Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arizona year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:California year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Colorado year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Delaware year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Florida year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Georgia (U.S. state) year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Illinois year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iowa year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kansas year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kentucky year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maryland year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MA year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Missouri year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NY year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:North Carolina year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Oklahoma year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pennsylvania year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rhode Island year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:South Carolina year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:South Dakota year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Texas year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Virginia year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DC year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:West Virginia year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these year navboxes for U.S. states link to categories of the year in the respective state and not to articles. And the articles these are used on are completely wrong and irrelevant. Per the discussion Alaska year nav on January 15 they all have been replaced by Template:Year in US state category which are used on the respective cats for the year in each U.S. state. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: While your evaluation is likely correct about most of the included templates, I wanted to mention an exception: Michigan's. Michigan's year navigation box has a majority of its links direct to articles covering said year in Michigan, not simply categories. RoundSquare (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It had the year nav title hence why I made this error. I have removed it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These link to categories but are used on a few articles so navigation is broken. Navigation templates should also not be used on categories so there is no salvaging these templates. Template:Michigan year nav should be cleaned up from category links but that is outside this TfD. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:Kremenets Raion (former)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kremenets Raion (former) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and current blue links have been replaced by Template:Kremenets Raion or Template:Ternopil Oblast. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Added the 3 village links that were missing. Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:Taiwan Area

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taiwan Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused transclusion to article Free area of the Republic of China. Created in 2016. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:Beersheba suburban railway map

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beersheba suburban railway map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with no articles for use. Just links of railway stations instead of a railway route. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be placed in Railway to Beersheba#Passenger service. Useddenim (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use or Delete if not transcluded to the article Useddenim suggested by the time the listing ends. A template, including route maps, should be used when they are created. If they are not used, that usually means that there is no need for them. Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:South Ferry RDT

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Ferry RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not transcluded into an article by the time the listing ends. A template, including route maps, should be used when they are created. If they are not used, that usually means that there is no need for them. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:Altamont Branch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altamont Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with no articles for use. All links are train/railway stations rather than a route which is what these templates are usually for rather than listing stations. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not transcluded into an article by the time the listing ends. A template, including route maps, should be used when they are created. If they are not used, that usually means that there is no need for them. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2023 (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).

Template:Distinguish

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. I think it's fairly obvious which way this is ending; closing early to get rid of the "see TFD" indication that's showing up on thousands of pages. Hog Farm _Talk 21:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecate, replace with more useful and meaningful alternatives, e.g. {{about}} and {{for}}. This template is not helpful: first off, nothing is to be confused with anything else. Secondly, it's not clear from the hatnote which of the two things is which. E.g. if one uses {{for}}, then it's clear that the article I am about to read is about a singer and not a baseball player, so I immediately know to go to the article about the baseball player. Third, the when to use documentation still proves a weak use case, which is mostly related to misspellings. In practice, this is used for all kinds of kinda/sorta similar spellings, but to use the example from the documentation, if one sees a {{Distinguish}} hatnote at Coma that reads "not to be confused with Comma" (again, nothing is to be confused), then wouldn't it be more helpful to use {{for}} and have something like "For the typographical character, see comma" or {{about}} reading something like "This article is about the medical condition. For the typographical character, see Comma"? I see no use case where this is superior to a more specific hatnote. To use a final real-world example, the subtle distinction between Anarchism and Anarchy is not really explained by the hatnote: you'll have to read the article and suss out the difference, whereas something like "This article is about the political philosophy advocating a stateless society, for a state of affairs where there is no government, see Anarchy" be more helpful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are definitely real-world examples in which {{Distinguish}} is better than an alternative. To use your example, if one uses {{for}} to distinguish between say "John Smith (singer)" and "John Smith (baseball player)" (assuming that these are the only two people with that name), then you would be adding unnecessary explanation to the hatnote. Since there would only be two people with the same name, you don't need a hatnote saying "For the baseball player, see John Smith (baseball player)".
Second of all, "nothing is to be confused with anything else" is just wrong; sometimes, there are things that may be confused with each other because of similarity in names. For example, Lisa Marie (actress) was just recently confused with Lisa Marie Presley. They are both actresses who were both born in the same year, so a more specific hatnote would not help at all, and a {{distinguish}} hatnote pointing from Lisa Marie (actress) is Lisa Marie Presley is decidedly appropriate. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
""nothing is to be confused with anything else" is just wrong; sometimes, there are things that may be confused with each other because of similarity in names" They are not to be confused. Nothing here is supposed to be confusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's like over 91,000 uses of this hatnote so deprecation would be highly disruptive. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Seems pretty clearly useful. See the reasons provided above by Epicgenius - Tenpop421 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure no one cares, but every wikipedia user now sees an absolutely useless ‹See Tfd› link to this page instead of an actual template. Please do something about it. Wurzel91 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high use template. Also, as Wurzel91 said, the "See Tfd" is pretty annoying. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no point in getting rid of this template, and "See TfD" is very annoying --Tbf69 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To cite an use case I just applied yesterday, Mathematica Inc. was a software company active in one form or another from 1968 to 1991. Contrary to popular belief (and there are secondary sources from the period that say they were often confused) they had no hand in the development of Wolfram Research's immediately popular Mathematica software, released in 1988. Using a hatnote like {{For}} would result in something clunky-sounding, like This article is about the software company. For the software package which this company had no part in developing, see Wolfram Mathematica. When Not to be confused with Wolfram Mathematica is shorter and to the point. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Of course, there are some cases where more specific templates are desirable, but there are plenty where it's not. Also has 90k transclusions, making the <<See Tfd>> very disruptive. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 18:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, reasons for deletion are not compelling. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epicgenius and DigitalIceAge. There are plenty of times where {{distinguish}} would be necessary and preferred over {{about}} or {{for}}. In any case, if an editor wants to change {{distinguish}} to a better template than it can simply be done on a case by case basis for each article. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Epicgenius who can explain it better than I ever can. I echo that "nothing is to be confused with anything else" is just incorrect. ~~lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Epicgenius. If there are no supports/replies for delete after one day I think this can be closed. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, to take one real world example, there have been at least four association football clubs called Clydebank, founded in 1874, 1914, 1965, and 2003. Not only does it help to remind which one you are reading, but it is also an instant indication that the club you may have found information for from the 1930s is not the same one as you have found information for from the 1970s. In Vitrio (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep; no one cares about this discussion, but as said before, the >See Tfd< is highly annoying. Gott (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close you could improve {{distinguish}} by adding |about= to it. If you want to replace it, you'd need to add |distinguish=, |distinguish1=, |distinguish2=, |distinguish3=, ... to {{about}}; slotting it it between the "about" portion and the "for" list. As {{about}} does not support such, there's no way to currently replace it. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This template is used in almost a hundred thousand articles and is definitely useful. Of course, you can use other, similar templates, but this one is kind of like a catch-all. Deleting this template would cause a lot of red-links to appear and it would take quite a while to replace them. Also, "see tfd" is annoying. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obvious case of WP:SNOW. What kind of tortured reasoning is "nothing is to be confused with anything else"? Phiarc (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is confusing about the reasoning? Nothing is supposed to be confused with anything else, so writing that is just an obvious statement. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, assertion by nominator that this templated is "not helpful" is, frankly, absurd. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:RfCU-OS

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfCU-OS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links from discussions, or categories. Does not appear in any template code. Created in 2009. {{RfCU-OS-links}} exists and is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:Sir or madam

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sir or madam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links from discussions, or categories. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:WikiProject Proposalsubst

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2023 February 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:WikiProject Topicons topicon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Topicons topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Topicon for WikiProject that never existed. No transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:Wikimedia projects

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia projects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, incoming links from discussions, or template parameters. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:Wikipedia editor navigation shortened

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia editor navigation shortened (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created in January 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (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).

Template:2023 WTA 125 tournaments

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2023 WTA 125 tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Right now, just a collection of red links. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz,

Those red links you mention are for tournaments that are scheduled to take place this season. The pages for those tournaments have not been created yet - but will. There is a working link for Copa Oster - currently taking place in Cali. They will be created throughout the season. The red links will therefore become live/"working" throughout the season, as each page is created.

Just as an example, have a look at the following templates

- 2023 WTA Tour

- 2023 ATP Tour

They also have red links for tournaments that have not yet taken place and working links for current and past tournaments. So very similar to this template.

As I'm sure you know, there are multiple pages with red links on Wikipedia. It just means that the page to that link has not been created yet. I don't see why that should be the sole reason to deleting a template that many people are familiar with and find it useful. 0add0n (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a navigation template when the pages it should navigate to and from are created. Not before. Placing these empty or semi-empty templates on a page isn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all of my answer? 0add0n (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and point out which criteria, if any, does this template meet to qualify for deletion. Because I couldn't find one. 0add0n (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep, navigates between 4 articles with more to be added in about a month. you can always comment out the redlinks until the articles are written if they bother you. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Frietjes, yes I can comment out the red links. But if we do that then it means updating the template for every new tournament. @Liz may have a point but red links don't come under the deletion policy. 0add0n (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, here's what it says in this page: Wikipedia:Red link

"Red links may be used in navboxes which also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed from the template." As I said, there other templates out there with red links, which will become "live" once their target pages are created. I created some pages last season and can do so again. I don't see your reasoning for deleting this template other that you don't like the look of it, @Liz. 0add0n (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that out of 49 links only 4 are blue. That is an excessive amount of non-links in a NAVIGATION template. 4 is also barely the minimum amount for a valid navigation template (people often quote 5 as the bare minimum). I suggest removing the sea of red links until such a time as those are actually blue links. Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, I understand that many people will find it excessive but red links are not sufficient reason for deletion of the template - it's not in the deletion policy. You could also say that "excessive" is the debatable, as there's no specific max. number in the guideline. Currently, the 2023 ATP tour template has more than 160 red links and 2023 WTA Tour over 100! So, if you just put that in perspective...

I could also list a number of these sort of templates, from previous seasons, that have had red links at some point but won't bore you. I hope you vote keep. Thanks. 0add0n (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote keep but won't vote delete either since it has 4 links which to me is very close to the bare minimum. That said, if this does become a new issue of creating empty templates, I will change me stance and vote to delete them as that is indeed an issue that should be stopped. Gonnym (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (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).