Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 15 July 2012

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3

Template:Navbox link

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. There is a clear consensus that this is inappropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per a discussion at WT:FAC#views on boxes in "See also" that link to navboxes?, there is little support for the non-problem this template seeks to "solve". It clutters-up "see also" sections with a clunky box and also entails a bunch of messy (and in practise, invalid) code down near the navboxes. Removing this entails more than removing the template; further clean up is required. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant and confusing clutter: could be a link to an index or outline page, but for those that aren't mislead by it are their any readers who don't know where to find the end of the article (and use page down or hit 'space' twice to get there) without this?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as helpful for casual and novice users. Consider the middle school student doing a report on George Washington. Would she know that, if she hit "end," she would find two small boxes that, when opened, would reveal a wealth of related information? Sometimes we, as experienced editors, forget how ignorant newbies tend to be. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and tidy up as necessary. Templates are supposed to encapsulate complexity in a uniform way. This template requires horribly arcane coding in order to install it correctly (just look at the documentation which includes an unmatched terminating span tag). Far from making navigation aids more visible, the suggested implementation hides them behind another level of collapsed navbox and includes another graphic adding visual clutter. --Mirokado (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't this what the TOC is for? (click on "further reading" ) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnecessary clutter which complicates and doesn't help. PamD 07:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: totally useless, ugly, and redundant.PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solution in search of a problem. Chedzilla (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well meaning, but ultimately, a link designed to take the reader from the end of the article to... the end of the article. No practical value. Reso lute 20:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for not editor readers which would be most of wikipedia users who need to get passed the long lists of citations, and who may miss the Navigation boxes at the bottom of an article especially where some article have a pompous attitude towards the potential visiting readers by some teams of editors who wrongly assume that they have all the content in their prized article tyhat a reader would ever need. This solves the problem in articles relating to medical issues and other research lead issue where the next discovery can change the understanding that has gone before, and so there is always need to locate more related information to enable all to understand the bigger picture. dolfrog (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We seem to be completely ignoring casual and novice readers in a mad rush for "encyclopedic purity". Yours aye, Buaidh 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the implementation leaves a lot to be desired, the concept in itself is meritorious. The template really should only be used in articles where the navboxes are a long way away from the "see also" section (i.e. where there is a long references/sources section), and ideally it would even cause the navboxes to flash, like the "Rate this page" toolbox item on articles does. (Obviously this would require site JavaScript to be added.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hypothetical new reader at whom this is claimed to be aimed is likely to be confused, not helped by this - on clicking the link they'll be taken to a couple of inches down the same page, and will likely either think their browser is malfunctioning, or that there's a bug on the page. In any event, said hypothetical reader is far more likely to notice the large brightly-coloured boxes spanning the width of the page, than they are to notice a two-inch-wide box. Has anyone ever complained that they were having difficulty finding the navboxes on an article? Mogism (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point. Most readers to whom this box is targeted are the less computer-literate type who would never even dream of complaining about something on a website. We have to use other means to determine what they need so they can use Wikipedia most effectively. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No additional value, too complex, against MOS-guidelines. The assumption, that a casual reader is somehow unable to scroll down a webpage, is unfounded (and a little bit condescending towards new readers). Admittedly navigation in Wiki has become a bit more complex over time, but that's no reason to babysit Wiki-users for every trivial task - let's assume an average intelligence and common sense for most of them. GermanJoe (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, simply clutters the see also section and provides no real value. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concerned about clutter Tom B (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing and unnecessary.--GoP_T^C_{N 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - adds clutter; not helpful. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the reason for this idea but I think the implementation is wrong. We should start a discussion of why we have collections of internal article links in our "External links" sections. This is not intuitive at all. Surely "See also" should be the venue for these? (That's what this template is actually implying) We need to start a discussion to consider the reasons why navigation templates are placed where they are, apart from tradition. SFB 11:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole idea of pointing readers to navboxes seems flawed to me. I suspect that a first time reader would be just as likely to spot the screen-wide bar of the navbox as a small note that linked to it. What new reader wouldn't automatically scroll the whole page to see what's there? Of course, once you've seen a few navboxes, you know where to look for them anyway, so the vast majority of visitors don't need this template. I'm not aware of any call for a template to do this job, so it seems rather like a solution looking for a problem. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change?

Many of the delete comments seem to object to the "clunky" clickable side box but not to the goal of alerting readers that an article has one or more navigation boxes. With that in mind, what about doing away with the box and changing this template to simple plan text. Something along the lines of: "Find more Wikipedia articles related to {{{1| {{PAGENAME}} }}} in the navigation box information at the end of this page." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial problem from my perspective is how to link to related articles when you reach the end of the article you have just finished reading. Some articles do not have a "See also" section which does not encourage new Wikipedia readers to explore Wikipedia and use Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia. Some topics can not be covered by a single article or have multiple related issues especially regarding medical and research articles. Navigation boxes help provide lists of articles in some form of categorisation, which enable the reader to see how the article they are reading or have read relates to a wide range of issues. Ideally navigation boxes should be placed before the Reference or Citation sections of an article, an could possibly be an alternative to the See also section. The problem with many articles especially medical articles are the long lists of citations which are necessary, but for many readers a list of references or citations which appears to be endless represent the last content of the article, and as a result they never see the thin Navboxes located at the bottom of the page. So should navigation boxes be place below the last content section of an article and before the reference section, or do we have a template of improved quality which can help direct readers to the navigation boxes at the bottom of the page. Some who have supported the Delete option, seem to live in a perfect world where every visitor to Wikipedia has the time and inclination to read the volumes jargon that are supposed to define how Wikipedia is set out, most want an easy read, and easy options to find more related information, they not overly bothered about the type of code or looking pretty, but prefer functional and usable. There are also those like me who have a communication disability (the cause of my dyslexia) who may not initially understand how to find more information and more articles and are looking for something like this template to help find more information and find their way around Wikipedia dolfrog (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Butwhatdoiknow's idea is a good one. The long lists of references (for example, at Barack Obama) will make many readers think the article is over, when there is actually useful navigation content (external links, navboxes, categories) still to come, and a small hatnote-style notice would help readers to find this. Perhaps the text could be a little shorter than the initial suggestion above, but it's a good start. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point in some random collection of articles being flagged with this bit of self-reference when navboxes are so commonly used as to be nearly ubiquitous on high-profile pages. Do we need some of these for categories as well? A little box saying "for this article in other languages, see the list in the left-hand sidebar"? It's an extraneous bit of self-reference. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the reductio ad absurdum argument (which can be used to attack any proposition), and keeping in mind that the "Change?" proposition is to do away with a box and just have a hatnote-style notice, are you of the opinion that unsophisticated users know that nearly all high-profile pages have small, information-rich navigation boxes after the notes, further reading, and external links sections (all of which high-profile pages are likely to have)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly polite to label perfectyl valid arguments about similar situations as reductio ad absurdum. The onus is on you to explain why this isn't a solution in need for a problem, and you've yet to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any rudeness. I respectfully suggest that navigation boxes (which contain well-organized links to related Wikipedia articles) are of much greater benefit to many more readers than categories (which are not well-organized) and other language links (which contain the same - rather than related - information). Hence, while a flag for navigation boxes would help a great number of casual readers (albeit at the cost of being "noise" to experienced editors), it would not have the same benefit for categories or other language links. Do you disagree with this analysis? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as i have detailed above exists especially on the so called high-profile articles. I have a communication disability which puts me in the "unsophisticated user" bracket, and i need additional visual aides to help me navigate through life let alone a Wikipedia article which has been designed for those who do not share my communication disability which tend to be created by those who have good auditory processing abilities and are therefore able to easily process text, and have good copy editing skills. Due to my communication disability my copy editing skills are next to Zero which limnits my editing contributions to finding supporting citation resources and highlighting errors. Unfortunately not many other editors understand the nature of my disability, which can be very frustrating and to me and at times some editors seem to be discriminating against my disability most probably unintentionally. So the problem exists but there are some who prefer not to recognise the nature of the problem for their own reasons. dolfrog (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of being prejudiced against the disabled is not a particularly effective way of persuading them that your argument is sound. Even if it were generally agreed that the existence of navboxes should be highlighted somehow, the absolute worst way to do it would be to rely on editors placing some template in the content area. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC, it is said that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest. That said, I am certainly open to different approaches. What do you have in mind as a better approach to the "navigation boxes as Easter eggs" issue? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I'm not swayed by the suggestion to change the wording as proposed. If the target audience is very new readers, then they will probably be thinking, "What's 'navigation box information'?" Hardly anybody is going to spot a single line of plain text anyway. And there is your dilemma: if the notification/link is innocuous, then the folks whom you think it might benefit won't spot it; if it's very noticeable, then all the rest of the readers will be annoyed by the distraction, clutter, etc. Lose-lose, I'm sorry to say. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Butwhatdoiknow /likes/ to "change" the topic of discussion; did it at WT:FAC, too. The Whole Idea behind this is poor and it is /not/ an ACCESS issue. This is poor navigation and useless and ineptly implemented markup in articles. It's also an obsession for Butwhatdoiknow, because this is all they've done for months. It should all be deleted and cleaned-up and BWDIK cautioned against inflicting anything in this vein on articles again without establishing a clear prior consensus. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rabbit, one of your concerns is "ineptly implemented markup." I am trying to respond to that concern with the idea of not using a side box with a link but, instead, using simple text. If this idea is accepted then I will join you in cleaning up the articles that are currently set up for the sidebox/link approach. If modifying my original proposal to resolve your concerns is changing the subject then I plead guilty. But I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about: One editor proposes something and, if another editor disagrees, they try to work together toward a consensus. (With regard to "establishing a clear prior consensus," I did first float the side box idea at wp:Layout and was told to try it out.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I inadvertently stumbled across the "try it out" suggestion, and did just that. The template although in the early stages of development provide a solution to a repeating problem in articles regarding how the specific topic fits into its natural wider range of related issues, which is best done by one or more navigation boxes. The "Also see" section in some articles can become over run with lists of uncategorised related articles. I am aware that the design of navigation boxes means that they can only be located at the top or bottom of an article, as mid article they could suggest a false end to the article contents. In Medical articles, which is where i spend most of my time on Wikipedia cut edge genetic and nuerobiological research are continually demonstrating that may issues are inter-related, and complex than most can have imagined say 10 years ago, and this complicated inter-relationship between topics will increase as the researchers increase our understanding of how the brain and our bodies work. So this an ACCESS issue, where to include the navigation boxes in an article, and how to refer to the navigation boxes from within an article to provide a summary of the broader picture when required. Some existing articles may need to be subdivided as the research increases the understanding of the inter-related and wider issues. Take my own disability; Auditory processing disorder APD the first international symposium was held last March to gain an international definition of APD, a bit late for those who have been diagnosed as having APD over the last 20 years or so. APD is the developmental version of a listening disability, the acquired versions are included in Aphasia and the related Agnosias. APD is one of the underlying cognitive disabilities which cause the developmental dyslexia symptom which has a corresponding acquired dyslexia also called Alexia. So there are developmental issues, acquired problems resulting from brain injury, stroke, dementia, etc, all of which are inter-related and need to be put into some perspective as part of the encyclopedic work of Wikipedia so that the reader can locate the information they are specifically seeking. And this does not begin to include the possible co-morbid issues, and how they can further complicate things. The navigation box or boxes can provide this wider perspective and may need to be referred to and accessed from different points with an article. General awareness of my disability is not very high, as a result some may unintentionally be discriminating against my disability due to a lack of awareness of the nature of my communication issues, which is all part of being a pioneer, first to be diagnosed, with a debilitating condition. dolfrog (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a consensus to have absolutely none of this poor idea; I'm seeing it emerge, above, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well we seem to be on opposing sides, this idea needs to be developed to increase ACCESS to navigation boxes from various areas of a page/article, to make Wikipedia more user /reader friendly. dolfrog (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well versed in, and supportive of, accessibility issues. This isn't one. Your claiming that it is one, does not make it one. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well it seems that you are not able to appreciate the assess needs of others gentically different from your self. And you claim to be well versed but fail to provide and adequate support for your claims, nor willing to discusss the access needs of others. Your comments appear to lack any good faith, and only reflect your own personal agenda. dolfrog (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. R, consensus " means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." While many comments above express no concern regarding the visibility of navboxes, a less than insignificant number of comments do express such a concern. This, to me, means that we should at least try to incorporate those concerns. With that in mind, what harm do you see in a simple, short line of text in the See also section alerting readers that an article has one or more navboxes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be tedious. I've said plainly and repeatedly that I don't see any of this is needful or appropriate. Time for you to hear that. Delete and remove debris. Got it? "Alert readers taht an article haz navboxen?" You make me laugh. Got lulz? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you continue to demonstrate that you have have little understanding of the world outside of your personal orbit, and the needs of those who do not share your own access needs. So far you have not demonstrated that you understand the varying access needs of others, which reflects the wider population who use Wikipedia. dolfrog (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. R, I want to assure you that I hear loud and clear that you don't see any of this as needful or appropriate. And I'll add that I also hear that more of the comments above agree with you than don't. But that doesn't change the fact that there are editors who disagree with you. Given this fact, I respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility of compromise as a possible way of resovling this discussion. (And, by the way, would you please do me a personal favor and review wp:civility?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are successful in your endeavor then I hope you'll appreciate that special feeling that comes from being a winner. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yawns. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't change it, just delete it. and while we are at it, delete all of these related information sections which contain nothing but navigation boxes. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what is your concern regarding a line of text in See also alerting readers that an article has one or more navboxes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the consensus, with reasons given above, is to delete it. Yes, it could be changed in a thousand ways to make it less obtrusive/clearer/easier to use/prettier. But we're here to discuss one or all of those, just the one at the top of this section.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to say "we're not here to discuss." If so then I agree that the general consensus is that the template "as is" should not survive. The question them becomes what to do next. Are you saying that those who favor the text-only idea should start an entirely new template and then let that template rise or fall on its own merits? If so then I agree that we can delete this template (after cleaning up the pages on which it is found) and will proceed on that basis. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wp:disruptive. This will be deleted and you should not seek another route to the same poor end. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when there's consensus to delete something then the right thing to do if you disagree is accept it, not create something immediately after that does exactly the same thing. This is not an article with notability issues which can be addressed if sources are found.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your "But we're here to discuss ... just the one at the top of this section" comment. With that in mind, and since Mr. R gave as his principal reasons to delete the side box template that it "clutters-up "see also" sections with a clunky box and also entails a bunch of messy (and in practise, invalid) code down near the navboxes," I had thought it appropriate to propose the text-only alternative. Evidently I was wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This dead horse keeps on rising and people keep on flogging it. Butwhatdoiknow: please raise concerns or suggestions about page-bottom navboxes at a more appropriate venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. SFB 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the side box link to nav boxes was discussed at wp:layout. Mr. Rabbit elected to bring that discussion here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer beam

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) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer beam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several closely related requests should probably have been handled as one multiple request (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Listing_a_template). I suggest discuss all of them here. Perhaps someone knows if it is possible to tidy this listing up retrospectively? --Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally more trouble than they are worth once some ships have been refitted differently from others which is not unthinkable. Also, these are simply the values for a particular class of destroyer, not even adding some consistency value to destroyer or warship articles as a whole. Is this the only ship type to which this has been done so far? If not any other similar should be dealt with at the same time. --Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I see the problem there. If you have a series of identical ships and one of them undertakes modifications, you can simply not use the template in the one special case. But I fail to see why the existence of exceptions should prevent benefiting from the otherwise very significant benefits of using templates. Rama (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and then delete - stable text, ships out of service/sunk/scrapped and text not likely to need refreshing simutaneously. A similar case for the Vanguard class submarines was deleted in Dec last year (and there have been previous instances I seem to recall - vaguely) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer complement

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer complement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer displacement

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer draft

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer length

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer propulsion

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer propulsion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer range

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer sensors

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer sensors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:CFA destroyer speed

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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer speed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2012 (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:Tol

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 Deleted per editor request. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created during a previous deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 12#Template:Cto, as a proposed replacement for that. Proposal was rejected so this should be deleted, as a clone of that, as it's unused and to tidy up after that discussion. Ideally it would be speedily deleted but I could not find a criteria that precisely matched. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete: ~~Please keep this template. There is no reasonable argument to delete it.~~ Yours aye, Buaidh 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a yet another one-off of {{cto}}, and per the arguments put forth in that TfD. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A restriction should be placed on the user that keeps creating these templates.Moxy (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draw-and-quarter or just expulsion from the human race? Buaidh 18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a restriction is warranted, but Buaidh needs to be reminded that it is usually better to seek consensus before introducing grand new schemes into articles. Since the content is the same as {{cto}}, this should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a "grand new scheme". This template produces the same links as have been included in the See also sections for many years.

I'm not sure that teaching me a lesson is an appropriate topic for this forum. I really feel that this template should be judged on its own merit, not the perceived errancy of its creator. I created this template in an honest attempt to help users. Apparently, I've been identified as a trouble-causer on Wikipedia. That was certainly never my intent. All of the above comments above focus on me and my actions rather than this template. I'm really not sure how one gets a consensus agreement on a template when it has never been deployed.

I promise to never again attempt to introduce anything new to Wikipedia. ~~Wikipedia was created perfect and should never ever change.~~ Far more time seems to be wasted reverting my edits than I spend making them. Yours aye, Buaidh 14:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I did make a comment about the template itself, but at the same time I thought it was pertinent to direct a comment towards you. I think your bold new ideas would be seen in a better light if you implemented them after seeking broader consensus, rather than beforehand. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold new ideas? Give me a break. Only if you've been living in a cave. Buaidh 18:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per previous arguments. Buaidh, sarcasm doesn't help your case, nor did your recent rudeness in using this template pervasively without a single word of explanation to anyone. Cresix (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to anyone I offended. I'm just very flustered. I can't seem to make an edit without offending someone. When I attempt to resolve a problem, I seem to offend twice as many users. I truly meant no offense to anyone.

I've been coding professionally for 41 years, so I'm hardly new to this. With all of the flak I've been getting, both warranted and unwarranted, I can hardly imagine how a novice user would feel. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project. If you decide not to explain yourself, not even making an edit summary, then "flak" is what happens, and justifiably so. Novice editors are usually given flexibility. You're not a novice. You should know better. Cresix (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience is that novices are treated far worse than experienced editors by most of the Wikipedia "old guard".

Again, your condemnation of this template is not based on any of its merits, since it has never been installed. If you find my unrelated actions offensive, you should deal with me. Since I was only making minor edits, I didn't feel an elaborate explanation was in order. I doubt that this will happen again.

Collaboration need not mean lowest common denominator. Every time I seek consensus I get lambasted by "self-appointed experts" who haven't bothered to read the entire proposal. The See also sections of Wikipedia are a huge hodgepodge. I'm happy to leave this mess to others. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:58, 6 July 2012 (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:Game rationale

Template:Game rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover. WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates identifies it as "older style". It was substituted, not transcluded, so there is no need to merge. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that the similar {{Logo rationale}} was nominated last year (2011 May 15) without consensus; some editors preferred to keep the template which requires substitution, as this allows the wording to be easily customised. I am not persuaded by this, as there is always the option to substitute a template even if it does not require it, after which the text can be customised in just the same way. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a newer, not an older style, so I've modified WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates, and left a note on the talk page. Otherwise, this is a useful template, which isn't especially complex, so when substituted, it's straightforward to customize. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all games are video games. Are you suggesting that board game covers or computer game covers should use a video game rationale? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No; like other templates for video games which used to be named just "game…", this template has always been for video games. This template transcludes {{Non-free game cover}}, which has just been moved to {{Non-free video game cover}} but was always about video games. If the nominated template is kept, I would move it to "Video game rationale" anyway. I have no objection to creating a new template for board games; in fact I would favour this. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My fault. I should have checked this better. I only had access to a 70 mm phone screen when I wrote the above, and it is then easy to overlook something. I also support renaming the template to avoid ambiguity. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

empty template (policy is that only entries with an independent article are listed). Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nominator is correct. TF policy is to only have links in templates to aviation accidents and incidents with their own article, not to notable people who died in crashes, redirects, or to non-existent pages aka redlinks. 1900-09 was early in the history of aviation. Articles that would meet TF criteria don't exist at the moment and unlikely to do so at some point in the future....William 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lebaudy République (1909) is a relevant article that could be included in this template just like the French airship Dixmude (1923) or the USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) (1925) in their respective templates. However, it is also possible to give 1909 its own template back and delete this one.--Countakeshi (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore entries As WilliamJE pointed out, this was very early in the history of aviation. Incidents which would not be notable today were notable in regards to aviation history at the time. Because of this, there should be an exception to only include links to incidents with their own article. There were very notable subjects in this template, such as the Langley Aerodrome which was a flying machine which failed days before the Wright Brothers did it. Thomas Etholen Selfridge who was the first person to die in a crash of a powered airplane (which also was being flown by Orville Wright). Eugène Lefebvre was the first person to die while piloting a powered plane. Ferdinand Ferber was a major influence on the development of aviation. The airship Lebaudy République crashed and killed 4 crew, likely one of the deadliest aviation accidents at the time.Michael5046 (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't the policy of the TF on accidents and incidents to put persons in the templates, whether they are aviators or persons killed in plane crashes. Here are two posts on what are supposed[1] to be in the templates including one[2] on this very issue. When accident articles are made into redirects to the type of aircraft, the accident is taken out of the template. The template isn't for aircraft for either.

- These templates are must like this list where independent articles are required and where links to lists of accidents by type of aircraft aren't allowed. Again the criteria were set[3]

- If you disagree with the criteria of the task force, bring it up for debate. At this moment your opinion isn't the task force's policy....William 15:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "criteria of the task force" or "task force policy", just posts by you. Like I already said, aviation accidents from the 1900s can't be compared to what would be newsworthy or applicable today. The examples of persons I listed are not about them, but the accidents they died in. Michael5046 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) I don't see a clear expression of the Aviation accident task force - or WPAviation project - policy in the given links to discussion on the matter. 2) Wikipedia wide consensus is generally considered to overule project-specific policies. 3) If the navbox serves the purpose of moving the reader between related content, what good does deletion do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Here is another TFD[4] from early 2012 where the policy did come up....William 22:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subatomic particle/symbol

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. no consensus at this time, keeping for now. Whether this change will in fact improve performance is an ongoing technical discussion. Currently there is no consensus to migrate several hundred templates. -- Selket ^Talk 18:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subatomic particle/symbol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

list of templates

This template currently uses several hundred subpages to function. This is very inefficient and is causing other problems like several hundred of these being listed on the unused templates list. Per a discussion on the Village pump (technical) the template was redesigned to use only 2 subpages. A full list of the 590+ affected subpages is included. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see my comment below regarding the timing of this TFD. JIMp_talk·cont 06:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace usage: After days of testing a new, optimized template, those "590" subtemplates (many unused) should be replaced with the new Template:Subatomic_particle/getsymbol, which uses a 6-way #switch on first letter to sub#switch'es which branch to the related markup for a specific particle name, passed as parameter 1. For efficiency considerations, the most-used particle names were moved to the start of the sub#switch'es, as early branches, and then will be matched sooner, bypassing the lesser used (or unused) particle names lower in the #switch. The prior 590 individual subtemplates had become out-of-sync with the related "566" symbol-link subtemplates, indicating how the scattering of particle names into 1,156 separate subtemplates had led to many mismatches, and instead, the particle names should be handled by concise, 1-subtemplate #switch logic, to centralize processing into one page, checked for completeness against other lists. Even though the prior design, as 590 individual subtemplates, might have seemed "efficient", it is not very efficient to overlook and omit cases which would fail in future usage. Instead, combine all particle-name entries into one template as a ~~single~~ multi-level #switch structure, with entries ordered by frequency to improve efficiency of lookup, where slow performance has been detected. Multiple tests of the new version (displaying 20 or 500 symbols), using Template:Subatomic_particle/getsymbol, have shown the optimized markup can run 20% faster than the prior 1,156 subtemplates, so run-time efficiency is no longer a concern. Also, a total of 21 failed cases have been added to the new version (with 27 links), to fix the prior missing symbols, as a single edit, now that all cases are within 1 template. For the future, dozens of other symbols could be added in a single edit, and the whole template could be ported to another language, as an interwiki translation, installing just the one template, rather than porting the prior 1,156 subtemplates plus dozens more for new symbols. To show subatomic symbols with wikilinks, in 4 languages, would require just 4 interwiki templates, not 4,800 subtemplates. -Wikid77 10:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment, the performance issues are being addressed, but it still seems a bit premature to say there is anything conclusive. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2012 (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:Subatomic particle/link

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. no consensus at this time, keeping for now. Whether this change will in fact improve performance is an ongoing technical discussion. Currently there is no consensus to migrate several hundred templates. -- Selket ^Talk 18:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subatomic particle/link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

list of templates

This template currently uses several hundred subpages to function. This is a very inefficient and is causing other problems like several hundred of these being listed on the unused templates list. Per a discussion on the Village pump (technical) the template was redesigned to use only 2 subpages. A full list of the 550+ affected subpages is included. Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace usage: Those "566" subtemplates (many unused) should be replaced with the new Template:Subatomic_particle/getlink, which uses a 6-way #switch on first letter to sub#switch'es to branch to the related markup for a specific particle name, passed as parameter 1. For efficiency considerations, the most-used particle names ~~can be~~ were moved to the start of the sub#switch'es, as early branches, and then will be matched sooner, bypassing the lesser used (or unused) particle names lower in the #switch. The prior 566 individual subtemplates had become out-of-sync with the related "590" symbol-display subtemplates, indicating how the scattering of particle names into 1,156 separate subtemplates had led to 27 mismatches, and instead, the particle names should be handled by concise, 1-subtemplate #switch logic, to centralize processing into one page, checked for completeness against other lists. Even though the prior design, as 566 individual subtemplates, might have seemed "efficient", it is not very efficient to overlook and omit many cases which would fail in future usage. Instead, combine all particle-name entries into one template as a ~~single~~ multi-level #switch structure, with entries ordered by frequency to improve efficiency of lookup, where slow performance had been detected. Multiple tests of the new version (displaying 20 or 500 symbols), using Template:Subatomic_particle/getlink have shown the optimized markup runs 20% faster than the prior 1,156 subtemplates, so run-time efficiency is no longer a concern. Also, a total of 27 failed cases have been added to the new version, to fix the prior missing symbols, as a single edit, now that all cases are within 1 template. For the future, dozens of other symbols could be added in a single edit, and the whole template could be ported to another language, as an interwiki translation, installing just the one template, rather than porting the prior 1,156 subtemplates, plus dozens more for new symbols. To show subatomic symbols with wikilinks, in 4 languages, would require just 4 interwiki templates, not 4,800 subtemplates. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012, revised 09:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder whether this TFD is a tad premature. The creator of these has brought into question the efficiency of the large #switches intended to replace the three and twenty score and half a dozen subtemplates. I think he might have a point. There are valid arguments on both sides, though. It might be better to allow the discusssion underway at VP to run its course before deletion is considered. JIMp_talk·cont 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment, we replaced the large switch in {{portal}} with subtemplates, and now we are replacing large groups of subtemplates with a large switch. efficiency was one of the reasons for getting rid of large switches. it seems a bit premature to change to the new template, but I would be glad to be proved wrong by some real performance studies. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2012 (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:Nation of Yahweh

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) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nation of Yahweh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this org has 2 articles, itself and its founder, which are also proposed for a merge. the other articles in the template are all links in the article itself, and the navigation box provides no additional value for navigating this extremely narrow subject. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most links within this template are to more general subjects that are already linked within the article. The few articles that directly relate to each other (the Nation, the founder and Robert Rozier) are adequately linked within their own pages. (I have removed the merge proposal, which was not explained.) I am minded to nominate Category:Nation of Yahweh for deletion after this discussion is completed. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 6 July 2012 (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.

@@ Line 853: / Line 853: @@
 ==== [[Template:Subatomic particle/link]] ====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section.''
+The result of the discussion was '''delete'''. '''no consensus at this time''', keeping for now.  Whether this change will in fact improve performance is an ongoing technical discussion.  Currently there is no consensus to migrate several hundred templates. -- '''[[User:Selket|Selket]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Selket|Talk]]</sup> 18:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 :{{Tfd links|Subatomic particle/link}}
 {{hidden begin|toggle=left|title=list of templates}}
@@ Line 1,434: / Line 1,439: @@
 :<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:JPG-GR|JPG-GR]] ([[User talk:JPG-GR|talk]]) 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
 ==== [[Template:Nation of Yahweh]] ====