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) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People of Pakhtunkhwa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mostly redundant to the much better ((Pashtuns)). NSH002 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2014 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of German painters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Lugnuts, see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of German painters John of Reading (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thanks John for adding the template. I'm listing this as it was added to the main article under the premise of the essay WP:WTAF which goes against the guidance of WP:REDDEAL. The latter encourages redlinks to start article creation and therefore this edit notice is not needed. There are dozens and dozens of lists on WP with redlinks for that very reason. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep as this is the wrong forum for edit notices as best I can tell. Just like userboxes go to MfD regardless if they are in Template: or User:, edit notices I would think belong at MfD as well. Technical 13 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it's TfD, and as per John's latest comment, both TfD and MfD have been used for these. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Template:Editnotice v. Special:PrefixIndex/Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editnotice disagrees with that assessment... I have no problem moving this to MfD for you. I will say that I've seen notices similar to this on a lot of list pages where non-notable topics were continually added to a list that are not likely to be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. per WP:REDNOT (the section above the one you linked to make your point). I would further note that since this is a list of personal names of painters, Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to people being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or being involved in other forms of conduct that might be considered harmful to the subject's reputation. The risk of misidentification is especially concerning when dealing with living people. also trumps WP:REDDEAL. That being the case, I would vote to reword the editnotice on the appropriate MfD discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these painters are dead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant as "Red links to personal names should be avoided" is fairly simple. It does not say "Red links to personal names of living people should be avoided", and the dead must be considered as well. Technical 13 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you seem to not to understand the difference between someone who is alive and someone who is dead. Dead is someone who is not alive. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: Your first "PrefixIndex" returns no hits because TFD subpages are named by nomination date. This search finds about ten discussions. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the author, I of course vote to keep. For the record, I would not be disappointed if it gets deleted per consensus. My reasoning is that lists do no confer notability. There are lots of lists with probably lots of bogus NN names. Without an article I could make up a German-sounding name, place it in the Middle ages period, and it will stay there for a long time, degrading the quality of the encyclopaedia. With an article, notability has to be asserted for it to stay. Obviously people seem to disagree. As per the claim of going against the guidance of WP:REDDEAL, my understanding is that it refers to articles, not lists, and in fact, the last bullet specifically mentions my point that lists attract unknowns (I claim many could be bogus). -- Alexf^(talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're all notable, as the list is generated from the German category for painters. What's more worrying is that an administrator is editing using an essay (WP:WTAF) as their justification to remove content, where guidance says differently. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lugnuts, WP:REDDEAL is pretty clear in its approach to red links, and the edit notice contradicts this guideline.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and encourage similar templates in other articles. To counter Lugnuts above, this template is very beneficial and I would highly encourage editors to cite WP:WTAF when removing inappropriate entries in lists. I do it all the time in my maintenance of List of film festivals. In fact, if I could find out how to port this template over to that article I would do it in a heartbeat. Many lists are (and should be) restricted to bluelink entries to prevent against a glut of nonnotable entries bringing down the quality of the list as a whole. This could happen with List of German painters if it isn't watched carefully and this template helps protect against that. ThemFromSpace 20:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF is an essay. Redlinks encourage article creation. What proof do you have that "a glut of nonnotable entries bringing down the quality of the list as a whole"? None. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus with lists of a broad nature is usually to limit them to notable entries. This ensures that they are relevant to our function as an encyclopedia. If we kept every redlink that was dropped by an IP address the list would violate WP:NOTDIR and its use as a navigational aid would be severely diminished. The wording does not violate any policy and it is backed by a popular consensus across many list articles. As I pointed out above, I have spent hours over the years deleting nonnotable redlink entries from the List of film festivals, another list of a broad scope. A template similar to this on that page would have saved a lot of my time. ThemFromSpace 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have spent hours over the years deleting nonnotable redlink entries" Then I think you've been wasting your time. You've missed one on there, BTW. Have a crack at Macedonian records in athletics while you're in the mood. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 28 January 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 February 2 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newin Chidchob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the linked articles are only tangentially related to the subject, and barely, if at all, related to each other, and do not warrant them being contained in a nav box. Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unnecessary and mostly unhelpful template: lots of red links (that should never become blue, as e.g. Newin's mother as not relevant enough to have an article of her own), several of the blue links leading to articles that are only tangentially related to the subject; only few blue links would remain that has a strong relation to the subject. That does not warrant a template. --RJFF (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suthep Thaugsuban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the links are red links, the most of which probably shouldn't be created. The linked articles are only tangentially related to the subject, and do not warrant being contained in a nav box. Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not an important enough figure to warrant a template. Jr8825 • Talk 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brandmeister^talk 11:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: same arguments as for #Template:Newin Chidchob. This case is even worse, as most of the links are leading to non-notable people (Suthep's family), that should never have an article of their own. --RJFF (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prem Tinsulanonda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the linked articles are directly related to the subject in a way that warrants a navbox. Paul_012 (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: same arguments as for #Template:Newin Chidchob. --RJFF (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Box Office India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates invite addition of these external links in violation of WP:NOT#LINKFARM - the information contained on the pages linked to hardly adds anything to what is generally already is contained (or easily could be contained) on the Wikipedia page itself. There where the info is really adding, a regular external link will suffice. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#new spammy templates. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template should stay on Wikipedia. As we know that on Wikipedia,Box Office India is used as the primary source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films.On 20 January 2014,Box Office India revamped its website completely.There is separate page of actors ,actress,each Bollywood film on Box Office India. Its on the lines of reliable sources Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. For Bollywood films,Box Office India template has to kept for Bollywood films -specific details

((Box Office India)) is much better than IMDB or Boxofficemojo,becasue:

1. They give every detail of Bollywood actors and Bollywoof films with a separate page'
2. Each film is accompanied by its box-office-verdict which is not present in either IMDB ,boxofficemojo or bollywoodhunagama. Important notes are accompained on each film page.
3. First time,Box Office India is providing a complete repository of Bollywood films from 1940 to 2014(till date).No other site provides that much huge data and relevant information about Bollywood films. If you are thinking for Tfd for this, then first think about Template:Bollywood Hungama,Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. what is their purpose on wikipedia--Nehapant19 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The issue is not whether BOI is comprehensive in terms of people and films, but whether it is a worthwhile addition for specific entries of them. I have not heard reported any specific information that it contains that could not simply be added to our articles directly (with footnote cite to BOI or other sites), in which case it fails WP:EL for a loose External links entry. Worse, all claims of BOI being anything official, highly respected, or comprehensive are self-sourced or unsourced altogether...your whole premise rests on (currently) unsupported WP:WEASEL of the value of a website and its two-day-old database. DMacks (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delelte no indication the widespread use of the site as an external link provides value per WP:EL rather than simply encouraging linkspam. in addition, the "verdict" is a reason to NOT include it - the "verdict" is a one word rating like "flop" or "megablockbuster" - absolute nonencyclopedic nonsense in and of itself, but even more absurd is the that that they are completely arbitrary - check any of the year end assessments where they compile all of the films of the year with the gross, nett, and verdict and you will find a film with a "verdict" of average that has a greater gross and nett than a film with the verdict of blockbuster . utter crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' it should be kept until the importance of other templates Template:Bollywood Hungama,Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates are not discussed on wikipedia.--Nehapant19 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nehapant19, that argument is not an argument for keeping this, it is at best an argument for opening discussions on the other templates. Also note that you already commented in favour of keeping above. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's worth noting that we have the ((Mojo title)) template for Box Office Mojo, and I think an argument to have that is to provide access to detail that would be too indiscriminate for a film article on Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with Box Office India, but I am noticing that I need to subscribe to see details beyond the summary that it provides to a non-subscriber like me. Is this correct? If Box Office India was open like Box Office Mojo, I would see a case for keeping the template, but per WP:ELREG, needing to subscribe means that it should be avoided. @Nehapant19: Can you address my concerns here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik: Box Office India is giving Boxoffice Reports,Boxoffice Collections,Weekly Report etc on a daily basis. Some sections like Boxoffice Analytics,Down the Years are coming soon.. Though they have hide the boxoffice figures(which needs to be subscribed) for each film on that particular film page, but on the home page, Box Office India is giving Boxoffice Collections as it was doing earlier,which was considered on Wikipedia as the most credible and reliable source for Bollywood films.--Nehapant19 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"most credible" is not saying much. India's major national paper The Times of India recently stopped reporting box office numbers because there is not officially documented accurate reporting, only estimates based on self reported numbers which are frequenlyt hyped and fake. [1] there is no evidence that BOI's reporters are any better at verification than The Times, and they so admit: "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT CONTROL, REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @Nehapant19: Did you read WP:ELREG? It's not a good case if a page for a given film is not going to provide detailed figures. If there is just one figure that non-subscribers can see on a page, then that is not much of an external link. That is distinct from using it as an inline citation to report the key box office figure. The external link template is not needed to do that referencing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Erik: Do you think IMDB provide detailed figures??? This template is provided ,in case if none of the websites IMDB,BoxofficeMojo or bollywood hungama dont have page or detail about any movie, this box office india template can be used to refer to that film or actor. The new revamped boxofficeindia.com is now having every single Bollywood film with separate dedicated pages. Same is with actors description and their detailed Filmography and release dates on their dedicated pages. If one doesnot want to utilse this templates in External links,its their sole's perogative.. If no link is their for a film on wikipedia,this can be used. I repeat, this Box Office India is bollywood films dedicated website, so in any cse it will give more detail than box office mojo or even IMDB--Nehapant19 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nehapant19: Box Office Mojo has detailed figures for films released in the United States, and readers do not need to subscribe to BOM to see these figures. If BOM is used in Indian cinema articles as an external link, perhaps it should not be if it does not provide a breakdown for an Indian film. As for IMDb, I've seen multiple reasons argued for including IMDb. I don't think box office figures is one of them; it is just an access link to a film database page that has a lot of different resources available to the reader. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Under no circumstances should we have templates to ELs that regularly fail our guidelines. This encourages a proliferation of bad ELs that can be a nightmare for editors to clean up in the future. Specific exceptions can be linked to on a case-by-case basis without the template. ThemFromSpace 19:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(devil's advocate: wouldn't the use of a template allow bot clean up with much greater ease than manual clean up?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep BoxofficeIndia is now giving more credible information about actors and films with a dedicated pages.It should be keep into mind in when editing Bollywood films pages on Wikipedia. If one doesn't want to use this template,then dont do that ,but it s not a spammy template and it will not lead to prolifereation of other templates,as Wikipedia considers very few sources as reliable for Bollywood films. This template act as a shortcut for the dedicated pages of actors and films with detailed filmography and information --Mehtabsharma (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Mehtabsharma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I keep hearing the "keep" editors talking about how credible and reliable BOI is as a general rule. To that, I say (and I and others have said before) "^{[citation needed]}". Repeating an unsupported (and disputed, from what I've seen on talkpages and AfD) premise many times as if it were true does not make it so! DMacks (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete doesn't serve any encyclopaedic purpose. 122.167.173.17 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slim Burna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN due to linking to less then five articles, not including the subject. Navigation between the three links is easily attainable by the subject's main article. STATic message me! 04:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox does not appear warranted at this time, though I would not object to its recreation at some point when/if the artist gets more notable recordings under his belt.  Gong show 20:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (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 redirect to Template:My-HiME. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My-HiME character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template now that the contents have all been merged/redirected, no-place to merge. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore to before Kk87 blanked the template. Technical 13 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep a template full of redirects? If you want you can have a look at how the template would look: [2] the practice though is that usually redirects are removed as the links can be accessed all from the character pages here on this template through two links for the series: Template:My-HiME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for attribution - The main characters are worthy of inclusion for separate articles, but this is an issue with the project space being under developed and under maintained and struggling under the burden of several lasting issues, biases and a clear language barrier. I think ultimate integration is the best plan of action once the issues can be addressed with the content itself. Unless someone can make a miracle happen, this is the best course of action for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only reason this template is full of redirects is because every character and a dozen articles were blanked and made redirects outside of process by this nominator yesterday. Piotrus prodded them and they were redirected by the nominator within four hours of being prodded, instead of the seven days it should normally take. This is clearly emptying a template before nominating for discussion. I'm not commenting on the value of the pages but this doesn't follow any process I've seen before for mass deletion of articles. How can someone erase every linked article while blatantly ignoring the deletion process then argue a template is useless because it's filled with deleted articles? Please review the history here for 22 January 2014. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • if I had not done this then most likely you would be seeing a template full of red links right now as every single one of the articles had notability issues going back as far as 2009 or so. You are also mistaken the articles were not deleted, redirects and merging is not the same as outright deletion as the article's histories are kept intact. The references that were in the articles for the most part were primary sources cited to the manga books, the referenced information was merged to the character lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You blanked all of the pages and made them redirects a few hours after the first PROD notice was put on them. This isn't about the quality of the content, it's that you did it completely arbitrarily across a mass of articles. Deleting all content, then asking to have a conversation about its worth, is not a good example of responsible editing. You skipped any actual merge discussion for every single one of those articles. (You probably didn't even give any notice to their creators that you were dissolving those page before you did it.) I don't think I'm seeing a consensus here that this topic should be scrubbed completely except for a single list article, as you have already done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Again the information was not deleted, if someone wanted to they could userfy the pre-merged information and work on it from there to make a well referenced article tomorrow or anytime in the future. I do not know why you are questioning good faith here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I made no mention of your intent. I assume you're trying to make things better as you see it. But massive blanking and redirects pre-discussion are the definition of presumptuous. It's a good idea to have a discussion for any single redirect that even possibly could be controversial, and how many did you do without that notice or request for discussion? More than twenty? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions aren't required to merge articles that are obvious merge candidates, as is in this case. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Navigational template for a group of articles that have been merged, thus no longer used. Attribution is done with the articles that were merged, but is not required for a navigational template that itself wasn't merged. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (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.