Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]


Template:Francis[edit]

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. Looks like the template has reached a viable size, and it has already been renamed to {{Pope Francis}}. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Francis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One article. No need for its own navigational box which is for article collection. 86.40.200.32 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be filled in quickly, I'd assume. Let's give it a day to see what happens. Randy Kryn 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is mere speculation. You have no way of knowing that and have offered nothing to the contrary. The fact remains there is only one article. That article can grow and grow and grow to kingdom come but it does not make it a collection of articles. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But by what? And no, it is not obvious. He may be pope but what other articles are there apart from the conclave? It is completely unnecessary until there is more information than there is now, if there is more information than there is now, if there are multiple pages. Its existence goes against everything at Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If we're going to do that we can just create these things for everyone and anyone and say we'll fill them out later. These templates are reserved for collections of articles, not just for any old someone who is famous, not automatically awarded because someone is famous. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template could easily be filled up over time. Articles for cardinals he will create, encyclicals he will write, foreign trips he will take, to give some examples, would all go there. Also, it is only a matter of time before a separate article on his early life (such as with Benedict XVI) is created, so that would go there as well. I vote to keep. User:Compy90
  • Yes but again, this does not apply right now. There is simply no need for a template while there exists only one article to put on it. You mention foreign trips and encyclicals - but he may not even take (m/any) foreign trips or write anything. He is nearly 77, about the same age as his predecessor was. In all of his predecessor's years there are only specific articles devoted to two trips - UK and US. Your response is based entirely on guesswork and predicting the future. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently delete - can be restored when the need arrises due to the number of articles that need to be linked. Agathoclea (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) - rechecking the expanded version: oh dear! -> strong delete Agathoclea (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per Edgars2007. Can be added in the future when it contains something. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As was said above, it will get filled quickly. I am also troubled that this was nominated for deletion by ananon IP. 14:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talk • contribs)
    • Why? This is bit cheap from someone who is themselves anonymous and has nothing to do with keeping or deleting. What about WP:AGF? A quick check would show numerous papal-related contributions and other contributions. --86.40.200.82 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Layers of irony here. This wasn't anonymous—just unsigned. Editors forget to sign their posts all the time. So as you put it, AGF. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGF what and how? There was no name. That sounds anonymous to me - a lot more anonymous than an IP. It was an anti-IP comment, and one without a signature at that. I'm sick to death of hearing snide remarks about IP editors. They have no place here. It would be just as easy to cause the trouble (referred to by the anonymous person above) while using a user name. In fact it would be much easier since the individual with the user name would have access to more pages. --86.40.200.82 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith that the editor merely forgot his signature, not that he was trying to remain anonymous. Indeed, he would've been foolish to do the latter, not just because he'd look like a hypocrite but because it was incredibly to easy to check the page history to ascertain who posted it. See Help:Page history. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They can be easily re created when it can cover more pages however 1 or 2 pages is not enough to have a template. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to match parent article. Deleting would be spitting in the wind. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but rename to pope francis. why waste time deleting a template that will almost certainly be needed later? as BDD said, it's like spitting in the wind. if we later find it is unneeded, then we can just got straight to csd. what is wrong with planning ahead? what harm does this navbox do to Wikipedia? Aunva6 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but change to "Pope Francis" and add the article on Pope Francis. No, "it's five minutes too early" BS.Ericl (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, will fill up quickly, and if deleted, it would be sure to recreated very quickly due to person's notability. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wilbysuffolk. Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as {{Pope Francis}}); there is little chance it will remain as useless as it currently is for very long. Doesn't seem like there's any real point in deleting now it just to recreate it again in a few(-ish) months. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too soon. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two articles to it, the biography and the biographer Cambalachero (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see that this Template has been expanded from the single-link stub it was, but for all the valiant effort the links are still too few to justify a NavBox. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep since this will be filled quickly. The chief article is approaching the size that it will be broken into parts plus every major event he does now is sufficiently notable for its own article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, it has been significantly expanded since the initial creation. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but rename {{Pope Francis}} due to disambiguation issues. The papacy is not even one week old, so it's normal that there be only one article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because this now has his coat of arms as pontiff, and it links to the conclave that elected him as that pontiff. Further, it has other infomation of note to readers of this encyclopdia such as who his biographer is.HotHat (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because this template will grow in the future. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because the fact that it is available will help populate it all the more quickly. There's plenty of real work to be done rather than undoing what we'll redo shortly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:Special Elections to the 114th United States Congress[edit]

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; deleted as T3 by Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Special Elections to the 114th United States Congress  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty. —GoldRingChip 14:19, 13 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:(X)HTML[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(X)HTML (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Was originally created for use on {{strong}}'s documentation subpage, but that's now been edited away for a more relevant link (by me). It seems unlikely that this template will see use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's still usable, there are already pages that contain "(X)HTML" (e.g. Geo (microformat)), and it is easier and more clean to write {{(X)HTML}}, instead of ([[XHTML|X]])[[HTML]] or &#91;[[XHTML|X]]&#93;[[HTML]]. --Z 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (X)HTML already points at an appropriate target. This goes out of its way to be pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as basically redundant to (X)HTML redirect -PC-XT+ 11:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rarely used therefore not needed. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:Steven Shane McDonald[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steven Shane McDonald (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically, just a combination of two band templates {{Off!}} and {{Redd Kross}}. Since one of these would/should be on each one of the linked articles, they already pass WP:ANOEP and don't need a second navbox for an individual band member. By going to Steven Shane McDonald, one can link to any of the his bands or their albums because it will be the one where having both navboxes would make sense. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WRONG!!! Green and Yellow TV is not on EITHER {{Off!}} and {{Redd Kross}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would Green and Yellow TV need to link from anything to do from those two bands. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Three words, Steven Shane McDonald. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another absurd navbox-by-numbers rationalised on the very-much-not-consensus position that every single notable musician, and every single notable band, must be cross-linked via navigation templates. A quick examination of the aforementioned Green and Yellow TV shows how hilariously wrongheaded this is: the other, more famous projects of the bass player who "stepped in" to record two singles for the band are probably the most prominent part of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the guy ever embarks on a solo career and releases his own records, maybe we'll have something here. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to future recreation, per BDD. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - In what navbox should "Green and Yellow TV" and Ze Malibu Kids go then? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question is leading because it assumes that they need a navbox. They don't. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Nevertheless, a navbox will improve connectivity between articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true of all navboxes. You haven't shown why the use of a navbox here does so. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Per WP:ANOEP, Green and Yellow TV and Ze Malibu Kids do not link to any Off nor Redd Kross albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go. I'll simply stop now, since your view is so diametrically opposed to the majority of those who edit this page. Thanks for the conversation. --Izno (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Jax, if you want to link these articles, the best way would be to do so in prose; failing that, you could make a see also section. --BDD (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2013 (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 section.

Queen album templates[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Day At The Races (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Game (Queen album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hot Space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Innuendo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jazz (Queen album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:News Of The World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:A Night At The Opera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:A Kind Of Magic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Flash Gordon (soundtrack) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Made In Heaven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Queen (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Miracle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Works (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Queen II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sheer Heart Attack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused expect in their respective album articles, which already show the track list. Many of these are quite lacking in terms of navigational ability, but in the end, the template {{Queen singles}} already exists and seems to be the preferred use for navigation between Queen songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a lack of rationale for deletion there. They should be added instead to the articles they are missing from. Absence from their articles is no excuse for deletion. There are plenty of similar album templates - categories full of them actually - and I see no reason to single out Queen, other than that these have not yet been added to the relevant articles. Note that not all album tracks can be added to singles templates - only those that are released as singles can. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pointed out that they are not being used. The argument is that there is already a template for the songs by Queen which breaks them down by album rather than all these individual ones. And who's singling out Queen? Then there's {{Rihanna songs}}, which lists all songs with articles, not just singles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are not being used. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination statement. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:'Isa[edit]

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, fork of {{Isa}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:'Isa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a sidebar about Jesus in Islam, just like Template:Isa. Both were created by the same user. Up until this revision the template Isa was remarkably similar to this present template. It was changed after a discussion to its present form, then a version similar to the old one was restored. This change was reverted as well, and the template "'Isa" was created a couple of weeks later. Overall, it seems like a content fork created to go against consensus. If that's the case, it should be deleted. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus! actually the thing is that there was no consensus and the only reason the opponent provides at the Template talk:Isa is the use of an infobox in a template. Similar to the one you made at Template:Rashidun Caliphs as here and i just dont get the point why an infobox cannot be used as a template is there a hard and fast policy that states not to use it or what? which i am unaware of. The purpose of this template is to serve as an infobox as well as a template.But prior to this at Template talk:Isa there was a forced opinion not to use it without pointing to any policy that states not to use it as here, here here and even on the talk page of "Isa" i don't find any justified point that states not to use of template as per this policy other then the point that it have infobox content. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to take part into that discussion or revive it. The matter here is different: is this template a POVFORK? If it is, it should be deleted, period.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
POV how come it can be a POV if i have provided the sources earlier as well the only negating point is that it hold an infobox into it. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibrahim, I'm confused. You created both of these templates, and both fairly recently. They're clearly duplicates, so they should be merged, probably under the more intuitive name {{Isa}}, and the other name redirected. What's going on here? --BDD (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this template has links that are being categorized and i have talked about it earlier on the Template talk:Isa for using links only not the content and the editors suggested that if it holds links then it is fine to use but now eh bien mon prince suggest removal of the categorization and use of links only without any customization. I think we can make a policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for not using such categorization as in this template if there is no prior one. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:Iran Football's 3rd Division[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Football's 3rd Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template of dubious notability, many of the teams were deleted in AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anzan Izeh F.C. one example with the rest prime candidates for deletion, everything else in that template is rather off-topic here Delete Secret account 03:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, notability at this level is not automatic as has been shown from the deletion at AfD of dozens of club articles, this template is seemingly encouraging the re-creation of aforementioned unsuitable content. C679 06:11, 20 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Champions[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like the NCAA tourney navboxes below, I'm nominating this on WP:ATC and WP:NENAN. I'd also like to mention there is another open TfD about a very similar navbox that can be found here. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jrcla2. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been an understanding, if not a formal consensus, that the college sports Wikiprojects will not create conference championship navboxes, choosing instead to emphasize national championship navboxes. My "delete" !vote here is a vote to sustain that understanding, in conformance with Jrcla's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:2012–13 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament navbox[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Oh boy, March Madness rolls around and now everybody wants to start creating templates. My official reason is WP:ATC with a healthy side of WP:NENAN. The second and third navboxes aren't even being used and look like sandbox drafts if anything. Some editors are just a little too gung-ho with these sorts of creations. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these navboxes are needed. I already deleted them from all the pages the creator put them on and left them a message on his/her page. The category for the tournament participants is enough, no need for a navbox to.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that's a delete !vote? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - over-templatization. Absolutely not needed. Rikster2 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Jrcla2 and Rikster2. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they should have never been created to begin withBsuorangecrush (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikiproject College Basketball creates and maintains extensive article coverage of the NCAA basketball tournament, and the project has chosen not to create annual NCAA templates with 68 team links to the current tournament participants. Sixty-eight alphabetical team links, with no organization or subdivision, is marginally useful for reader navigation at best. No further justification for deleting this template is necessary, however, beyond the consensus of WP:CBB editors that there are better navigation systems for the NCAA tournament than templates of this design. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (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 section.

Template:Gall Force[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gall Force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary navbox, only 2 wikilinks. RadioFan (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2013 (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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_13&oldid=1136430258"