Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 26



Template:Reorganizing

 * 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.  — fetch ·  comms   00:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A sort of cousin to under construction with no current transclusions (and which probably hasn't had any for years). Redundant and unused to the point where even a redirect probably isn't necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The template is no longer needed. JJ98 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundand and no longer needed. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Royal Parks of London

 * 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.  — fetch ·  comms   00:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty redundant now to Parks and open spaces in London which has an own section about it and gives readers much more links. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Television ASMW

 * 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.  — fetch ·  comms   00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fork of Infobox television that is just used on one article. WOSlinker (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete to alleviate improper forking.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Indian film

 * 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.  — fetch ·  comms   00:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fork of Infobox film which just adds a CBFC Rating option. Since no ratings are in the Infobox film, there shouldn't be a fork to add this particular rating. WOSlinker (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and replace with Infobox film. Only seven transclusions, and I think only three of them use the additional parameter. Past concensus has been against adding ratings to the film infobox, so this fork is rather inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom and replace with Infobox film. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per PC78. Per WP:FILMRATING, we avoid indiscriminately including films' ratings. What's useful is the context behind a rating, otherwise a family film's light rating or a violent film's strict rating is not unusual. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an inappropriate fork.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:AFDWarningNew

 * 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 to the new template AfD-notice. JPG-GR (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)



Propose merging Template:AFDWarningNew and Template:AFDWarning and Template:Adw and Template:AFDNote.

It is possible, as has been done for the db-notice series templates, to create a single template, without additional parser functions, that is worded generally enough to apply to new and experienced users, creators and substantial contributors, when the utilizer is the AfD nominator or is not. It would substantially simplify this already very complicated process to do so, and it would enable the simple inclusion of the consolidated template on the AfD template that goes on the nominated page, as has been done with TfD and DB, for example. Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why don't you create this one-size-fits-all template and let us see what it would look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snottywong (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. How about this? --Bsherr (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think there has really been enough discussion on this. Perhaps resubmit with with the proposed alternative.--Salix (talk): 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be no resistance to this merge, however the location of the merged page must still be decided as well as the content of said page (provided there are no objections to this above). JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose Template:AfD-notice. I think it's proper to distinguish these templates as notices rather than warnings, as has been attempted for the db-notice series. --Bsherr (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Support merge, let's really use consistent warnings all the time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Uw-sandbox

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 14:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This warning is particularly BITEy, simply in concept, because we're warning people who are testing things out in the sandbox. They're supposed to test there; if the header is removed then either a bot or a user will replace it. If they add libelous or attacking material, then we can warn or block them for making personal attacks or BLP violations; if they add copyrighted material, we talk to them about copyrights.

This template makes people think that they shouldn't edit the sandbox for trivial things like removing the header, even if that is not our intent. A template saying "please do not attack people or you will be blocked" is fine; one saying "please don't edit the sandbox and put bad stuff there" is not. It doesn't explain as much of the BLP and copyright policies as other, more specific warnings do, and calls removing the header (oh noes!) an inappropriate edit.

Simply put, it's the sandbox, and this warning is too BITEy. Malicious users should be blocked and innocent ones should have policies explained.  — fetch ·  comms   01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite entirely. This might be the most poorly worded user warning template. Compare it currently to the template when it was created. The original language, while it could be and was improved for grammar and clarity, is much closer to the tone and informativeness that this template should have. It also explains exactly why having the sandbox template is important, which the current version does not, and that explanation is still true. The sandbox template serves an important informational purpose. I looked just now at the sandbox, which has no template at the time I write this, and it looks like it's been ages since a bot has been through to replace it. I agree with Fetchcomms reasons; I only disagree on the outcome. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms, I've edited the text of the warning. Does this address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not address mine (see below) - we have this one, special place where users are actively encouraged to experiment, instead of damaging articles. We have a bot to replace the header. Warning users for removing the header is inappropriately bitey; it will very likely be the first message on their talk, and will tarnish their record; it is an 'official' level 1 warning, so if they have further troubles it will be taken into account. I hope you understand me.  Chzz  ► 10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite; I think Bsherr put it well. I think we do need a template in that role, but wording should be extremely soft and cuddly. Be nice to newcomers instead of warning them, and maybe even encourage experimentation in the sandbox. Including nonharmful deletion of stuff. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you are coming from here, and fully encourage being nice to newcomers, however, this is a warning template, listed it WP:WARN and in Category:Standardised user warning templates. You say we shouldn't warn them. If anyone wishes to create a friendly template to encourage appropriate experimentation, then with all due respect, that is a separate issue.  Chzz  ► 09:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - instruction creep; sandbox is supposed to be 'anything goes'; we ask people not to remove the header, but they still will do so. If you template-warn them, that isn't going to prevent that. If the bot isn't clearing it quickly enough, fix the bot, not this. For a new user strolling along and experimenting...for the very first message they get being a warning about their incorrect editing is...awful. Let them play. Improve the system; reload the template every two minutes or whatever, but why warn people for experimenting? We should encourage such experimentation, and be grateful they are (sensibly) doing it in Sandbox, not vandalising articles. If anyone wishes to chat with the new user, then a standard 'welcome' and a bit of open chat about whatever they were doing in the sandbox would be fine. The existence of the template means people are less likely to make a more rationed contact with the new user; it is just too tempting for people to click the 'warn' button. I don't quite understand the above "Keep but rewrite entirely" - if it needs totally rewriting, then lets just delete the thing, and then anyone can suggest a new page via normal processes (or boldly make it).  Chzz  ► 10:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (more) And note at the top of sand, Welcome to the Wikipedia Sandbox! This page allows you to carry out experiments. - there is no mention of a need to beware headers...nor should there be. We mention libel and copyright, because that is the really important stuff; we don't need to mention the internal workings at all. Or, if you think we should, we'd better add more - about "Don't transclude so many pages that you exceed the transclusion limits", "Don't emulate the Wikipedia interface itselfunless you have a good reason, or something, don't advertize here (that'd take some defining; When does a badly-formatted reference become an advert? are we allowed to advertize the IRC help channel? etc etc), etc etc etc.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for not vandalising articles and actually trying to learn stuff in the sandbox - that's great - you can experiment there...oh, except don't do that! - imagine what message this sends out. "The Sandbox header"? Meaningless, to a new user. Fix the interface; don't shout at people if they misunderstand it.  Chzz  ► 10:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment it's been TfD'd before, closed as keep. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form, or rewrite entirely. The previous AfD was closed on the grounds that the template should be used for vandalism in the sandbox, that is, behaviour that is unacceptable even there. Yet the current template makes no mention of that, and refers instead to an act that is automatically reverted by a dedicated bot every 15 minutes and for which I see no reason whatsoever to issue a user warning or even a note. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Instead of responding in line, I address the above comments here. (1) The assertion that a bot replaces the template with any great frequency is false. Look at the sandbox history. I've observed that the bot takes anywhere from 15 minutes to a day and a half to clean the sandbox and replace the header. During the time that the header is missing, there is nothing to indicate to users that they're in the right place to make test edits, which defeats the purpose of the sandbox. I'm not seeing any comments addressing this concern. (2) A user editing the sandbox already sees that the template is labeled with a notice not to remove it. This template is the user's second notice about it. It's not a warning, it's a notice, and it's designed to remind and inform. It's not a warning, and there aren't levels, because it's intended to assume that the user is acting in good faith, and it's not a blockable offense. If it's too BITEy, as has been suggested, I invite efforts to make it less so. Efforting to do so, I already removed extraneous issues (copyright, attacks, etc.) from this template, because we have other warning templates to deal with these issues. --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 1. If the bot is not working properly, we can address that issue (separately)&mdash;although, right now, it appears to be;


 * 2. It's not a warning - yes, it is. The letters "Uw" in the name refer to it being a User warning. It is listed in WP:WARN and it is usually placed using WP:TWINKLE's tab labelled 'Warn'. It is in Category:Standardised user warning templates.  Chzz  ►  05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, let's not worry about newbies removing the sandbox header. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is instruction creep, and unnecessarily scares editors because of a technical limitation in the sandboxing system. Rather than this quite harmful hack, that problem should be fixed directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I've rewritten it, keep. &mdash; Train2104 (talk· contribs· count· email) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that address any of the concerns regarding the template? It looks like you basically just tidied up the existing wording. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but as suggested, it could be rewritten to be much less WP:BITEy. The name could probably be changed as well. What I'd like to do is draw your attention to other such templates:
 * Off-sandbox
 * Sandbox-head
 * I believe there may be more, but if this is deleted, there is a chance that those may be deleted too. Why not merge it into one simple notice, or maybe a welcome?  Hazard-SJ  Talk 09:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Several people are apparently !voting to "keep, but rename and rewrite" - this seems odd to me. We could keep anything if we rename and rewrote it. It reminds me of a story; I've had this broom for over 30 years. I've had eight new handles, and 12 new brush heads, but still, it's the same broom  Chzz  ► 05:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * question/comment: I lean towards a keep however consensus is seemingly changing towards what the sandbox is. In the past it has been somewhat "off limits" (excluding things such as copyvios or if non-free images being are being used) but there have been a flurry of userfied articles and sandboxes sent to MfD for things such as "fakearticle" and "non-notable" and leaning towards a time limit. Last year the consensus was that there was no time limit and userspace was akin to sacred ground - the sandbox was considered a place to work on things, taking however long it took. Given that I am wondering if this should be kept and rewritten to reflect that? In essence simply saying that the use of tags such as userpage, User Sandbox, Userspace draft, Userfiedpage, Userdraftdirectory or any variations, does not mean it will not be sent to MfD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Soundvisions, I think you are confusing the WP:SANDBOX - which is in the 'Wikipedia' namespace, and can be edited by anyone - with user subpages, which are in the 'User' namespace. The latter can be called e.g. User:Chzz/Sandbox, or they can be called User:Chzz/Anything at all.


 * This template is for warning people who make edits to WP:SANDBOX and remove the header of that specific page. It is not for warning users who are editing their own sandboxes; this warning specifically refers to that Wikipedia-space page. Best,  Chzz  ► 04:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what the sandbox is but I misunderstood the template in discussion as the message didn't say the "Wikipedia Sandbox" when I looked at on September 7. To be sure, I just re-read it and it currently (since August 25) says Thank you for making editing tests in the sandbox, and not on other pages. Back on August 16 it was more clear I would just like to remind you in a friendly way not to remove the information header at the Wikipedia sandbox, and other sandboxes, or make any other inappropriate edits, such as adding libelous, offensive, or copyrighted material. So - swerving back on track as it were: The Wikipedia sandbox has the notice that Content will not stay permanently; this page is automatically cleaned every 12 hours... and to not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandbox(es). so I don't think we need to really warn users about that part, but about removing the main page header - yes. So, I do like the new wording - but "Wikipedia" should be put back in. (Which I have done) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Like others have pointed out, the sandbox should encourage experiments and in case the header is deleted we have a bot to re-add it. The template serves little function except biting newcomers. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Criticism of Islam footer

 * 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. Seems far too similar to Template:Muslims_and_controversies. Ruslik_ Zero 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See deletion discussion for Muslims and controveries template The same logic applies here. In brief, since there is no Template:Criticism of Christianity footer or Template:Criticism of Judiasm footer it seems hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to write religous bigotry into WP. I respectfully ask that we delete as most of this material is a WP:CFORK from the template already deleted. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not a fork or copy of the "Muslims and controversies" template which you just got deleted. Its only a footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, so if you have an issue with this certain template, then nominate the main one too. If these "criticism of" templates are all wrong, what about Template:Criticism of religion? It just looks like its happening again in another way. I guess that's how it goes. Note that I removed the "Muslims" group which was subjective and incomplete and was making the template look bad. Please dont restore it. Should we delete Template:The Holocaust too now because its a POV issue and makes Hitler look bad? I guess whatever the public decides is OK with me. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The motion to delete Template:Muslims_and_controversies passed 9 to 3. Matt57 was one of the three who voted to preserve. NickCT (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the points I raised. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is rather misleading, reworking the template after the tfd is placed . Will it be reverted back, if this tfd fails, as done before in numerous previous incidents (see, , )? Mootros (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse not. I think its obvious that it was silly/incomplete to have a List of detainees and Osama Bin Laden and 2 other guys listed under "Muslims". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Bears no relation to Template:Criticism of Islam, but identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer . Utter non-sense e.g List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, 911 a critic/ criticism of Islam? Who is criticising whom, by saying what? The template has been consistently forked off, ,  into a wide array of seemingly unrelated articles. It is a mere WP:battleground, where so far nothing good has come from.   Mootros (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, its not identical to "muslims and controversies". Its a footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar as I said. "911, a criticism of Islam", is not present in the template. What are you talking about? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. This template is identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer please see here . This template featured List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, until you just removed it after the tfd was placed. See here  It also featured  911, which was tried to be removed several time and reverted back. Pleases see here:,  So far nothing good has come from this template. Mootros (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here I'll remind you. Muslims and Controversies contained two areas: 1) Media related events and 2) Incidents.
 * Like the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, the Template:Criticism of Islam footer has 3 main areas: 1) Core topics: Islam/Quran/Muhammad 2) Critics 3) Issues. Now in what way is the footer template similar to Muslims and Controversies? If the List of detainees was an issue, you think we should delete the template because its offensive to you and others here? You could simply delete that item in the template or take the issue up on the talk page. I didnt see you or NickCT on the talk page for those templates. We dont have to delete the whole template. "No good has come from this template" is not true. There were minor issues with people putting in 9/11 and so on. So what? We have disputes all the time for all kinds of articles and templates. It doesnt mean we should delete them because "no good has come from them". No good for that matter has come from the Islam template either. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost no one uses this footer. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Criticism_of_Islam_footer. Clearly not much good comes from the footer. NickCT (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "This template is identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer" Feel free to change it in a way it become identical to Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - is the footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar which deemed acceptable in the deletion discussion for Muslims and controversies template linked to above. Codf1977 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Footer version of sidebar template are usefull. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep Nobody uses this footer??? Looks more like this is an extremely useful footer, but some POV-pushers just don't like it because they want to ban the controversyRedhanker (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not terribly useful for navigation, and somewhat offensive, POV-ish and OR-ish. Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, The Satanic Verses controversy, Women in Muslim societies, List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, Osama bin Laden --- none of these things inherently constitute "criticism of Islam". And the fact that someone put the template at angry anti-Musilm blogger Pamela Geller says nothing positive about the wisdom of the people who came up with this template. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP, POV and OR problems due to lack of clear criteria for inclusion. And redundant to the sidebar. One or the other, we do not need both. wjemather bigissue 07:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we need either of them. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like the user's above me explain, it is a very idiosyncratic thing, quite unique (for a reason it seems) and could be considered offensive. And the things listed under it, as the user above me explains, have a very tenous connection to Islam. Osama bin Laden? That's almost funny. ValenShephard (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Requires Flash

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  11:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Newly created, unnecessarily hostile. We could change this... or just delete it. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I doubt that this template is actually useful. The citation templates generally have a format parameter that can be used for the purpose. For external links, it should be sufficient to say "Requires Adobe Flash Player" if really necessary. At least two existing uses of this template are wrong; YouTube does not require Flash for non-sponsored videos if one uses Safari (web browser) or Google Chrome, and one site uses Flash for animations but does not "require" Flash to read the text. Most significantly of all, HTML5, SVG, etc.-based designs have still hardly replaced Flash-based ones, so the need to use Flash Player to view something is nothing special. PleaseStand (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:YOUTUBE: "Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content". Also, not everybody uses Safari (I don't) or Chrome (I do, but only when testing: normally I use Firefox). -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentiment is probably sound, but I question the practicality of introducing such a thing in 2010, when Flash has six sigma market penetration. I've reworked it to be less egrecious for the time being. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about reworking this template along the lines of PDFlink for usage in external links sections. Otherwise, for any citations, the format parameter can be used to indicate this fact. If a citation is not formatted with a regular template, a recrafted version of this template like I suggest above would be still useful.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not the role of Wikipedia to tell users what add-ons an external site may require; the external site can do it.  Chzz  ► 10:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.