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.
Why shouldn't it? It was that, or have even more space taken up by this template (on the pages I switched to {{featured|GA=yes}} the space taken up by templates at the top of the page was visibly reduced. I think it's a good compromise. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c00:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Let's be clear here: it doesn't matter to you. It possibly does matter to people who worked to get it up to good status. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c02:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't have a particular opinion on whether a FA should say whether it was previously featured, but including such information in the {{featured}} template is definitely a better way than with a separate template. —
jdorje (
talk)
02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete but with possibility of restoring if functionality is later removed from the FA template. (Deletion is on the basis of redundancy, which is fair enough in my book; if it becomes unredundant then it ought to be undeleted...)
TheGrappler20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Agree absolutely. I recall the last deletion debate was quite contentious, but it resulted in no consensus IIRC. As the only basis for this nomination is that it's redundant, if someone decides to wait until the end and suddenly have "issues" with the modifications to {{featured}}, I'd happily recreate this template. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I support this. We should conclude a vote at the featured template talk page to see if we keep it or not.
CG12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)reply
And we should also ask
User:Raul654, the Featured Article Director, for his opinion (not that he has an absolute veto, of course). FA is policy and GA is not. With due respect to the people who are into it, there are many who don't like GA. I certainly don't like the idea of hitching the little green circle to the FA process.
Marskell12:56, 12 April 2006 (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 page.
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.
Why shouldn't it? It was that, or have even more space taken up by this template (on the pages I switched to {{featured|GA=yes}} the space taken up by templates at the top of the page was visibly reduced. I think it's a good compromise. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c00:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Let's be clear here: it doesn't matter to you. It possibly does matter to people who worked to get it up to good status. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c02:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't have a particular opinion on whether a FA should say whether it was previously featured, but including such information in the {{featured}} template is definitely a better way than with a separate template. —
jdorje (
talk)
02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete but with possibility of restoring if functionality is later removed from the FA template. (Deletion is on the basis of redundancy, which is fair enough in my book; if it becomes unredundant then it ought to be undeleted...)
TheGrappler20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Agree absolutely. I recall the last deletion debate was quite contentious, but it resulted in no consensus IIRC. As the only basis for this nomination is that it's redundant, if someone decides to wait until the end and suddenly have "issues" with the modifications to {{featured}}, I'd happily recreate this template. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I support this. We should conclude a vote at the featured template talk page to see if we keep it or not.
CG12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)reply
And we should also ask
User:Raul654, the Featured Article Director, for his opinion (not that he has an absolute veto, of course). FA is policy and GA is not. With due respect to the people who are into it, there are many who don't like GA. I certainly don't like the idea of hitching the little green circle to the FA process.
Marskell12:56, 12 April 2006 (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 page.