Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 4

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

January 4 edit

Template:Superfast V class 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Superfast V class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN, due to less than 5 relevant links The Banner talk 23:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Wikipedia always fascinates me with things like this, there are countless templates like this already on Wikipedia that group sister ships together, perhaps I could appreciate if the argument was about the grouping of sister ships being a called a "class", as officially they probably aren't as such in this case, but as a rule of thumb the first is the series of ships is what the class is called after(Superfast V in this case)

Now my point is there are many templates just like this one that have been on here for years, and nobody ever said a word about them. Now suddenly its doesnt meet the criteria, to be honest its things like this is why I don't bother much with Wikipedia these days, as its so inconsistent. Case point:Template:Superfast I class Template:Superfast III class Template:Superfast VII class Template:Peter Pan class Template:Belorussiya class Template:Peder Paars class Now that is just a mere few, but don't go deleting all them please, they have been here for a long time, and have set the standard for ship articles like this, and I am just following that standard. Mbruce (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not everything needs a navbox is not a suicide pact, and this template is such an example. Remember, NENAN is one person's essay, not policy, and the number five is a recommendation in the essay, not the author's strict rule. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (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:Pakistani cuisine 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cuisine of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Pakistani cuisine with Template:Cuisine of Pakistan.
per the discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before). Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as with the other templates of this type. Off-shell (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just as the earlier proposal it looks more like attempt to settle a score. For some articles a side bar is a better option than a navigation template and with some it is the other way round. The Banner talk 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The sidebar has been there for much longer while the navbox was created only recently. The sidebar is concise and looks better, and we have sidebars for several cuisines as can be seen in Category:Cuisine templates by country. The navbox is also sort of redundant to the already-existing Template:Pakistani dishes. I believe the navbox should be deleted or redirected to the sidebar template like it was before. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for historical reasons, though a reverse merge or merge merging the new navbox with the dishes template may work... —PC-XT+ 21:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These types of massive cuisine templates are only good for a few of the major articles anyway. In less top level articles, they fit awkwardly and often overwhelm the article. The collapsible links are frustrating. They look like food magazine covers. They are redundnant. The navboxes at the bottom do just fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like User:The Banner said above, I would still think that for some articles a side bar is appropriate than a navigation template while with some other articles it is the other way round. Pakistani cuisine has many sub-articles on regional cuisines or other topics and the side bar is appropriate for displaying on those pages. While articles specifically on food dishes can just do with a navbox at the bottom, for which we already have Template:Pakistani dishes. Mar4d (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we shouid merge all sidebars with navboxes as we talked in Turkish cuisine sidebar. KazekageTR (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The side bar links the articles together into a family of articles that is immediately obvious to the reader. Navboxes are less obvious in their nature, and their place at the end of articles makes them harder to associate similar articles in an obvious way as many are in a collapsed state. Plus what banner has already stated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I kept, I recommend a rename, to Pakistani Cuisine and Pakistani Cuisine sidebar, or something along those lines. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main problem is that very many traditional dishes belong to several national cuisines at the same time. Just think of the cuisines of Middle East, Balkans, Slavic peoples, Post-Soviet states, South Asia, Latin America. And many editors consider their national cuisine as their national pride and want to place their own sidebars by all means on every article. They usually ignore the guideline of placing no more than one sidebar on one page. Just two examples: current Ljutenica page (2 sidebars for a very short page), previous Pilaf page (there were 3 sidebars at once, now 2 of them are converted into navbars, but you can imagine how it looked like. Potentially you can get about 10 sidebars for Pilaf, one for each country). Some editors even remove illustrations for the particular subject in order to get a place for their sidebar. Even here, in this discussion, some people propose to remove the navbar and keep the sidebar only! Do you want to place the sidebars for Iran, Uzbek, Tajik, Turkish, Greek, Pakistani, Indian, Azerbaijani, Armenian, Carribean cuisine on the Pilaf page?

So either you need

    • a clear guideline in which case a sidebar can or cannot be placed, and
    • a dedicated quality management, an administrator regularly controlling every dish page and enforcing this guideline,

or you face these effects:

    • Edit wars for placing every sidebar and replacing a navbar by the sidebar by all means;
    • Badly formatted pages with many sidebars cluttering the page and sometimes rendering it nearly unreadable;
    • Removal of illustrations, i.e. loss of quality.

These are not hypothetical effects, but the really observed ones. Do you think a better visibility of sidebars, as compared to navbars, is worth it? A "historical argument" is a bad one, since with the time the things will get worse, as more and more national cuisine templates get created. Therefore I support the removal of sidebars for all cuisine articles and replacing them by the navbars. --Off-shell (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, you've hit the nail. For articles on dishes, we already have a navbox Template:Pakistani dishes. The sidebar is only used for displaying on main regional cuisine articles like for example Punjabi cuisine, Sindhi cuisine, Pashtun cuisine and so on. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if this policy is defined somewhere (perhaps written somewhere?), and if all editors stick to this policy, it's fine. At the page of the template itself, it only states that it should not be placed where another infobox is already available. Can a new editor easily understand where to use it and where not? Or do you just explain it to a new user if he/she would make it wrong? Or is it just obvious, because you do not include the dishes into the sidebar? Or do you just regularly control the usage of the template and adjust it each time? If we manage to define and enforce such guidelines for all such templates, then there would be no problem with it. Currently, many templates don't have such a policy. E.g. here is the list of pages for the template Iranian cuisine. One can see that, apart from Pilaf mentioned above, Shashlik, Kebab, Lavash, Khash (dish), Kofta and Tursu are good candidates for future edit wars. --Off-shell (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the documentation should be more specific in its usage section. It should include something similar to what User:Mar4d said, for instance: "This template is for use on articles about main regional cuisines of Pakistan, such as Punjabi cuisine, Sindhi cuisine, or Pashtun cuisine. Place the template at the very top of the article, before any hatnotes and warning templates. If there is an existing infobox, do not add this template." —PC-XT+ 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I think the sidebars should not be used on articles on dishes, as that would be a nationalistic mess and everyone would be claiming their share of the plate (excuse the pun). We have Template:Infobox prepared food for articles on foods, and only that should be displayed on such articles. The use of sidebars would be better suited (and appropriate) to main articles on regional cuisines, and perhaps lists/articles like Pakistani tea culture, List of Pakistani sweets and desserts, List of Pakistani spices, List of Pakistani condiments etc. All these articles links are wikilinked in the sidebar. I believe a uniform rule should be used for all the cuisine sidebars we have. Mar4d (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this hits some important points. Below in the similar India proposal I oppose, but here the argument seems to be changing? If the proposal becomes a policy "there should be no national-related sidebars", with the merges done as "any and all national sidebars" -> "prepared food sidebar" (or a nationally-neutral sidebar of your choice) then I am prepared to strongly support that. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm chiming in here - I have been on of the people that has been working on these templates for some time (I standardized formatting, layout, etc. I also setup the documentation pages and list of templates in the documentation). These templates are specifically designed to be used in the main category articles and significant dishes that are associated with the cuisine. They are not designed to be inclusive of every subject related to the cuisines. I fully agree to modifying the instructions of these templates to state this explicitly. I would also like to reopen the discussions that removed the other sidebar templates. They were changed/removed/deleted based upon the flawed argument put forth by Mr. P. Spork. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both templates have functionality, and can be used respectively in various articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:18, 18 January 2014 (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:Indian cuisine 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cuisine of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Indian cuisine with Template:Cuisine of India.
per the discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before). Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Thank you for this clean-up! Off-shell (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just as the earlier proposal it looks more like attempt to settle a score. For some articles a side bar is a better option than a navigation template and with some it is the other way round. The Banner talk 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please give some examples where this other template (Indian cuisine sidebar) fits better and explain why? In the previous discussion about a similar Turkish cuisine template no advantages of the sidebar were mentioned. I can imagine only one such page, namely Indian cuisine, where the sidebar might fit but even there I'm not sure that it is really better. And even it should be better for this single page, the sidebar can be placed directly on this page instead maintaining a template. Off-shell (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as basically redundant —PC-XT+ 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the same reason given in the nomination below. Mar4d (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These types of massive cuisine templates are only good for a few of the major articles anyway. In less top level articles, they fit awkwardly and often overwhelm the article. The collapsible links are frustrating. They look like food magazine covers. They are redundnant. The navboxes at the bottom do just fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as we talked before in Turkish cuisine template, all sidebars must be merged with navboxes. KazekageTR (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The side bar links the articles together into a family of articles that is immediately obvious to the reader. Navboxes are less obvious in their nature, and their place at the end of articles makes them harder to associate similar articles in an obvious way as many are in a collapsed state. Plus what banner has already stated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(copied from above) - I have been on of the people that has been working on these templates for some time (I standardized formatting, layout, etc. I also setup the documentation pages and list of templates in the documentation). These templates are specifically designed to be used in the main category articles and significant dishes that are associated with the cuisine. They are not designed to be inclusive of every subject related to the cuisines. I fully agree to modifying the instructions of these templates to state this explicitly. I would also like to reopen the discussions that removed the other sidebar templates. They were changed/removed/deleted based upon the flawed argument put forth by Mr. P. Spork. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. These serve two entirely different functions, both useful in their own way. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - both templates are useful, and both can be used respectively per the layout of various articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:16, 18 January 2014 (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:JudgeLinks 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) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has the same problems as recently deleted NGOlinks (see discussion here) which was argued to be a violation of several parts of WP:EL, including WP:ELPOINTS which says that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum," and WP:ELMAYBE which says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." The WP:EL guideline says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." This template violates the instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them one by one to increasingly strict assessment. Note that the same type of discussion is taking place about Template CongLinks and Template GovLinks. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per the other templates being nominated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not usable for non-US judges -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Excessive number of repetitious links. Delete per nom and related TfDs. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2014 (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:GovLinks edit

I have requested a "deletion review" of GovLinks to occur simultaneously with this ongoing discussion of CongLinks. Unless I hear otherwise in the next few days, I will restore the lost content of CongLinks so that editors can see the content under discussion. I don't think there can be a reasonable discussion of what should be kept and what should be deleted, without being able to see the actual template (and their sample links) in context. I will seek to do the same for GovLinks but that must be done via administrators since the page was deleted. To be unambiguous and fair, I will un-delete on CongLinks even those links which DID have consensus for deletion -- so that we can have a full discussion and a proper selection of which links to trim. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the deletion of the ngolinks template, nominating this for deletion as well. The fields create an indiscriminate list of external links, many of which are clear-cut violations of WP:ELNO and others that really should be decided on a case-by-case basis as opposed to blanket template attachment. It makes external link cleanup difficult-to-impossible, and simply doesn't meet our guidelines or, in some cases, policies regarding links and sites. Previously nominated in 2008 with a no consensus close, we appear to be coming to a much different consensus about long external link templates today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template has the same problems as recently deleted NGOlinks (see discussion here) which was argued to be a violation of several parts of WP:EL, including WP:ELPOINTS which says that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum," and WP:ELMAYBE which says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." The WP:EL guideline says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." This template violates the instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them one by one to increasingly strict assessment. Note that the same type of discussion is taking place about Temmplate CongLinks. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This template explicitly confers primacy to a select group of sources, an intellectually perilous proposition. It also undercuts WP:EL by indicating that some external links always warrant inclusion. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2014 (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:Phineas and Ferb The Movie release 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) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phineas and Ferb The Movie release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Indiscriminate collection of information, against MOS:TV and WP:NOTTVGUIDE Finealt (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly inappropriate way of trying to get an 'International' section in without prose (doesn't even have anywhere to go; editors have appropriately given this TV movie the short summary within the list of episodes which is appropriate). Kill this to discourage crufters to use this as a future way to avoid consensus. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (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:FIFA Club World Cup Silver Ball 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) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FIFA Club World Cup Silver Ball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FIFA Club World Cup Bronze Ball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Silver Ball is a pseudo-award given to the second-best player at the FIFA Club World Cup. The winners of this "award" receive no special recognition, and there is no need to link them via a navbox template. The same is true for the Bronze Ball, the navbox for which I am also including in this nomination. – PeeJay 16:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 16:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that these silver and bronze balls are consolation prizes for the Golden Ball award, not a separate award. C679 13:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is similar to having a template for Olympic Silver Medallists in Men's 100 m. Nonsense. Nowhere are the silver ball "winners" listed in isolation from the golden ball winners, other than (apparently) Wikipedia. That's textbook WP:OR. C679 13:49, 14 January 2014 (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:Smith Media 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, but please renominate once the sale is complete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smith Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On October 1, 2013, it was announced that the last Smith Media station will be sold. The one station, plus the subchannel page is the only two pages that's on the template. Should the transaction get consummated, Smith Media will be defunct, making the template useless. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until the sale is complete, there is no real reason to remove the navbox template. Once the sale is complete (and the new company takes over) we can de-link the template and delete it. Not yet. Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (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:Obsolete template 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 Merge. There is clearly unanimous consensus that we should not keep this as a separate template. As for the difference among merge/delete/redirect, Debresser has given cogent reasons for wishing to merge the templates, and nobody has offered any reason for rejecting or opposing that suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obsolete template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Deprecated template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Obsolete template with Template:Deprecated template.
First of all I think it is best to use {{Deprecated template}}, which has better code and better wording. And the category structure of Category:Deprecated templates is better developed, including also detection of unexpected transclusions with Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The code can be copied, of course, so that is not the main argument. I think the term "obsolete" is a judgment, while "deprecated" is an observation. In addition, the word "deprecated" implies that a certain decision making process stands behind the application of the template, while "obsolete" does not imply that. But even all of this is subtleties. The main argument is simply that these two templates are alike in function, wording and content, and no need to have both. Note: if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself, because 1. Obsolete template takes only one parameter, and the Template deprecated takes two (adding the name of the template itself as a first parameter), 2. I'd like to add the appropriate date parameters to the 24 transclusions of this template, based on the history of deprecation. By the way, for the really historical templates we have {{Historical template}}.Debresser (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (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/2014_January_4&oldid=1138534189"