The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the
template namespace and
module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at
Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at
Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
The template is not used, either directly or by
template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
The template violates a policy such as
Neutral point of view or
Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it,
WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by
consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of
Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
Step
Instructions
I: Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is
protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{
editprotected}} template to catch the attention of
administrators or
Template editors.
For templates designed to be
substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] or Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "
American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{
subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{
subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{
Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{
Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)
TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on
TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_August_2#Template:template_name.css */
For deletion: {{
subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging: {{
subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{
Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.
Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].
Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:
{{
subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:
{{
subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the
page history or
talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
For merging: {{
subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested
WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use
Article alerts.
Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.
Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.
Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with
Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the
criterion that it meets.
Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{
subst:Tfd notice}} for this.
Notifying substantial contributors to the template
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the
good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the
page history or
talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "
relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the
Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have
automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the
deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Closing discussion
Administrators should read the
closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that
WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
This template summarizes share of data for MSIE, but it can't be updated basically ever again as net applications has gone offline. Other websites such as caniuse.com or MDN no longer track MSIE at any version. If there's a need for a running snapshot of this data, it can be on pages of interest. We don't need a separate template for it any longer, as IE 11 is the only version of interest.
Izno (
talk)
05:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This template hasn't been updated in a decade and a half. caniuse.com and MDN are better replacements and could be linked where relevant.
Izno (
talk)
04:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep While the articles included do not have 'election' in their titles, they do include details of the respective elections. For example,
1st National People's Congress includes details of the election to the Congress and the Congress' election of the chairman and vice chairman. In future, you would likely get more engagement by raising the matter either on the template talk page or
WT:E&R, where there are more likely to be editors interested in the specific topic. Cheers,
Number5723:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really think we need this. Whilst it is a fairly well established cycle of films, there is no article specifically on the subject, and all films are already included in {{Roger Corman}}, so it seems superfluous. --
woodensuperman14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This template does not appear to have much use other than mentioning material in articles are from an online resource that has notably been labeled unreliable five times, with the most recent discussion taking place
here. This temp just generates text linking to the Wikipedia article for the website, but it does not provide any actual source, and thus, leaves several articles without any sourcing, and is rather being used as a replacement to citing individual citations. It is categorized as an attribution template, although it does not appear to be in-line with the likes of {{Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity}}. Having a temp generating a faux citation to an unreliable database in place of actual refs seems like a bit of an issue, and it is used on
257 different articles. I would also like to add that {{Pg}}, which currently redirects to this temp, could potentially be repurposed as a shortcut to either {{Page}}, {{P.}}, or {{Reference page}}, as I have seen it get confused for those.
Trailblazer101 (
talk)
04:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I
orphaned this template from the only page it was used on using a standard wikitable. We have
a standard template that already exists (that goes up to only 30) which can be extended if additional items are necessary. I don't think this template is; there isn't a reason to have bar charts for a census that I can see.
Izno (
talk)
22:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An external link template that was used for easy linking to Daum Movie while the service was still available. However, it has been discontinued since January 2024, rendering this template unnecessary. --
ted (
talk)
13:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename blink, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×
g🗯️18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's an article about the
blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at
HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like
File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svg or
File:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the
Khmer Rouge, whose
insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.
It's true that it would be in theory possible to delete the template, and replace its invocations entirely with inline formatting on the two articles where it's in use -- but that inline formatting would still require TemplateStyles, so it would still require a stylesheet to be located somewhere. The idea of attaching a /styles.css subpage to a mainspace article, and then invoking that stylesheet from a different mainspace article (or having two identical .css pages on two different mainspace pages) seems quite obtuse and unorthodox to me, especially if a template for doing this already exists and works fine.
In general, my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia templates is that they're supposed to allow code to be used on multiple pages, rather than forcing people to manually copypasta large complicated blocks of 100% identical code (in this case, <templatestylessrc="Blink/styles.css"/><spanclass="blink-css">{{{1}}}</span> and blink, .blink-css { animation: blink 1s step-end infinite; } *::@keyframes blink { *:: 67% { opacity: 0 } *::}, and additionally a content-model change to enable the second to be loaded from a separate page because it can't be styled inline with MediaWiki). jp×
g🗯️00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×
g🗯️06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At any rate, if it is really earnestly demanded with gusto and urgency, I can write something that makes it physically impossible to use this in userspace, or perhaps on any article other than
HTML element or
Blink element, but this seems unneceessary to me. jp×
g🗯️04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Doing so is indeed trivial, but I don't think the benefits of this template outweigh the detriments even after doing so.
Izno (
talk)
19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I find neither argument convincing here. Deleting {{blink}} won't stop people from building GeoCities-style pages if they want to, and I'm not even convinced we should care if they do. But I also don't see the value in a fake (because it doesn't actually use the blink HTML tag) self-demonstrating example in pages like
blink element - it seems to me that people can understand what an element blinking means without it being shown to them. And I agree G4 doesn't apply. Since the burden is normally on the nominator in deletion discussions weak keep I guess.
* Pppery *it has begun...00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
the 2007 discussion covers all the same ground that I probably would have processed this as a G4. If you really want to demonstrate in article space blinking without encouraging all the things a template encourages (or for that matter, marqueeing), consider creating an SVG (which can accept the same CSS).
Izno (
talk)
14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To whit, the fundamental reason neither of these templates should exist is
WP:Accessibility. There's a reason the actual elements were nuked off the planet and that it took another decade before CSS finally added a way to fuck around with the same visibility "properties".
Izno (
talk)
14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay: in the 2007 TfD there are eight comments and a nom, two to keep and the rest to delete.
I do not think any of the arguments made there apply to deleting this template here.
N Nom says that it can "easily be written in HTML" (this is no longer true -- the <blink> tag is now deprecated and must be done with CSS i.e. TemplateStyles) and is untranscluded (the current template is transcluded in several articles). It also says it's "incredibly annoying" -- this was a concern with being used to stylize arbitrary text (there was no actual article to use the template in, so this was not a rationale).
N First delete says "we ought to avoid unnecessary blinking flashing objects" -- this template is being used exclusively in articles about blinking flashing objects, and the proposal here is to delete the template and put a flashing GIF in its place.
N Second delete is "per nom".
N First keep argues to keep.
N Second keep (weak keep) also argues to keep.
N Third delete says that it's "unused and completely unnecessary". Well, this one is used.
N Fourth delete says that it's unnecessary (it was unused then, it has active transclusions now) and says that "Should blinking text actually be necessary anywhere anytime (though it's tough to imagine such a situation, however far-fetched) it can be made to blink using HTML" -- again, this was true seventeen years ago in 2007, whereas it is now physically impossible to do this on MediaWiki.
N Fifth delete says "unnecessary", again this is no longer true.
N Sixth delete says it's bad interface design and that "such formatting is not really consistent with general accessibility guidelines" -- again referring to it being used outside of articles. This is not true in the current situation.
Every argument made against the existence of the template was made against its use to stylize random text, and on the basis that <blink> tags were a working part of web browsers; at no point did anybody even try to claim that articles specifically mentioning blink tags should not be allowed to use them. jp×
g🗯️10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Let's be straight: accessibility applies everywhere. It's not an article only thing. You're not the one dis-included when someone can't function because they're blinking text or the colors aren't color-blind friendly or have a bad contrast or the text size is too small. Discarding arguments like "it's not consistent with general accessibility guidelines" because we're not talking about the main space is not a nice thing to advocate for.
this was a concern with being used to stylize arbitrary text is your (incorrect) interpretation of nom's comment. Several comments made in this vein (some in support, weirdly).
You elided first delete's where the concern was raised that excess blinking, flashing, and movement could cause seizures in some people.
And in all, they all talk about things that are true about this template, hence commentary about G4.
That said, my argument doesn't make a G4 argument. My original comment makes a comment about G4. My argument is a "it's not accessible" argument. And no, we shouldn't encourage users (as yet another comment made clear then) to use this or puzzle it out ever. We don't need it now and in fact we didn't need it then. If you need to demonstrate something on an article, you can do the exact same thing in an SVG and embedded CSS.
Izno (
talk)
17:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Izno's accessibility argument and because this template is not the blink property which makes it incorrect to use in
HTML element. As a personal opinion, we should also make life as hard as possible for any user wanting to use these very annoying effects and not create for them easy to use templates.
Gonnym (
talk)
06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, the caption for it at
HTML element and
Blink element say explicitly that it's a simulation of the effect using CSS. I submit here that the article
pipe is illustrated, not with a pipe, but a digital representations of a photograph depicting a pipe. jp×
g🗯️04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per JPxG. It's got a real use (illustrating old HTML capabilities), and it does it succinctly. Whether or not people could maybe use it to make their user page look a bit ugly is irrelevant. Arguments for deletion seem weak to me (no examples of it actually being misused in a user page has been shown; accessiblity issues would be exacerbated if blink demos were replaced with SVG/GIF files or bespoke inline CSS). Blinking html was ugly but this template is helpful to convey that historical ugliness.
BugGhost🦗👻12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. {{Birth year and age}} can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --
Habst (
talk)
13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Added to
Dinorwic Railway article. This was a beyond simple solution and required the same amount of effort (if not less) than starting this TfD. I suggest implementing similar solutions when issues like these are found so no one else's time is wasted.
Jackdude101talkcont05:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep I am in the process of developing this and just need to resolve one outstanding issue (the 'Total' row not appearing in the first
testcase) before rolling it out. If anyone with Lua knowledge can solve that mystery, it can start being used.
Number5718:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Topic suitability does not seem to be a requirement for navboxes. [
[1]] "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles", which is what this does. Note that the article this template is for, is part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, The article itself is the full work, which is in progress. Like a lot of Wikipedia. This has long been a pattern/style of all the lists (works in progress) for global articles on first ladies (spouses) and gentlemen who are married to heads of state.
— Maile (
talk)
11:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If a link does not work anymore, mark it with {{Dead link}}. There is no need for additional specific templates that require more editorial work (hint: this template does not add any tracking categories),
Gonnym (
talk)
07:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Indeed, compare {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} and [[Hanning Schröder]], they identical,
Hanning Schröder =
Hanning Schröder. On the contrary, {{iw2|Hanning Schröder||de}} ‹See Tfd›Hanning Schröder[the article is translated] we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
The template {{iw2}}, as [[article|any necessary text]], allows to write any necessary text, e.g. {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}} ‹See Tfd›any textuk, so, after translation, appropriate bot removes iw2 and obtains [[Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text]]
any text.
Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits)10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future.
Bigwhofan (
talk)
21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of
MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for
political parties,
national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template".
Primefac (
talk)
23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget.
Folly Mox (
talk)
14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing
New Power Party or {{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which
NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in
Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like
Template:GOP, which is exactly the same).
Gonnym (
talk)
14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work?
Nosferattus (
talk)
04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in
Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet.
Plantdrew (
talk)
20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think broadly the idea of navboxes which link the tree of life are reasonable. So from that direction I think this is a keep. However, I think this navbox does too much. It links pages which are clearly not
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the parent taxa), and links multiple of the child taxa and their children, which I am not generally a fan of (see also
User:Izno/Navbox constellations which pretty-naturally apply here).
Izno (
talk)
18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, these topics are usually well-linked on the articles themselves to the child and parent topics. So yeah, I don't totally see the point in navboxes for tree of life stuff.
Izno (
talk)
20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
delete, there is extra overhead of maintaining subfamily navboxes and I don't think there is significant added benefit (due to the navigational redundancy).
Frietjes (
talk)
16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:
|Occupation=
|JobPortal=
|ParentOccupation=
Where the last two are the same value between the templates.
|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{
last word|{{
PAGENAME}}}}, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently.
Gonnym (
talk)
09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{
last word|{{
PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}" this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.
accordionists is parented by Aerophone players and Keyboardists
At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how
Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}". But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it.
Mason (
talk)
23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created.
Gonnym (
talk)
07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists
[2]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ.
Mason (
talk)
13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates.
Mason (
talk)
13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before
Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits)10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subst and mark historical per nom. I see no reason to completely get rid of it as it has been used in the past and it would serve as documentation as to how things worked before global accounts. Delete the redirect however, as reserving a three letter page for a historical template should be avoided.
Nickps (
talk)
14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, we don't preserve templates just because they were relevant at arbitrary point in the past, and one which will never be interesting again in the future. The template is sufficiently trivial that there's zero need to preserve history.
Izno (
talk)
17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake;
Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now.
Nickps (
talk)
15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Umm, that require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if
Module:Citation is invoked you get:
{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using
Module:Citation/CS1..
I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add {{
soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}} to someplace in
Module:Citation/doc and be done?
That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says returnrequire[[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too.
Nickps (
talk)
19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've edited
Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{
#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{
#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working.
Nickps (
talk)
20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at
Module:Citation (
permalink). It is not obvious that
line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as
WP:SOFTREDIR says, Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your
? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add {{
soft redirect}} to the ~/doc page?
Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks ([[Module:Citation]] →
Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including {{soft redirect}} in the ~/doc page.
Now I'm confused. If you open
Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect.
Nickps (
talk)
22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete {{
Citation/lua}} as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
Ideally we would move
Module:Citation/CS1 to this title - there's no reason things are the way they are other then history. Otherwise just hard redirect now that hard redirects are possible - there's no reason for a soft redirect which would deliberately get in all possible users' way.
* Pppery *it has begun...20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for two reasons. One is that this is a pretty valuable name. Two is that this template also has been practically un-linked to since its creation, which for this particular variety of subst-only template indicates to me that people aren't using it.
Izno (
talk)
15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Duplication of
Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WikiCleanerMan and
Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of on foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles article about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. --
CommonKnowledgeCreator (
talk)
05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This can be solved easily..., just add an expandable section for 'Presidency' on the very few oversized navboxes in the style of {{John Paul II}} (but without multiple expanded sections, just one would do). This would solve everyone's concern, and would keep the rest of the links about the subject - Wikipedia's map of the topic - in the same navbox.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, my idea just above. Many navboxes include collapsed sections. There is no reason, when this option exists, to separate a president's record from the rest of their Wikipedia map.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. At the very least it needs trimming so that the
WP:EXISTING articles aren't lost amongst a sea of redlinks and external links to the French Wikipedia (P.S. No external links in navboxes). --
woodensuperman15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was going to originally suggest merging these two templates together, but after looking at the almost-zero transclusion count I realise that neither of them are really necessary; if a discussion gets moved to another location, we can easily use {{moved}} or type out "discussion moved to <link>", and if someone changes something (e.g. a signature) they can just... say so? It's not a bad idea but in practice it doesn't seem to have much use.
Primefac (
talk)
21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for
WP:G6. Is that fine?
Nickps (
talk)
11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well in this case the redirect falls under
WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes.
Nickps (
talk)
22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under
WP:R#D2 (The redirect might cause confusion). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself.
Nickps (
talk)
22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Navbox whose body contains just one relevant link, which is to a probably non-notable article. Not useful for navigation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
13:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No transclusions. As with the nomination below, it is tricky to determine if this template subpage is actually used or is just leftover cruft from a development process. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. No, this is not leftover cruft from development. It is one of the integral functions of the base ISO 15924 templates, a repository of Wikipedia metadata (i.e. category name) about the information from the ISO standard. I don't know about other editors, or even if there are others who have used this functionality, but I have used it in substitutionpreview to permanently populate pages into writing system categories, thus the lack of transclusion. This is in direct contrast with the below nomination, which is a tabular presentation of ISO 15924 content, and these two should be judged on their individual merits, not collectively.
VanIsaac, GHTVcontWpWS21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear lord, I created and edited so many writing systems articles back in the day, and it's been so long I don't even know where to start. Note that my recollection has changed from above when I thought I'd substituted - but I'm pretty sure I previewed {{ISO 15924|wp-category|Qaaa}} to generate the category name instead of delving through the
category:Writing systems tree. I happened to know about it because I created the wrapper functionality back in 2011 when {{
ISO 15924}} was previously just a documentation guide to all the subtemplates that had been created. I was deep into the process of
my own Unicode proposal at the time, so I had a lot of research and knowledge at my fingertips to fill in holes in our content at that time. But that has not been the case for a while now, and my contributions in that area are mostly building out
category:Indic letters, which includes a good deal of image creation and adapting formulaic language to describe the different writing systems as they are incorporated, but no novel categorization in the writing systems sphere.
VanIsaac, GHTVcontWpWS16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Propose mergingTemplate:Category link if exists 2 with
Template:Category link if exists.
Version 2 grays out nonexistent categories; version 1 does not apply any styling to nonexistent categories. If there is really a need, we can add something like |gray=no. But I do not see a need: version 1 had three (3) transclusions (compared to 61,000 for v2), so there is clearly a lack of demand for the non-grayed functionality and I don't think it is worth the added complexity. For transparency, I did just indirectly remove two transclusions of v1 because they were substitutions from an old version of {{estcatCountry}} (
diff1 and
diff2), but that template should not have been substituted in those two instances. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What do we need this template for, if it's not used in the articles listed? For example, of the 13 articles listed under the 43rd and 44th Parliaments section, only two actually use the sidebar, and I am doubting either of the two actually should. I am asking because the sidebar has just been removed
[3] from the
2023 Canadian wildfires article because it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to topic (with which I agree).
Renerpho (
talk)
03:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Would vote for deletion as a nav aid its a duplication or redundant to {{Justin Trudeau}}. American political articles have these spammed all over....we (Canada) only have two
Template:Harper sidebar both made by a banned editor
User:Charles lindberg. Link spam at its worst in my view and is discouraged by
MOS:LEADELEMENTS ="The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged" as talked about at
November 2020 RfC. Have removed it many times from main Justin Trudeau page...mostly add by
Charles sockpuppets...hes still with us but does not try this anymore.Moxy-04:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I am also wondering why we need this template. It seems tangentially related to many of the articles it appears on, and there is no clear indication why five politicians in the history of Canada and its provinces have one.
Adding it to some pages suggests that the article was written from a position biased towards or focused on Canada. For example, on the
Canada–Philippines waste dispute article, the addition of this sidebar suggests that the dispute was caused by Trudeau. Without a corresponding sidebar for Duterte (which I'm not suggesting), the article does not appear neutral or international. This seems to occur in other articles on Canada's international relations.
On domestic affairs, the events listed on the template, such as the Nova Scotia shootings and the 2023 wildfires, are not always clearly related to government policies or to Trudeau himself. The sidebar does not appear (and should not appear) on those pages, but it is unclear why those pages are linked in the sidebar.
Similarly, there seems to be bias in the way that political events are dealt with. For example, no other sidebar has a separate section for scandals and controversies - those events are integrated into the list of events - but it appears on this sidebar. Without a clear framework for what types of events should be listed on sidebars and what shouldn't, which politicians should have one, and what pages they should be added to, political sidebars can too easily become partisan.
Careless lemon (
talk)
20:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I would recommend removing unrelated entries. For instance, articles on Bill passed by the Canadian Parliament don't make explicit mention of Trudeau. Therefore, it would make those articles not relevant for the scope of navigation. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
13:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem we have with these extra repeated links (3x in most cases causing repeated links) is that it's frowned upon because most of these articles already have an information box and for accessibility concerns that the project takes seriously...
MOS:LEAD...as outlined at the
November 2020 RfC. Moxy🍁
23:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This fails at least 3 of the criteria listed on
WP:NAVBOX: "ancient parishes of Northamptonshire" is a topic so obscure that it does not have an article of its own (criterion 4) and is mentioned in few or maybe none of the articles that this template has been added to (criterion 2). The list is very long and busy for a navbox, meaning the appearance gives undue weight to an obscure topic on the articles it's been placed on, without even being very useful to users in terms of linking the articles together.
Joe D(t)19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Convert to list article. If there is some reason to create a list of these parishes, and reliable sources show that they share this characteristic, a list article should suffice. The articles linked in this navbox, like
Apethorpe, typically link to current parishes, not articles about ancient parishes. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-standard template for winning squad of relatively minor continental competition; does not appear on the pages of any of the players / coach involved
Crowsus (
talk)
19:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It appears now on all the pages of the players and coaches involved. Relatively minor continental competiton? UEFA has three offical competitions and UEFA Europa Conference League is one of them. It's the first UEFA competition ever won by a Greek team and the template is absolutely of significant encyclopedic value. If somebody considers a UEFA competition "elatively minor" doesn't mean that the template should be deleted.
Lynxavier (
talk)
Delete Although I agree that this is not a minor competition, I still feel it is unnecessary. The implication of keeping this is that similar templates be created for all continental competition winners and I think that is overkill.
Stevie fae Scotland (
talk)
11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with Stevie fae Scotland that this would lead to a slippery slope. Creating navboxes for club competition-winning squads is not a new debate, but with how many club competitions there are, this could lead to too many templates at the bottom of a footballer's page.
KingSkyLord (
talk |
contribs)
12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not sure why there's a need to list these if the Canadian monarchs are just equivalent to the last several British monarchs.
Векочел (
talk)
11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Propose mergingTemplate:Resize with
Template:Midsize. {{
resize}} reduces text to 90%. {{
midsize}} reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{
Font size templates}}, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―
Mandruss☎01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―
Mandruss☎02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts |size=, which can translate to |1= in {{resize}} (if |2= is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts |height= for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone will need to make a detailed plan - Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―
Mandruss☎16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those
MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update:Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with
MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of |height= being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used...
Izno (
talk)
06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge.
Izno (
talk)
20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see |upright= when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―
Mandruss☎20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Completed discussions
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at
the "Holding Cell".