Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

June 1

Template:Hammer Mummy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. delldot ∇. 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hammer Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Hammer Mummy with Template:The Mummy.
This template is made entirely redundant by the main The Mummy template. Neelix (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge New template is more comprehensive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no no no: the various Mummy franchises are unrelated to one another. The Mummy (franchise) is as clear a case of WP:SYN as I've seen in the a while and should probably be split up and turned into a dab page. Template:The Mummy suffers from the same problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to agree with Chris Cunningham that these templates should be kept separate. If anything, it's the other one that should be deleted, as it claims a link between these franchises which is not necessarily justified. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominator - These are not separate franchises. Check out this source, which states that "Hammer reached an official agreement with Universal to remake their classic horror films." The following two sources also state that the Hammer films were clear remakes of the prior Universal films: [1], [2]. In many sources, the Hammer film titles are followed by "Hammer/Universal" in brackets. These films are all part of the same franchise. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what of the 1999 series? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1999 film is another remake of the 1932 film. The Mummy (1999 film) is a featured article, and the connection between the films is made in the lede of that article. Neelix (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the two subjects are unrelated. Airplaneman ✈ 15:03, 9 June 2010 (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:Foundation planets

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, with no major objection to creating a redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foundation planets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but one of the Foundation universe planets have been merged into List of Foundation universe planets. The remaining four links (to the series, creator, planet list, and one individually notable planet) are all included on Template:Foundation series, therefore this template is redundant. This template is also no longer used on any articles. Neelix (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Foundation series}} 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article covers this better; no need for a redirect as this template is no longer used ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (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:21st-century politicians with multiple wives

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:21st-century politicians with multiple wives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV? This template has no more navigational value than a list of 21st-century politicians with blue eyes. Polygamy is common and completely respectable in Moslem countries. If all politicians with multiple wives in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, etc. were included, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could arguably be a category, too minor to be a template.—Chowbok ☠ 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, not even a category; neither templates nor categories exist to facilitate trivia quizzes. Ucucha 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are very few politician in the 21st century with multiple wives.--478jjjz (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Nigeria, Christian presidents typically have Moslem Vice Presidents, and vice-versa. Since 2000 the Moslems have been Vice President Atiku Abubakar, President Umaru Yar'Adua, Vice-President Namadi Sambo. The first two had multiple wives. Not sure about the last. Taking a random look at currently serving Nigerian state governors with Moslem-sounding names we have Mahmud Shinkafi (3 wives), Isa Yuguda (4), Murtala Nyako (4), Ibrahim Shekarau (3) Usman Saidu Nasamu Dakingari (3) etc. In many Moslem countries, Politician = Powerful Alpha Male. Moslem politicians often have multiple wives. It is a meaningless grouping.

A rough calculation: Nigeria is about 50% Moslem. Assume about 50% of the Moslem politicians have multiple wives (maybe an underestimate). In the Federal government there are about 100 senators, 360 members of the Federal House of Representatives, 40 ministers etc., say about 500 total. That gives about 125 polygamist politicians currently holding office at the Federal level. There were elections in 2003 and 2007. Allowing for reelections but also for high churn among ministers gives maybe 250 entries for 21st century polygamist Nigerian politicians at the Federal level alone. Adding in state-level politicians, adding in all the other countries... who would maintain this template? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can subdivide the politicians by country.--478jjjz (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which group: politicians with blue eyes or politicians with multiple wives? I am not sure which is larger. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a defining characteristic where it is a societal norm. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that argument, but disagree with Ucucha. If Wikipedia can draw people in by answering trivia quiz questions, that is not a bad thing. Templates for "US politicians with blue eyes" or "Sudanese politicians with multiple wives" would be meaningless and impossible to maintain. But templates for "US politicians with multiple wives" or "Sudanese politicians with blue eyes" could be amusing if they included links to a few articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty indiscriminate, and unhelpful for navigation. I wouldn't support this as a category either. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (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:Frac

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep, and suggest that discussion concerning improvements or restriction of the use of this template could be continued at say Template talk:Frac. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a misguided, Rube Goldberg–ian attempt to "fix" the display of vulgar fractions. It breaks their display on terminal browser such as Lynx and undoubtedly confuses speech-based browsers. If you turn off stylesheets, or save a page to a plaintext file, fractions rendered with this template also are broken. No major browser has problems anymore with displaying the proper, Unicode vulgar fraction characters, so this is a "solution" to a non-problem. We need to get rid of this and encourage people to use the correct fraction characters. —Chowbok ☠ 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The template serves a useful purpose. While it is not ideal and Chowbok raises very valid points regarding the accessibility issues, the solution should involve the improvement of the template, not its deletion. I would also like to hear more on the Unicode fraction characters vs. accessibility—the use of Unicode fractions was shot in the past precisely because of the accessibility concerns, not to mention that the template allows showing any fractions, not just those included in the Unicode character set.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:29 (UTC)
- All fractions can be depicted in Unicode; the ones that aren't specific characters are written with the superscript/subscript numbers (see [3]) and the fraction slash (Unicode U+2044). But the majority of fractions on here are halves through eighths, so usually we can just use the actual fraction characters.—Chowbok ☠ 15:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I didn't know that. However, I would still like to hear more from a third party (or, preferably, third parties) on the possible accessibility concerns related to the Unicode approach before I change my vote. Also, this template is used quite extensively. Could you elaborate on what you plan to do with all the transclusions, please? Or why this template should be deleted but not re-written to utilize the Unicode fractions to minimize cleanup?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:50 (UTC)
    - I assume there's a process for deleting templates in use, a bot or something. I'd be happy to do it with AWB if not. Should be a pretty straightforward substitution. I realize the WLH page is pretty long, but that's a bit misleading in that a lot of those pages aren't calling frac directly, but through another template. —Chowbok ☠ 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Such migration processes do indeed exist, but I was more interested in getting an answer to the question why you feel the template should be deleted as opposed to fixed or re-written?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 17:12 (UTC)
        I guess I just don't see the point if we start using Unicode fractions across the board. It'd be like having a {{emdash}} template instead of just using em dashes.—Chowbok ☠ 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, there is an {{emdash}} template. Some people find it easier to type. (There is even a redirect {{—}}.) Ucucha 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh, okay.—Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't the template be edited so that it automatically displays the fraction characters when fractions like 1/2 are given? Something like {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}/{{{2}}} | 0.5 | ½ | }} should work. Ucucha 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that, assuming we get rid of the HTML. If the denominator equals 2,3,4,5,6, or 8, use the Unicode character; otherwise, use the Unicode superscript/fraction slash/subscript characters. We could encourage it to be subst'd as well.—Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I originally created the template back in 2005. In May 2007 I experimented successfully with automatic conversion to precomposed vulgar fractions (denominators 2, 3, 4 and 8). I was never really sure what technique (or combination of technologies) to use to get optimal results for everyone:
1. OpenType/AAT ‘smart’ fonts can offer the feature to automatically sselect numerator and denominator digit glyphs around a slash/solidus or fraction slash, but you cannot access this via CSS yet (but soon). Not many fonts or browsers can do that, though.
2. Unicode has several precomposed glyphs, but those may not harmonize well with constructed ones.
3. Unicode also offers superscript and subscript digits (and most roman letters), but AFAIK these should not be used for fractions directly, although fonts may use the same glyphs for both. Their support across fonts differs and more so in 2005, when enWP still was ISO 8859-1 and IE5/6 was still in use.
4. / (U+002F) or ⁄ (U+2044) or &‌frasl; (entity reference to U+2044), all with normal digits.
5. simple HTML:
```
1/2
```
6. presentational HTML:
```
1<big>/</big>2
```
 and variants
7. HTML+CSS (style):
```
1/2
```
8. HTML+CSS (class):
```
1/2
```
```
.fraction sub, .fraction sup {font-size: x-small} .fraction {white-space: nowrap}
```
9. How to deal with the part before the fraction, when styling is turned off (e.g. in copying or console browsers), i.e. 1+2/3, 1_2/3, 1 2/3, 1–2/3 or 1-2/3 for 1+2⁄3.
The good thing is that {{frac}} can be changed to the method of choice and all transclusions will be updated. Finally you cannot replace all use cases of the template by automatisms, e.g. 1⁄x, km⁄h. — Christoph Päper 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. You're not addressing my points about browser support above. Where are you getting that Unicode subscript/superscript numbers should not be used for fractions? In any event, it seems like we're worrying about stuff that we shouldn't be worrying about. There's a character for one-half, for instance, and it's not even just Unicode; it's ISO-8859-1. Browsers should determine how it's displayed, not us. We shouldn't be overriding valid characters just because we think they're not "harmonizing" well. Automatic substitution should take care of most of the cases, special cases can be handled manually.—Chowbok ☠ 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Browsers do not display 1/2 (or even 1⁄2) as ½, ¹⁄₂, ¹⁄₂, 1⁄2, $\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}$ $\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}$ or some such, at least not yet and not without help. Editors cannot be expected to enter any vulgar fraction directly, not even halves and fourths. If I understand you correctly, much of your criticism would be moot if we reinstated my May 2007 experiment (and add ⅕, ⅖, ⅗, ⅘, ⅙, ⅚). Which “automatic substitution” do you mean, though? Unicode TR #20 suggests
```
1&‌thinsp;2&‌frasl;3
```
    “1 2⁄3” (thin space, fraction slash, normal digits), but does not forbid extra markup, e.g. sup = numerator. — Christoph Päper 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Template talk:Convert, where this is a suggestion to replace the unicode fractions rendered by Template:Convert/and/fra1 with non-unicode versions rendered by Template:Convert/num. It sounds like a hybrid approach is preferred. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that they're aware of the Unicode superscript and subscript digit characters from that discussion.—Chowbok ☠ 06:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template that is used in many articles. {{convert}} cannot handle fractions adequately in my opinion, thus the need for this template - I refuse to quote 1713⁄16" as 17.8125" in ship articles, it looks absurd. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (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:Group of 15 Leaders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The countries are members of the group, not their leaders, who can change at any moment. Ruslik_Zero 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group of 15 Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Does it help to compare the array of similar groups and templates below? Maybe this thread is untimely? --Tenmei (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21 in group> Template:APEC?
Template:Current APEC Leaders?

18 in groupp> Template:G-15 nations?
Template:Group of 15 Leaders?

8 in group> Template:D8 nations?

No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5

Tenative delete. I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't be tagging leaders with these templates - they should really be on the countries instead. However, there are several of them, so wider input should be sought before deleting. Robofish (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the reasons above. Airplaneman ✈ 15:02, 9 June 2010 (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:G-15 leaders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G-15 leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Used only in Group of 15 ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only used in one article; subst if necessary. Robofish (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst if necessary. Airplaneman ✈ 14:59, 9 June 2010 (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:Good article

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Obviously the overwhelming majority opinion in the discussion is for keeping, and this corresponds to the consensus from the previous discussion that was advertised on WP:CENT. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created after an improper consensus on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Should_all_GAs_have_the_GA_symbol_on_the_article_page.3F. Furthermore since Good Articles only require a single reviewer, and not a community based discussion like Featured Articles, having such a template on Article pages may be deceptive as to the overall quality of the article. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have to be more specific about how the consensus is "improper", rather than just label it as such. I didn't contribute in any way to that discussion, but I (despite being slightly opposed myself) was more than happy to read that page and, in the words of Iridescant,"even I can see that there's an overwhelming consensus in support of it and extending the discussion isn't going to change anything". What is your concern with it? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the arguments in the opposition section of the proposal and compared them against the support !votes, and there is still some major unaddressed issues. Even if this template is kept, I would at least like a way to "opt-out" of seeing this template displayed on "Good Articles". Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically? Oh, and yes, just add "#good-star{display:none;}" to your vector.css (or otherskin.css). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—consensus was reached, as even some of the more articulate opponents of the proposal agree; now let's move on and not filibuster this change. (I supported the change and created this template.) Ucucha 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Admittedly, I supported the proposal, although I personally favor a more sweeping approach to making our article assessment visible to the public. Support is very strong, and I agree with everything Ucucha said above. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm log onto Wikipedia most days, and often spend half an hour or more browsing pages that are not in the mainspace. I certainly saw no hint that this template was being proposed, and indeed only came to know of its existence when it was added by a GA reviewer to an article I was improving. Something like this surely warrants a watchlist advertisement. I am inclined to think that we should revisit this proposal with a more sizable audience. (In the interim, the template could be replaced with nul content; if the consensus is to allow the icon to remain on good articles, then we can simply revert to the icon code.) AGK 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with only nulling it, should we reach a "delete" consensus, I think that much is obvious. I knew of the discussion from WP:CENT, I don't know about where else it might have been mentioned. 74 commenting seems like quite a few (to me, anyway) for a consensus to emerge, do you think the original sample might have been biased towards one of the outcomes? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the discussion reached a consensus and had enough people opining; personally I don't care whether GA icons are used. Surely TFD is not a sensible place to discuss this. —innotata 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if you disagree with the icon, that's not all this template does. As for the consensus, this was advertised on WP:CENT, and I did see the discussion, which was closed by an admin as consensus reached with 55 for and 19 against. (~75% in favor) I have no opinion on whether the GA symbol is shown, but we must honor the consensus. As an aside, why are we nominating the documentation page for deletion? --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus was clear, this is a very useful and helpful page and should be kept in existence on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus was very clear indeed. Most participants weren't biased and weren't members of WP GA. In any case, this is not the place to bring this up. This nomination only slows down the actual process. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I was brought to this discussion seeing that His Band and the Street Choir currently has this template.) First off, there have been numerous precedents regarding the GA icon in the title of GAs. Each time, the template containing the GA icon eventually gets deleted. The reasons for those deletions were pretty much similar each time (afaik). Fast forward to now: this concept is yet again brought to the table, and those same prior arguments are still being argued about. While consensus can change, some of the arguments against (listed in the poll) still have not been addressed properly. Furthermore, because of the way the original discussion worked, a more accurate consensus could not be determined due to the fact that at least some of the participants in the poll did not further contribute to the discussion. This is further complicated by the fact that a participant in the very poll turned out to be the one closing it. Until a better way of dealing with this issue can be found and acted upon, I'm going to have to go with the consensus before this came along—delete. --O (talk • edits) 00:29, 02 June 2010 (GMT)
Keep for being green. This is also as much as some topics will ever achieve, often after hard work; it's nice to have some kind of symbolic achievement. The unworthy GAs should stick out like a sore thumb now, too. GreenReaper (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the GA WikiProject was the best place to hold that discussion--is that going to be a representative sample of the population on the project? Or is it likely to be populated by people that think more highly of GA's than the rest of the project? I feel like with something this big the discussion should take place at the village pump or somewhere. I like AGK's idea of making it invisible until further discussion can be had. I agree with some of the Keeps that TFD probably isn't the best venue for the discussion either. delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is consensus to use the template; nominations to then delete the template are an end-run around consensus. I also still don't know what "improper consensus" means. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion was closed in favor of use of the icon, thus the template is dependent on that decision. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was open dialogue between those who support and oppose the idea, so attempts to discredit this proposal using polling is not a substitute for discussion doesn't hold much weight. In fact, it only shows how some people wishes to overturn the already-established consensus by putting up guidelines without checking whether such guidelines illustrate the opposite. Furthermore, even those who oppose the idea agreed that the consensus is clear.[4][5] Then we have some users here who claimed that it was not advertised enough or the poll duration was too short. It was listed on centralized discussion which serves as a gateway to discussions on major interface changes, RfC, etc. User:AGK claimed that there should be a listing on watchlist. As shown by this section on WP:CENT, watchlist or sitenotice is used for announcements and not to be used as pointers to a poll. (Have you seen any RfA/RfB being listed on watchlist and/or sitenotice? Nope...) User:H3llkn0wz summarized it perfectly on how it reached entire audience group and does not engage in selection bias. He said "out of first 20 supporters only 4 identify themselves as good article WP participants. Out of first 10 opposers 2 do so. How is this possibly not broad enough?"[6] The poll started from May 6 and ended on May 27, which lasted 21 days. If that is not enough time, then I really don't know what is an appropriate duration for a discussion. (Again, do RfA/RfB polls last 21 days? No, they last 7 days) Full disclosure: It was me who closed that poll and concluded that it reached consensus. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well there's consensus for this, so has to stay. However, will be good idea to use {{Main other}} within it for consistency with other templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep' - the idea behing flagging GAs is a sound one which achieved consensus. It shows the casual reader that they have reached a Good Article, and is some small rewared for the editors who brought the article to GA status in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wasn't aware of any discussion leading up to the creation of this template, but I must say it's nice to see an article labeled as "good article" without having to look at the talk page to see the article's quality assessment. This is definitely something that needs to be displayed on the article itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree with the general concern that if that if the "Good Article" label doesn't ensure quality then this tag could be misleading. However, to me that is an argument for reviewing the Good Article process, not eliminating this template. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A consensus has been reached when this template was created. It makes the articles stand out from normal ones which have not yet achieved good article status, and allows the casual reader to Wikipedia to identify a good article without going to the talk page. - Nick C (t·c) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good idea for a template; I've no idea why consensus was against it for so long, but it clearly isn't any longer. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I !voted against this, and still don't like it. However, though I'd have preferred the discussion to take place elsewhere than on a GA page, the consensus was strong enough that a TfD seems the wrong way to go here. If someone wants to reverse the decision I'd suggest they start a discussion somewhere like the village pump, or start an RfC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (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.