Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7

[edit]

Template:Infobox feud

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was keep. This infobox has attracted quite the attention, but there is no consensus to delete and a rough one to keep. Numerically, it's 30 keep (incl. 1 speedy) and 9 delete (1 speedy), which is about 77% keep, but this is not a vote, so let's analyze arguments. While it was initially argued that this was an unnecessary fork for a single article, examples from other articles quickly emerged, and it was countered that this infobox added important information that's not in Civil conflict. Some also argued that this was unverifiable cruft, an argument which was not well-countered, however, it was claimed that this infobox was informative and summarized feuds well. And, of course, "it's funny" is a non-argument. There is no prejudice against another discussion once the dust settles. If you disagree with my close, I waive the requirement to discuss before taking this to deletion review. Cheers, (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is an inappropriate and unnecessary fork of Template:Infobox civil conflict created for use in a single new article (Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud). Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. The template adds new parameters (notably, the medium, the works from each party, the allegations made by each party, and it is adapted to the multi-image display used in similar infoboxes), and, as mentioned in the talk page, it could (and should) reasonably be used for interpersonal conflicts where an infobox is needed but {{Infobox civil conflict}} is not appropriate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m for keeping this infobox unless Template:Infobox civil conflict is broadened to stop squabbles like this in the future. I agree that it is redundant, though. Lightcrowd (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see how it is redundant as many of the parameters are simply not present in the other template. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Infoboxes only work if they contain unambiguous facts. Feuds almost always have vague start and end dates and people switching sides. The "allegations" section in the only article this is used in contains enough prose that it seemingly defeats the purpose of having an infobox in the first place. Also, it's not at all clear what the inclusion criteria is for being in someone's "party". Did J. Cole ever explicitly identify himself as having sided with Drake? Should Boi-1da be in Drake's party since he produced some of his diss tracks? Did A$AP Rocky provide military support for Kendrick? The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Box is embarrassing OneRaymondOne (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Mach61 NAADAAN (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic covered by this infobox is very distinct from infobox civil conflict. This isn't just for rap feuds, this could be longstanding sports rivalries, squabbles between important people, pretty much any major controversy between two individuals, this infobox could see alot of use. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator said, this infobox contains special parameters not found in the previous one. There are also, as others have pointed out, numerous other articles dedicated specifically to feuds between two parties that this infobox could work in. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does a great way of summarizing the information given in the article CY223 (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep infoboxes are in general a net benefit to articles, most likely as the world continues this infobox will be used in more and more settings. Klaudeman (talk)
(that being said, I do think the "allegations" parameter should be removed) Mach61 00:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of cases like Carlsen–Niemann controversy when adding it, but it's true that it might be too subjective and could be removed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: apparently we have Template:Infobox sports rivalry that could be suitable for some of these? jengod (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. It is true that it's only on one article but there are several that it can be added to. Furthermore, using the civil conflict infobox on the Kendrick-Drake article would start another talk page war which I would like to avoid. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An infobox for petty feuds makes no sense. It will just lead to WP:FANCRUFT. It's also fairly tabloid-y. Other editors have suggested this could be used for individual sports rivalries but that's ridiculous. Like gee I wonder who the involved parties are in the Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. Or what would you put as the start and end date? What was the date when they transitioned from being good friends/teammates to intensely competitive win-at-all-costs-even-if-I-take-down-my-teammate teammates? What would you list as involved works? Every single grand prix they competed in as Mercedes teammates? What would you put as the main allegations or causes? What is the medium? Auto racing? What about the Competition between Airbus and Boeing? Or 2010 Tonight Show conflict? The information is so subjective in these types of things that an infobox would not be an appropriate way to summarize it. These types of petty feuds and rivalries have never really needed an infobox unless there it was protracted and/or led to physical confrontation/violence. The fact of the matter is people want to play this up like it's some significant war that'll change the world but quite frankly neither K.dot nor Drake has released a track in the a couple days and it's already dying out. And I'm saying all this as someone who's had a userbox on their userpage that says all articles should have infoboxes. Maybe I should get rid of it now.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wildly useful on the niche articles it's built to use. Just because it has a limited number of articles it's relevant to doesn't reduce its value. It has a discrete purpose, one that it fulfills well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fulfill it well though. The one article it's currently being used on is full of unverifiable facts and unclear criteria. Was J. Cole really on Drake's side? Why isn't We Still Don't Trust You (song) listed as one of the works of the anti-Drake side? Why is Kanye listed as a party? He's literally only mentioned once in the article and it's in a sentence that said he supports Kendrick alongside Metro Boomin, Future, the Weeknd, A$AP Rocky, Rihanna, Rick Ross, and Megan Thee Stallion. So why aren't ASAP, Rihanna, and Megan listed as parties? An infobox will always be a horrible way to summarize an article about interpersonal feuds because there are no well defined terms as to why some people hate each other and if someone's level of support is high enough to justify being named as one of the main parties to the conflict. If it turns out the security guard that got shot today was indeed shot as part of the conflict, would his name be included as a party? Why is March 22 listed as the start date of the current feud? That date is not present anywhere else in the article. There's just too much subjectivity and I believe other articles about interpersonal feuds would have the same issues.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone listed in the "parties" section has made a song dissing Drake/Kendrick post "Like That," I believe that is the criteria. ULPS (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why aren't those songs listed in the infobox? An infobox with vague criteria and unverifiable facts is meaningless.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because the infobox is for Drake and Kendrick, rather than just everyone. I do think it's somewhat silly anyways, I'm leaning delete ULPS (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing that an infobox should be deleted for unverifiable facts is silly and meaningless. Using this template we would source the information. Unsourced facts have no place on Wikipedia. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Feuds do not need infoboxes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per arguments above. I believe there is enough articles that will benefit from this template, and it will continue to support future articles without the need to argue about them. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is useful per above arguments, but change the ‘dates’ parameter to ‘key dates’ - this would provide a brief timeline of events, rather than asserting any one start or end date. Xii Xii 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new parameters added, Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud is one of Wikipedia's top performing articles and there are many other similar use cases. Feuds are great cases for infoboxes because they present basic facts (i.e. the two sides) in an easy to parse way. --Habst (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the infobox is makes the article more clear and is very notable as it has been reported on by famous instagram accounts (example RapTV) CGP05 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This infobox is a well-organized way to introduce the related parties and works of a hip hop feud, and is also applicable to other feuds in Category:Hip hop feuds, including Roxanne Wars, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, and Drake–Kanye West feud. The template's distinct scope (non-political, non-military, non-sports dispute) and unique works parameters justify it being forked from Template:Infobox civil conflict. — Newslinger talk 16:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is more for countries going to war, not for rap beefs. --Cena332 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template is for disputes that are non-political and non-military, which includes hip hop feuds and excludes military conflicts. The correct template for military conflicts is Template:Infobox military conflict. — Newslinger talk 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have you considered it's funny? - Mighty Midas (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes things easier. X (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It easily and conveniently summarizes things up. Also it's funny. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that people are arguing that it's funny is utterly ridiculous and not a real reason to keep. Usefulness is what counts. Something being funny for the sake of adding information here is not what Wikipedia is for. Most of the keep voters are coming from either reading or editing this article which doesn't make it neutral enough to some degree. This template was created in relation to the feud between Drake and Lamar. Just because the article is performing well in terms of views or the subject matter is getting attention doesn't mean that the template has any merit. Recentism largely applies to articles, but a template like this would fit that definition if it also applied to templates And there's nothing this infobox can't sum up key points just by reading the first few sentences or paragraphs of the article can do or is already doing. A feud is not defining enough for a template to be created. Fueds come and go. If infoboxes for wars or civil conflicts are gonna be used as a direct example of comparison, the only issue is that civil conflicts and wars end and have defining characteristics that would require key points to be summed up. Fueds can be summed up within the article space. The creator had good intentions, but this is more template cruft and if a compromise can be reached, further improvements should be made in userspace to make this more defining for the articles it was intended to be used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox summarizes so much information, something a first sentence/paragraph couldn't do. It presents everything in a nice format for people who don't have the time of day to look at the article to quickly summarize what the arguments are. It also helps users who want to quickly read if someone new entered the feud. Feuds have defining points too that have key points that can be summed up in the infobox, for examples if a rapper released a new diss track against the other person. Like other comments highlighted too, there are many other articles that this template applies too, this isn't just cruft. Saying feuds come and go isn't a valid argument either, it is a permanent point in history, and deserves the proper formatting.
    I agree with you though on the people that say that it is funny to keep it. Those aren't valid reasons to keep it, and add nothing to this discussion. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but once the dust has settled it might make sense to merge any new functionality back into Template:Infobox civil conflict. Not obvious to me that any new fields here couldn't be usefully covered in that template. -- Visviva (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's very crufty and quite subjective. The first thing I noticed when reading the infobox is how the parameters and entries felt like square pegs in round holes, and it appeared an awkward use case of retrofitting an existing template to apply to a single article. This isn't a civil war. Notably, the keep arguments here have felt quite off-handed and weak, whereas the delete arguments have felt more true to the purpose of Wikipedia and have taken a more long-term, 'zoomed out' view. I hope that the potential element of bias is taken into account when closing this discussion. Gibbsyspin 03:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree completely with this statement. You can argue half the templates on Wikipedia are crufty, but this is not. This can be used for many articles that the other two infoboxes don't cover. You are completely right; this is not a civil war, but this is for feuds that numerous people may only want quick facts about. This enhances readability so much. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very informative and summarise the whole thing. Hopefully we will get an article about more hip-hop feuds FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's manifestly a distinct format with its own metadata needs. Relaxing (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't know this infobox existed but I'll be adding it shortly to Bolton–Dickens feud (RIP Nancy Dickens). TY to creator jengod (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bait30 and Gibbsyspin Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Recentism" discussions are ridiculous. Feuds have existed in hip hop for over three decades. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is very useful for curious people like me. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it has use in only one article, but it has potential for other potential articles or existing articles. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has potential for many future and existing articles and summarizes info from both sides in a easy to parse manner. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is Wikipedia:Notability due to the fact that it is being discussed everywhere (i.e News stations, Podcasts, Public settings, etc.) Plus there are other wikipedia articles up now about beefs/feuds amongst celebrities, examples such as: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, Drake–Kanye West feud, Shaq–Kobe feud, etc.
If this article can should be deleted you can say the same thing about these articles aswell. User:IPhoneRoots 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
feudbox non-rap-feud use case
Comment worth looking at the content in Category:Feuds to see how/if they differ from other "civil conflicts" jengod (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per OED a feud is a "state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility" and/or "state of perpetual hostility between two families, tribes, or individuals, marked by murderous assaults in revenge for some previous insult or injury" and/or "quarrel, contention, bickering" Dates to 1300s, if not earlier; spin-off compound word "gang feud" has been observed since 1903 ("feud". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) jengod (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This infobox is very helpful in summarizing key facts about feuds. While this may have been started because of the Kendrick-Drake beef, it can be used in other types of feuds, such as the Bolton-Dickens feud demonstrated by Jengod, making its case for usefulness even stronger Dantus21 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Bolton-Dickens feud wouldn't be better served by the civil conflict infobox, since this one actually did involve violence. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I think it's because civil conflicts are over serious issues often with larger political ans social ramifications, whereas feuds are petty and personal and often, at their core, unserious if not outright ridiculous, cf rap beefs, the Capulets and Montagues and the Sharks and the Jets (wall to wall morons, the lot of them), these fools in Memphis, the TV show Family Feud, etc. Just my opinion. jengod (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:6TeamBracket-Gauntlet-MLBB

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to {{NTeamBracket-Stepladder-To-4TeamBracket-2Elim|rounds=5}} – Pbrks (t·c) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Uw-cyberbully

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't make any sense. How on earth would it be possible to use a wikipedia account to cyberbully other individuals outside of Wikipedia - the only place wikipedia accounts can be used is WMF sites. If someone is harassing people on other sites this would almost always have to be dealt with via the arbitration committee, due to WP:OUTING, rather than being handled on a talk page. Finally this duplicates the existing Uw-harass series of templates. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting rude remarks against other people. See WP:CYBERBULLYING. Oppose. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the {{Uw-npa1}} family of templates for warning people about leaving rude comments. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself agreeing with the nom. Wikimedia accounts can't be used outside Wikimedia sites, but - in fairness - that's something that could be rephrased without the template's deletion. However, I'm also concerned about other aspects: the warning currently states that [i]t has been found that you have been...cyberbully[ing] other individuals outside of Wikipedia — been found how? by whom? As the nomination mentions, off-wiki harassment will almost certainly have to go through ArbCom, due to the rules against connecting external accounts to editors. While the template could have its wording modified, it'd still be a user warning that accuses an editor of misconduct without providing evidence - because, per WP:OWH and WP:OUTING, such evidence should be sent in private & shouldn't be provided onwiki. I'm inclined to think that it might be best to delete this template, and leave the matter of warnings/sanctions for offwiki harassment for ArbCom to issue as they deem appropriate in each situation. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace of this discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur with the nomination and add that the uw-npa and uw-harrass series of templates cover what is needed for on-wiki activity. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:Standard offer info

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very badly written block notice template that duplicates the information provided in another block template while provideing a load of incorrect information in an extremely patronising tone. The editor who wrote this doesn't appear to understand the policies they were writing about because this template contains a load of blatantly incorrect information, e.g. claiming that all indefinite blocks have a 6 month delay before they can be appealed, claiming that the standard offer does not apply to community bans, and claiming that socking will result in an automatic community ban (is would result in a WP:3X ban). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This explicity talks JUST about the SO. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The information in this template is (a) wrong, (b) written in a tone that is inappropriate for a block message and (c) unnecessary - if an admin thinks that someone should follow the standard offer to be unblocked they will just leave a short note to the effect of "Please see the standard offer for the path for you to be unblocked" when declining an unblock request. I don't see any situations where this template would be useful. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a block message it is not pretending to be one. Please read our policies about what needs to be deleted and what isn't. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a block message it is not pretending to be one. This is a template that would be placed on someone's talk page in response to a block. How on earth is it not a block template? What on earth do you mean by Please read our policies about what needs to be deleted and what isn't.? I laid out my rationale for deletion above, i.e. this is a badly written, unnecessary template full of incorrect information. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unneeded template. Providing a link to Wikipedia:Standard offer on the talk page of the blocked use provides them with all the info they need. Any other nuances of the block is best left to be communicated using tailored (not templated) communication by the blocking or reviewing admin. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant with a very odd tone. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:2024 Copa América de Futsal Bracket

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template for 2024 FIFA Futsal World Cup qualification. Already implemented directly in the article. – Pbrks (t·c) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:8TeamBracket-Wrestling2

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{8TeamBracket-info}}. Single instance of use at 2023 Big Ten Wrestling Championships – 157 lbs already replaced. – Pbrks (t·c) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Jane Schoenbrun

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates two films. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chadic languages navigational templates

[edit]
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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 May 15. ✗plicit 00:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7&oldid=1223898819"