Template talk:Pundits2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is just ridiculous. Why not work with the community on template:pundits instead of being as ass? Better yet, write an article on pundits to anchor this whole topic? ħuman 06:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- You apparently consider yourself 'the community' - when I see more widespread rejection than from your own opinion, I'll realize I need to understand 'the community' and its concerns better. I don't consider you an adequate rep, particularly as you have now resorted to name-calling, which is irrational. --07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete[edit]
There is no need for this template. I'd put the template on it but I don't want to make a mess. ħuman 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, no pages link here. Speedy will probably be my approach, does anybody mind? ħuman 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Supportdeletequicknowdoitbeforethedamnredsgetyou! Blue (pester) 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kill it. --Oniontalk/edits 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- We don't need two, but i like the way this one divides up the pundits rather than throwing an alphabetical list at you like the other template. Maybe we should sort combine them?--CentimeterINCHES 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- The one in use now makes use of (standard) dynamic page lists. This one has no potential for that, because the category "pundits" is rather broad, and a dpl wouldn't distinguish the different "kinds."
- Also, all of the types listed on this one are really dubious. Blue (pester) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but I like to differentiate between, say, Frum and Coulter--CentimeterINCHES 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- We don't need two, but i like the way this one divides up the pundits rather than throwing an alphabetical list at you like the other template. Maybe we should sort combine them?--CentimeterINCHES 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kill it. --Oniontalk/edits 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)