Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17

Template:Oasishongkong

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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy. IronGargoyle 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not generally useful. Seems to be intended for user pages; I suspect the creator is the only person who will want it. Tualha (Talk) 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Steinn inn 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Holmes.Sherlock/Oasishonkong. Let the creator keep their template (though it seems like it would be better suited as a userbox). Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with this too. Tualha (Talk) 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tualha. Harlowraman 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space per the above three comments. EdJohnston 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace as per above. -- Reaper X 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace per Arky. - 52 Pickup 10:29, 19 July 2007 (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.

Template:Bullshit01

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete T1 - I looked up T1 in the dictionary and found this template. --B 13:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contentious template, should use (Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates) instead. — Intangible2.0 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We need more colorful templates around here! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unneeded template. Should use {{hoax}}, {{OR}}, {{unsourced}}, etc. Carlosguitar 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's funny. Don't you think we should have some funny templates? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it made me smile, I'd never use it on an article no matter how true. Working on the DEP project, I know how easily editors take offense at any suggestion their writing needs improvement -- best to be a bit more diplomatic about it.--Fabrictramp 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Subst Doesn't go along with WP:CIVILility policies --Andersmusician VOTE 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I have a few pages I would love to see that one put on...--Scorpion451 01:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but BJAODN Hilarious, but I don't see any practical article use for this one other than a good laugh. Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created it, it's now served it's purpose. Template:Bullshit is actually protected from creation, this shouldn't exist. I'm glad that a few of you got a laugh out of it, though. : ) Vert et Noir^talk 02:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: BJAODN would be an honor. Vert et Noir^talk 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Ya know, the BJAODN page still exists. szyslak 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think that this would be a great one to add to that page, atleast it will be able to be seen, even if it would not be used.--Scorpion451 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Intangible2.0 Harlowraman 02:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Image doesn't match text description - image is not "wet and sloppy"... Argyriou (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete rude, provocative, pointless. Violates WP:CIVIL if used. DES ^(talk) 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & BJAODN. Violates civiliy policy, very unprofessional, frickin hilarious! -- Reaper X 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & BJAODN you never know what you find on these pages, this one's got to take today's cake. :-) Carlossuarez46 06:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & BJAODN Slightly amusing, but inappropriate. - 52 Pickup 10:31, 19 July 2007 (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.

Template:Behave

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 04:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided attempt to write a humorous user warning. I don't see what the painful attempt to be funny/lighthearted adds to this template compared to, say, Template:Joke. Its bigger brother, Template:Seriously, seems to be on its way to deletion below, and for the same reasons this one should also be deleted. — Terraxos 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, you have some good reasons but I think it's rather humurous and might cool down a vandal.

Keep, I think it's good to have something that isn't just WP jargon. It's a message that people actually understand, instead of "Users who fail to comply with WP:V and WP:RS may be tem. blocked indefinately dure to WP:BBB and WP:AZX." It's actually a template that sounds like someone's talking to them, instead of a robot. Same as Template:Seriously. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks and feels amateurish. Using humor in telling people to lay off the jokes sends a mixed message, and, I think, is rather likely to backfire. Feezo (Talk) 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template has been around since before I started editing. It hasn't backfired yet, so why delete something that might work? Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a good diplomatic template for users who may have just crossed the line unintentionaly or jokingly altered a page with a joke image, etc. as opposed to a malicious vandalism.--Scorpion451 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Being a little nice to vandals, I think, is a great way to get them to contribute rather than vandalize, and maybe, just maybe, one of them will, because someone was nice to them. Stern warnings just don't have the same effect on editors, and the more contributors, the better. Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Damn would I appreciate that one over some of the other templates I've seen, if I were a vandal. It adds the human element. If you don't like it, don't use it. Vert et Noir^talk 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more useful than it would seem. Keep it please. >Radiant< 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt if it would work on a vandal. And more importantly, it does itself subtract from the seriousness of Wikipedia, which we should not allow. Lilac Soul 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely what we should not allow is vandals subtracting from the seriousness of Wikipedia, which this template addresses in a unique manner (a manner that I've found effective). Gracenotes^T § 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to mention that the best way to start an edit war is by taking oneself too seriously.--scorpion 451 rant 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agitating the vandals will only make them vandalise more. This and the other humor templates cool that down, so that [former] vandals will start contributing constructively to Wikipedia, as proven by logic in real life. (→O - R L Y?) 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - might be appropriate, but I wouldn't use it. --Haemo 01:14, 21 July 2007 (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.

Template:Infobox City UY

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles using this infobox were standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}} and expanded upon. Talk page is empty. — MJCdetroit 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's on-going and laudable work to standardise settlement infoboxes. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Andersmusician VOTE 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: superseded by Infobox Settlement. — mholland (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2007 (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.

Template:User Northern Cyprus

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this template disruptive and very controversial as it's referred to a non recognized defacto country. Also, the template is used only by one Wikipedian. I believe it should be deleted. — KaragouniS 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an independent country which is recognized by Republic of Turkey, Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is not a non recognized defacto country. Know your facts.

Secondly, Northern Cyprus is a seperate region (legal, or illegal, it is seperate), it has own government, telecommunication and Internet system. Therefore, adding Wikipedians from TRNC to the list of Republic of Cyprus is not suitable. I believe that there are and will be some users from TRNC, they can use this template if they wish. Simple.

Also, check these userboxes: TRNC is an independent country, are they? Template:User_Chechen Template:User_Palatinate Template:User_Wallonia

Note: The suggester for deletion has vandalised the template for several times, please check the talk page and edit history.

For these reasons, i strongly oppose. Kaygtr 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice:This is not a place for political propaganda. And you know TRNC is a ILLEGAL occupied territory according to United Nations. --KaragouniS 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep., for reasons stated by Kaygtr. 206.154.229.139 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not TRNC is illegal, it is - as Kaygtr points out - a de facto independent territory. No other Userbox would be appropriate for editors from that area. Since we already have Userboxes for other unrecognised (or quasi-recognised) territories (e.g. Template:User Republic of China), it makes sense to keep this one. Terraxos 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons stated above. Lilac Soul 10:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there is a de facto government in place in northern Cyprus that uses this terminology. It would be different as a polemic user box, like 'Northern Cyprus is part of Turkey!', which I would vote to delete. I'm also not sure about Template:User_Wallonia since Wallonia is not a de facto government. EdJohnston 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallonia is a de facto and de jure subnational government. It's like saying I'm from California. Argyriou (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Northern Cyprus exists. Argyriou (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -hard to swallow, but it factually exists, fortunately or unfortunately. KaragouniS should be glad he will be able to locate users who use the template, and know what views they represent. Then we can bring it up on the next Epsilon Team conference to arrange how we deal with them. :-) Niko Silver 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not divisive in any significant way. --Ybbor ^Talk 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northern Cyprus is in fact a separate entity, whatever its interantional standing, adn if users who reside there choose to so self-identify, i see nothing provocative or devisive in that, at elast no more than in any userbox proclaiming current residence or citizenship, and less than some. DES ^(talk) 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the category fed by this template was put on Cfd (the debate there should have been at UCfd). I assume by keeping this (looks headed that way) almost WP:SNOWing now, we don't need to debate it at UCfd. I was expecting the debate to have been carried on there, but seems that's now moot. I've removed the Cfd from the cat. Carlossuarez46 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northern Cyprus exists, one way or another. As for the complaints against userboxes for Wallonia, the Palatinate, etc., there is nothing wrong with stating what sub-national region you are from (although placing them in "Category:NATION of origin user templates" is questionable, but i guess there is nowhere else to put them). - 52 Pickup 10:40, 19 July 2007 (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.

Template:sw-in-universe

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 04:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{in-universe|subject=[[Star Wars]]}}. Links to this template have been replaced with links to the regular in-universe. — EEMeltonIV 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who wants to type all that out? What the nom may not be aware of is that it adds articles to Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, as Star Wars does not fit well into the film, television, literature or video game subcategories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then append a "category" argument and use copy-and-paste. --EEMeltonIV 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{in-universe|subject=[[Star Wars]]|category=[[:ategory:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction]]}} works just as well. Seems to be "repeat code": and it is good practice to use a "function" rather than retain redundancy. Gracenotes^T § 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change this to a meta-tempalte that invokes exactly the code sugested by Gracenotes? This will reetain the convienient shortcut, but make sure that the actual use goes through {{in-universe}}. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wait, that's what it is now. This isn't repated code, it is a name, a macro if you like, for a function call with specific parameters set. In that it is just like all the various db tempaltes that ultimately call {{db-meta}}. Perhaps this should come with instructions to use subst, which would leave the call to in-universe in place. Strong keep. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's that great of a need for a meta-template. Seems a little pointless... but it does no harm either. Never mind :) Gracenotes^T § 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a macro that just calls {{in-universe}} it seems harmless. By the way, there is a synonymous {{SW-in-universe}} that appears not to be included in this nomination. There are a few articles still using {{SW-in-universe}}, and you can also find them using 'whatlinkshere' on {{in-universe}}, so the usage of this template as a 'macro' has not broken the normal and expected usage of {{in-universe}}. So I don't understand what the problem is exactly, either with {{SW-in-universe}} or the one actually nominated here, {{sw-in-universe}}. I also don't see why subst should be needed, since it is not used in Jaina Solo, and that article seems to be categorized correctly, unless there is more to 'correctly' than is explained above. EdJohnston 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gracenotes's reasons for deletion ;) — The Storm Surfer 07:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- zomgz spite Gracenotes^T § 18:04, 23 July 2007 (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.

Template:Hayeren

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a meta-template for {{lang}} with the language code of the Armenian language, and it is therefore unneeded. All non-English words simply use the template {{lang}} or {{rtl-lang}} directly. —surueña 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent. I created the template, but if a more standard template works better, let's use it. Be sure to migrate all existing embeddings first. It was designed for frequent seamless inline text in articles, not as an "Armenian: Աբգդ" at the tops of articles, so keep that in mind. - Gilgamesh 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) delete . We need to spread the word that {{lang}} is to be used for any language regardless of its script. Script rendering issues need to be addressed in commons.css, not in templates. The same holds for {{Ivrit}} (he), {{polytonic}} (grc), {{ar}} (ar) and a few others. Also note {{script}} which is intended to render specific scripts by ISO 15924 code rather than ISO 639 ({{script|Armn|այբուբեն}} vs. {{lang|hy|այբուբեն}}: այբուբեն vs. այբուբեն). dab (𒁳) 07:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's right, in fact {{lang}} can also be used to specify the script. Although normally it is not needed to specify the script [1], some languages are usually written in more than one script e.g. {{lang|ja-Kana|アキラ}}, or for transliterations into Latin characters, e.g. {{rtl-lang|ar|المملكة العربية السعودية}}, {{lang|ar-Latn|al-Mamlaka al-ʻArabiyya as-Saʻūdiyya}}. See Template talk:lang. —surueña 13:14, 18 July 2007 (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.

Template:Climate chart

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This newly created template is redundant to {{Infobox Weather}}. The information is just displayed differently. London's article actually displays two weather boxes. MJCdetroit 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I created this). It's a climate chart that looks like a standard climate chart. It's meant to obviate the need for creating and uploading climate charts (and the consequential lack of them in Wikipedia). As for tables, most of them could probably be replaced with a chart, unless they convey additional information. Zocky | picture popups 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think both are useful in their own right and whilst they display the same set of data, they display it from a different analytical viewpoint. If this template displayed the data in a non-standard way then I could support this being deleted, however a climate chart is a standard format to display this type of data. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new template has three values per table cell, and therefor raises accessibility issues. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a standard climate chart. If this is how it's supposed to be shown, then it should be here. Showing it in any other way is redundant. It helps cut down on images. Accessibillity doesn't seem to be a problem to me, it's pretty easy to understand. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote "accessibility", not "understandability". Try hearing it in a text reader; or linearising it. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good idea for easier temperatures updates. --Andersmusician VOTE 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good format which looks like other weather websites I've seen before. Rmhermen 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I understand Pigsonthewing's argument, this is no less accessible than an image. It looks fine, the DOM structure makes sense, and it's portable. Gracenotes^T § 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked at both the old {{Infobox Weather}} and this one, and the difference is that this one is more legible, easier to understand, and more compact. If you have to delete one, delete the old one.--Scorpion451 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually Infobox Weather has just undergone a massive rebuild by User:Doron and is still being tested for bugs. The new version should be up and running in a few days. —MJCdetroit 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can these two be merged? Gracenotes^T § 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per my comment above; this is not more legible and easier to understand, for users who encounter accessibility issues. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy, I still do not understand what you mean. What kind of accessibility issues are you talking about (whom do they affect), and it is possible to both keep this template and make the information reasonably accessible (see "reasonable accommodation")? Gracenotes^T § 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Like who? Are you speaking for anybody in specific? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I believe that Andy is talking about people who are handicapped and required a text reader in order to use this website— see Wikipedia:Accessibility. Grace, No I don't think that the two could be merged, but it would make for an interesting option to both if it could. The first step would be to at least have the same parameter names, i.e. Jan_Hi_°C =, Jan_Lo_°C =, and Jan_Precip_mm. It looks as if the result will be keep anyway, in that case, we'll have to do some tweaking before it is too widespread. —MJCdetroit 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Parameters are easily done with a meta-template. I'm not sure about the wisdom of having all those named parameters though. Zocky | picture popups 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Yes, see also Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The accessibility argument doesn't work, really. For people who need a text reader, both formats are the same. In either case, we have a table with 12 columns, only that one has 4 rows and the other has 2, with all 3 values in the single cell. Assuming that blind people are blind, not stupid, this really isn't much of a difference. For people with poor eyesight, this template is as usable as Wikipedia's text. Unlike images, it scales properly, and unlike the coloured table format, there is no low-contrast text. And even for people with normal eyesight, the chart format is more accessible than the coloured table format, which is why it's the standard presentation tool for this kind of data. Try reading a local climate, or comparing two places, from both and see for yourself. Zocky | picture popups 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You appear to have little or know knowledge of how text-reader users hear tables. Putting multiple values in one table cell is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Andy, the primary goal of this template is not to present the information. It is to replace all of the superfluous images that used to populate pages, which a text reader can't read anyway. If it is used in conjunction with a formatted table, I don't see the problem. Gracenotes^T § 03:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this chart is more helpful than {{Infobox Weather}} for sighted people. A discussion of accessibility for all the graphs and charts used in Wikipedia would indeed be lengthy, and I don't know if this forum can expand to address them. EdJohnston 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Provides a different function than {{infobox weather}}, which depending on the formatting of the page, can be useful at time when the other is not. --Ybbor ^Talk 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The chart provides a different presentation of the data than a table, so it is not redundant. -- Avenue 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my problem with the current set-up of the template is easily fixed - it needs to say what year the chart was made. Imagine someone reading one of these charts in 5 years time when the weather may have changed and no-one has updated the chart with the latest data. Carcharoth 23:34, 22 July 2007 (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.