Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 3



Template:Help template

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Help template
 * Help userbox


 * previous discussion: Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 23

This seems completely wrong, in the advice it gives and how it works. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates is one of the last places to ask for help on a template; the template talk page is the first place, other more active noticeboards after that. How it works, both putting advice in a template and launching an edit window on using its link is highly unusual, doesn’t work properly if used from the /doc subpage, and seems to have never been used going by the lack of threads on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates created by it. Nominated once before but that discussion with other templates was unable to come to consensus. Since then no evidence it has been used by anyone other than its creator. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear John; I always place these templates on documentation subpages.  Would you please show me where one has malfunctioned.  Thanks,  Buaidh  02:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As above, the place to ask for help using a template, or to suggest changes, is the template talk page. Apart from the usual reasons why the associated talk page should be used, an important point is that any enquiry or suggestion should occur after reviewing past discussions. Also, anyone wanting to work on the template in the future would like to scan through discussions and wishlists without searching a gigantic wikiproject that hopes to handle all templates. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A WikiProject is not the best place to ask for help on a template, such inquiries should be directed to the talk page, the author's talk page, or a WikiProject specific to the template's purpose. Templates are complex. Someone with a good understanding of how they work overall but no idea what a given one is supposed to do or how it's written would have to do extensive research to answer the question, and even then may omit some key nuances of functionality. Also adding Help userbox to this nomination, as the same argument holds. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 00:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Train; Comments to this author's User_talk page may not be useful for too much longer. I have an incurable and fatal blood cancer.  I hope that Wikipedia survives me by many decades or even centuries.  I don't wish leave behind a bunch of templates to degrade over time and muck up the works.  We need to think about long term maintenance, after we all are gone.  Cheers,  Buaidh  03:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep These two templates have been debated ad nauseam. While I agree with many of the above comments, no one has proposed a better solution.  Comments on the Template_talk page are a graveyard.  I have seen Template_talk requests for help languish for many years.  I have created over 17000 pages including over 2500 templates and have contributed to many more.  I do not have the time to monitor all these pages on a regular basis.  If WikiProject Templates and WikiProject Userboxes are not monitoring their Wikipedia_talk pages, they should be disbanded.  My hope was that, if these templates were used as intended, it might light a fire under these two WikiProjects.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Help userbox has not been debated at all, never mind “ad nauseam”, and the last time Help template was debated is was kept but with no prejudice against speedy renomination – it was anticipated another disucssion would be needed. So that is not any sort of reason to keep. And no matter how active a template talk page is, it is the proper place to discuss it: most talk pages get started with an initial request or comment. As for WikiProject Userboxes, I noticed after Help userbox was added, is inactive, or semi-active. Another reason not to send people there. Finally the templates are broken on doc pages as if you use them from there the default heading for the post is "Request for help with Template:XXX/doc". A minor issue, easily fixed with proper scripting, but the fact that it‘s not been noticed before confirms these are simply not being used: I see no evidence that either has been ever used, despite your adding them to large numbers of template doc pages.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone launches a help request from a documentation subpage, I would have to believe they have a problem with the template documentation rather than the template itself. This was as intended and is not a scripting error.
 * I think I have been very patient and civil. I have been coding professionally since 1970.  I may be elderly, but I am not a dunce.  Insults are one of the reasons Wikipedia participation continues to drop.   Buaidh  21:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - These have no merit, and depending upon one project with a few members who have limited attention spans just won't work. We found that out in 2008-09 with the interwiki template project. Just happens to be TEN YEARS (see these early implimentations!) since CBDunkerson and I came up with the /doc page system and we moved the help from talk page to being visible when examining templates directly. (One of the original templates even used the phrase 'when-viewed-directly' as part of its name.) But having users go to a project page to be lost in a morass of other posts... Heck, just have them post to ANI for pete's sake. Fra nkB  05:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, where would you have users post template requests? I don't much care where as long as someone responds.   Buaidh  05:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

""
 * Suggestion If everyone except me thinks help requests should only be posted on the Template_talk page, I can dumb these templates down to:
 * or even:

"For help with this template, please post a comment on the template talk page."
 * Yours aye, Buaidh  15:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * delete, if someone needs help they can ask on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what the above suggestion does. Yours aye,  Buaidh  10:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless though: there is already a 'Talk' link at the top of the page, in the usual place, as there is on every normal page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:34, 10 March 2017 (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).

Template:2010 Piala Inter-island Goalscorers

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC) I merged this with the article so we don't need to keep separate in a template Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2010 Piala Inter-island Goalscorers
 * Speedy Delete per nom and merge. Fra nkB 05:42, 5 March 2017 (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).

Template:NIT Trichy Alumni

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Unused. Appears to be an abandoned draft. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * NIT Trichy Alumni
 * Speedy Delete per nom and unuse. Fra nkB 05:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * delete pointless. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2017 (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).

Template:Shea Stadium dimensions

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC) I merged it with the article, so we don't need this template Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Shea Stadium dimensions
 * Support Delete -- no longer needed per nom. (Creation was likely unwise) // Fra nkB 04:47, 5 March 2017 (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).

Template:IMR Legendary Powders

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC) A navigation box with no navigation links, and no prospect of any. This list of commercial products should be a section in an article, neither a nav box nor a template. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IMR Legendary Powders
 * Delete this should be an article section, not a template.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of names/types of propellants (gunpowder-like products) - can remade into wikitable form easily enough in 10-12 minutes, and recommend someone do so and add that completion to this discussion. Fra nkB  04:45, 5 March 2017 (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).

Template:Five Families

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 11. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Five Families
 * 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).

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 11. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation
 * 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).

Template:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 11. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India
 * Union ministries of India
 * 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).

Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 11. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Rams navbox
 * University of Rhode Island
 * 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).

Template:Pros vs. Joes

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC) This template provides navigation between athletes who have appeared on Pros vs. Joes; appearing on this show is not a dimension worthy of such navigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pros vs. Joes
 * Comment: "appearing on this show is not a dimension worthy of such navigation" sounds like purely an opinion to me. Personally, if I were interested in the show, I would find this template handy. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride ' 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For those interested in the show, the handy solution is a list of participants -- which is already in the article about the show. No need for a navbox to bog down the articles of the athletes in question. Cbl62 (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A rule of thumb to consider is WP:FANCRUFT. It's not whether you or I find it interesting, it's whether the average Joe reading it would.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Time to strike a blow against trivial navbox proliferation! Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Navbox cruft for a short-lived game show. Most of the individuals this navbox appears on are already bogged down by a dozen or more navboxes pertinent to their profession. Lizard  (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete --Navbox is basically the synopsis of the article, which with little results blow by blow is a collection of links to participants... a long version of the template, which has the merit of at least identifying what the title means. THIS doesn't even have that smarts. Hate to seem to agree with any deletionist sentiments ever &mdash; seems to be my day for it though! &mdash; but agree with nom, this has no 'good use' nor 'grouping reason' to have as links on page bottoms. If the logic were to hold, Grey's Anatomy, General Hospital, NCIS, Young and Restless, Criminal Minds, The Goodwife, CSI... etc. would all be jammed up by a template at page bottom with guest stars appearing in episodes, or at least those who are recurrent characters. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and all such would have templates listing regular consultants and contributors (i.e. talking heads).
 * Delete Never makes sense to have navboxes for "achievements" that wouldn't be expected to appear in the lead of a bio. Pure cruft.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2017 (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).

Older Column templates

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FOR COMPARISON REFERENCE (to be clear)... the proposal is to retire the first row of tools starting with 'Col' prefixed names, from Col-begin on... (In this table, which is generating confusion) using the most apropos tool in the next three parts of the table. (belated clarification given first five comments) Fra nkB
 * 2nd revision: I'll now relink that below to display the alternative tools, but at the end of the discussion section where it cannot create confusion. Fra nkB 23:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal I was 'bitten' a while ago by a dog of an Older Column templates unexpected behavior, and upon reviewing the templates usage, Rip-Van-Winkle-like found there are whole families of more modern with less complexity in application and compatible with newer CSS standards and modern browsers. Older Column templates bearing integration and/or replacement Since PAD and other portable devices now make up a huge percentage of cases when we are accessed, as a computer engineer it seems silly to let incompatible column templates stay around when most can readily be replaced systematically, at least semi-automatically with, I suspect, a bit of cleaver BOT ops in the proper order. From what I can see and reason as a programmer of five decades: Which of the new groups of CSS compatible templates would in general be more readily favored is beyond the scope of my knowledge base. However, my programmer gut tells me most of this conversion is automatable and one of simple substitution should a succession of strategic weeding operations be applied first. Fra nkB 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, I'm calling formally for a discussion on:
 * 1) Depreciation tags on these listed,
 * 2) replacing such older HTML-based older and PAD-Operating Systems incompatible templates in a systematic clean-up program to systematically convert the older templates, or redirect them to newer equivalents.
 * 1) Installing a 'dummy category define' can be used to check when a parameter is used at all, so such less common cases can be treated with appropriate kid gloves as a strategic first weeding.  (i.e. 'dummy category define' - meaning the category manifests on the page if and only if the handling code for a parameter is invoked... when its particular switch case or if-then-else conditional is true.)
 * 2) the book end templates can probably be Bot replaced... with due allowance for text substitution and massaging of formatting parameters. Alas... General style statements will require manual examination
 * 3) provided the internal break template is replaced at the same pass of a BOT. In this case, defining said internal templates to equate with the void template could be of use to maintain placeholders for analysis.

Discussion/votes
Gradually eradicate after tagging with depreciation tags. Make a general Village Pump announcement requesting editors finding such sections convert the old using the recommended newer CSS3 compatible templates. (This is not rocket science... the complication factor is fuss-budget margins, which may well indicate a section needing a facelift for PAD OSes in any event. Fra nkB 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I can't !vote "delete" on the others, since it is not at all clear from the above what you intend to replace them with. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a deletionist, but this is going too far. Go to VPT or MediaWiki talk:Common.css, not TFD. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what forum that is, so DISCUSSION began here. IF it belongs elsewhere, someone move it and link it. Also, no doubt some of the points made, are because the section box table at the top ADDED for reference is being misconstrued as inclusive of the intent... true ONLY for the first row as the others are the proposed REPLACEMENT tools. Fra nkB  18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very easy: VPT is WP:VPT. However, the inclusion of that box at the top of this thread does give the firm impression that all the templates in that box are the ones under discussion. If they are not, you should have explicitly named the ones that are. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Why in the world would we delete these? Definitely keep them.Bluesangrel (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * -- pardon my thinking this was the discussion forum for such WIKIMARKUP based templates... that supposedly malfunction in PAD devices. I thought THAT was of some importance, don't you?  So, regardless, in THAT LIGHT, do consider the clarifications just adding now! If you know anything about me in Deletion pages, I'm almost always voting to KEEP things, so the very act of nominating one tool makes me bilious, ...SO... proposing superseding a whole set--or converting as many as possible to newer forms by manual replacement... why I think I need to vomit! Excuse me! Fra nkB  18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep /, this is the only one of the above sets which does not cause accessibility issues by either misusing a table to mark up a list, or by imposing manual column breaks thus splitting one list into two or more. The point about / is that the browser decides the break point(s) automatically; the enclosed list is marked up as a single list, which is important for accessibility. In relation to that, I have made , because is not a "Column divider" template.
 * MY INTENT, was like in the old days to generate a DISCUSSION (Sigh... Once, long ago, we had mighty weeks long debates about renaming projects pages: such as 'Articles for Discussion', 'Categories for Discussion',..., 'Redirects for..., Oh, Mighty Battles. The digital blood seemed ankle and knee deep at times...
 * ... I guess this PROJECT Page got left behind in updating the names by the PC police... Fra nkB 18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is at WP:TFD, which is short for Templates for discussion. We are discussing it; and a typical TFD includes a high proportion of "Keep" or "Delete" !votes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm aware of the context, the issue of the manifested template above was because seems to have over-believed the template was solely for deletions, as did a few others. In any event, I left that lead template as a link with a revert of myself:   and it was changed  to manifest in such an unhelpful way. He also requested an unhelpful edit protect on the col-begin template page, and took out the notice from the TFD template I'd placed in the common help page (so all the above listed were tagged to this discussion), so now the list of templates grouped above has no notices NOW PLACING LAST below. Can I get someone else to clean up the mess his emotional involment seems to have engendered. Its cost me all my free time today!  :( </tt> Fra nkB  23:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I parsed that self-revert as you wanting to display the template, but were not able to because of the undesirable effects of the transcluded section header, which I then resolved using my LST trick. That assumption seems to have been incorrect. And by subsequent edits and edit requests were not some indicator of emotional involvement as you keep claiming, but by standard method of handling incompletely/incorrectly tagged TfDs, as done with many other TfDs before P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 00:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - apologies for suggesting saying you were emotional, and it happens I did want the box part of the template to display, sot a hearty thankyou for your attempt to fix that... but I did not want all the text-freight it carries below the box, nor that section title, which I especially thank you for fixing. My template coding is rather stale, so was unfamiliar with that technique.   BUT STILL! There are guidelines here on the wiki and not rules.  If the latter, you and many others could hope to dock my pay.  (As it is, doubling it will still net me nothing!)  My original tagging of the common usage page had the benefit of saving labor without the silly non-need of tagging every template. I listed them in a table here, were it not for the confusion with the tools list now below, that would have worked fine.  MOREOVER, having documented the Colx family back in 2007, I knew the family cold... I played with it.  I've ported it to no less than 9-10 wiki's and use it often.  Its the only column template I use on Wikibook and on N3V's Trainzwiki.  I may in fact have imported it from metawiki to a number of sister projects.  I WAS AWARE it was wikimarkup table elements in disguise, and that adding the TFD template to the components would likely break such wikitables as they use to build columns. So excuse me for not risking breaking said elements. A half-million pages with broken elements we don't need! Fra nkB  06:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still not clear which templates are up for discussion here, nor what you intend to do with them (delete, merge, etc.) I don't believe that you followed the instructions at WP:TFDHOWTO, otherwise, the templates would now bear, and this section would begin with some . But the only template tagging edits that I can find are these two: ; and (which didn't even subst:, as it should have done). As these are the only ones "tagged", I should expect to find a two-entry bulleted list at the top of this section, the first entry being a  and the second a . But they are conspicuous by their absence: compare any other section on this page. Accordingly, I am changing my !vote, see below. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all and request an early procedural close as an improperly-filed TfD. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Came here because I got annoyed seeing so many pages tagged with the deletion template!! Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 17:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * -- No,, just two, per my note to the closing admin. (I guess the tags served their notice function, n'est pas? Now how about a balanced discussion of pros and cons? Fra nkB 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And that tagging of only two is a blatant violation of TFD step one, which explicitly states Tag every template, which the nominator explicitly didn't do. P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 00:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Made my key point on this above. But if You start adding tfd templates to these templates which are used on hundreds of thousands of pages, then those pages need be updated by the servers... an unnecessary and foolish expense. Further, such adds will likely also break the very tables they create. In short. NOT an optimum solution. No reason to risk it when I saw each component template called the common help page.  Also, no reason to incur the cost. Already knew I was making the VPT post.  Lastly, I'm an adult with computers as my professional field just now taking an early retirement, as such and in my office as an editor, I can and will invoke WP:IAR when in my judgement, the herd guidelines written from the less established and experienced, are off point.  Intentions of the guidelines, not some blindly followed rule without reasoning, nor a suicide pact!  Regards, Fra nkB  06:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - these are good useful templates and there is no reason to delete them. Also, I do not think it is clear what they are going to be replace with.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.196.36.137 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. These are extremely useful templates on a large number of articles. No replacement has been provided. Brojam (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Tools notice generating confusion when it's high in the section:(Colorized the background so ALL effects are plain)


 * Procedural keep. This is a long and confusing nomination, and while it seems like you have good arguments, the fact that people are saying "you haven't any reason for your actions" makes me suspect that TFD simply isn't a good place to go when your nomination is so technical-heavy.  Instead, go to WP:VP/T or WP:VP/Pr and try to get consensus for replacing or removing the template, and then bring it to TFD with a really basic summary of "why the VP did what it did" as your rationale for deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep – I came here following a notice, which is a Good Thing™, however I got utterly confused when trying to understand what the "old templates" should be replaced with. I did replace a tables-based columns with a floating columns-start…column…columns-end series but those are tagged for deletion too. Although I sympathize with the motivation to improve rendering and fluidity, I can't support this nomination. — JFG talk 14:18, 10 March 2017 (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).