Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 12



Template:Upcoming death

 * 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

This template was created for use on John Allen Muhammad in the lead-up to his execution on Tuesday. However, it seems to me it is another 'future template', which are deprecated as of this discussion. It suffers from the same problems as other future templates: we cannot know for sure that a person is about to die until they actually do. Similarly, there is no guidance on how far in advance this template should be placed: a person can be on death row, or have a terminal illness, and still live on for decades. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robofish; this is indeed a variation on the "future" family of templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep So far the template has an accuracy rate of 100%. Perhaps it really is possible to predict the future. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly an example of a "future template". Per the outcome of the RFC discussions, such a template should only be kept if it is "more useful/important than future templates in general". I see nothing particularly useful or important in this. If anything, it seems more problematic than some others, impending deaths can be avoided in a number of circumstances. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per RL, plus the fact that it's a pretty obscure concern, and furthermore the title almost seems humorous. It should probably be called "upcoming execution" instead, so as not to be used to predict the future; and then it would be in the even more obscure end of the future template spectrum. Equazcion   (talk)  01:17, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the author's comment above, I rather suspect that this was intended to be humorous in the first place. Not that it isn't inappropriate anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that the author of the template does not possess a sense of humor. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I question its value. It would seem to have two applications - a convicted criminal condemned to execution, or someone with a fatal illness. The second possibility is plainly horrifying - how long, had it existed at the time, would this template have been on Ted Kennedy or Patrick Swayze? Further, deaths such as Kennedy's, Swayze's, and even Muhammad's seem unsuitable for Recent death (and, by extension, this template, as it uses much the same verbiage) at all - what can be more stable and known about the circumstances of death than a state-performed execution or a notable person succumbing to a well-documented illness? So even if there are other notable convicted criminals condemned to execution, like Muhammad, with biographies on Wikipedia, I don't find that this template would be a help to their articles at any time. Alex finds herself awake at night  ( Talk ·  What keeps her up ) 05:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unhelpful to both readers and editors alike at best with a risk of misuse at worst.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per RL0919; this is certainly a 'future' template, and a distasteful one at that. Current event or Current person for a day or two before the scheduled event would be sufficient. Maralia (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though redundancy is'n supposed to be a valid argument, there's already a swath of existing "living person" templates - using any of these implies this. Current person}} can be used for executions. --[[User:Stuart P. Bentley|STUART (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I briefly considered an IAR Speedy Delete of this template but am sticking with process. WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:OR (to some degree). On top of that, WP:MACABRE applies, in the sense that this sort of template is just plain wrong. We can use current instead. Frank  |  talk
 * Delete per Nosleep and Tikiwont. Unhelpful, potential misuse. Glass  Cobra  22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Vgy

 * 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, but could be reopened if there is a wider discussion on YYYY in XX templates.

This template creates a piped-link to a year-in-video games article, such as 1988 Pipe-linking years in this fashion frowned upon, as established by the removal of links for years in music and television, among others. Removal of this template can be done quite easily in AWB (in fact, I've already asked for it on the AWB task board). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, was there a central discussion about this? I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing, though it does raise the question of how else the "19xx in video gaming" articles are going to be linked from article prose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The discussion below about the baseball year template is a clear "keep", and this is essentially the same thing for video games. It isn't a necessary template but it does provide a shorter way to create the link. Also, I note that no TfD notification was placed on this template or the baseball year template, which may help explain the lack of input into this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Baseball Year

 * 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

This template creates a piped-link to a year-in-baseball article, such as 1968 Pipe-linking years in this fashion frowned upon, as established by the removal of links for years in music and television, among others. Removal of this template can be done quite easily in AWB (in fact, I've already asked for it on the AWB task board). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Piping links isn't a good enough reason to delete this template, in my opinion. If wanting to link to 1968 in baseball, it would in many cases be awkward to spell it out like that.  The template is used as: "In 2009, the New York Yankees won the World Series."  I don't see a problem with that. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Muboshgu, piped links is not a good enough reason to delete a template.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I generally frown upon date-linking, this is a limited use of it and entirely appropriate. Frank  |  talk  18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above, perfectly acceptable. Glass  Cobra  23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per what everyone else says.--Yankees10 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Indeed, in certain circumstances, such as infoboxes and tables, piped links in this manner are perfectly acceptable. Mlaffs (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:City-state

 * 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

Per the lack of opposition at template talk:city-state, there is no need to have two links here. One link of the format city, state is unambiguous, requires no template logic and provides the context anyway - if a reader needs a direct link to the state then it can be found through the city article. Recommend reformatting to output just, and then substituting all transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the information of participants (not intended as support or opposition), there are 16,574 transclusions of this template. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "if a reader needs a direct link to the state then it can be found through the city article" - True, but I don't see how that makes it an invalid occasion for a link.  Can you give me an analogous example where unlinked text was deemed preferable to a superfluous link?   Even though I created the template, I have no strong opinion if a consensus exists one way or the other. - PhilipR (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having links adjacent to each other isn't a good idea because it increases the likelihood that a user will hit the wrong one. This is doubly important for cases like Paris, Texas, where the default Wikipedia styling makes it difficult to tell if there is one link or two. Using citystate here would mean that users who clicked the second half of what they believed to be one link would be sent to the wrong article. If the state link is genuinely required then it can be added separately; this template, however, encourages users to add it in general. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete doesn't seem to save any typing, and the name is highly wrong. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The substance of the nomination is about a stylistic preference for linking only to the city instead of the to the city and state separately. This is matter for which there is no guideline or wiki-wide consensus that I know of. The widespread use of this template suggests that many editors don't agree with nominator about how these items should be linked. Most template talk pages are little-watched, so a discussion between two editors there is not a good indicator. Building consensus on a standard linking pattern for cities is a matter for the Village pump or WP:LINK, rather than changing the linking on thousands of articles through a TfD. (Note: Since the template is fully protected, I have placed a request for an admin to add the appropriate notification to the template.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about a "stylistic preference"; it's about the entire rationale for introducing two links where one will suffice. WP:OVERLINK covers it well enough. I'm strongly opposed to bureaucratic hand-waving as a keep rationale here; if the template talk is completely unwatched then I stringly disagree that anyone using this template really cares about it that much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it isn't about stylistic preferences, then why reference a style guideline? As to whether anyone cares, see my comment below. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My reply to PhilipR covers that. Overlinking is not just poor stylistically: it also results in reduced usability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care one way about this template, and I don't use it, but the argument of "if the template talk is completely unwatched then I stringly disagree that anyone using this template really cares about it that much" is a very, very poor rationale. I use cn cite cite gnis and a bunch of other templates that I do not have on my watchlist, yet I would oppose their deletion. Just because no one is watching a template, does not mean they don't care, it just means its they haven't added it to their watch. Reading in other motives or inclinations is only transcluding your own opinion into other's actions. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an indication that no one cares but clearly an indication that we have too many dinky templates for comfort. By now, we're sprinkling our articles with a lot more templates than can be comfortably justified. Even mainstays like cite are pretty darned dubious if you ever look at how comparatively easy it is to format references without them. At the very least, the vast majority of them should be substed. Peter Isotalo 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per RL0919, its vast use should be an indicator of consensus that editors want to keep it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the complete lack of opposition to the talk thread on the subject? Use != appropriateness. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors can use a template without editing it or otherwise placing it on their watchlist. That doesn't mean they don't care what happens to it, but it does mean they are unlikely to see discussions on its talk page. That's why the TfD process includes placing notifications on the template so that editors at the affected pages can find out about the discussion. The number of editors objecting to deletion in this discussion already doubles the total number of editors involved in the template talk page discussion. I'm not questioning the good faith of the nomination you made based on that discussion, but it isn't very convincing to refer to it as if it shows something about wider opinion on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the rationale behind that, but I'm of the opinion that any template which has significant community buy-in is watched at least to the extent that in three months someone would visit the talk page to discuss it. Templatespace is just as much a community as articlespace is, and if a proposal went for three months unopposed on an article's talk page then there could not be a reasonable argument that it was implemented against community consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been using this template since I discovered it. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It's much easier to use this template than to type out Snohomish, Washington, Washington umpty-dozen times.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the rationale. There is no need to type out Snohomish, Washington, Washington when the Snohomish, Washington link suffices to get the reader to the right place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read the rationale -- I don't see any reason to make someone click twice when the editor can do a little extra work to get them to the right place. It's not a case of overlinking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what he meant is that Snohomish, Washington requires more characters than .  It's helpful in linking both the city and state names. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, Muboshgu -- I realized only after thumper had replied to me that I had forgotten the pipe on the city name, and didn't want to confuse matters by fixing it inline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the use case for wanting to go directly to the state? That locations should be linked at Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth by default? Link-stacking does not serve any apparent need, results in superfluous code and inconveniences readers who cannot easily identify that two adjacent linked words go to different articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop badgering the people who disagree with you, thumper. If you want the MOS changed to disallow linking to City, State, State, start the discussion there -- don't do it on a template that works so well that people don't bother watching the talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just started a discussion myself at Wikipedia talk:Linking‎.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It cuts down editing time considerably for editors who link cities and states. I know that it personally saves me boatloads of time when I can just type in the city-state template rather than have to type out separate links for both. Also, in response to thumperward's comment, people can identify whether it is one link or two simply by holding their mouse over said link to see if the link underlines one word or both. It's not difficult, and I think thumperward is giving the general public too little credit in their ability to figure it out. Besides, I hate having to click on a state's name only to be directed toward the city. If I want to know about the state then I'll click on the state, not the friggin' city. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Cuts down on editing time for those who use it. Doesn't hide anything from contributors and still brings readers to the place they want to be. Also, please note that the discussion that had no opposition contained only two users commenting which is hardly consensus.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Makes editing easier.  Pats 1  T /C  02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep on the grounds that this is a useful template for employing a commonly used style. Personally I think this style makes more sense than New Haven, Connecticut because the name of the city is New Haven, not New Haven, Connecticut; the purpose of the article's lengthy title is disambiguation. We don't usually include the disambiguation part in link text. But, it doesn't matter; the template should not be deleted unless it's not being used or the style is illegitimate, and neither is true in this case. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a joke, right?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep an extremely useful and widely used template. – ukexpat (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all of the above. This is a widely used, highly useful, perfectly sensible template. It allows me (and others, it seems) to edit more efficiently. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this template has absolutely nothing to do with city-states, why is it named thusly? I can't use it to talk about Troy, or Ancient Athens, or Vatican City, etc. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand the potential for confusion with city-states, although the name also makes sense for its current use. Either way, if there is an issue with the name it can be addressed by moving the template to a new name. No deletion required. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep very worthwhile template although somewhat redundant with USCity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a redundancy there, but this template is more comprehensive and much more widely used. Assuming this one is kept, it's probably worth looking into a merge of USCity with this template. --RL0919 (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone has a plan to replace all those existing templates. -- Ja Ga  talk 08:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - widely used, very useful and very easy to use. Maybe it could be renamed to make it more inclusive of variations, but the basic format and display is good.  Rossrs (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. promotes excessive linking and templating. Kwanesum (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete; horrible example of bad linking. States should almost never be linked adjacent to cities, as the state article is easily accessible from that of the city, and adjacent linking is discouraged by guidelines.  Skomorokh,  barbarian   10:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Several good points have been made in this discussion. JaGa makes one of the best. The error contained in this template design is minimal, and is more a matter of style than substance. The work involved in replacing all those templates in all those articles would be monumental. Unless someone like Skomorah volunteers to run around replacing all those templates, and then gets the job done, then the current template should be kept. Dilios II (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual substitution / deletion of the template is trivial. It is most certainly not so much work as to make that an argument for keeping. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Anyone using the template should read its instructions. It is clearly utile, hence should be kept. Collect (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I find the rationale that a template page isn't watched a non-compelling reason for deletion. It is widely used and it's obvious people like the use by that alone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all the above reasons. If I had to watch all of the templates I use on various articles, that would be way too much and I wouldn't be able to follow them all.    –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Per Sarek. Citystate makes it a mite easier to edit. It is pretty badly named, though. 70.191.124.113 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong + snow keep Per all above reasons and the number of strong keeps this has. Also note that fixing all 16,574 transclusions of this template would be nasty indeed. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthwhile and helpful template. Rename if enough editors have a problem with how it is named. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this TfD is a solution to a non-existent problem, and its deletion would create complication where an elegant template is currently in place and working. Frank  |  talk  18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd honestly never heard of this template before, nor seen it in use before today, I'm pretty sure. However, it seems very useful and popular. Glass  Cobra  22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In particular, disagree that linking the city and state separately constitutes overlinking. Unless consensus is established that it is overlinking, I don't think there's grounds to delete this heavily-used template. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per GlassCobra.  Enigma msg  23:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep: Used an awful lot. Redundency is OK. This should be SNOWed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: As others have said, this is a very useful template for simplifying city and state linking. If the issue is with overlinking, that should be discussed on its own to develop consensus rather than using this template as the starting point and working backwards.  Should consensus say that linking both city and state is undesirable due to overlinking, then I'd be completely fine with seeing this template smoothly reformatted and subst'ed out of existence.  But unless that consensus is reached first, this template should remain. WildCowboy (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if this is clearly going to be a snowball keep, I can't let this go by with out objecting. It's as clear a case of overlinking as you can find, even if it might not be the most heinous example around. And how many of these "useful templates" do we have by now? The technocracy on English Wikipedia is by now a lot more than just a mere nuisance. Peter Isotalo 14:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is templatecruft and contravenes WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason really other than I like it.--Yankees10 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of what I enjoy about Wikipedia, is becoming lost in a series of non-sequitor links. I can go from baseball to the Middle Ages in a matter of minutes. I don't understand the need to place limits on our browsing. It smacks of over-zealous editing to me.Orsoni (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll be damned if I'm going to watch-list every template I use on a regular basis to make sure there's no mischief afoot. Nominator provides no argument rooted in policy; it's an extended form of IDONTLIKEIT, which makes my equally non-policy ILIKEIT a valid reason to keep. Can we close this? It's make a mess in the main namespace. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The TfD notice was moved into a "noinclude" tag yesterday, so there shouldn't be any more "mess" showing up in articles. If you are still seeing a notice for this on articles please give an example so someone can check out what's going on. --RL0919 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine now; thanks. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:CourtsSweden

 * 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

Orphaned and incorrect (most links are to courts in England and Wales). Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because most of the links are wrong, and the template doesn't seem to have been used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused, and doesn't work very well. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Glass  Cobra  01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:History by time period

 * 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

Orphaned template, not edited since May. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but it isn't used anywhere, and as far as I can tell never has been. Also nominating European history by time period for the same reason. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Template:Human history and prehistory and Template:History of Europe Infobox. Hyacinth (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those templates are actually in use; these two are not. If you want to keep them, put them in an article somewhere! :) Robofish (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete History by time period, since it appears to be redundant to Human history and prehistory. Weak delete for European history by time period, since it is not obviously redundant to anything (History of Europe Infobox is different content), but it is unused. Happy to change position if someone can find a use for it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.