Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Captain Fatz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of these are either redirects or nonexistent. TTN (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another pseudo-navbox where the links all go to the same article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent animal death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think I even need to provide a reason in this case.. If I wouldn't know it better, I'd say that this was meant as a parody. --Conti|✉ 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Seems silly, but I looked at Category:2009 animal deaths, and I guess there are articles where it could have been legitimately used. Still, the {{Current}} or {{Current-section}} template should be sufficient for the small number of cases where there is breaking news about the death of a notable animal. I also see a potential for abuse by vandals cruelly using this on an article where {{recent death}} should appear. --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the template would apply to a few handful of articles a year, but it would still serve no purpose whatsoever. I'm pretty sure these articles don't even receive a fraction of attention compared to an article about a recently deceased person. Not to mention that there's no WP:BLP issues involved here, either. --Conti|✉ 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dunno. I want to say "delete", but per RL0919's comment above I can see a legitimate use for this so I'm leaning more towards a "weak keep". Perhaps it could be merged into {{recent death}}? Not so sure that it should be adding pages to Category:Recent deaths though, as that category appears to be specifically for people. PC78 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge. I will agree that it looks silly at first glance, but it seems to have been created in good faith when Socks died, and it does fill a void . I would recommend it either be left or a switch be inserted into {{recent death}} to change person to animal when applicable. --98.217.181.54 (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, what void? What purpose does this template have? Recent animal deaths are not a current event. We wouldn't (and we don't) use Template:Current instead. There is no point whatsoever to warn our readers of anything. No information will change "rapidly" (in contrast to a current event). No potential WP:BLP problems are involved (in contrast to Template:Recent death). Did you guys even read the template? "Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the animal's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known." Are you honestly telling me that that's what we would have to tell our readers on articles like Socks (cat), Sybil (cat), Trakr or Sam (koala)? --Conti|✉ 10:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "This article is about an animal which has recently died.
  Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the animal's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known."
  I'm sorry, but there is no circumstance under which this is a reasonable message to post at the top of a page. If our taggers would put themselves briefly in the place of our readers they would see how senseless and bureaucratic this is. We're making ourselves look ridiculous. Flowerparty^☀ 14:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please! There can't possibly be a situation when this template is really needed. --Kildor (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to {{Million-plus cities in India}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metropolitan cities of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Million-plus cities in India, maybe even Template:Largest cities of India. Hometech (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to {{Million-plus cities in India}}, as stated in nom. Also not well defined: the title link goes to an article called List of most populous cities in India, from which the top six seem to have been arbitrarily selected for this template. --RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Metropolitan" is a judgement call. AreJay (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How many templates on Indian cities?Moreover, the top six have not been arbitrarily selected for this template.--Sharadbob (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This template shows the main cities of India...the cities over 10 million in population. No other template does that. The million plus cities of india template lists small cities no one has ever heard of...it's important to have a template listing the major cities of India- and this is the only one that does this. Nikkul (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to others and the term "metropolitan" itself is a judgment call. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the FPC process. The delisting procedures doesn't include this step anymore and no file pages link to this template. ZooFari 18:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never used and things work fine without it. wadester16 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - never seen it used. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ladysmith Black Mambazo member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to the better-designed template Template:Infobox Musical artist. Aspects (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I converted it to use {{infobox Musical artist}} as the backend, so it can be quickly substituted and deleted. Otherwise, my changes can be easily reverted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and use the musical artist infobox instead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, as a discussion is currently going at WP:EL, with no prejudice toward relisting in the future. JPG-GR (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web presence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blatant violation of WP:EL rules against linking to social sites, etc., and the links that ARE valid will already have a spot in the EL section and the normal infobox of an article. Created with little no discussion to try to get around EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep. There has in fact been a discussion about this going on for several days at the talk page for the external links guidelines. The current template is a work in progress based on that discussion. If the resulting consensus is that it wasn't a good idea, then I doubt there will be much opposition to deleting it. But to nominate it in the middle of the discussion is not particularly helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Changed to "keep" based on the progress of the discussion at WT:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote Keep, but will see how discussion develops. Blatant violation of WP:EL? NO, this is strongly meant to link the official sites, which would be allowed per WP:EL (they are strictly excluded from WP:ELNO). Also, it was discussed on WT:EL, and there it did just not find too much opposition (eh, I have seen none, IIRC). That discussion was after a private discussion which was also met with a positive response. And I don't think that I am the right person to blame for trying to get around the WP:EL rules (see my comments on the deletion discussion of the twitter template, which is one of the reasons this template is here). My only concern here is that the template would be in violation of linkfarming (though I also gave possibilities to not do that), and I have given that opinion early in the discussion. And this template has other advantages, like that one can now really delete {{twitter}}, {{facebook}} etc. etc. (which generally are a violation of WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invalid reasons for nomination. (1) Official links are permitted. (2) Formatting of existing items routinely improves. (3) Enough discussion occurred at WT:EL that one poster requested that it be continued at the template's talk page. (4) Attempting to delete a template that isn't yet finished appears to be unhelpful idea censorship. Milo 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Official links already have their place in the articles infobox and EL section, and this template seems to list other social networking type sites which aren't exactly encyclopedic. 2. External links need to be kept to a minimum so there shouldn't be enough in the first place to suggest formatting them in to a table. 3. So? 4. This box just seems to list external links so even if it was changed over time it is still likely to be deleted. 7 days is plenty of time to fix it.--Otterathome (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Official twitters, myspaces etc. are not in the infoboxes (that generally only has place for one official site, which may be a myspace, though), they still are permitted, 2) yes, but these are now not external links, 3) it was used as a criterium for deletion, though it is indeed not a criterium not to delete them either, 4) True, we could move it to a sandbox for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  More than just the official site can be put in infoboxes. It sounds like the you just want time to work on it, so userfy it then.--Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That depends on the infobox, some have a 'url' parameter, which will not listen to anything else than just the url. So it has only the, what editors deem to be, the most important homepage of the subject. Yet other homepages of the subject can contribute to the editors notability.

  Regarding 'more time to work on it', again, what happened to WP:BOLD, and since there was a positive, significant discussion going on, I don't even think I was bold in creating the template in template space. Seen how the discussion at that time evolved, I would even have considered to try it on a small scale in mainspace, see where tweaking would be needed, and I think it looks quite silly to link a sandbox-template in mainspace for that, is it not? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why is this shown in a table? These links should just be listed in the external links section like everything else. — RockMFR 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is actually where the problem lies, if you take the official external links out of the external links, then it is easier to de-linkfarm the rest (where needed). If the official myspace is in this box, then all other myspaces can go (the official mypace of the band goes here, those of all band members separate can go), almost without thinking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no other table or box like this only displays external links. It would violate a number of things on WP:NOT too. Official website belongs in the infobox, and all the other links should be verified and discussed before being added.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a strange reason 'no other table or box like this only displays external links'?, it might violate one thing on WP:NOT, as far as I see, but that has already been mentioned and could be fixed. And that verification is just made easier, and checking them too, by putting them into a properly formatted template. In this way it is machine readable, and hence easier to check, not with the eleventeen different ways of displaying external links in the normal list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems like a bad idea. I agree with the above comment: external links like these should be considered on an individual basis, not added or removed all at once in a table. In addition, the selection of sites (MySpace, Blogspot and Twitter) is arguably a bit arbitrary - it suggests some kind of official endorsement of these particular sites, when there's any number of others that could also be included. Robofish (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The selection is still a bit arbitrary, it was made as an example to help discussion, it is by no means finished. And the official sites of a subject are more or less endorsed per WP:EL, this only tries to more clearly make a difference between the two. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep pre mature deletion request. We don't delete experiments that are under active discussion and not even in use yet. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This TfD was premature: The community is allowed to try things out to see whether we can improve on current practice. Even if this template isn't wanted (or not in its current form) eventually, this looks very much like a rush to condemn the experiment before any data is in. Trying things out lets us learn new things -- and even learning that this didn't work, or that it encouraged spam, or that editors found it cumbersome to use, would be valuable information.
  I also object to DreamGuy's characterization of its creation as "with little no discussion to try to get around EL rules": assigning a motive of deliberate policy (WP:NOT) and guideline (WP:EL) evasion to Dirk is an WP:AGF failure at best, and "with little [or] no discussion" indicates both a failure to grasp WP:BOLD and a failure to pay attention to the substantial discussion at WT:EL about the problems Dirk thinks should be addressed (multiple sections) and the specific template (here, which is currently 31 kb long). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly because it implies that Twitter, MySpace and Blogspot are somehow favored by Wikipedia over other sites. (This is a major major problem, see Wikipedia:Advertisements.) If I was some kid creating an article on my favorite new band, I suddenly wouldn't know if Facebook or whatever were allowed. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Curiously, the official facebook or whatever of the band would be allowed (if the band would have notability in the first place). And it is not to say that others (which are not there) can not or should not be added. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, to me the idea of expanding this to more websites is a reason for deletion. I hope this is deleted for having the word twitter in it. I hope this is deleted because of its intended purpose--making linking to commercial sites more convenient. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The official Twitter is allowed per WP:EL, so I don't know why you are so strong against that (and by the way, we have {{twitter}}), and every link is to a commercial site, that goes for imdb.com, it goes for thesundaytimes.com, it goes for www.elsevier.com, even the wikilinks within Wikipedia are links to wikipedia.org. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per TheDJ and Milo. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Replace/Delete converting to {{infobox settlement}} or other more standard alternatives. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pakistani location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages):Template:Infobox Tehsil Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) :Template:Union councils of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete all and replace with standard Weak templates, again it provides nothing that the standard infobox settlement can't provide. Standardisation and consistency on wikipedia is far better than difference. Templates can be switched with the standard infobox. From a programming point of view I'd had at least two coding experts saying how poorly made these templates are and old fashioned, and how much better it would be to replace with the standard which caters for all. It will be much better to merge them into one simple settlement template. P.S I did improve the Pakistani location template but in the end it proved inflexible. It looks of a poorer quality anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, can't see what the fuss is about, what "standard" infobox do you think should replace it, you haven't actually said this. A tehsil incidentally is a subdivision of a district, there aren't any infoboxes that actually specifically cater to this. Pahari Sahib 11:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "Templates can be easily merged with Template:Infobox Pakistani city which..." Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean by adding information about the "local council people"? If you mean Union Councils all you have to do is add the line |uc=, all you have to do is look at the info on the template or just look at article where it is employed. Actually the generic infobox that your are so fond of are actually harder to figure out, as it contains lines of redundant information.

Again a tehsil is not a settlement. Rather trying to use the standard infobox template for everything, it is far better to have custom made templates for this very purpose (as they are simpler to deal with).

I know what a tehsil is. We use infobox settlement on districts, provinces and whole regions which are not settlements either. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you views on Template:Infobox City Japan for example? Atheistically okay is it? If any action is needed it is to tweak the Pakistan templates. Rather than making everyone use that large unwieldy generic template. Pahari Sahib 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd rather Japan used standard too but at least their infobox is mostly designed like the standard template with the map in the correct position and a decent graphic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the move to {{Infobox settlement}}, it might be non-trivial but the advantage is that people who work on one area can transfer their knowledge to another. Otherwise we have template forks and the parameter names, formats, etc. gradually diverge. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, but this templates looks awful see Sadiqabad Tehsil. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete both — Our ævil doctor and Rich are on the right track, here; we should be moving away from endless fine granularity templates towards more robust and standardized one. This is both a major way to ease maintenance of the messy business and to leverage moar sophisticated template efforts and enable users familiar with the wider norms to easily work in the areas the tightly focused templates target. Deletion discussion re templates need to primarily focus on the technical issues and not atheistic concerns; this will promote higher quality coding and more consistency across the project. For what it's worth, we need far better cross-project coordination of template implementations, too; the other wikis mostly have really old-school templates. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and replace with the more standard Pakistani infobox or preferably {{Infobox settlement}}. It's counterproductive to maintain numerous overly-specific templates when a single template can do the job just as well. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, should not Template:US state, be replaced with Infobox settlement? Pahari Sahib 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be.Himalayan Explorer 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can improve the one currently featured on many Pakistani cities pages (i.e. Infobox Pakistani location), they all can be removed and standardised to the InfoSettlement template. --Fast track (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing that selttlement cannot do - this is {{Infobox cadet college}} and {{Infobox cadet college (Pakistan)}} writ large. Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary if there is a more general alternative. 99of9 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miami Dolphins roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

pretty pointless considering that Template:Miami Dolphins roster is the same thing, but more organized.. RF23 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Serves a different purpose. This template is for use on player articles, see Brennan Marion for example. All the Major League Baseball teams have these templates, and so do the CFL teams. This template isn't going to be deleted.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all the MLB teams have one, then how come only one or two NFL teams have one? Shouldn't this be an all or nothing thing?RF23 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a lot of work to create them and I have a life.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What Chris said, all the MLB and all the CFL ones have them but creating 32 navboxes is a lot of work. I'll help creating them, since I have no life ;), but not until the season when there's not 80 guys on a team. But the template is very useful to me at least since it allows easy navigation to other player pages.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's a good point. No reason creating them now and adding 30 guys to every template that aren't gonna be there soon. Way more work than is necessary.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep navbox serves a different and long-established purpose on Wikipedia. The Template:Miami Dolphins roster is simply for transcluding the same info and keeping changes up to date on multiple articles. The navbox allows easy navigation for readers between players articles but needs be compact and placed at the bottom of player bios. This encyclopedia is a collaborative project and if someone is good enough to create a make an improvement, we thank them, not criticize them for not doing it universally. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete teammates in any given time frame, even today, is not defining for that individual. Some sporting projects sure love cluttering articles though. Resolute 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most other pro teams have navboxes, as confusing as they may be. --PhillieLWillie(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the argument is, "Template:Miami Dolphins roster is the same thing, but more organized" then it shouldn't be deleted. All MLB and NBA teams have them, even some Triple-A teams have them. It serves as a quick navigation between players. --User:Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:10 25 August, 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.