Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10 edit

Template:9TeamBracket-TTProLeague edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:9TeamBracket Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Str rightc/nonLua edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is dependant on a feature that is not going to be enabled on WMF wikis; see phab:T254782. User:GKFXtalk 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I learned about that after making this attempt. WP:PF is no help, though; it misled me to believe the functions would be available:

Further information: mw:Help:Magic words § Parser functions, and mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions

and

This page is a quick reference for magic words. For more information, refer to the main MediaWiki documentation:

— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you should consider contributing it to the Templates Wikia source code repository for Mediawiki templates -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just to put a button on this one. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Trapani Calcio squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football club no longer affiliated to any league, unused template. Angelo (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the team was kicked out of Serie C, all of the players linked seem to play for different clubs now. So no valid links for this template. And we don't keep squad templates for non-existent teams of any sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, can be restored if/when the club re-joins a league and gains players. GiantSnowman 10:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis353 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused; redundant to {{8TeamBracket|sets=3/5/3}} Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Same as the other team brackets nominated. Unused and redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:5TeamBracket-with 3rd edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused; redundant to {{3RoundBracket|byes=1|compact=y}} Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Same as the other team brackets nominated. Unused and redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2019 Ulster GAA Under-20 Football Championship bracket edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we don't have an article for that tournament, so don't need a results list for it. Even if the tournament's article existed, subst and delete would have been correct outcome anyway, but as there's nowhere useful to subst it to, just deleting is the correct option. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:10TeamBracket-Women'sVolleyball-SerieA1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused; redundant to {{4RoundBracket|byes=1|sets=3/3/5/5|compact=y}} Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Same as the other team brackets nominated. Unused and redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2021 (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).

Wikipedia article challenge templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge WPCan10k, but no consensus for the rest. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up TfD to the nomination of {{WPUS50}}, which was nominated for merging into its related WikiProject banner. The rationale used in that nomination was to reduce the number of banners at the top of talk pages. The proposal here is the same: to merge these banners into their related WikiProject banners in order to minimize banner usage while still retaining the relevant information. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 May Update to answer some of the questions below: the intention here is to condense multiple banners into one banner (example). As the initial proposal stands, yes, this would mean on pages without a {{WikiProject Europe}} would mean turning {{WPEUR10k}} into that template. As an alternate option (floated but not heavily discussed at the US50 discussion) these templates could be merged into {{WPBS}} itself, similar to how |blp=yes triggers a specific banner; this would eliminate the "but there's no specific banner" or "there are duplicate banners" issue, while still decreasing the total number of banners on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Which would "the project" be for WKEUR10k which collects articles related to many different European countries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, which I guess would be the project. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never used that. When I write an article about a German topic, I assign Project Germany, but not Europe also. The challenge would not appear then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to all of these except WPCANADA, per Gerda. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with parent project banner It helps organize the challenges and show progress. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm the editor who has been implementing the {{WPUS50}} TfD even in that case many pages aren't tagged with {{WikiProject United States}} but one of the state banners. It is plausible to add it to all relevant WikiProject banners if so desired. It will require some work but it isn't too bad. The end result will be preferable to the status quo since it better prioritize what information is important to readers. --Trialpears (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps this would be for another discussion, but I thought I'd mention the similar Women in Red edit-a-thon banners. It seems that they date to about the same period. Some are listed at Template:WIR and follow the sequence {{WIR-1}} through {{WIR-198}} and there are also some by year. (Presumably they could be merged into WikiProject Women, and perhaps also make WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women artists, etc., task forces of the parent WikiProject Women – that would reduce a lot of clutter as I sometimes see three or four WP women's banners on a biography.) – Reidgreg (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were recently TFDd unsuccessfully but do also need cleaning, at least to use the WIR banner as e.g. task force parameters. Izno (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to be part of the relevant country/continent's Wikiproject banner. This is what we've done for many other templates e.g. Women in Red. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to WP banner to reduce talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see above question, which you can perhaps answer: project Europe is not what an individual article would call, therefore I see the clutter only increasing if instead of the current template (which is in around 6,000 articles heading towards 10,000), we'd have to include project Europe on top of the individual country (or countries). Readers will frown if we call project Italy AND project Europe. I also find it neat to see exactly from which articles this precise template is linked, vs. where some template Europe will be linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since the challenges are not necessarily part of the projects. Also, Gerda's point about Europe is very valid. I didn't even know there was a Europe project, and I've been writing about European subjects since I joined Wikipedia. Yakikaki (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I think. (NB I created one of these, {{WPASIA10k}}) Have I understood correctly?: the proposal for pages that transclude {{WPEUR10k}} is that to reduce the number of templates on the page we remove it and instead add {{WikiProject Europe}}? And that we're already doing the same operation for {{WPUS50}}? This seems to be pointless make-work. Most of the clutter on talk-pages is usually ... you know, talk, and that can be dealt with by archiving where necessary. Oh, and watchlist clutter is a thing, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt, Vami IV, Yakikaki, and Justlettersandnumbers: I have made an update and (somewhat of) an alternate idea/proposal. Does this information potentially change your opinions? @Aknell4, Trialpears, Reidgreg, Joseph2302, and SandyGeorgia: is this alternate proposal a reasonable compromise? I'll keep an eye on this page so I don't necessarily need a ping to the discussion on reply. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: This is what I was referring to when I said "merge". I would be in support. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I get it right that you mean something like "EU10k=yes" in the banner shell. Yes, and then what? What would the display be? For "BLP=yes" we get a fat entry, so how would it really reduce clutter? ... or just a link to the challenge in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That can in theory be hashed out later, but my initial thought would be a sentence or two at the bottom of the shell giving the current text of the current banners (e.g. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!). Alternately (though unlikely that a page would be in more than one of these challenges) it could give a note similar to {{Old moves}}, saying "this page was part of the following challenges:" and then list them. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A {{Challenge history}} or {{Editathon history}} banner that collects these sounds like a good option to me, if there are enough similar events (otherwise, not sure where the clutter is). Some of the WikiProject banners have an awful lot of parameters as it is and wading through the documentation can be a chore to itself. (If this is too much work, though, I don't mind if {{WPCan10k}} is deleted, as it never really caught on.) {{Article history}} already has Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and collaboration of the week (both defunct). {{Educational assignment}} is probably best on its own, though sometimes I see multiples of that which could be consolidated. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, Primefac. Turning these into a parameter of the banner shell seems preferable to the previous suggestion. I suppose another possibility might be to start a Wikiproject Challenges, and include that in the banner shell where appropriate. I've really no idea how many of these challenges there are, or how many of them have a dedicated template. I collected the templates I knew of in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates, but for all I know there are others too. {{The 100,000 Challenge}} shows a good number of challenges; I'm not sure whether that template is limited to those created by Encyclopædius, or if other similar challenges have been started by other editors or projects. It could be that a rather wider discussion than this might be indicated, but to be honest I think we've all got more important things we could be getting on with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: The Challenge series are listed at Template:The Challenge series invitation navigation bar (not all of these have talk page templates). There is some overlap, like the Nordic and European challenges, the US challenge which has several sub-challenges, and the non-geographical Video games challenge. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the alternate merge option. That is an excellent solution and I wish I'd thought of it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gerda Arendt. It's not desirable to use a wide-range project like {{WikiProject Europe}} when there is a country-level one available. I don't want to bloat the banner shell with many options either (the alternative proposal). But discussing a separate template for these is due. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment copy from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 8. As a botop, I think using the expression |WPUS50= will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}} and {{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion, {{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}} is better than {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want this anywhere near WPBS as that is not the point of that template. I would much rather merge these to the related projects where relevant. These don't need to be merged to Europe specifically per Trialpears; the most specific related country project will also do for me. If the topic is from or related highly to Germany, merge to the Germany banner. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as with the US one. The template says: This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge" and Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge is a subpage of the project. So I don't know how it can be said the same article is not "of interest to" (per {{WPBS}}) the same WikiProject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Rather the opposite, we need more templates for the other Challenges. These templates help bringing more editors to these Challenges, and they help expand this Wikipedia. Deleting or merging would be counter-productive.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't participate but I see the value the challenges bring, and this would reduce the impact. Mostly, this seems to me to be trying to solve a non- or rarely existing problem. Further, linking to WikiProject Europe would be irrelevant, as previously commented - this project is in fact rarely interacted with by most editors. Nor does linking to the nearest country project, say, as the challenges and the WikiProjects don't directly co-work much, though the Country WikiProjects do benefit. SeoR (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends This is logical for {{WikiProject Canada}} as that should already be on all pages tagged by the corresponding challenge. For the others not so much since in most cases the pages are not tagged by the continent-wide WikiProject. This creates two issues, first we are not really reducing template clutter just swapping one template for another, second it goes against the idea that we should let WikiProjects decide their own scope and WP Asia and WP Europe tend to focus on higher level topics leaving most articles to be tagged only with country specific projects. At this point it may be better to speedily renom WP Canada individually and look at alt-merge options like adding the Europe challenge option to each of the country specific templates individually. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging into {{WPBS}} that makes no sense. It isn't generally applicable over a wide range of topics, and it shouldn't be part of the Wikiproject bannershell, as these are article history banners. You could instead merge all of them into a single banner, an article improvement banner, if they are not merged into the separate wikiproject banners. There should be a separate bannershell for article history banners (traffic, DIY, mainpage, school assignment, etc) that is not {{WPBS}} that these banners should use -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't suggesting merging into {{WPBS}}, it's proposing merging these into their parent WikiProject banners. So {{WPCan10k}} gets merged into {{WikiProject Canada}}, {{WPEUR10k}} gets merged into {{WikiProject Europe}}, etc. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with BabbaQ's comment that we need more challenge banners, not fewer and SeoR's point that the projects and challenges don't necessarily work together. Carter (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just created another of these, {{WPOCEANIA10k}}, so if the eventual consensus here is to delete there'll be one extra to deal with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I can only comment on WPCanada's challenge, since it is the one I have worked with. In its case, I think that it would look just fine as part of the WPCanada banner itself. I think that doing this would still preserve the intent of the challenge, which is to encourage contributions in a way that the WPCanada banner itself does not. CplKlinger (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's good for Canada is not good for the many European countries. Perhaps it's time to see that the proposal combines things that are not compatible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand that; this is why I stated that I can only comment on the case of WPCanada. I have no opinion regarding the European situation because I have no experience there :) CplKlinger (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the Canada one, but do not merge the others. No need to have WikiProject Europe on all the pages like Talk:Gustav Mahler which have more specific project templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Akron RubberDucks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template with 5 links but two of which are to the subject's main page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep While there are some similar templates that link exclusively to sections on the subject's main page and ballpark, this one links to separate articles about the team's seasons, managers, current roster, and ballpark. I think it's worth keeping because of the seasons and managers pages. I agree that it doesn't link to many pages, but I'm not aware of a required minimum. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The associated templates and pages could use an update, but I believe it is important for the organization to have a template that provides navigations for its related pages. While there are only a handful of links, it still helps users navigate the associated pages.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NENAN. The pages easily link to each other, a navbox is unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a minor league team which lacks mainstream notability other than which major league team it happens to be an affilate of. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject page is duplicated and two of the links are to non-mainspace items. Delete. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CheckUser block edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Malformed nomination that appears to show that the nominator hasn't read or understood the purpose of the template. Furthermore, XfD is not a forum for revoking or amending policy; if it is the CheckUser policy that you have issue with, you'll need to take it to the talk page of that policy. (non-admin closure) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actions done by administrators are generally not subject to guidelines as this template dictates. Only actions done by WMOffice and Arbcom are “Hands-off”. 160.72.84.158 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 and WP:SK3. What on earth is this nonsense even supposed to mean? This is the second template nomination you've made in two days which demonstrates that you don't have a clue how block templates are used. Firstly - you've nominated a redirect here, rather than the template itself, you haven't tagged it or put in an edit request for tagging, and you haven't notified the creator or main contributors. "Actions done by administrators are generally not subject to guidelines as this template dictates" yes they are - we have guidelines and policies on the usage of checkuser tools and blocks, The template explains the policies - it doesn't "dictate" them, and the actions suggested in the template are the completely normal way of appealing a checkuser block on an IP range. I have no idea what the second sentence of your nomination is even supposed to mean, so I can't comment on it. This is transuded onto over 600 talk page, and there will be a huge number of transclusions in block logs and the likes that don't show up in the "What links here" special page. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Weather Data and Instrumentation/doc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of documentation subpage after deletion of corresponding template - see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_12#Template:WikiProject_Floods GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Apologies for using the incorrect process. I wasn't aware of {{db-subpage}}. GoingBatty (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_10&oldid=1142562291"