Template talk:HighBeam

Contested deletion
This template should not be speedily deleted because it is not, as alleged, a recreation of the deleted template; rather a shortcut to Subst: the verbose one created by consensus, as a result of the TfD discussion (as a simple inspection of the new template's mark-up would show) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, it is functionally the same thing as was deleted. I'm sorry we disagree on this; usually we're pulling together. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) (Jack) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's functionally the same thing as typing the consensual outcome of the TfD discussion:  , but shorter, more convenient and less likely to include typographical errors. Why should I and other editors not benefit from that convenience?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect it is time to full tfd this and rfc the whole idea of this spam in articles :/ This is why HighBeam gave the free accounts; they want the spam. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you object to is allowed by the outcome of the TfD you initiated. Deleting this new template won't change that. Your use the pejorative term "spam" in relation to my and others' good-faith actions, (which, furthermore, merely add internal links to Wikipedia articles) is also not acceptable. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Placing links to HighBeam in a huge number of articles is *Spam*. Sorry you don't see that. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean to link to Spam (electronic); which we define as "the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately". The addition of links per the HighBeam project's guidelines is not indiscriminate. 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing basic functionality
I would have expected (currently rendered  ) to parallel the long-established  (rendered  ) in form, but it misses the basic use. If that was fixed, I would welcome its use. This use of wikilinks has long been accepted in reference citations as a reasonable exception to wp:LINKSPAM. It is used in, , and many others. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)