Template talk:fish

Not a context, just a quick way of categorizing pages. The word "fish" doesn't help the reader, and in many cases the "fish" appears in the definition, esp. for English words. Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just removing the label? Clearly people assume that this should be a template, why break everything? Do we need a seperate kind of meta template to describe the function of templates like this (and and  ) that while not contexts give useful basic information about the definition? Conrad.Irwin 12:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually suggested that and it got shot down in flames on the Beer Parlour. AFAICT the biggest advantage of keeping this (almost the only advantage) is that orphaning a template used about 270 times is gonna be difficult. It doesn't particularly provide any information for the reader. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping the template while modifying it was rejected in Beer Parlour (WT:BP, Dec 09) by Mglovesfun, EncycloPetey and Bequw; and also at (Dec 09), where EncycloPetey, Bequw and Razorflame support the deletion of the template, while I oppose it and Stephen G. Brown expresses disappointment. --Dan Polansky 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; the definition belongs in the definition, not in parenthetical information at the start of the definition line. Context templates are a short form of usage notes, not part of the gloss. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fails RFDO, needs to be orphaned first, then deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)