Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7[edit]

Template:FC Dinamo Bender seasons[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) 20:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Dinamo Bender seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC CSCA–Rapid seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Viitorul Orhei seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Nistru seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Iskra-Stali seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Sfîntul Gheorghe seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Olimpia seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Academia UTM seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Zimbru Chișinău seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_30#Template:FC_Tiraspol_seasons. Templates which contains link to only one season. Not useful for navigation. XXN, 10:12, 7 June 2015 (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:SM dot[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 userfy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SM cross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM dot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM empty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM head (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM pic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM smart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SM text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (except on Talk:Rockaway Park Shuttle); should be substituted/userfied. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are under construction. The planned usage is something like this or this. Vcohen (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Do the templates have any particular advantages over BSicons? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. When I built them they had, but things change. I still am not sure that it is possible to create a map like this with BSicons. Vcohen (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under construction for how long? None of these appear to have been touched in the last two years. PC78 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The process has been temporarily moved to the Russian wikipedia and includes creation of maps that use these templates. Later both the templates (their updated version) and maps will be copied back here. Just now I am trying to create HTML labels that normally are not visible, but are found using Ctrl+F in the browser. Vcohen (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: It would probably be technically feasible to create a RDT of that level of detail, with margin text instead of tooltips (see {{Red Line (CTA)}} and {{Orange Line (CTA)}}). Is it necessary, though, to create a map of the entire New York City Subway (and not just of the individual lines)? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help me with the HTML syntax? The use of such a large map (or even a bit smaller one, for example for Moscow) has been discussed in the Russian wikipedia. The problem of labels is one of the rejects I have got there. After I solve this problem, I am going to continue discussing, and the next step will be copying the templates and maps back to the English wikipedia and, I suppose, discussing them here. Vcohen (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Would it be easier for you to implement some of your changes in the BSicon images and templates, instead of creating an entirely new set of icons from scratch? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it before starting the work and concluded that it was impossible. Vcohen (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Why would that be impossible? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is the way of defining color. BSicons use a limited list of colors, every time a new color is needed somebody has to create and upload a new set of graphic files. My graphic files are based on a few transparent shapes (circles and rectangles), while the color is defined by HTML means. Vcohen (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of discussion and work went into the rationalization of the BSicon colour palette. There's no need for the ability to create RDTs in any of the 16 million colours that a monitor can display. Useddenim (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Even Tokyo and Berlin—which had their own “correct” colour icons—were successfully integrated into the current scheme. Useddenim (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The meaning of colors in subway maps is totally different. Every city and every subway system uses its own color palette. Vcohen (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: So what? London’s Central line doesn’t connect with Berlin’s U2, cross the Sokolnicheskaya Line, interchange with Line 1, Shanghai Metro, or come anywhere near Washington’s Red Line. It’s sufficient to show them all as   (red) on a diagram. Useddenim (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2015 (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 comedian awards[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 moving to a section in the article text. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox comedian awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A completely unnecessary template that creates unnecessary clutter and undue weight in infoboxes. It would be better to instead contain awards somebody has won within article prose, specifically in an "awards" or "achievements" section in biographical articles, a section which is commonly used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please attempt to respond to people with even a modicum of respect? I agree with the arguments of User:BU Rob 13 and others below. In the future I'll waste my valuable time detailing exactly why I don't agree with you to an extent that you deem appropriate so as to avoid your slapping vague WP guidelines in my face. User:Renamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you felt offended or anything, but there is nothing disrespectful about bringing up guidelines or policies or such. I was simply pointing out that there are rationales which are discouraged for use within discussions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it lists "major awards" perfectly and neatly. I haven't encountered "clutter" or "undue weight". Partyclams (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that it's an unnecessary filler for infoboxes since awards tend not to be things one is especially noted for compared to their career work and such. I've sometimes seen infoboxes become ridiculously loaded when awards are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; awards are usually listed within article text. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Among the best infobox templates for concisely delivering the information I like to look for quickly. Perhaps I am not fully embracing the prose element of articles in this way, but I'm sure I won't be alone, and as I say, this template serves a useful purpose for readers like me. JamKaftan (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it provides no benefit that can't be done through article text and is WP:UNDUE weight. Also, see my above comments on how they're not the most defining trait of one's life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But precisely my point was that I and others sometimes want information quickly, and don't want to read through the text to get it. JamKaftan (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better quick way would be to click on the "awards"/"achievements"/"awards and nominations"/etc. section within article table of contents. It's better for balance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Its supposed to be a general information for what awards the comedian has won. Dog Bark Man (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my above comments; it's WP:UNDUE weight and has no benefit that can't be done through article text. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The idea that major awards do not define a prominent entertainer's body of work is incorrect, in my opinion. It is extremely common when an entertainer is introduced for them to be introduced along with their previous awards. Actors on Broadway are billed as the "Tony Award winner [insert name here]". Singers are introduced as the "Grammy Award winner [insert name here]." This is very commonly seen within the industry, but also during many mainstream appearances of entertainers. This suggests that awards are seen to be a defining characteristic of an entertainer's career. I've also yet to see an example of the undue weight issue. BU Rob13 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that they're not as defining as their actual work. For example, Stephen Colbert is more noted for The Colbert Report than he is for the Emmys he won. Not sure how many infoboxes you've come across, but I've previously seen articles become ridiculously bloated when containing awards. As for being introduced as "______-award winning", it is used in the press, but is puffery when used in places like the lead section of Wikipedia articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards are a measure of the quality of their body of work, so trying to extract awards from the significance of their actual work is not possible, in my opinion. Can you provide an example of what you consider to be excessive weight? I checked Stephen Colbert above, for instance, and that seems like a reasonable usage of space even though he's won multiple awards. BU Rob13 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This revision of the Robin Williams infobox is an example of excess award weight. Musdan77 previously removed it as an unnecessary addition before this was restored. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for providing that example. I certainly agree that the past use of the template for Robin Williams was improper and caused undue weight. The template seems to add value in situations where an Awards section isn't warranted in the article itself (less than four awards or so), but does not add value where an entertainer has received enough awards so as to warrant a lengthy awards section or even a separate page for awards and nominations (such as Robin Williams). Editors should exercise discretion to prevent WP:UNDUE. Since this template does have many occurrences where it adds value and doesn't cause undue weight, an article-by-article review of weight seems more appropriate to me than deleting the template. I see it as analogous to the discretion/common sense used by editors in determining how many notable works to list in the infobox. BU Rob13 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally abolish the "notable works" parameter if I could since its use is based off some unknown (and potentially biased) criteria, and the "notable" description doesn't seem neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable works" is extremely arbitrary and pretty much what the editor thinks makes the subject notable. "Known for" is even worse, but that's the topic of another discussion. Nymf (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In theory this template seems fine but in my opinion the two examples I've seen of its use (Robin Williams as of this edit, and in Steve Martin as of this edit) the length visually overwhelms the actual text. Shearonink (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Best dealt with in main body of article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason that we do not refer to actors as "XXX is an Academy Award-winning actor". It's non-defining, undue, clutters the infobox and unless there is clear rationale of what and why an award would warrant inclusion, it is clearly arbitrary as well. Nymf (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, can be covered in the body of the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given. Unnecessary; more unhelpful than helpful. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreed it's nondefining, and undue weight. The Academy Awards comparison is spot-on. If we're not even doing it for that, then why this?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:30, 17 June 2015 (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:Infestation navs[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. No consensus concerning keeping or deleting it, but please feel free to continue discussion elsewhere concerning reformatting it and/or restricting it from appearing in articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infestation navs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A subnavbox used in mainspace which links predominantly or entirely to items outside of mainspace, failing WP:SELFREFERENCE. This is a test case for Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates. Izno (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a note, if editors would like to be able to navigate among the templates more effectively, then I would be happy to accept removing these from mainspace-facing templates and subsequent inclusion on only template-space pages. This does not appear to be their intent, however.

    Suitable replacements for these items would include perhaps a few index pages. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you almost definitely know there are users actively working on these, Izno, by virtue of having checked the talk page, it wouldn't hurt to at least notify them of this discussion (that's WP:TFD step 3: "Notify users"). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have notified the talk page, WP Anatomy and WP Med. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith. --Izno (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next can I point out that this does not "fail" WP:SELFREFERENCE, which merely states that such templates are "not encouraged". In full, "When forced to use templates like this, you should use them in a way such that the article still makes sense when the template is removed, in order to facilitate automated removal." This is exactly what we've done, ie provide links in a way that can be easily and automatically removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real question is, does this help users? Which I would say myself and the other editors agree yes, it does. How? Well, when a reader searches for medical or anatomical information, readers often want to know about related articles. However there is simply far too much to include and by linking to relevant templates we can help users access the entire set. Medical templates occur in sets that have been linked since at least 2009 and no problem has arisen since then. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll provide three examples of how this can be useful:
    1. A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.
    2. A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.
    3. A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bone by body part.
  • These templates significantly help readers and so I vote keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me attempt to pick this apart piece by piece.
    • I'm less concerned about the specific wording of SELFREF and more concerned with the fact that these templates should provide readers' with a stable, main-space reading environment, avoiding the self-reference of the non-mainspace namespaces. We're linking to template pages, which are not article content and thus fail this point of SELFREF.
    • Does this help usersreaders (we are not providing templates for you or I, correct?)? I think so. Or at least, I think the idea that these navboxes should be setup to facilitate jumping to related articles would be helpful for the readers (which is the point of a reader-facing navbox per WP:NAVBOX). However, the conclusion ("we should link to templates") does not follow from the premise ("we need to help the readers"), and especially, the conclusion does not follow from the second premise, which is that the topic-space/navboxes are organized badly. This concept is the real issue you are trying to take care of, for which the appropriate solution is actually (per SELFREF) a set of list pages linked. (The third premise, which you declined to considerm is that keeping the reader in mainspace when he expects to remain in mainspace, as with nearly every navbox, is an important one.) To take your third example, I would expect List of bones in the human body to be linked, not a template. And so it is, in Template:Bones of skeleton. The "subtemplates" in this topic area are used in the appropriate articles and so on this point their linkage in the "Bones nav" template is duplicating the point of the more general Bones of skeleton template. A user interested in the humorous will click to that article, and from there can navigate at will by scrolling to the bottom of the page.
    --Izno (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the linked templates are reader content navigation templates though ; and you can always convert this to a doc page nav template. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see WP:SELFREFERENCE as sufficient justification to delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wanted to see what the problem was, so I had a look at an article that contained this template, Flatworm. I expanded the bottom navbar (labelled "Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129"). The section at the bottom of that is this template, so I tried one of the links (Worms in the first row), hoping to see further information. That link took me to a template - which is unusual, but not catastrophic - however, I soon realised that the template I was now looking at was the one labelled "Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129" - in other words, the one I had just left on the Flatworm article. Is that how this template is supposed to work? --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the intent of how these templates are supposed to work. They could potentially have The Common Reader bouncing around in the template space, forever. (Please take the emphasis as humor.) --Izno (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is, RexxS. The list of templates is labelled "Index of..." and provided in a separate lighter colour. I expect most users of wikipedia (ie. readers) will be able to work this system out. I think it is disingenous to imply that users will be stuck in 'template land' forever. On the other hand, a user may be forever stuck in a cycle of wikilinks getting to the bottom of a particular topic if we remove these template links, as there is no other systematic way that links are presented for an entire topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are making a point about the titling of templates ("Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129") I completely agree. All anatomy templates have been retitled and simplified but not yet the med ones. The med template batch will start by moving the numbers to Wikidata. Unfortunately that's stuck in botland on Wikidata. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think that this fails SELFREF at all. The section on templates refers specifically to stub templates as an example of a self-reference. {{Med-stub}}, which says "This medical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" is a self-reference: it tells readers something about the unsatisfactory state of the article, and invites them to edit. A list of articles that happens to be in a different namespace is not a self-reference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify a part of my rationale: it is bad UX design if not self-referential to portray a link from the mainspace to the template space as if it were a mainspace link. It's fundamentally disingenuous to the reader both in the general case (presenting a link to the template space as a mainspace item) and in the specific case of these templates (presenting these links as "indices" in navigational boxes which are meant to link primarily or predominantly to the mainspace). --Izno (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unnecessary to give each link as template:example, in a nav box where space is short. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This provides an excellent navigation tool for the reader. Thincat (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its really strange (in a Wikipedia way) that a link called Acari links to a template and not the article Acari, and the same for the rest of all templates. If theese templates makes their own "article space" in template space, they should have references or be deleted (like other list articles). Christian75 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navboxes are for navigating between articles not other navboxes. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia." This is a misuse of navboxes and will surprise any reader, who would end up somewhere they weren't expecting. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an interesting case. I see many !votes to keep because "it's useful" and ultimately, because "i like it". Those !keeps have forgotten our category system which exists to solve this complex template system that many medical editors have maintained. This convoluted template system is redundant to the existing category tree system in place. Regardless of whether WP:SELFREFERENCE applies in this case, I don't see any protocol based argument to maintain a both a template system and a (potential) category system; it only demands more from the servers. Note wp:TMP, and wp:navbox and the fact that this template system is being incorrectly used in articlespace.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a long-standing navigational system used in medicine articles. This topic area is very complex and strongly interconnected, and although this form of navigation is not usual, I think the way that it has become standard in medicine articles shows that users consider it to be successful and effective. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long it's been broken is irrelevant to the fact that it's broken and doing something impermissible. See below on how to simply fix it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is this "impermissible?" From what I understand there is some difference of opinion as to what helps readers, this I understand, but is there a statement somewhere in a policy that specifically prohibits linking to navboxes? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • restrict to template space. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either ... restrict to template space, or just fix it. It can be repaired, after some adjustments, by simply transcluding and nesting collapsed versions of the linked-to templates. Various navboxen already do this, so just borrow the code.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your fix introduces at least one issue: Template size gets really big which has impact on the rest of the pages those templates are transcluded on. (Template post-processor, etc.) When you've got a template, transcluding a template, transcluding a template, transcluding a template, that alone is cause for concern; when you've got a template, transcluding 10 templates, each transcluding 10 templates... you're probably going to shoot yourself in the foot. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Whatever the outcome, this particular solution presents many problems. The compromise outcome would be to point all such "Index" links to "Index of..." articles with the templates in article space. This is labour intensive and I do not think there is sufficient consensus to consider deleting anyway at the moment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments by User:This, that and the other. -Mardus (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2015 (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/2015_June_7&oldid=893711106"