templates is generally discouraged (with some exceptions of course). I can dig up debates if anyone is interested, but the MOS for infoboxes is a good example. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on plan of action I suggest redirecting {{CGNDB}} to {{Cite cgn}} and updating any uses which do not have the second parameter to include the current PAGENAME. This could easily be done by a bot/AWB. I am happy to do it if asked, or I am sure Droll would as well. If there is consensus to make the change, I would see this as a strong precedent for other GNDB templates (e.g., {{BCGNIS}}), but I would be willing to consider exceptions if there is reason to do so. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on default name It has been suggested that the default name for the merged template should be {{Cite cgndb}}. I am somewhat indifferent to the exact name used for the default template, but "Cite cgndb" seems like a reasonable choice. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator who was brought into the discussion, I'd note as well that User:Skookum1's primary objection to the new template seems to have been that because the new template requires the addition of extra characters that weren't necessary in the older one, it was making each article X number of bytes larger and thereby contributing to server overload. I've pointed him to WP:PERF, however — and if he had any other substantive objections, I can't suss them out from his tendency to get a little bit incoherent when he's angry. But I agree that consistency of link-template formatting is important — and regarding Skookum's secondary concern that some of the titles involved won't actually require future disambiguation, I should point out that we can't really create two separate classes of article within the same category which get two different templates based on an arbitrary and confusing distinction. We need one template, applied consistently for articles using this link. Ergo, redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In the spirit of full disclosure I admit that I am the creator of of Cite cgn (aka Cite cgndb). This template requires the user to enter a feature name thus avoiding problems with disambiguated article names now and in the future. As CGNDB is currently not used in any article this can be implemented with little effort. After consideration I agree that Cite cgndb is the better name as it better reflects the name of the website. –droll [chat] 19:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since many similar templates require the name to avoid the issues caused by future disambiguation, I agree that the name should be required. However, I think CGNDB should be the main template and cgn be the redirect. I have seen several templates all-capped in the past year as this seems to be the convention when dealing with acronyms. For example, gnis got changed to GNIS. RedWolf (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for merging the templates and requiring a name parameter. No opinion as to what the active template shouold be named. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[post edit conflict (bad WIFI has me at a disadvantage in this needless discussion)]

Strongly oppose. the only reason CGNDB was deprecated because Droll had created "cite cgn" and wanted to get rid of its predecessor in order to require use of his pet project. CGNDB had been working just fine and while Plastispork thinks a few extra keystrokes on the part of editors is no big problem, over the course of thousands of edits it adds up to a lot of time. This argument: The reason for making this mandatory, rather than allowing it to be automatically determined from the PAGENAME, is that pages are sometimes moved to allow for disambiguation. is ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS as Canadian placenames are very often totally unique (e.g. "Teslin Post Indian Reserve 13" or "Nanaimo") and those of using the template have been mindful of the distinction. Requiring insertion of unique placenames IS a waste of time when they are not needed; again, across the course of hundreds, even thousands of entries, this is a lot of wasted time and a further annoyance on what was originally a nice, streamlined template that didn't require a lot of work; now on teh chance that a page MAY be moved (when, really, it never will, e.g. Kamloops or Nakusp) is just such a specious argument I'm surprised any rational person would think it's "reasonable". Nobody asked CGNDB to be "deprecated" in the first place- that was only because Droll wanted it to be so. To my knowledge, only the template's creator, Mktoews, who created it in response to MY reqeust, was notified, and no other Canadian geography editor was consulted. There is no point to this, and as indicated in Plastikspork's rationale above there is an "agenda" to move all templates to the "cite x" format - but to serve who and to what end? Other than pointlessness and time-wasting arguments in defense of that pointlessness. There is a "bulldozer" mentality operating here, and though I'm not known for my politesse in matters involving nonsense, I think it's pretty clear that "moving forward" by throwing useful templates into the garbage simply to make way for a certain group of editors unproven allegation that the "cite" format is better is utterly banal and useless. Like this TfD, and the TfD that preceded it....Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The better course of action, rather than hand-inserting the namefield information, would be to write the template so as to extract the contents of the CGNDB (or BCGNIS or GNIS) source directly. In the case of CGNDB this would be the name field in that system, plus the "type" (e.g. unincorporated area, summit, village, river etc). How to parse this I don't know but I know all those systems are formatted database files. Bivouac.com accomplishes parsing of this kind, even getting Basemap images, including layer-switches, to generate directly from links on its pages. This is an importation distinction between Williams Lake, British Columbia, which is a city, and Williams Lake (British Columbia), which is the lake the city is named for; similarly there are Powell River, Campbell River, Christina Lake, Toad River and so on....the BCGNIS entries for them read "Name: Williams Lake Type:City". Even the coordinates, conceivably, could be extracted using such a parsing system; a switch to not include the coords code would be necessary, because often there are rescinded names which are also cited, e.g. as with Rainbow Range (Coast Mountains) - though that's in BCGNIS, not in CGNDB; although many articles cite both, so exempting one from such parsing would be necessary (BCGNIS' coordinates are often more accurate btw). That's a much better use for code-obsessed people's energy than simply rearranging titles and making new, time-consuming and re-learning demands of active, contributing editors....Again "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should be a Wiki-maxim. Writing code that parses external databases is a much better path to pursue, rather than re-educating editors and re-formatting things that are already working just fine.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment MY solution to this, as the person who instigated the creation of both {{CGNDB}} AND {{BCGNIS}}, and who has been their primary user, is to respond to the officious bullying going on here about what YOU (who do not use the template) have decided is best for it, and to the way all this was done and all the hoops I'm being expected to jump through, is to simply ABANDON the use of any of these templates and just use the straightforward URL - as I originally did before I requested that these templates be created. I also won't bother formatting the use of those URLs adn will just post them as straight http: tags. You can maybe design yourselves a bot to "pick up after me". I see no reason to use templates which I have not been consulted on and to which my objections are stylized as not "substantial" and dismissed as "incoherent". I see lots of admins here, and code-writer,s I don't see any actual geographers.....CGNDB was wantonly shoved aside because somebody wanted to implement his little code project; now being only half-restored it's only being reimplemented with MORE WORK required to use it. It's become pointless, no more the useful shortcut to citing these databases that it used to be. I have no use for {{cite cgndb}} simply because I'm being told I have to use it. I don't ahve to use anything; back to straight URLs, they're easier and since this whoel game seems to be about wasting other people's time, other people can format them. I have no more time for this b.s. "Oh, since Skookum1 isn't playing nice and agreeing to do what we want, we'll just implement it without his agreement". YOu all complain that I'm uncivil in my posts, but what your'e DOING is uncivil. Again, I was the primary user of these templates, and the person who instigated their creation, which was meant to streamline citing these important databses. What you're all nodding heads and agreeing with has nothing to do with the realities of the objects being cited, nor with the volume of items that they reference. All I'm going to do now, e.g. re Big Silver Creek, is *http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=5037...I'm not even going to square-bracket it. Consider this a "protest style" and a refusal to play your admin game....you're like a clutch of chickens all standing around clucking about what the rooster has to do....Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I don't think I've ever used {{CGNDB}} or {{Cite cgn}} and have no opinion on this proposed merging in itself. But in response to the idea that this might establish "a bit of a precedent for other related GNDB...templates" like {{BCGNIS}} and, I assume, {{GNIS}}, I have some comments and questions.

First, questions: Could someone explain to me the difference between a shortcut/frontend and a redirect as it applies to templates like this? If, say, {{GNIS}} was made a shortcut/frontend to {{cite gnis}}, would that mean one could simply use {{GNIS}} without even knowing about {{cite gnis}}? What if it was a redirect? I just can't quite understand how redirects as they work for articles applies to templates.

Second, on the PAGENAME thing. I don't make use of this "feature" of {{CGNDB}}, {{BCGNIS}}, or {{GNIS}}, so removing it would not matter to me personally. But, while I understand the rationale of getting rid of it, we know that at least one editor makes extensive use of it and wants to continue to use it. Removing the PAGENAME functionality would likely reduce the chance of mismatches between page names and BCGNIS feature names, which would be a good thing. But a couple points: First, forcing an editor to perform an extra step, albeit small, in order to reduce the chance of mismatches, by removing a feature long-established and currently used and desired,... well it seems a bit patronizing. Second, when there is a mismatch between a page's name and a cited BCGNIS entry the error that results is not a big deal. It's about as important as a typo. There are huge numbers of broken references in Wikipedia, including many many references that simply don't work at all or produce error code messages, and many others with typos. Of course these should all be fixed and the tools editors use should be made in ways that reduce the chance of errors. That said, the PAGENAME aspect of the BCGNIS template does not seem important enough to alienate a prolific editor of many years standing. The cited link still works correctly. The incorrect entry name is probably close to correct (usually correct with some disambiguation appended) and probably only occurs in the page's reference section. In short, I agree in principle, but in practice, right now, I am not sure. Also, I admit to probable bias due to having productively collaborated with Skookum1 for years. Putting aside issues of hot-tempered incivility, I'd like to say that he's made a huge and valuable contribution to Wikipedia over the years, despite the typos. All this said, I do understand the value of having consistency in the formatting of templates and of having a single template for a given purpose. I'm not opposing or supporting the idea, just commenting. Pfly (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pfly: I wrote some stuff in an attempt answer your first question. You can find my notes at User:Droll/Citation templates. When I get the time I'll try to answer your second question. –droll [chat] 06:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reply for Pfly: I wrote some more stuff in my user space in an attempt to answer your question about the use of PAGENAME. You can find it here. –droll [chat] 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and if there is a disam problem find another solution. I'm concerned about deprecating alternatives to the cite templates in general. I don't work on this subject, but I never use cite templates, and I do not think we should be forced to do so. It would be like requiring the author of an article to also do the infobox for it. Some people do, but its the sort of thing anyone can fix afterwards, including a bot. I normally add references the shortest way possible, because my particular skill is in finding them in the first place, and i want to find as many as possible. If an expert and major contributor on adding this material here wants to continue using this template, it would be folly to prevent him. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to use the citation template. In fact, it appears the editor would now like to use bare URLs and have a bot replace them latter. However, he appears to object to having anyone go back and add the missing PAGENAME parameter in the articles that he has edited (see my or droll's talk pages). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But if a "non cite" template were directed to a "cite" template, wouldn't the template's users be forced either to use a cite template or stop using the redirected template? Making it a redirect means users need not know or care what is under the hood, but if the functionality changes (eg, that PAGENAME thing), then wouldn't users be forced to either accept the changed functionality or stop using the template? Anyway, for me it's not so much the proposal to merge the {{CGNDB}} and {{Cite cgndb}} templates, but the suggestion that a decision here could be "a strong precedent for other GNDB templates". I would think that more editors use the {{GNIS}} template and its PAGENAME "feature". (also, I'm not sure how much meaning and intent one should take from the editing warring and statements about bare URLS, done and said in the heat of anger and frustration...just saying) Pfly (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the PAGENAME requirement is really the only point of contention, as far as I can tell. After all, a redirect would allow for the usage of either name for the template, but both would have the exact same functionality. I could see a compromise where PAGENAME is allowed, but it puts the articles in a hidden maintenance category. A bot would then periodically run through this category and add the missing second parameter. However, the only way this would work is if editors did not continuously revert these edits (which has been happening) and not accuse the bot of digi-stalking, etc. However, I still strongly prefer just having the editor fill this out instead, since it seems a bit much to have a bot for such a trivial task. Another option would be to write up a little script which would add a button that would fill in this missing parameter for the editor, so the editor would not even have to waste the keystrokes. I have helped write far more complicated scripts. I am more than happy to discuss alternative solutions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (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) 19:25, 4 June 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:Driving licences in Africa

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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Driving licences in Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template consists entirely of redlinks, save for the one article about South Africa, so I really don't see any use for it. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You're right, it doesn't serve any purpose at the moment. If significantly many of the other articles come into existence, it'd be trivially easy to recreate it. (I am the original creator.) - htonl (talk) 23:49, 4 June 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:Harvcol

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 per WP:SNOW. While I'm sympathetic to the arguments that this is somewhat redundant, it's pretty clear that this isn't going to be deleted by this discussion. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Harv}}. Harvcol is used on 191 pages, Harv on 1914. Only difference is that Harvcol uses a colon as a page separator as opposed to a comma. Directly replaceable and may be redirected. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the headlong rush to standardization puerile, frankly – and folks who spend time deleting things are folks who waste time. But I have given up on arguing with people who prefer standardization at the expense of accessibility to a wider audience; in fact, I've given up on arguing with a very large number of ideas that would reduce Wikipedia to a dull monotone. Delete it if you like.. it's the style known as LSA, used in linguistics papers. There are far more differences than what you mention, but I couldn't expect that you would have actually looked at the code or anything silly like that. I'm not watching this page, and pls don't contact me again. OH WAIT.. you're gonna hafta be responsible & FIX all the pages you are preparing to break. Have fun. • Ling.Nut 14:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not exactly redundant to Harv. After the year, Harv puts a comma, a space, then "p." or "pp.", another space, then the page number. Harvcol puts a colon then the page number - no spaces, no abbreviations for "page". Harvcol is more concise, and I think it is the more common format in printed literature. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Example of it not being redundant: (Smith 2000, pp. 137–39) (Smith 2000:137–39). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That message is caused by my addition of {{tfd|type=tiny|Harvcol}} to {{harvcol}}— this is the standard method to notify editors of this discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no GAs or FAs using this template.[1][2] If you want to eliminate editors who use the template from the discussion, then go ahead and remove the template (although your partial revert made it more intrusive).---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of chess, En passant, and Adolf Anderssen are three GAs that use Harvcol. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that I had messed up the links. There are four FAs and four GAs.[3] [4] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone point to a specific problem? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, have you looked at Rules of Chess and scrolled through the entire article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing broken in Rules of Chess per se. I did find minor bugs in {{chess diagram}} that I fixed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is no reason not to have this format. It is not redundant. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the editors that chose to use Harvcol instead of Harv did so intentionally. Why override the decision of all of those editors? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"TFD template is apparently causing references to break." What specifically is broken, other than the reversion to the template that undid the tiny feature? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notices before each use of Harvcol will disappear once the issue is settled here (which I hope is soon). They sure are disruptive. I counted 63 of them in rules of chess. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:26, 7 June 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:Harvcolnb

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, per WP:SNOW. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Harvnb}}. Harvcolnb is used on 110 pages, Harvnb on 6291. Only difference is that Harvcolnb uses a colon as a page separator as opposed to a comma. Directly replaceable and may be redirected. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:31, 4 June 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:Abudawud

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 there were no objections. Now replaced by {{Hadith-usc}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abudawud (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abudawud-usc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bukhari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Muwatta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Muwatta-usc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 4 June 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:Chuck episodes

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chuck episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is largely redundant to {{Infobox television episode}}. There are a few fields which do not appear in the generic template, but it's not clear all need to be in the infobox. If any are of great importance, they could either be incorporated into {{Infobox television episode}} or a module could be created to embed this information e.g., {{extra chronology}} or how episode lists are often handled. In addition, the blue text on black background (for the episode list) is hard to read, although that is another matter. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 4 June 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:J

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 per WP:SIG#NT Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not belong in template space, created by indeffed user and probable sock (by WP:DUCK), transcludes Template:A which is also at TFD, etc. N/A0 00:29, 4 June 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_June_4&oldid=1078572935"