Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 1

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 (non-admin closure) Pppery 23:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sup sub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hard-codes {{su}}, making it effectively redundant. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve if the functionality exists in another simpler way. WilliamKF (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Template:Sup_sub as an alias is easier to use, Template:Su is too cutsie with p and b arguments as su+p/su+b. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Ruen, isn't there a way to make {{su}} accept unnamed arguments in the same way as {{sup sub}}? Uanfala (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what this template does! An alias for {{su}}: {{sup sub|X|Y}} → {{su|p=X|b=Y}}. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's a wrapper template. But wouldn't it be possible to tweak {{su}} so that {{su|X|Y}} is equivalent to {{su|p=X|b=Y}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be less clear since the name su doesn't imply which argument goes first. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s. Having every instant of this deletion say ‹See TfD› is pretty horrible for article readability, and isn't suppressed on the "Printable version". Can we speed up this Keep?! Tom Ruen (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the discussion above: compared to {{su}}, this template has an easier to use parameter structure and its name, despite being longer, is more intuitive. Uanfala (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion; though redundant, it may actually be better —PC-XT+ 06:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is by measures better for both reading and writing. The only contra argument I could think of is brevity, but - no. Also, I agree with the speeding up comment of Tom Ruen. Summsumm2 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've noincluded the TfD notice so that it doesn't display on pages where the template is transcluded on. Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:OSTI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space; and for nothing elsewhere, other than three transclusions noting the existence of the template.

Was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 23#Template:OSTI and restored without prejudice to re-nomination at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 23. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Not this again. Pretty much every user but you in the DRV said they were fine with it being restored. The template is useful, used, and part of a family of identifier templates which need to be maintained as a whole per WP:CITEVAR. That it's not currently used in mainspace is inconsequential, especially since it will often get subst'd (or rather a plaintext reference + {{OSTI|0123456}} will be converted to a {{cite document|osti=0123456}}}). Also, for the 21342345th billion time, the temple is not used to "document the existence of the template", but rather to create links to OSTI documents (most uses right now are in the documentation of Help:CS1/Help:CS2 templates, NOT self-references). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV is available for anyone to read; they will see that the closer stated "Relisting is also suggested by some, but if there continues to be disagreement about the usefulness of the template anybody can renominate it for deletion.". This is not a single instance of this template being used for an OSTI ID which is anything other than illustrative of how we can use them, rather than a real-life use. Your claim that the template "will often get subst'd" or replaced with {{cite document}} shows that it is not needed. Nothing in CITEVAR mandates the existence of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that same logic, we ought to delete {{doi}} because it too often gets subts'd/replaced with {{cite journal}}, and therefore isn't needed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{DOI}} currently has 18166 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the arguments at the DELREV and the need to have a bit of mercy on the TfD community and spare it from the same circuitous discussion happening all over again. Andy, the three transclusions do not document the existence of the template, they use it. Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any evidence for your latter claim? I note that one of the transclsuions is on Template:OSTI/doc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence is in the DELREV, at least for the transclusion that was discussed there. Uanfala (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean the transclusion discussed in "The use in your sandbox is "* {{para|osti-access|yes}} – to flag a free {{para|osti}} like {{OSTI|4435330}} [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] which is quite clearly documenting the then existence of the template, and thus entirely self-referential."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this one precisely. Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The template is not used in article space: that is to be expected as it was still deleted a few days ago… − Pintoch (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have not read, or not understood, the nomination rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed! I have absolutely no clue why you're so insisting on this. You appear to have not read, or not understood, the reasons why this template should be kept. − Pintoch (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you have no excuse for ignoring the emboldened text in "Unused in article space; and for nothing elsewhere, other than three transclusions noting the existence of the template.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you have no excuse for ignoring the emboldened text in "[These transclusions are] clearly documenting CS1/CS2 templates, not [themselves]. This should be fairly obvious since you don't see {{OSTI|foobar}}, but rather a formatted link to OSTI which is exactly the purpose of this template, as I've explained it to you several times now: To create links to OSTI documents." in the DRV, or "Andy, the three transclusions do not document the existence of the template, they use it." above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't ignore it; I dismissed it as clearly irrelevant. The fact that, in the example given in my earlier comment here, {{OSTI|4435330}} sits directly adjacent to [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] (without so much as a comma between them) shows that it is being used for documentation, not a bona fide link to an OSTI resource. This is equally well illustrated by the fact that changing the numerical parameter values to some other OSTI ID would not in any way change the meaning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • And you know why that link sits directly next to the template? BECAUSE THE TEMPLATE WAS DELETED AND WE WANTED TO LINK TO THE OSTI DOCUMENT. You'll notice the current version of the page doesn't have that hardcoded [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] since the template now provides the link, as intended. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then you have demonstrated that [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] is a perfectly adequate substitute. Together with your assertion that "a plaintext reference + {{OSTI|0123456}} will [often] be converted to a {{cite document|osti=0123456}}}", it is clear that there is no need for this little-used template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here, I will demonstrate that we don't need {{doi}}. By writing [http://dx.doi.org.10.1234/0123456], this is clearly a perfectly adequate substitute, and thus there is no need for the {{doi}}. This is especially true since we can convert plaintext + {{doi}} to a {{cite document|doi=10.1234/0123456}}}}.
                • This, of course, ignores the difference between "[1]" and "OSTI 4435330", which look nothing alike. Or that a 'hard coded' "[[Office of Scientific and Technical Information|OSTI]] [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330 4435330]" is much more of a pain to write than "{{OSTI|4435330}}". Or that the hard-coded version would look like "OSTI 4435330 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330" in print, instead of the template's "OSTI 4435330".
                • Basically, you have no argument for deletion.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I noted above, "{{DOI}} currently has 18166 transclusions." This template has three, none of which are in article space, or anything other than examples. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC
                    • And as noted above, those templates are routinely converted into {{cite document}}, just like {{doi}} is routinely converted to {{cite journal}}. That it's easier to clear backlogs with {{OSTI}} is irrelevant, nor are templates required to be used in mainspace to be considered useful. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. The template was also unused in article space prior to the first TfD, referred to above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per comments made at the DRV, which are not addressed by the deletion nomination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Lankiveil: Which comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

−

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 no consensus. I'm closing both of these with the same argument. There are two main issues at play: the first is a WP:MASSNOM issue where no one can decide which of the many templates to delete. Second is the definition of the people in the navboxes; the "delete" support says they are performers, the "keep" says they are journalists and do not fall under WP:PERFNAV. While I see NPASR, I highly suggest that two things happen before that: a) templates are nominated in smaller batches, and more importantly b) some sort of discussion takes place about the designation of the people in the navboxes as news personalities (specifically, the argument that they are journalists, but as news presenters they could be construed as "performers"). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NBC News personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No cast and crew in navbox per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it makes no sense to delete it. All the other networks news departments have a similar navbox. Mo2010 (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF. They shouldn't exist either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's useful navigation. I will however, support the deletion of this template if, and only if, all the others get nominated for deletion and the majority rules in favor of deletion. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• All others now nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 22#News anchors and similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better to navigate through the main article. Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PERFNAV. The article NBC News features a list. anemoneprojectors 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, as WP:PERFNAV does not cover this template or the other news templates. Journalists are not performers. NBC and the other major stations each have an Entertainment Division and a News Division. There is no justification at WP:PERFNAV to include any of these templates within that guideline. I ask the nominator, Robsinden, to withdraw these nominations or explain just how a guideline about performers has anything to do with working journalists. Randy Kryn 15:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And Rob (Robsinden), please don't misunderstand my comments here as being anything other than objecting to these being placed under WP:PERFNAV. Putting news under a performers guideline opens up a bigger can of worms than those earthlings who were the first to circle the moon (along with two tortoises, wine flies, and some plants). Perhaps a new "WP:THIS" or "WP:THAT" can be written to cover these. If I was reworking these templates I'd include programs and anchors, including past programs and anchors. For example, to have an NBC News template without including Huntley and Brinkley is like pizza without the crust. If such a guideline is proposed please ping me. Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, just found out that Huntley and Brinkley would be included under their named show. So maybe just the programs would work for this template, as long as it includes past shows and isn't just used as an advertisement for their present day line-up as this one seems to exhibit. But please consider working up a quick guideline to include this concern, and not use WP:PERFNAV. I can't think of a name offhand, and I'd compose one myself but as a self-defined inclusionist would write it broader than the language already at WP:PERFNAV. Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Presenting the news on television *is* a performance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not according to any criteria or mention at Performance. News is journalism, and reporting news or commenting on ongoing news to the public does not fall into the WP:PERFNAV guideline. Randy Kryn 13:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm still against this, but I have a question... what is the difference between these navboxes and navboxes for coaches? They are exactly the same and serve the exact same purpose. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 no consensus. See section above for rationale. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TheEarlyShowAnchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nightline anchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBCWH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBCEveningNewsAnchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:MSNBC personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fox News personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fox Business Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CNNWH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CNN Anchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CBSWH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CBSEveningNewsAnchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CBS News Personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Anchors of The Early Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Anchors of CBS This Morning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:AmericanMorningHosts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Al Jazeera America anchors and reporters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABCWH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABCEveningNewsAnchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABC News Personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GMA Anchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GoodMorningAmericaAnchors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:PERFNAV --NSH002 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and maybe even Procedural Keep: These templates have significant differences and would have been easier to discuss in smaller groups. Keep for {{Fox Business Shows}}, {{CBS News Personalities}}, and {{ABC News Personalities}}, which can be edited down to a list of programs and moved (renamed). Keep for {{NBCWH}}, {{CNNWH}}, {{CBSWH}}, and {{ABCWH}}; WP:PERFNAV applied to the White House press corps strains the definition of "performance" and "entertainer". Delete for the rest per WP:PERFNAV. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Edit: {{CBS News Personalities}} and {{ABC News Personalities}} edited down to just programs would largely duplicate parts of {{CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)}} and {{ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)}}. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, these multiple templates list journalists, not performers, not entertainers. The "rules and regs" concerning performers and entertainers listed on templates is an entirely different matter. To delete these without a very wide community discussion would do Wikipedia a disservice, as I would think an encyclopedia shouldn't be in the business of removing such good and informative links to such high-profile journalistic endeavors with the reasoning that they are "entertainers". Randy Kryn 00:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Will ping the editors already commenting here in case they would like to enter this discussion or consider changing their "votes". Thanks. Robsinden, Matt Fitzpatrick, WilliamJE, Frietjes, and NSH002. Randy Kryn 02:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy Kryn Well, they look like entertainers to me. Do any of them actually write news stories, as journalists are supposed to do? (BTW, your ping didn't work) --NSH002 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I wonder why the pings didn't work? Does that malfunction often? Yes, they are all journalists. In my knowledge most anchors and reporters work directly with other writers and reporters on the stories. And of course in emergencies, where all hands rush into the studio and report live, things are being said on the fly as a collaboration between the anchors and main producer. Reporters report. In things like the U.S. presidential election, reporters travel with the candidates and gather news daily. Reporters, including anchors, receive news items from off-the-record sources. They are not there to entertain (in, of course, a perfect journalistic universe, a universe where the tooth fairy and/or Santa Claus always professionally respect and honor their job titles) but to report current or ongoing/breaking news to the public, and so do not belong under the governance of WP:PERFNAV. Randy Kryn 2:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I'm not convinced, so I won't be changing my !vote. (re ping, I think the problem is at my end, and I've opened a thread at VPT.) --NSH002 (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, it was my fault. changing code so it might ping again. Randy Kryn 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely a fuzzy edge here, but anchors seem to fall under "crew members". The WP:UNDUE concern cited in WP:PERFNAV seems to apply, as well. Geraldo Rivera, for example, has Fox News and reality TV appearances highlighted in navboxes, but not his 11-season television talk show. Redoing these anchor positions as {{succession box}}es instead of navboxes, such as with Lester Holt, might be a good compromise. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  They are not crew members, but journalists. A crew member does lighting, make-up, applied sound tech, etc. News reporters in the field, or as anchors or analysts, do not fit the term. WP:PERFNAV does not apply to this (although I can see the good faith of Robsinden in creating the nomination). Randy Kryn 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason not to keep. Many of the templates do not have a parent article to navigate through and it's much easier to navigate through a navbox than an article. Freddiem (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{ABC News Personalities}}, {{Fox Business Shows}} and {{CBS News Personalities}} but strip out the people and just have the shows.
  Delete the rest per WP:PERFNAV. Newsreaders and reporters are television presenters/personalities so it definintely applies. If it's helpful, they could be listified before being deleted anemoneprojectors 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi AnemoneProjectors. No, they are not presenters. Language on that page specifically says "The term does not apply to reading the news however. This role is known in American English as an anchor, and in British and Commonwealth English as a newsreader." And that only applies to the anchor portion of these nominations, they and the news reporters and other active journalists are not covered by WP:PERFNAV in any way whatsoever, and for the sake of Wikipedia these nominations should be either withdrawn or quickly closed as 'Keep'. Randy Kryn 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much better suited for categories and lists. These navboxes tend to grow inexorably and are very large. If someone wants to create a template for just shows (not people) that is something different. Neutrality^talk 13:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Neutrality. Eventually that is probably how it will go, that the templates should just include shows, and the rest will be stripped out. That's a good consensus. But please read, if you haven't, all of the above discussion. My objection is that anchors and journalists are not performers, and this has been nominated under WP:PERFNAV. If the question is decided under this guideline, Wikipedia is saying to the world that broadcast journalism is a performance, an act, and is purely entertainment. Major networks separate their "news" and "entertainment" divisions, and for very good reasons. Full disclosure, I graduated with a journalism major, and have worked as a journalist in the past. I continue to have hope that the profession will somehow live up to the high ideals such as portrayed in The Newsroom. But Wikipedia has honestly told the world that The Newsroom is a performance. When news breaks in the real world and things go sideways in a hurry there are not performers in that room, there are journalists. So I've asked above, in the NBC template discussion, that a new WP:THIS or WP:THAT be created so that the encyclopedia reflects that difference. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing firmly to Procedural Keep as a WP:MASSNOM. These 21 templates range from the White House press corps (who may or may not ever appear on camera), correspondents, anchors, even meteorologists. Since my last comment, editors have brought up excellent points, but sometimes those points seem to apply only to a subset of the 21 templates. This leads me to suspect it's too much to go through all at once. Smaller relistings of very similar templates, please! Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:DATED issue with "current", which creates an impossible workload to maintain. Many times news personnel are let go with no public announcement, and so it requires original-research observation to look on air and say, "Hmm, I haven't seen so-and-so for a while. Guess they're not there anymore." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Randy Kryn and Matt Fitzpatrick. --Charitwo ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).