Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 20



Template:Tlb, Template:Tlxb, Template:Tlxi

 * 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. However, it looks like there may be agreement to merge them all into the code developed by lfdder, so suggest the discussion is restarted elsewhere. Number  5  7  12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Template:Tlb
 * Tlb

Redirect to tl (no deletion needed). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. This formatting has no special relevance for a template linking, and it can be achieved with regular editing. tl templates should focus on links provided, not basic formatting. DePiep (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I did not know this existed. Its current use cases are very plausible, especially in template documentation area when one needs to differentiate between literal and syntactic text. The nominator's reason would be plausible in article space deletion but not in template space, where we deal with utilities. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and subst current transclusions. This is minimally used, and can be identically replaced by using . VanIsaacWScont 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's own documentation clearly explains what it's useful for. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used.  It already uses that code; this is nothing but a routine shorthand wrapper to avoid geeky parameters; leave it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It confuses: not a self-link. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment confuses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you cleared &convinced all up for us. Nomination not changed. DePiep (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What? That makes even less sense than your preceding comment.  Also, no one asked you to change the nomination; that's not how TfD works, at least not after people have already been commenting on a nomination.  So, um, what are you talking about?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish@undefinedIf you had convinced me, I could have changed my opinion.
 * It's own documentation clearly explains, you say? No it does not. It says ".. just like tlxb, except that ...". So I should research the documentation of that other template? OK, suppose I did the click. Then what does that other template doc say? "It's the same as tlx except that ...". -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC) / readded my own cmt after a repairing a disruption. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The documentation has been improved. Nominator could have improved it or asked someone who understood the templates better to do so, instead of engaging in a month-long campaign of histrionics and handwaving.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per Vanisaac. yes can be omitted when used in the same tpl it links to. is not a substitute. — lfdder 12:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then update or use/redirect to . --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We actually have tlp but that prevents word-wrapping. (I don't know whose idea was this.) Anyway, we can merge tl and tlp too? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd suggest. We don't need three templates doing basically the same. It only causes confusion by gaining close to nothing. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This !vote-thread says it all. I learn that some tlg exists and that is can solve everything (btw, the name for that is: meta-template). And there are other templates too, that do what you want but they are difficult to explain for some reason (aka: trawl & test the documentations yourself). I myself have never been able to find such a useful template from the set. I only know tl. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This is a clear admission that the nominator did not read all the related documentation, does not understand the templates he's nominating for deletion or how they relate to others, and didn't even know Template:Tlg existed, despite these templates' own code clearly calling that template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PA introduced by . -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish@undefined Everything written here is for the closing admin. You are not addressing a procedural point. You could have made it a comment. Anyway, since ended this subthread with a deviation dead end, I have no entry to respond.
 * Now since you enforce the closing admin a conclusion about my writing (instead of asking me clarification), I sugest the closing admin does not take this post in account at all. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC) - Readded my earlier comment after repairing a disruption. -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator needs to actually read WP:PA, and see also WP:SHUN, which I'm applying to nom henceforth, and which I suggest nom apply reciprocally. I bid the nom good day, happy editing, and hope nom learns more about how en.wiki operates before going on any further indignant, process-abusive, toe-stomping sprees.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: Do we really need a separate nomination for every single one of these damn things? -- N  Y  Kevin   04:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * May I refactor it, then? I was thinking of centralizing the discussion. I had the idea of a general discussion, with finer points in subsections. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no refactoring. Closing admins have made a point out of grouped TfD's, and there is no super-guidance. I will not risk another "wrong place" argument by any admin. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted. Admins are less smart than you are. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm refactoring it again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted. An involved editor rearranging TfD discussion? The only outcome could be that the closing admin rejects everything (iow, this way you could be sabotaging the discussion into your deserved outcome). -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator needs to actually read WP:REFACTOR, and WP:AGF.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete or redirect to . Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMcCandlish. As someone who constantly writes template documentation, another tool available is always a good thing. People don't throw away Christmas Trees just because they're used for a few days a year. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxb
 * tlxb

Redirect to tlx (no deletion needed). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. This pre-formatted template has little use in this set, and can be achieved in regular code. Formatting into bold does not serve a specific reason in template linking. DePiep (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I did not know this existed. Its current use cases are very plausible, especially in template documentation area when one needs to differentiate between literal and syntactic text. The nominator's reason would be plausible in article space deletion but not in template space, where we deal with utilities. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and subst current transclusions. This is minimally used, and can be identically replaced by using . VanIsaacWScont 00:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's own documentation clearly explains what it's useful for. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used.  It already uses that code; this is nothing but a routine shorthand wrapper to avoid geeky parameters; leave it. The fact that it would take something as geeky as  to replicate the functionality of  is a shining beacon of a reason to keep this template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It confuses. It is not a self-link. Why then? -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment confuses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you made this all clear to us then. Nomination kept. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a useful response. If you won't bother clarifying what it is you're asking, and only respond with stubbornness, I have to wonder what it is you think you're trying to accomplish here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PA introduced by . -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's own documentation clearly explains, you say? No it does not. It says ".. It's the same as tlx except that ...". So I must research the documentation of an other template. -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The documentation for that template is transcluded in the documentation for this one. Further proof that nominator is not actually reading the documentation. Ability to continue to assume good faith is being pushed to the WP:SPADE/WP:DUCK brink.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per Vanisaac. yes can be omitted when used in the same tpl it links to. is not a substitute. — lfdder 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then update or use/redirect to . --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to . Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMcCandlish. As someone who constantly writes template documentation, another tool available is always a good thing. People don't throw away Christmas Trees just because they're used for a few days a year. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxi
 * Tlxi

Redirect to tlx (no deletion). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. Formatting variants like this one are of little use. Italicising parameters is not meaningful format. DePiep (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace. Virtually unused; all of its tranclusions except Talk:Sequoia sempervirens are a form of documentation, which become irrelevant regardless of whether it is redirected, deleted or substituted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral Whether italicizing parameters is meaningful or not depends on whether it is given any meaning, so to say that italicising parameters is not a meaningful format kind of doesn't make any sense. It is for example common for API documentation to italicize function parameters; see e.g. the fread documentation on MSDN. Other documentation on the other hand seems to use the reverse italicization, and italicizes only the function/command name, but not the parameters/arguments; see e.g. the git man pages on The Linux Kernel Archives.


 * Then whether it is used or not is another question. Maybe it is not used enough and could be removed or turned into a redirect template for that reason. —Kri (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These are non-wiki examples, right? In wiki, we don't Italicise params. I never met that. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure you do, when they're variables themselves. It's for template documentation, as in: The syntax is, and do not subst it. More detail below (e.g. about why this should really be using  not regular italics).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ? What are yo talking about? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I decline to explain it to you further.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PA introduced by . -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and subst current transclusions, like the others. This has only 8 transclusions, and can be identically replaced by using . VanIsaacWScont 00:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the above templates with which it forms a group. Its own individual documentation could use improvement, but that's not a deletion rationale. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used.  It already uses that code anyway. This and the others are just routing short-hand templates to get at long-winded template options of  without getting carpal tunnel and migraines.  There is no need to hunt down and delete every template you don't personally want to use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually, the use case of each formatting is different. I've never encountered a case where we meaningfully italicize all parameters wholesale but we do italicize part of them to distinguish between literal, syntactic mandatory and syntactic optional. And it isn't really part of team. We do not have a normal-text italic either, for the same reason. (Tlinv is used for a different purpose.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "team" means here. Anyway, it's clear from the actual uses that it's being used to conveniently illustrate cases where we do in fact want to italicize the parameters wholesale, because they're all just example data. As I note below, this would arguably better be done with  or, but that would complicate the template code.  This entire series of templates are intended for use in writing template documentation. People don't need to concern themselves about how useful they could be or not be in any other context (like use in Wikipedia_talk pages, etc.). It's odd that one of them got picked up and used by a bot, but that's already old news and no longer happening, so back to business as usual, with them being used for what they were intended for.  Creating convenience wrapper templates like this to avoid having to use strings of gobbledygook like  again and again is routine and useful.   There is no need for us to hunt down and terminate  ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  all templates that aren't popular yet but which still serve a clearly documented purpose and are used somewhat. (This template, but fixed to use   properly should be used much, much more than it has been, actually.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you don't personally want to use? I wrote a different reason in the nomination. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PA introduced by . -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What does it mean when parameters are italicised? What is an author trying to convey? What is the difference with roman (upright) written parameters? I don't get that. Don't know that at WP. (That's the migraine part for me).-DePiep (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that depend on the context? Why not go look at how it's used?  Personally not understanding what this is for and being confused by it for some reason, isn't a deletion rationale.  :-)  To go over the reasons you specified in the nomination: Your desire to "cleanup" various templates simply because they're similar isn't a deletion rationale. There's no demonstrated need that they need to be "cleaned".  Your assertion that all of these "formatting variants" are "of little use" is just an opinion, unsupported by anything. Except for one, they're not used in an overwhelmingly huge number of cases, but so what?  Who cares?  Your third claim, that basically it has no "meaningful" use case, is falsified by simply going and looking at how it's used.  It's very, very obviously being used to italicized variable data, a common convention (and the default behavior of  ( example ) when those variable happen to coincide with unnamed template parameters, as they very often do.  should probably be re-coded to use that tag instead of purely typographic italics, but whatever.  Honestly, I don't think anyone should have to spell this stuff out;  need to do the basic due diligence of spending 60 seconds or so to look and see how something is being used and how it's documented, before TfDing it on the basis that it supposedly has no use.  Anyway, the gist of what I'm saying about this TfD applies to all of this short series of TfDs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any "context" that explains examples? Does this context occur elsewhere in WP (again: I do not know of). Look at how it's used, you ask? No, it is not my job or homework to research usage to understand italicasion. I've seen templates. You still have to tell me what this means. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice attitude. No one has to do anything for you. You do not WP:OWN the template namespace and perhaps need to stop trying to delete everything you won't bother to spend a couple of minutes figuring out.  The purpose and use-cases and syntax of these templates are not only well documented but have just above been personally re-explained to you, and if you still don't get it, that's a PEBKAC issue, not a problem with this or any of the related templates.  So, please rethink.  I don't care how many knee-jerk "deletes" there are here, not a single real reason has been given for deleting these templates.  If someone wants to adjust them so their code is being pulled more efficiently from somewhere else, have at it, but the idea of replacing the efficient  with a pain the &lt;ahem&gt; neck like  is unworkable and amounts to a new rule against ever using italics here, since that's so much trouble no one would ever both again.  I have no idea what the source is of your demanding hostility with regard to these and similar templates (and more importantly other editors, who use them), but it's not constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "you won't bother to spend a couple of minutes figuring out" - actually, I was expanding the documentation when I encountered this. These nominations are a result of figuring out. Afterwards Codename Lisa (who !votes keeps here) reverted my documentation additions wholesale. In place came a useless incomplete bag of text. CL also showed not to understand the difference between such templates aimed at formatting text, at making a linklist, at iw, ... With over 50 templates to be documented, the documentation still is useless.
 * Of course I know bad documentation is not a reason for deletion. But the fact that is is nigh impossible to document them useful, says it (there are three documentation versions in recent history, none serves its purpose). One improvement would be to introduce priority for templates. Templates that are forks by parameter setting should be low in priority (which could include deletion). -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only parse about 2/3 of that but have to conclude that it's a) mostly about a personal dispute between the nominator and another user over how to document the templates that the nom doesn't understand anyway, and b) totally moot, since I've overhauled the documentation of all of the templates in question. I.e., the complaints that generated these TfDs are no longer valid.  If someone still wants to TfD them, it should be done cleanly and separately, and after the work discussed in, below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What gives me migraines is the names of these templates. — lfdder 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a deletion argument; just create redirects like Template:Template example italic if you would like to actually use them. I'm skeptical anyone wants to type something that long; they're short for a reason, and there's no point trying to shoehorn the documentation into the template page name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update – I tried to fix it to use , but the underlying template nowikis that markup.  It would have to be changed in Tlg itself.  A good case can probably be made for that, since there is unlikely to be any case of Tlg outputting an italic parameter where it is not variable data being represented.  Anyway, I documented Tlxi a little better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete per Vanisaac. — lfdder 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Vanisaac provides no rationale, only a demand that something someone can actually remember and use like be replaced with a monstrosity like  that no one will remember except him, I guess.  Again, wrapper short hand templates like this are normal, routine things in template space and need not be deleted unless they present and actual  that needs to be fixed as matter of policy or common sense, and that simply isn't the case here.  All of these are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT arguments: "I don't see what this is for", "this is complexity I wouldn't use", "I don't like the name", "I like a longwinded version with multiple parameters better", "I'm mad that my rude demands are not being met", etc.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationale, of course, is that all three of these are just hardcoding of parameters for another template. They literally add no functionality, and require edits to multiple templates in order to upgrade the tlg template. VanIsaacWScont 07:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then update or use/redirect to . --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting assertions, Patrick87, with nothing to back them up. They reduce ambiguity by marking up different aspects of code differently. Because they'd different, they're not redundant (pretty much by definition).  Complexity is not an evil in and of itself.  Tl, tlg, etc. do not need updates.  These effective  redirects to tlg, except they feed it some parameters for particular effects like yes and yes to get the desired effect.  Simply redirecting them would strip these parameters out, yet they were called for a reason.  Your position makes no sense at all, because tlg would not have these parameters if they were not intended to be used.  The burden of proof is on you to explain to us why parameters in tlg must be forbidden, gain consensus at that template to remove them, then remove templates that are wrappers that call them.  Using the TfD process to try to nuke templates because they use parameters of tlg that you don't like is essentially an abuse of process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all have a look at 's history and check out who was involved in some major code refactoring/simplification, removal of unused/useless parameters, addition of potentially useful parameters, etc... Yeah, exactly, it was me! It was also me who made use  internally to improve and simplify the whole mess. So be assured: I know what I'm talking about!
 * After that ask yourself one question: What's the real point of italicizing or bolding the template name? I doubt anybody ever uses it on purpose on discussion pages. There is only one style that really makes sense for templates (which is  style). Everything else is just some historical ballast someone though might get useful at some point and which resulted in the incredibly long list of Template-linking templates (wich is already a pretty well reduced listing!) we have nowadays and which nobody is longer able to remember not to speak of efficiently using them. If Tfd is the right process to get rid of the mostly redundant versions might be questioned. But it does not make my opinion on the Tfd (which I didn't start) questionable. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know so much about this, why do you think this was intended for use on discussion pages when it's clear from it's own documentation that it's intended for use in the expedient construction of template documentation? &lt;sigh&gt; "I worked on something to do with this once, therefore I know everything about it" isn't even valid reasoning about  subject.  It's the fallacy of argument to authority.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PA introduced by . -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ri-i-ight. Last I looked, false accusations of personally attacking actually constitute personal attacks. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but how should anybody take your reasoning serious? You edited in the part of the documentation you're now referring to only after this Tfd was opened. And even then you state yourself that "The main reason to ever [sic!] do this [italicize] is in template documentation" suggesting that one normally shouldn't do it. And to begin with: Have you actually (at any point) checked transclusions of ? It's virtually unused and the few transclusions which are more the questionable can be most easily replaced! What do you want to prove??? I'm done here... --Patrick87 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's to improve a page in response to an XfD; it's the most common way to moot a deletion argument. You can't seriously complain the the use of a template is poorly documented then complain that the documentation has been improved to fix that!  There is no principle that a template has to be used X number of times to be kept.  The fact that it was poorly documented is probably  it was not well-deployed yet.  I do agree with what I take to be your conclusion that continued discussion between us on this is liable to be unproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * delete or redirect to . Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMcCandlish. makes a great point about its usefulness to coders. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Shorthand Like I've told SMcCandlish, I experimented with a shorthand syntax for tlg that'd render all these wrappers redundant. The code is here and examples here. — lfdder 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's pretty nice. Examining it now. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not bad code. I don't know about making the wrappers "redundant", but it might save people some trouble from remembering parameter names. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding templates Tlb, Tlxb and Tlxi (which should have been refactored back into one TfD nomination, over DePiep's revert, and I've at least group them together under one meta-heading):I concur that User:Lfdder's meta-template code (or something like it) with shorthand syntax to do what these three wrapper templates are doing (and more) would be useful enough that it could replace them, but only after it's deployed and documented. These TfDs are premature and ill-informed.</li><li>Observation/Request: Merging Tlg and Tlx and so forth into Tl, as Patrick87, Codename Lisa and DePiep were discussing above, is a completely different proposal and those templates have not been tagged for any such discussion.  I would strongly suggest tabling this entire  TfD mess as a no-consensus waste of time (an admonition against filing TfDs against templates one does not even understand, and reverting refactors on the basis that "Admins are less smart than" other editors, as DePiep put it, might be in order, too).  Someone who actually understands what these templates are for, what they do, how they are used, how they differ and why, how their underlying code interrelates, and what their documentation says and means, can set up a new, properly arranged, multi-template TfM discussion about producing a more standardized set of tools for template documenters to use, after they have already produced sandbox code we can test and work on until it fulfills the needs identified, which differ for each the various original templates in question.  Lfdder's sandbox code, making  easier to use, is clearly a good place to start.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * 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:Tn
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Number  5  7  12:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * tn

Redirect to tl (no deletion). Demo: compare and tl. See? The list of Template-linking templates is long and not completely intuitive. This one introduces an odd linking hiccup that is not needed or supported elsewhere. We do not need or use such extended link-clicks as this one provides. Even a single-letter template is clickable in regular form. (Deletion is not advisable. It has 12,000 transclusions and tl solves it nicely. Also, this is why I did not put the TfD tag in the template itself: no harm to warn for, after Redirect the existing links will be there virtually unchanged). DePiep (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Looks like the eccentric twin of tl. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any actual delete/redirect rationale in there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Soft keep. If this were a new template, I'd have no qualms about deleting this guy. But it's been transcluded over 12,000 times. It seems like this has a pretty compelling usage scenario for some users, even if I don't necessarily see it. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">cont 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment at lot of them, possibly the great majority, were added by ; posting AfC notifications with in them. It hasn't posted for almost two years, so is no longer using the template and the messages are very stale, so the changes will be hardly noticed, and for that usage hardly matter (the  is there to be copied and pasted not clicked).-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi. I do not feel the use case that Vanisaac says exists. It seems people have just used it instead of tl because there has been no real preferences. These two look totally similar and their similarity isn't functionally useful. If anything, tn is more useless because if someone right-click on it and issue a Copy Link Text command (provided that his browser have it) the copied result is useless without manual modification. This is not the case with tl. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll need to explain what you mean. In the interim, I have to observe that it is  to took as similar as possible to, and that its functional use is crystal clear from its documentation.  No, people don't just use it interchangeably with , certainly not "because there is no real preference".   serves a specific WP:ACCESSIBILITY purpose, and is properly documented.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC) PS: How you feel about the use case isn't relevant.  People use it because it's useful for the cases it was created to deal with, e.g. the very thin template names like . If there were "no real preference", it wouldn't be used, because  is far more "advertised" and "promoted".  Yet  is actually used quite a bit, which means people are using it on purpose, because of the functionality it provides. No one needs to do a Copy Link Text command on a template named, for example, "!", since it's far more work to do that than to just type "!".  I think that takes care of every argument you've presented.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not find any advice in WP:ACCESS or in WCAG to enlarge the linktext this way. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not find a TfD rule that says a template must be deleted if it provide solutions to obvious accessibility problems, that people on the talk page of the template clearly indicate are solutions that are working for them, and refine them to work better, just because someone wants to play a WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:LAWYER game. There is no policy or principle here that solutions that have not already been explicitly demanded at WP:ACCESS or anywhere else are .  It's an absurd notion.   You haven't posted one yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "feeling" that the use case doesn't exist is flatly contradicted by the reality of 12,000 transclusions. If I just had my feelings to go on, I probably wouldn't keep this guy. The problem is that my feelings are just plain factually wrong. They are wrong many thousands of times over. Other editors use this template; they use it for a reason. I may not understand their reasoning or necessarily agree with it, but being an adult sometimes means just accepting things you don't understand and moving on. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">cont 07:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course: Its rationale is quite clear, and makes sense. Not everyone has as good eyesight as you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No of course to be read nearby within a mile. Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And no of course within ten miles of WP:ACCESS. Or a hundred. What do you want to say? -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not being obtuse in any way. The actual usable link portion of something lilke ! is difficult to see and click on for many people.  For some of it's hard to even tell that it is linked at all.  This problem is totally obviated with this version, which triples the width of the linked part, unobtrusively: . PS: I'm not sure what these distances are are you are mentioning or what "to be read nearby" means, etc.  I think we're having some language barrier issues here. Maybe on more than one level.  If you're not a regular template coder and documenter, I can perhaps see why these templates might not seem useful to you.  That doesn't mean they're empirically not useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that was put too rough by me. In my general comment below, I ask: does WP:ACCESS or W3C WCAG anywhere point to this solution? -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMPETENCE. If you cannot follow simple template discussions at en.wiki, I don't think en.wiki's TfD process is where you should be spending editing time (much of it not your own time, I might add).  I don't mean that in mean way, it's just that your entire participation in these TfD threads has been a long string of complaints about how you don't/can't understand the templates, or their documentation, or what they are doing on the pages in which they are used, or the meaning of the careful re-explanations of them you've been given here, or how principles like accessibility might apply, or, now, even followup discussion, and you go on about what a pain all of it is for you.  Well, your thrashing here is a disruption for others, too.  Sorry.  As for WP:ACCESS itself, I just answered that.  You don't need to ask the same person the same question three times in same thread in the same 24-hour period.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish@undefined I ask again: where or how does WP:ACCESS or W3C WCAG say that we should extend hyperlinks this way in this situation? -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Designed for easier access to clickables for those who need it. –  Paine Ellsworth  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX ! 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * subst and delete, same as . How is this supposed to help with accessibility anyway? The difference is especially imperceptible when the link's been visited. If accessibility is your concern, why not just type out the link? Template:Some bloody template — lfdder 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: how is this access exactly? I understand that a single-character link has this issue. Still, I'd like to read through WP:ACCESS or W3C recommendations WCAG that actually advise to extend a linked text this way. I have not met this elsewhere (whithin or without WP). In references, WP uses a single character all fine (a non-spacing one even). -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Normal links have just the text being linked, including if it's just one character - not so much words but symbols, Chinese characters - especially on WP. If we expect readers to be able to use such links then a template link decorated with 🇦🇩 around it should cause editors no problems. So delete; I wasn't sure at first but can now see no need for it and have seen no instances of it being used where tl wouldn't work as well.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the template documentation? Or this discussion?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. And before we forget: why not link both pairs of accolades. To me, that single pair is the pain for the eye. -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Every rationale you provide here keeps coming down to things you claim are a "pain" for you personally. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This new complaint also has nothing to do with this TfD discussion; see the talk page of that template for a consensus discussion that arrived at the style that template uses.  If you disagree with that discussion's conclusion there, take it up there, don't try to overrule that consensus by asking the WP:OTHERPARENT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Actually, the markup you object to is still going to be there, just as .  So, even if this were the place to complain about that markup, it  not a valid reason to delete this template, because there's already consensus to work that functionality into the meta-template that this one calls to perform that function!  Sheesh.  These are the most pointless TfDs I've seen in, and amount to "I hate short-hand templates, and want everyone to have to type out long-form ". I'm not going to respond here any longer.  If these close somehow in favor of deletion despite no actionable rationales actually being given, I'll see you at WP:DRV.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)  PS: I forgot to mention that originally both pairs of brackets were linked as you suggest; someone changed it later.  Still not a reason for deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of these oppose rationales, from Patrick87 on up, have been addressed in the TfD immediately above this one, and are covered at WP:AADD. PS: Next time, please do this as a multi-template nomination instead of a redundant mess like this where the same arguments have to be rehashed again and again for each of the closely-related templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, in spite of validity of many of your arguments, I still think the benefit that this template offers is marginal in comparison with . Furthermore, I urge you not to lose temper with User:DePiep. I myself do not agree with many of his practices but why lose temper when silence has the same effect? After all, it is quite obvious how this TfD will end. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should end as "no consensus" or "keep", since the deletion rationales are mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It all comes down to nothing but a desire to force people to write, I've already forgotten what exactly, instead of something easy like  or .  (I looked it up again; it's  for  and  for .)   A marginal benefit is still a benefit, BTW.  DePiep? Yeah, okay.  I have little patience for people who disrupt process to play WP:ICANTHEARYOU games, but I guess responding to them just encourages more of the same.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Civility self-clarification: My "this is stupid" edit summary was in reference to me continuing to try to re-explain why IDONTLIKEIT rationales aren't valid when the point has already been made and thus all I'm doing is generating more text for the closer to go through without adding to the pro/con arguments. I don't mean that any particular point by anyone else is stupid.  I think some of them are confused and some misguided, but it's not a brain-power failure. Reasonable people can disagree.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, Your "in comparison with " comment misses the point that this is not a contest between  and these templates; you're erecting a false dichotomy. They are shortcut wrappers for long-winded, complicated  of a -family template, namely  (with the exception of, which is an visual accessibility template and unrelated; the fact that it was included with these others indicates clearly, as if his own comments did not, that the nominator did not pay any attention to their documentation or usage, but is just on a fishing expedition against anything that even superficially looks like 's output).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Struck 05:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I am not sure I understand your false dichotomy comment. When it comes to choosing a mean of writing template name in standard font and style, it really comes down to selecting between tl and tn. So, contest or not, it is eventually a dichotomy. A third option of writing plain code also exists but I gather that if you were a proponent of that, you'd have said, "delete", not "keep". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind! I wasn't paying attention to which window I was editing in, and confused this with the tlxi thread.  I struck my confused/confusing comment above.  Yes, in this case there's a choice between using  or .  Everyone knows the difference between them is "marginal"; it is so, and has even been edited to be a less visually obvious distinction than it was originally. The sole purpose of  is to increase the clickable size of extremely narrow linked template code examples, e.g. making ! into . The objection that it's a minimal difference isn't really an objection, but evidence that it's doing its unobtrusive job properly. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is great to see we understand each other, even though we might not agree. And your assessments are fair in their own terms. It was a pleasure working with you here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per SMcCandlish. Wikipedia already sucks at having good accessibility (do you realize how few pages have alternative text?) and we don't want to make it worse. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (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:Giant aircraft
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Giant aircraft

This is just an arbitrary list with no criteria, and is better served by a Category for large aircraft, if at all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective inclusion criteria that have varied over time (whaat was 'giant' in 1914 is tiny in 2014!). No need for a navbox or a category here. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete highly subjective. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewrite to only include the very largest of each category, and rename to large aircraft per the rewriting of large aircraft that occurred recently at WT:AVIATION -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rewriting of Large aircraft includes only historical lists of largest types for each main class of aircraft, and is not suited to templating. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, only include the largest that would be "1" aircraft of each type. Quite templatable. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Steelpillow is wise. In reality there isn't a neat list of "giant aircraft", and the list juxtaposes lots of different aircraft for no reason other than that they were "big" in some sense. bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reconstruct/rename As is, "Giant" is indeed subjective and the word large is a better choice of wording (which the link in the title redirects to anyways); while still subjective, it makes more sense. Additionally, this template is something that can be better organized if it is categorized by aircraft type instead of production status. - SteveCof00  "suggestion box" 10:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewrite/reconstruct to include all aircraft that were at one stage the largest in the world and from which year they held the title to the year they lost it. Also rename to large aircraft.Nathan121212 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete meaningless - at different points in time the definition changes, let alone which attribute to claim is Giant or Large.--Petebutt (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2014 (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 speedway team
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox speedway team
 * Infobox british speedway team

Propose merging Template:Infobox speedway team with Template:Infobox british speedway team.

The "British" template appears to be a fork of the other. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment is this about bicycling or motorcycling? Either way, the final infobox should clarify which it is, or if it covers both forms of speedway. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These refer to motorcycle speedway. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The name should probably be changed to Template:Infobox motorcycle speedway team, since there are 4 possible meanings to speedway racing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * merge Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Unnecessary fork. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox british speedway team, only merge the extra parameters if they are useful for more than a few articles.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (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:2012 K-League scorers
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2012 K-League scorers
 * 2012 K-League assistors

Unused. Sawol (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2014 (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:Afd delete
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Afd delete

Deprecated; parameter of Afd top  Eye snore  (pc) 02:25, 20 April 2014 (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:Linker
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Linker

Unused, undocumented, unclear exactly what it's for but seems to be like Template:Ports (an un-needed portal box grouping template deleted in 2012) JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete, better to just generate the individual portal/project links individually. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (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.