Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Template:TriMet Rail System navbox

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(speak now) 04:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Gotras of Tarkhans}}

Unused Template that contains no links to any existing articles. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. First I thought someone had vandalised the template, but previous revisions are also completely lacking links to existing articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5. Primefac (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Extinct volcanoes of the Andes|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Andean volcanoes|type=merge}}

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(speak now) 04:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Comedy Classes}}

Template about a TV show having links to TV Channel, production house and actors. These entries are not related to each other and fails WP:NAVBOX clause of "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't how navboxes are supposed to work. We shouldn't be linking to cast, crew and production companies in a TV series navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(speak now) 04:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Indian Idol Junior (season 1)}}

Fails WP:NAVBOX with no independent article of its own. Also unused. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. We shouldn't have cast/crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5. Primefac (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Mission}}

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|TriMet Rail System navbox}}

There is no good reason for a navigation box listing all of the nearly 100 individual stations on one light rail system. This template is redundant to List of MAX Light Rail stations and to the much better navbox Template:Portland Transit, which lists all of the parent articles that readers are more likely to want to navigate between. Last, every individual MAX station article already includes, in its infobox, direct links to the Wikipedia articles for the adjacent (preceding and following) stations on the same line. SJ Morg (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. There is nothing wrong with this Navbox if it actually provided navigation between all the components, whereas a list is just a list. Since it has been added to very few articles it currently does not serve the purpose of a Navbox. Use it or lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm, I would think Wikipedia should have a navbox displaying all lines and stations, but I also recognize that this info can exist in the form of a list. Would it be more useful if this single navbox were separated into distinct navboxes for each line? Keep in mind, a navbox can display more than just stations. The Orange Line category, for example, also includes many of the newly-commissioned works of public art installed along the line. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• There's no relationship between a MAX station in, say, Beaverton, and one in southeast Portland; the only thing they have in common is that they are both MAX stations, nothing else. Your reasoning suggests that you'd also be OK with a navbox listing every structure in Multnomah county that has a Wikipedia article (there are hundreds, for those reading this who might not know), because they are all in one county, and so they have that point in common. This navbox creates superfluous links between articles that are not significantly related. -- SJ Morg (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|SJ Morg}} Do you realise that most rail transit systems have a navbox like this? See :Template:NYCS stations navbox and :Template:Bay Area Rapid Transit for major examples. But if this one is not going to be implemented, it should probably be gone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have never come across one (listing every station) for a light rail system. The two examples you give are heavy rail systems, and individual stations on heavy rail lines are much more notable. (Most individual light rail stations are not even notable and should not have WP articles, IMO, but it's not worth my time fighting that battle.) But that does not change my position, anyway. As another editor noted below, this navbox seems to run counter to WP:TG. I am not going to use this navbox myself, obviously, because I don't feel it should exist. SJ Morg (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• That's what I keep saying, but your argument above didn't make much sense to me. Lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• In your first comment, you say "a list is just a list" whereas this navbox would "provide navigation between all the components" if it were fully implemented. Well, List of MAX Light Rail stations also provides navigation between (virtually) of all the components in this template, making this template redundant in my view. The few non-MAX-station links in it are covered by the broader Template:Portland Transit, and really are not warranted here. This navbox is essentially just a list of every MAX station, and that is already covered both by the list article and by :Category:MAX stations. SJ Morg (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• I keep saying to get rid of it. What is the point of keeping making points? I don't care. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as a redundant list masquerading as a navbox, per nom and WP:TG. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 10:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator. --SJ Morg (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as mostly unused. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep as a widely used navbox. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• I am going to be the outlier here and say keep, because I appreciate the template's function as a navigation tool, and based on the definition of a navigation box, which is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". I recognize why other editors find the template unnecessary, but I think this template serves a purpose and provides a good overview of the system and facilitates navigation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Another Believer}} What you say may be valid, but to be properly utilized the template must be inserted in every article it contains. That is the point I made above. Use it or lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Well, the template could easily be added to all of the articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Well, its minimal use is a valid reason to delete. What are you going to do about it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• May have been time wasted if the template is deleted, but I went ahead and added the navbox to all stations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete crowded navbox with many of the links duplicated. As pointed out by SJ Morg, the information is better served by Template:Portland Transit which includes a link to List of MAX Light Rail stations. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. It's overlinking. There's no need for each station to link to every other station. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. TfD is not really the best venue for substantive copyright matters. No prejudice against renominating the template if consensus elsewhere suggests that it is unneeded, but the underlying legal issues here aren't really in TfD's remit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Non-free Philippines government}}

Actually, Philippine government works are in the public domain, except that payment for commercial distribution and use is not connected to copyright. That license template conflicts with this Commons license template, and several Philippine government files are on Commons as free files, and some are on Wikipedia as "fair use" files (not true). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, the commercial distribution clause that is established by the Philippine law has been discussed here and another time, plus some discussion here. The conclusion from what I see was that while the "commercial distribution clause" is valid, the law at the same time explicitly disawovs any copyright protection, making the "commercial distribution clause" a non-copyright restriction hence nothing that would get us in legal trouble or trip copyright policies. I would recommend to change our template to reflect the Commons one, unless someone has doubts about the validity of the conclusions in the previous discussions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the discussions listed by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's also an old discussion somewhere in the archive for WT:C. What I don't like is the fact that the law says that there is no copyright but that there nevertheless are restrictions on the use of the material. This makes me think of a wording in the Swedish copyright law which was added in 1919 and repealed in 1994, saying that photographs weren't subject to copyright. Instead, there was a separate law which protected the 'right to photographic images', which was essentially the same thing but expressed with different words.

: One problem with this template is that the files count as 'free' on Commons but 'unfree' on Wikipedia, which is inconsistent. On the other hand, English Wikipedia and Commons both have a template called {{tl|PD-USGov}}, but :ja:Template:PD-USGov on Japanese Wikipedia is a quite interesting redirect... --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:: I personally have always thought that one important difference between copyright and non-copyright restrictions is that the former frequently apply internationally, thanks to all the treaties, while most of the latter usually don't. {{U|Emk}} was the editor who made that redirect on jawiki; to my knowledge PD-USGov is a bit of US law, other countries with different laws may still consider these copyrightable. As for this template, one major issue IMO is that we cannot enforce a non-free policy for images which Commons considers free; if an image we consider non-free but Commons considers free is deleted here for violating the WP:NFCC, if a copy of the image exists on Commons InstantCommons will make the image display regardless.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

::: The 'right to photographic images' was formally not the same thing as 'copyright' under Swedish law, but was nevertheless still subject to the same international treaties.

::: If there is a file on Commons which we consider to be unfree, then there is nothing preventing us from disallowing or restricting its use on Wikipedia. Check for example {{tlxc|Soprintendenza}} on Commons which refers to the Italian exemption doctrine policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

::::I think the first case would depend on how the restriction is handled by foreign copyright laws; I am not an expert on such matters though. The "soprintendenza" like solution sounds, to use a technical term, "hackish" and I recommend us not to use it on enwiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::Foreign copyright laws only need to consider one thing: is the work in the public domain through expiration of a copyright term in the country of origin? If this isn't the case, then foreign countries are required to provide protection for the work until the domestic term of the foreign country expires or until the copyright term of the country of origin expires, whichever happens first. For a tag like {{tl|PD-USGov}}, I guess it's debatable whether there is a zero-length copyright term which has expired (in which case other countries do not need to protect United States Government works) or whether United States Government works are in the public domain for a reason unrelated to copyright terms (in which other countries need to protect United States Government works). For example, there was a French court ruling where it was concluded that United States works which are {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}} are in the public domain in the United States for a reason other than term expiration, which means that France is required to protect such works by copyright until they become {{tl|PD-1923}} or {{tl|PD-old-70}}, whichever happens first. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(speak now) 04:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Elimination Chamber winners}}

As with the Royal Rumble Final Four, not notable. CrashUnderride 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: WWE doesn't include the elimination chamber in the acomplishments lists. It's not like the Money in the Bank or the Royal Rumble, just a stipulation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per HHH. It's a rare but not unique stipulation, literally. There's sometimes more than one such match in a night (which makes sense when one considers how much work it must be to set up. It's not something that even the hype machine of WWE keeps track of. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Good info, but there's more to a meaningful template than that. The info's still safe for whoever cares at Elimination Chamber, and every winner's article almost certainly (hopefully?) mentions that part. I'd say the same for the other two, too. Rare, but not unique, and just stipulation matches. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Not really a useful navbox.LM2000 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|1990 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|1992 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|1996 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2001 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2008 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2009 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2010 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2011 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2012 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2013 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2014 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}
• {{Tfd links|2015 NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards}}

These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if the associated articles satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, these NCAA alumni awards for top college athletes on the 25th anniversary of their graduation do not rise to the level of "noteworthiness" that is typical of a navbox worth keeping. The level of coverage these awards receive in mainstream media is relatively small. Most importantly, the likelihood of any of our readers wanting to navigate among the almost completely unrelated recipients of the award -- different sports, different teams, different universities -- is extremely low. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Apparently I nominated the "wrong" template, so I'll close this and go nominate a thousand subpages instead. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|LSR}}

LSR creates a subpage under Template:Latest stable software release (a full list is here). I am proposing that all of these subpages be substituted, deleted, and the main LSR template be modified so that it does not contain the [±] edit link. Saving information in hard-coded templates breaks quite a few rules, and previous examples such as {{t|cite doi}} have shown that they should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The advantage of this template system only applies when talking about software actively under development, and then only if used in more than one or two articles. Templates that don't fit those requirements could most likely be deleted. Wikidata was made for information like this that is really too simple for templates, which may be a reason to keep the main template (converting to use wikidata.) If the subpages are moved to wikidata, they could all be deleted. (I'd probably also like to see something like this happen to other metadata templates.) —PC-XT+ 22:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I hope my colleagues excuse my frankness but I think the nominator must supply a reason for his nomination that is less vague and weasel-wordy than "it breaks a quite a few rules". (Which?) In addition, this template off-loads edits related to version number from the main diff. How are we supposed to fill this need without this template? Moving to WikiData is not feasible at this time; not without causing great hindrance for obtaining Feature-article requirements. See DivX and Adobe Acrobat for examples of challenges to implementing this on WikiData. Add in the fact that different Wikipedia projects need different subsets of those data and might have different policies/guidelines/consensus regarding what has due weight.

: Best regards,

: Codename Lisa (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

::My apologies for not responding earlier, {{u|Codename Lisa}}. The subpages of this template go against the first rule of WP:TMPG (hard-coding text to be used elsewhere). I suppose "a few rules" was slight hyperbole, but there have been quite a few (including the above-mentioned cite doi) TFDs where hardcoded templates were deleted. My question to you is this: if an editor comes in and trashes an LSR subpage, and no one happens to be watching that page, how does anyone know that the information there is most recent? Answer: they don't. This opens the door for vandals and keeps new editors from feeling comfortable editing the page.

::As a side note, I don't particularly think this is a Wikidata issue; I think this is an issue (which I've come across multiple times) of editors being confused as hell about what they're supposed to be editing, and also keeping track of changes being made to a specific article. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

:::Hello,Primefac

::#First and foremost, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Template:LSR/ this template has no subpages other than the standard ones] and does not hardcode anything. LSR is just a formatting template. You have nominated the wrong template.

::#The template you intended to nominate does not store article text; it store table cells. This is not a violation of the guideline you mentioned. Myriads of other templates are doing this already, including all navboxes, timeline templates and tables.

::#The "if a vandal..." argument is an argument from pure fear. It is true that page watchers must separately watch the templates as well but that's true for all templates, including navboxes, timelines, formatting templates, and all other kinds. Assess the threat carefully and if your fear was justified, request a cascading semi-protection on the parent template.

::#Still there is the main concern that must be addressed: If a template nominated has huge benefits, the nominator is responsible for explaining a plan to fill that void.

:::Best regards,

:::Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep while there is no replacement. I forgot that it is also useful if version changes flood histories, even for just one article. I would support subst and delete of any subtemplates for discontinued software, but not the main template or most subtemplates that have been updated recently. Wikidata would be nice, but I thought it was funny that it hadn't already been implemented, yet. Thanks for explaining the concerns, Codename Lisa. —PC-XT+ 14:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|PC-XT}}, I'm not suggesting we delete and remove all of the information. I'm saying that the template is totally fine, but the creation (and hence transclusion) of a bunch of hardcoded subpages isn't. For example, a recent TFD for the ChatON page resulted in the subpage being deleted, and the information is still completely intact on the Article itself. There's no reason for a random subpage to be created to store that information. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: it is very inconvenient indeed on the page Comparison_of_numerical_analysis_software not to be able to fetch ONLY the version number or ONLY the latest release date, since we want to be able to order tables according to dates. Is it possible to improve the template ? I do not think so. That is why I am pushing for deletion. Nucleos (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

:*{{p|:O}} This template has nothing to do with that problem. Are you sure you know what template is this? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification comment I do not want {{t|LSR}} to be deleted. It's a useful template. I want the subpages of LSR to be substituted, deleted, and LSR changed so that it doesn't create those subpages. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was keep. There is support for a rename, but with two valid potential options I'll leave that for a talk page discussion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Covert United States involvement in regime change}}

Template created to reflect the content of an article that no longer exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Add the content to {{tl|Central Intelligence Agency}} and subsequently delete the sidebar. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the article was deleted because it was redundant with content in the CIA and history of the CIA articles. Therefore, the content is still on Wikipedia; all that needs to be done is change the title. "CIA regime change actions" would be quite appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for now and rename per Vanamonde93. (If it could fit into {{tl|Central Intelligence Agency}}, I would say delete to consolidate in the same manner as the articles were handled, but this is more of a merge rather than current redundancy, and I'm not sure how well the content will fit together, so a merge discussion would probably be better...) —PC-XT+ 11:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as {{u|Vanamonde93}} suggests, or rename as "Covert Unites States regime change operations." I don't know why we should restrict content to post-WWII operations: hence dropping the "CIA" part of the name. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5. Primefac (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Montana State Bobcats bowl game navbox}}

: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).

: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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Historical capitals of Serbia}}

: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).