Template talk:Pundits2

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)

Two templates is just plain unnecessary. - π 07:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The "community" is "other people". I am one of them. So are you. And you. And you. ħuman 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets not turn this into the Care Bears. - π 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete

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 (is useful) 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kill it. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 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?--Centimeter_INCHES 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 (is useful) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I like to differentiate between, say, Frum and Coulter--Centimeter_INCHES 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So would I, but generally speaking these "portal" templates don't make those sort of distinctions. Blue (is useful) 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And this one's "divisions" are really low quality. Fire will ensue shortly. ħuman 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)