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. It's not a requirement, it's a good-faith request. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While the intention might have been good, this template gives the impression that the author can add additional restrictions outside the text defined by given license (cc-by-*/gfdl). Any image with the correct license can, and should be moved to commons. This also applies to ((NoCommons)). _→AzaToth 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I may disagree. Commons copyright policies are much more strict compared to Wikipedia's policies, which is why it's more helpful to keep local copies of these images here. I've seen situations where Wikipedia image files have been transferred over to the Commons, to be deleted over there due to new stricter policies and various copyright paranoia. It would be much easier if the files were never transferred over there in the first place. Many such articles were left without reasonable images that were alright for use on Wikipedia. ddima.talk 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're thinking of ((Do not move to Commons)). For images that are truly free, there really is no need to keep local copies of them. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are motivations for keeping images here. For example, vandalized image descriptions generally will be reverted faster when they are local than on Commons. Similarly local talk pages are easier to follow than Commons ones. In rare cases I've even seen Commons and Enwiki have divergent ideas about what should be included in an image description. Once upon a time, CSD actually said that local images should not be removed if someone had requested that the local copy be preserved (e.g, via ((KeepLocal))). None of this prevents a copy from also existing on Commons, of course. However, after literally years of pushing, people removed that exception from CSD when people like me got tired of pushing back. So now when some of the global warming images I care about have their descriptions vandalized that vandalism tends to be more persistent. Sigh. If there were unified cross-project watchlists the situation might be better but we aren't there yet. Regardless though, I've given up. The other side has won. So enjoy the unified but less well managed images, and go ahead and delete the templates if you must.  :-P. Dragons flight (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the template is rarely used but it has some valid usage. Firstly, the applicability of some licenses is not always clear. I would remember the sage over ((PD-Russia)) or ((Kremlin.ru)), etc. It is better to keep local copies of such images if they can be claimed as fair use or other Commons-incompatible license. Secondly, sometimes it is easier to patrol images that a kept locally if they are a frequent vandalism target. Thirdly, there are users that for some reasons dislike Commons projects. They cannot prevent us from copying their images to Commons. But if we delete their images locally and upload them on Commons under different names then it is quite easy to violate terms of GFDL. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Wikipedia and Commons were more "joined up" there would not be a problem, but per Dragon's Flight and DDima I have seen endless difficulties after images are moved to Commons. If the problems were visisble to the original author on en.wiki it would not be so bad. But as I say, it is not joined up, an image can get moved to Commons, deleted on en, problems discussed on Commons and the image deleted at Commons as well, all without the author or the article it is in ever being informed. The first the author knows about it is the image disappears from the article, he/she may not even notice that if they are not paying attention because a bot comes round afterwards and cleans the article of all trace of the image ever having been there. Plus, the job is often not done properly and the attribution chain gets broken, especially when the case is not straightforward. I cannot even see how you can claim to be properly attributing at all in the case of images (eg diagrams) that have been modified by multiple authors as the history of file uploads is lost when moved to Commons. SpinningSpark 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the others, I have seen many images by many editors simply become unfindable when they are moved to Commons; other editors upload over top of them, they get renamed, they get incorrectly named or categorized, they are otherwise degraded or occasionally deleted outright. Many editors upload images in anticipation of writing articles in the future, know where they are and what they're called when they're uploaded originally, and can't find them later, demotivating them from writing the articles to accompany them. Attribution chains are often broken, as noted above; differences in licensing requirements can also be problematic. Risker (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox School JeppeBoys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox template apparently meant to be specific to one school. Whpq (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franchises owned by Lucas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wholly unnecessary "navigation" box. Direct ownership by George Lucas isn't asserted or clear in any of these -- except maybe Star Wars. However, layers of corporate identity between them makes items' inclusion here dubious. Additionally, the question of shared/equal ownership e.g. Indiana Jones with Spielberg. As creator asserts on talk page, Monkey Island's presence and The Seventh Tower is because Lucas owns? created? a company that in turn created these entires -- and he probably had very little if anything to do with creating them. Anyhow, point is, items' inclusion is haphazard and dubious. Anything with a strong and immediately significant connection to Lucas can be included in ((George Lucas)) (which might need to be renamed from "George Lucas filmography" to something else -- but that's a more elegant solution than this needless and ORish template). --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template doesn't seem to violate anything. Templates over franchises owned by companies seems to be acceptable on here esecially this one. This one list all franchises owned by the Lucas company. --Victory93 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment from what I've seen, EEMIV seems to complaining on nearly anything I do whether relevant or not. Merely his arguments seem to be on his own morals rather than the correct information. To him, what he sees as unethical is what he doesn't like or what he doesn't beleive in good or not he sees as wrong no matter how proven the subject is. Example for when argument over the sun was the center of the universe was fought against with many think the Earth was the center. Mainly what I say here is in theory, but a theory conjured from what is seen of EEMIV's actions. --Victory93 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary template, as Lucas doesn't directly own any of these - his company does. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - yes I know. That's why this template is listing all franchises owned by the Lucas franchise fyi the company. No where on the template does it say owned by the man himself George Lucas. I can now see that this deletion is in error. --Victory93 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, the template header links to George Lucas. Considering there is no article on this amorphous concept of "the Lucas franchise" (Lucasfilm? LucasArts? Skywalker sound?), a template to move between them remains dubious, ORish, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. It's sound and fury signifying naught. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WHAT! That's not a relevant reason. It's as if of spite you are. Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you can abuse your powers. Also seeing as you want me gone by flinging wild accusations over these socks and whatever they are, I beleiving that the two of you are somehow trolling me or maybe you two are socks or shoes or whatever. Don't think you can deny. Not to mention looking at EEMIV's talk page, he's pretty much used to doing it. --Victory93 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Further Comment I have moved the template so people may better understand that this template is not franchises owned by George Lucas but by Lucasfilm. Now it should be seen here by people that this template is relevant. --Victory93 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Items' inclusion here remains dubious (to say nothing of why some series are a "franchise" and not others). "Lucasfilm" deals with movies, already covered at the George Lucas template. Lucasfilm has nothing to do with the video games and books. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read this: The Seventh Tower. Lucasfilm in collaboration with Schoolastic released the series. Also LucasArts used to be called Lucasfilm games. Now that all speaks Lucasfilm alltogether. --Victory93 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does collaboration equate to ownership? Why is this template so spare? Is there a difference between a franchise and a property and a stand-alone project? What're the criteria for inclusion? If the owner changes name or spins off (as you assert for one of these items), why is it still here? It looks like this template was created in large part by someone with a loose sense of the components of corporate ownership (to say nothing of what make for a useful nav. template). --EEMIV (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funny YOU'RE the only one who wants this deleted. No one else. This template simply lists all franchises produced by Lucasfilm. Nough said. There are many templates that do this: list all franchises by a company. So this template shouldn't need to be deleted. --Victory93 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have removed the two most dubious entries -- a video game and book series. Indiana Jones, being a co-production with Paramount, I'm skeptical about retaining, too. Again, this template is just too flimsy and offers marginal -- even negligible -- utility. --EEMIV (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom. The title suggests ownership by Lucas directly, but they are owned by many different sub-companies which might be better off having individual templates (assuming they don't already) such as Lucasarts, Lucasfilm etc... magnius (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2009 (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.

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. Although the votecount is essentially tied, many of the keep arguments seem to be based on WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS (and a few others on WP:ILIKEIT and how deleting it would be a WP:USELESS action). In addition, many keep arguments are based on WP:POTENTIAL; while a few of the people arguing for deletion have suggested that the template be improved, a majority believe that the template inherently does not belong. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackson timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Timeline places much more emaphisis on certain aspects of its subject than others leading to undue weight and deviations from NPOV. Many dates do not appear in the prose of articles and are not sourced meaning timeline is largely unverifiable. Stylistically the template is also very large, and clutters the articles it is found in. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable means that no sources exist, so that's not correct. All these dates are easily verifiable. And you're right that these dates don't appear in our Jackson articles, which is worrying, and it's why I created it. Relying on WP's Jackson articles alone, a person would come away confused about the sequence of events, in my view. This template offers a chronological structure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed Necessary to have a better view. Elmao (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSED There is nothing wrong with it. It better defines the article, and makes it more appealing. Who ever nominates stuff like this please get a life.--Subman758 (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read WP:NPA, your argument isn't stronger by saying things about the nominator, and makes you look foolish. — Moe ε 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Stylistically unwieldy, shoving around images and other infoboxes on transcluded pages. Agree that items are non-npov/offer undue weight. More troubling, they aren't cited (particularly important since transcluded pages might not include prose/details/refs from which abbreviated timeline entry is derived). Template might be salvageable if substantially trimmed and inline citations are added. --EEMIV (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template is, at best, incomplete. Holes in the template such as "1979: Off the Wall; broke his nose, first rhinoplasty." and "Jan 1984: Burns his scalp filming Pepsi ad; starts using painkillers; third rhinoplasty." There was no second rhinoplasty, I guess.. In any case, things like that, are unimportant. His life is best summed up in his article and the articles about his appearance, death, etc. In addition to that, there are already templates at the bottom of the article which already reflect things like the discography of his music in order of release, and links to articles about his personal troubles (Template:Michael Jackson). The only reason this template exists is because of the overly-hyped media frenzy surrounding his recent death. Lets not get all caught up in the hoopla of it as well. — Moe ε 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't know when the second rhinoplasty was, which is why it's not mentioned. Please, by all means do the research and add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand, I would prefer if the rhinoplastys were removed, to be honest (a note on his physical appearance beginning to change linking to the article on his appearance should suffice on this template). Inline citations and the collapsible feature should probably be added as well, if it is to be kept. — Moe ε 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with moe, this was definitely created in spur of the moment- it'll pass people 8:58 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.32.151 (talk)

• Delete. Undue weight given to Jackson's personal life in the this template. Quite frankly, this template fails to help any user navigate and highlights very little of Jackson's career and accomplishments. — Σxplicit 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now'. A somewhat fixed and reasonably reliable chronology is helpful to provide some guidance for editors dealing with the special "onslaught" that the related articles are presently under. This "structural" assistance provided by this framework will be unimportant to most of the articles after another week or two. Steveozone (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and improve. Starting with collapsibility should help. DodgerOfZion (talk)
• Delete in its current form. Certainly created in good faith, but suffers from recentism and is not too encyclopedic. We already have Template:Michael Jackson, but it is still possible to create some nice page with milestones of his life. Brandt 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the information can be found at the bottom of the page, it adds no weight to the articles it is on and is a waste of space. StephenBHedges (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The actual information is present in the BLP. There's no need of this template as it is a minor reperesentation of the life and works of MJ. I appreciate the good faith behind it, but I see no reason for it to be encyclopedic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The timeline is by no means necessary, but is succint and helpful if one is looking for an overview of Jackson's life (and death). Tikkuy (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - This is used in 2 articles; no reason to actually use a template. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Succinct timeline that gives the highlights of subject's life, if that is all someone is interested; can be improved to include links to areas of interest to the reader. After this discussion is closed, I would recommend putting collapsible templates such as this in the biographies of the most notable living persons; however, this would have to come after a major discussion on whose bios to include this in (e.g., U.S. presidents). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. — the timeline could be improved to include only the most important events in his life).[reply]
• Keep. The reason I created this is that I couldn't find the information in our Michael Jackson's articles. I had to go offwiki to get most of the chronology. It gives people a good overview of a complicated life, and it will doubtless improve over time. If it gets too large, it can be collapsed. Parsecboy says it's used in only two articles, but that's because a couple of people who don't like it keep removing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is absolutely inherently POV. And I am not generally comfortable with reducing anybody's life to a simple list. And I absolutely hate how these templates dominate a page to the exclusion of text and images. Yes, the main article is absolutely rubbish if you want to quickly determine basic facts and dates, especially the lede, but as can be seen on the talk page, attempts at rectification are futile, it is a FAC apparently. But a template like this is not a satisfactory fix to this problem. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mick, just a point about the Michael Jackson article: if everyone who doesn't like it decides that it's futile to fix it, then it will be futile. That it was given FA status is all the more reason to try to get it right, via a Featured Article Review if necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose/Keep - This is one of the only ways in which Michael Jackson's life is in chronological order, and the events and articles are even more organized than they are in the original Michael Jackson templae. 98.105.130.74 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — 98.105.130.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - the material in the template should be properly summarized in the lede, or if it of such length as to be unmanageable, then a case can be made for a seprate summary article. A template is not the answer. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response — I think that's the whole point of a template — to effectively summarize in chronological order a person's life for someone wanting just that — the basics. Whether said template is a fair summary of a person's life or POV should be left to the reader. Many print encyclopedias use both a lead summarizing the notability of the subject and then a capsule (similar to the Jackson template being debated here) highlighting the most important events in the person's life (for instance — birth, marriage, collegiate degrees, other major milestones and death); again, if the template is patrolled and cruft is left out, then it can be useful, and the same goes for similar biographies that would have a similar template in the future. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

• Delete - I don't think we should try to summarise someone's life in a template like this. Unlike Template:Michael Jackson (which links together all the articles we have about him), this one seems to be an attempt to reduce the essentials of Michael Jackson to a template; however, there's no way of doing that without inherently violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. What events should be included? The template, as it is, seems to me to give too much weight to Jackson's personal life and 'scandals', but others might disagree. The point is, there simply is no objective way of reducing someone's life to a series of bullet points like this, especially not someone as famous and controversial as Jackson. The only way to cover his life objectively is as a whole in the Michael Jackson article. This should be deleted, and similar templates discouraged in future. Robofish (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Well, that's what I'm hoping we Wikipedians can debate a future discussion — the usefulness and standards/guidelines for these life timelines of notable individuals, and who would get them. The only other point I'd make at this time is concerning the remark on the seemingly "scandal"-heavy focus of the timeline, which I don't think it has to be. If you include one or two of the biggest ones (the 1993 and 2003 cases and their outcomes) in two or three sentences tops, that would suffice; then include complete coverage in their individual articles and the main Michael Jackson one, along with lesser scandals in the main Jackson article (without the bulleted points). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

• Oppose - As anybody who opposed for voting. This is too crap for a historical timeline about his lifetime. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait...is that "oppose" keeping or "oppose" deletion? I think you mean the latter, but folks who disagree that that position have been using "oppose," too. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template may need some improvement, but we don't delete articles either, just because they need improvement. Timelines are not inherently flawed with regard to WP policies.  Cs32en  00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: The timeline should be shortened. Timelines (except for appendices in larger works) are not there to tell a story, but to provide a quick answer to simple questions such as "Did Jackson do this (what is being described in the article) before or after Thriller was released?"

• Gah! looks like a good effort to connect a bunch of articles. Cs32en couldn't have said it better. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the template needs improvement that would not be a reason to delete. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for valid reasons already stated. Fluppy (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Too many events in his life have occured that its impossible to narrow it down to a timeline. Theres no real reason for the timeline either, except to take up space. Portillo (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BUT edit and simplify. A simple timeline with links to relevant articles could be a really useful template. Maybe a horizontal one for the bottom of relevant articles? Nesnad (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Portillo. Why are these specific events the ones that were chosen? And then, in addition, this template takes up principal space on every MJ article. An article on his timeline (example: Timeline of Fairuz), would be one thing, but this is entirely different. - Epson291 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response — I didn't make the template, but my guess as to why specific events are included is because they are notable milestones in his life and career. Take, for instance, a World Book Encyclopedia article on any one of the presidents. Each of these articles includes a timeline of the subject's life, and only includes specific events (his birth, perhaps a college graduation, marriage, naval service, first election to a state or national office, election to the presidency (and any subsequent defeats), and death). Such would be what I envision as ideal for the Michael Jackson timeline: his birth, formation of the Jackson 5, singing to Motown and mention of their first (and only the first) national hit as part of the Jackson 5 (or absent that, the dates of their poularity peak), perhaps his first solo hit and/or his/the Jacksons' later signing to Epic records, the release of Thriller (the album and music video, since these are two separarte events), the dates of two major child molestation scandals (with simple explanation), his marriages to Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Jeanne Rowe, and his death. I'm sure many would agree these are the most important events in his life. I wish there were a way to keep the template shorter, or at least smaller (e.g., similar in appearance to the bio infobox templates, with smaller font). So along with my keep argument from earlier, I'd suggest improving it in that way. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

• Convert to "Timeline of Michael Jackson" article per Epson291 - hmm, I guess that might be a sorta good idea given that it won't really work in a template. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A better template can be made about Jackson, and it doesn't need to be a timeline of random events — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I do not see benefits to delete altogether.--Jusjih (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a already an entire page devoted to his life and works, we don't need it arbitrarily summerised in this template. magnius (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe we can shorten this a bit, but the style still works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- it does not seem to add anything new and useful to any page upon which it would appear. There are other Jackson templates which serve much greater uses. Skotte (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Maybe the current content is not perfect but the template itself is a great idea! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs improving not deleting. Cavie78 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The encyclopedic article adequately summarizes Michael Jackson's life. The timeline template is little more than an slight expansion of the section headings present in the Michael Jackson article. TechOutsider (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently obtrusive, which can't be fixed with editing. The lead should adequately summarize the article, and if a timeline is necessary it can be created in a separate article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (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.