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 debate was speedy deleted. Bazj (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-parampara-nosat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template which was written for use on one page only. Replaced with standard ((s-rel)) template which can be parameterised if needed. No longer used. Bazj (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - para para no para banana pana po para, pe pi po para, NOSAT. No clue what this template means, but it is unused now so trash it.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:15, 31 August 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was delete --delldot ∇. 21:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Catholic diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((Infobox Roman Catholic diocese)) performed exactly the same function. This one had 3 uses, the other nearly 100, so all ((Infobox Catholic diocese)) calls are now calls to ((Infobox Roman Catholic diocese)). It's now redundant. Bazj (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could ((Infobox Diocese)) be used for Infobox Catholic diocese matters? Suntag (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It surely could. Well volunteered. Bazj (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the above. And I don't think the Pope would object. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst the single transclusion (Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin) and delete per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowiki'd the transclusion at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin. Bazj (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reason for 2 templates. Though the replacement template could do with a documentation sub-page creating for it. Keith D (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was amicably resolved at the end; no further action necessary. In short, keep per agreement of major parties. —kurykh 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FreeContentMeta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template duplicates the functionality of ((wikia)), but does so in a floating coloured box - as an explicit attempt to make the link look like a sistersite link. Consensus on the talk page is that this is inappropriate, and that these templates would be better off using ((wikia)). The work to convert all the uses of this template has already been done, so this is just a call for deprecation. I'd file under CSD#T3, except that the author of the template (the sole dissenting voice on talk) has requested an official TfD as he opposes its removal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same function as ((wikia)). No arguments seem viable to keep this.
• Delete. Duplicates the functionality of ((wikia)). I've seen a number of non-convincing arguments for the use of this template:
  • 1. Editors are less likely to add "cruft" to Wikipedia, but I've seen no evidence to back this up. Surely a text link would accomplish just as well though?
  • 2. Wikipedia should support free content. Surely a text link accomplishes the same purpose? A text link does not make Wikipedia a "walled garden".
  • 3. WMF websites get boxes ("But that's so unfair!!"): WP:OSE.
  • 4. Coloured boxes indicate that content is free. How so? Sitting a link on a pedestal does not indicate anything of the sort.
• A text link supports free content adequately. These boxes do not do anything but flaunt some links; they are simply obnoxious. Another Wikipedian did suggest a better approach: icons (see ((TardisIndexFile))). Matthew (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how you always manage to show up out of nowhere so you can bash on anything related to an external wiki. Ironic since I thought you left to edit one. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what you're talking about, Ned. I've been a member of this discussion since it began in 2007. I didn't know I'd left Wikipedia to edit another wiki. No, that's just nonsense as TV.com is not a wiki. What I (don't) like is how you always manage to show up out of nowhere with your unhelpful, trollish comments. Matthew (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • TV.com is a site driven by user created content that users can go back and edit. You don't have to be running mediawiki software to be a wiki, Matthew. And if you want to pretend that you didn't throw a fit and declare that you were no longer an active editor, fine. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at least for now. I have been following this debate on the mailing list and here. I had concluded that it was not just about Wikia links. I thought it was about Wookipedia and the like. Are these all on Wikia? I was also thinking about linking Scouting articles to ScoutWiki which has interwiki links but is not on Wikia. So, at least for now, I am inclined to think this template might be useful. --Bduke (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is not about judging whether such links are worth including in the encyclopedia: it's about whether they should be special-cased with a floaty coloured box like our sister sites, or treated like any other external resource and placed in a bulleted list. All current users of the template are on Wikia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have both an external links guideline, and external links templates. This is an end run around both and ignores widespread consensus. There is no justification for a situation where anyone following the guidelines should always have to remove these links. If something merits an external link, according to the external link guideline, it can be linked without creating rogue templates. 2005 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for all of the reasons noted above and discussed on the template's talk page. —David Levy 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacing any uses with a simple link. --NE2 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Placing any link in a special box is an advertisement for said link. There is an implied approval of that link. This isn't neutral. The boxed links to actual sister projects are widespread and have consensus - FreeContentMeta boxes have only ever been used in fancruft walled gardens. In cases where line style links and boxes co-exist (such as Star Wars and Star Trek), the line style dominates. I don't see the benefit to the encyclopedia here. --Phirazo (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to Convert. My primary concern is the box. If it stays like this [1], I have no problem with it. --Phirazo (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am pretty satisfied with the use of these boxes to link to high quality external wikis. In general, the sites being linked in these boxes are of higher quality, have as much or more community overlap, and are more inline with our mission than our "sister projects", which are so not by reason of common mission but of shared corporate control. If we are going to give special prominence to any other sites, we should do so on the basis of qualities that readers would find compelling rather than who pays their bills. It is inarguable in my view that the link at Star Wars to Wookiepedia is more useful to readers, and of more encyclopedic value, than any of the sister project links on that page; the same will be true for a vast number of similar topics. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you seen the alternative styles proposed at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis? I think that the inline version with the free-content icon is much better, and I'd be happy to have the links to TMBW (the free wiki that I co-administer) structured that way. CapitalQ (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I co-administer This Might Be a Wiki (interwiki tmbw:), a free-content wiki about the band They Might Be Giants, and speaking on behalf of a site that supposedly would benefit from this template, I must say that it seems rather counterproductive. Firstly, it's likely to fuel the already rampant misconception that every MediaWiki-based wiki is affiliated with Wikipedia. At TMBW, we've gone out of our way to dispel this belief (look at our custom-made default skin!), but it still remains quite prevalent. Secondly, we don't want to make it appear as though we've come on Wikipedia and inserted ads for our wiki. For these reasons, I've in the past discouraged a few of our users who wanted to replace Wikipedia's regular TMBW links with such a box. I also agree with the other arguments presented here and on the template's talk page. CapitalQ (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of the box, absolutely, but why delete when we can refactor? As I've probably made clear at length on the talk page, and to a lesser extent on wikiEN-l, I'd rather not get us into the practice of creating "sponsored" links via egregiously distinctive formatting; that said, I'm not aware of any reason we couldn't just as easily modify this template to use the current standard for in-line links; doing so would allow us to easily add icons or other (hopefully more subtle) indicators, should consensus eventually emerge to do so. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree, if not for a certain editor's determination to control this template at any cost. We tried to discuss modifying it, and he responded by hurling outrageous accusations. So let's just kill it and start over. We probably should be working from ((wikia)) (which is far more widely used and easily could be modified to support the proposed icon) anyway. —David Levy 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it'd be trivial to modify ((wikia)) to do this. There's no advantage to keeping this template when it doesn't do anything that ((wikia)) can't, and all transclusions have already been modified to use ((wikia)) (and just need reverted to that version once this has closed). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a bad idea. We already have a major misconception that this is only for Wikia links, and using a template named after Wikia is certainly not going to help that. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Templates can be renamed, you know. —David Levy 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Templates can be edited, you know. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  They also can be reverted by users who believe that they own them. —David Levy 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil reverted a generic conversion to ((wikia)). He did not revert other stylistic changes to the templates, such as color changes, or in between solutions that came up with Template:TardisIndexFile or Template:Digimon Wiki. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't what I was referring to; I was referring to Phil's vow to revert attempts to deprecate his preferred layout unless and until consensus is established via TfD. —David Levy 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't have to be based on ((wikia)). Battlestar Wiki, This Might Be a Wiki, TV Tropes Wiki, Second Life Wiki, and WikiTravel (just to name a few) aren't affliated with Wikia, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use the ((wikia)) template for those sites. There are similar templates that aren't for Wikia sites, such as ((imdb title)), ((Gutenberg)), ((Dmoz)), etc. --Phirazo (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While the ((wikia)) template could be modified and renamed, I meant that we should adopt (and possibly expand upon) that format (and apply any changes to that template). And yes, this goes for other external link templates (including some of the ones that you mentioned) as well. The actual transclusion source for non-Wikia wikis doesn't matter much, provided that the style is consistent. —David Levy 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These floating boxes are ridiculous. Treating Wikia links differently than other external links is the road to madness. --- RockMFR 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we stop with this major misconception that this is specifically for Wikia? -- Ned Scott 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's how it's been used thus far, and based on previous discussion, I'm fairly certain that RockMFR would be equally critical of its use for other wikis. —David Levy 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and go back to discussion. Forcing the issue at TfD won't help. ((wikia)) is for Wikia wikis, so this is certainly not a duplicate of that template. Don't delete, edit. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The template's creator harshly condemned efforts to modify its style (referring to a mere attempt to discuss this as "a manufactured controversy at best, and a shameful distraction from the actual task of improving the free content knowledge available to the world at worst"), and he specifically demanded that we "take it to TfD," vowing to "revert efforts to deprecate it" until such point. He then reiterated his advice to "take this template to TfD," even stating that this should occur "regardless of the outcome of [the] broader discussion [the nominator was] initiating." —David Levy 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really like how you guys keep trying to make it seem like Phil is the only one who wants to keep the template. For the most part, I agree with Phil. We lack a consensus on what to do, and trying to force the matter doesn't help. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? I just explained that Phil condemned attempts to discuss modifying the template and repeatedly demanded that we take this matter to TfD.
  No one is claiming that Phil is the template's only supporter, but he's the one who's exerted tight control over its design and explicitly forced this form of resolution. —David Levy 04:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The nom is claiming that Phil is the template's only supporter. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it refers to Phil as "the sole dissenting voice on talk," which he was at the time. —David Levy 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the extent of what you guys have tried, then yeah, you need to go back to discussion and not force the issue. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that isn't the extent of what we've tried. The talk page is full of discussion that Phil has unilaterally deemed unsuitable for gauging consensus. Again, he has forced this nomination, as he's explicitly blocked all other avenues of resolution. (He demanded that the matter be taken to TfD and vowed to otherwise revert attempts to reformat the templates.) —David Levy 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If Phil told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? How is it that I'm somehow able to find a balance and no one else is? I still don't oppose the box style, but there is a place between the two extremes. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your analogy is inapplicable. This TfD nomination isn't an instance of performing an irrational act with no realistic benefit. It's the only viable means of resolving an issue that Phil will not allow to be settled via any other method (apart from agreeing with him). We tried (and will continue to try) to discuss compromise, and Phil condemned our efforts and vowed to revert attempts to replace his preferred layout until such time as consensus for such a change was established here. —David Levy 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you tried to generically replace it with ((wikia)), and I would have reverted that edit as well. There were a lot of better alternatives that were discussed. The Doctor Who template and the Digimon template where two that did try something in between, and those edits stuck. Phil is frustrated, and I don't blame him, but it's not like he's unreasonable. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, I'd just like to note for the benefit of others that you're using the plural "you" (as I didn't perform the edits in question).
  Secondly, you seem to misunderstand my point. I'm referring to the fact that Phil condemned the mere discussion of "in between" designs. He's made it clear that he views them as inadequate and will not allow them to replace his layout unless consensus to deprecate the latter is established in this forum. (And even then, he'll argue in favor of a separate section for free-content links.) —David Levy 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why didn't he revert the two templates I cited? Like I said, he's frustrated. Chris (the nom) even tried to convert one of those two templates from the inline-icon to a generic ((wikia)) template, and Phil restored the compromise version, not the box version. [2] He's more reasonable than you give him credit for. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't claim that Phil has indiscriminately reverted everything to his preferred style, but the above doesn't help us to arrive at a consistent format (which we've lacked since this template's introduction).
  As I've commented on the template's talk page, despite my strong preference for an in-line standard, I'd rather have just Phil's implementation than have two or more competing versions. But given the fact that the in-line style is far more popular, that isn't a likely scenario. I'd be happy to settle on a compromise (to be used site-wide, not merely for a few test cases), but Phil won't allow that until consensus to deprecate his preferred style is established here.
  Incidentally, I wouldn't cite Phil's abuse of the rollback tool in a content dispute as evidence of good behavior on his part. —David Levy 05:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil does not make the rules. You do not have to go to TfD because he demanded you to do so, which he probably did out of frustration. I have shown you that there are other styles other than the two extremes that work, and you still want to tell me that TfD is the only way? This has gone to TfD twice before, and we concluded that TfD was a bad place to have the discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil didn't abruptly bring up TfD out of frustration; as shown in the diffs that I provided, he's insisted upon this for months. You're correct that he doesn't make the rules, but he has a tendency to behave as though he does when he isn't getting his way.
  And note that I don't regard this TfD discussion as a necessary evil; I regard it as one of several reasonable options (and the only one that has proven viable), and I'm addressing your assertion that deletion proponents "forced" it instead of conducting discussion elsewhere. In fact, I've advocated the adoption of one of the alternatives that you've just "shown" me since April (and Phil condemned the mere discussion of it back then, referring to it as "a manufactured controversy at best, and a shameful distraction from the actual task of improving the free content knowledge available to the world at worst"). —David Levy 06:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil is pretty much dead on, and I agree with him. However, in the interests of moving on, I've been willing to accept one of the proposed alternatives. If he doesn't like it, fine, he doesn't have to. That never stopped anyone from trying a better alternative. No one did. Instead, Chris went to another extreme, instead of a compromise, and Phil reverted that. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that you guys actually tried jack. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of Phil attacking us for merely discussing compromise and vowing to revert any and all attempts to deprecate his design (unless consensus was demonstrated here) do you not understand? —David Levy 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully understand that. If you want to act like a baby about it, fine. Someone disagreed with you in a discussion, deal with it. The only thing he reverted was a bad edit that used the other extreme. He even preserved a style that he did not favor, but he still accepted, for the Tardis Index File. If I had been in town when that RfC started (on a side note, it's really bad form to TfD a template two days after an RfC started on it), I would have come to your aid, in the interests of us all getting along. I could have resolved this issue long ago, but everyone seemed to lose interest, it was a minor issue, and no one ever responded to my proposal. It's not hard, and I'm sorry I'm the only one who's able to see that. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll disregard the above personal attack and simply remind you that Phil explicitly and repeatedly demanded this TfD discussion, so claiming that "it's really bad form" is absurd.
  And I disagree that switching templates from a format lacking consensus to a format with longstanding consensus was "a bad edit." Regardless, Phil was disrespectful in abusing the rollback function to revert, and when this was brought to his attention, he defended this action, deemed the criticism "petty at best," and declined to apologize. —David Levy 09:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't edit some rogue creation that has zero logical reason to exist. You delete it. 2005 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How about you fuck off? I'm so sick of people starting shit on the mailing list and then using that to steam roll everyone else on-wiki. Take your ignorant assumptions and shove the up your ass. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, hello? What mailing list, and who cares about it? We have external link templates that fit a consistent style. This rogue junk doesn't follow that format so it should be deleted... no matter how rude you are or if you have an aneurysm over it. 2005 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I really flew off the handle there.. I mean.. more so than I normally do.. My apologies. However, I still strongly disagree with you. This template is certainly not junk, and there's some perfectly good rationales to have it. Feel free to disagree with that, but trying to write it off as "rogue junk" is an absurd argument. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Junk it is in my opinion, but denying it is "rogue" is completely absurd. The external links guideline, a contentious page in general edited by hundreds of editors over the years, has for essentially forever stated a bulleted list is the proper format for external links in the external links section. Making a template that just plain ignores a consensus guideline is rude, rogue and completely bizarre. Any editor following the guidelines should remove these templates on sight. Period. Arguments to keep a template that violate years long consensus are beyond silly. 2005 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you're just acting like a jackass again. There was never a consensus to disallow alternative styles for ELs, rather, it was just something not explored. "years long consensus" my ass. -- Ned Scott 08:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, Ned, I recall many external link templates being deleted at TfD because they resembled our sister project boxes (and most discussion participants regarded this as inappropriate). Phil managed to generate enough support to prevent this, but despite a great deal of discussion, there has never been consensus to use his design. —David Levy 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm talking about when Phil made the template. 2005 said "Making a template that just plain ignores a consensus guideline ...". I am fully aware of the developing consensus now, but that is not my point. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please reread my reply. —David Levy 08:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  We get that you don't respect the existing consensus, so leave your ass out of it. There is no "developing" consensus. Several years of consensus as "developing" is simply bizarre trolling. Just going back three years shows that your comment is utter nonsense. Put here, in list form, any web sites that you have used or recommend for readers of the article. The standard format for these is to have a top level header named "External links" followed by a bullet list of links. When will this consensus not be "developing" on planet Ned-doesn't-give-a-crap-about-consensus? What do hope to accomplish by making a fool of yourself? The consensus on this point is longstanding, widespread, and clear as can be, as you can see. Enough of this childish rudeness. These things directly violate a consensus guideline that has been in existence for a very long time. 2005 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one who's just made a fool of himself. I am not opposing depreciating the box format, and I am supporting alternatives that people are more comfortable with. I am, however, pointing out that it is absurd to claim that there was some well thought out holy rule regarding EL link formatting. I'm sorry for my rude responses, but in my defense they are only reflecting the childish rudeness you've been displaying ever since discussing this matter. You claim I don't give a crap about consensus? Where the hell did that come from? Simply because I don't agree with you calling this a rouge template? If I dare stand up for Phil's point of view at all, I'm suddenly against what you guys are trying to do? I'm so sorry that I don't exaggerate the support some minor style guideline had, that no one even pays attention to. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, it's not a "minor style guideline" "that no one even pays attention to." As I noted, I recall many external link templates being deleted at TfD because they violated the guideline by resembling sister project boxes.
  But this is moot now, isn't it? Thank you for agreeing to the compromise style. —David Levy 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I'm talking about when Phil made the template. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'm talking about events that long predate that. You claimed that "there was never a consensus to disallow alternative styles for ELs" and that "it was just something not explored," and both statements are incorrect. The idea was explored on numerous occasions, always leading to consensus to delete the templates in question (in accordance with a guideline that editors did pay attention to). This occurred consistently until Phil's argument that we should support free content generated enough agreement to keep his template alive (but nothing approaching consensus for its use). —David Levy 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And no matter how frustrated I get in this discussion, at least I'm not so rude as to calling another point of view as trolling. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead, you compared my point of view with that of a baby. —David Levy 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't comparing your view with a baby, just the actions being taken. Still, that was rude of me, and I am sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I sincerely appreciate that. —David Levy 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not understand the issues enough to make an opinion on this template itself, but I am concerned with the view that it can be replaced by one that deals only with wikia wikis. We should not be favouring wikia over other sites. Could someone really clarify this. I want an even handed aprpoach. Either we have a box for all wikis, but then chose to determine whether its use is appropriate in a particular circumstance, or we have no boxes for links to any non-WMF wikis. --Bduke (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Click the wikia link above and you'll see it doesn't make a box. It's just a standard external link template that follows the guideline. The wikia thing is just an example of how an external link template should be formatted. It doesn't mean wikia is the only wiki that can have such a template. The issue here is the freecontentmedia template makes 'special' boxes that favor some external links over others, and that violates the guideline and common sense. 2005 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inbetween[edit]

Done. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if not for the fact that Phil vowed to revert such a change unless consensus to deprecate his layout was established here, we would have done that. You're criticising us for conducting discussion instead of edit-warring. —David Levy 09:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in generating any more acrimony over this. Let's see whether Phil is prepared to accept this version; if so, the issue is resolved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week. I think we can call this done for now? Recommend closing this TfD as "keep, but remove sisterlink-style formatting". The primary objection to the template as it existed at the start of this discussion appears to be resolved. Consensus carries the day. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.