Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 11: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Relisting "Template:FIFA Arab Cup champions" (XFDcloser)
Line 243: Line 243:
A table which is article content and used on only [[RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)]]. Was taken out of the article seemingly because of vandalism, but that isn't how we do things. If vandalism is an issue, the page should be protected. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
A table which is article content and used on only [[RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)]]. Was taken out of the article seemingly because of vandalism, but that isn't how we do things. If vandalism is an issue, the page should be protected. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Duplicate of article content. --[[User:WikiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]] ([[User talk:WikiCleanerMan|talk]]) 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Duplicate of article content. --[[User:WikiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]] ([[User talk:WikiCleanerMan|talk]]) 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': "This isn't how we do things is not a good enough reason to delete it. The reason it was added was because of vandalism on all of the rupaul wikipedia pages and was a compromise to many disputes in the past. <span style="color:#008080;">'''Chase'''</span> '''|''' <sup><small style="font-size:75%;">[[User talk:CCamp2013#top|<span style="color:#A52A2A">'''talk'''</span>]]</small></sup> 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


==== [[Template:Ua-pop-est2018]] ====
==== [[Template:Ua-pop-est2018]] ====

Revision as of 17:00, 11 July 2021

per Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. The rationale for deletion was "navbox cruft" where these types of templates just list winners. This template is redundant in comparison to Template:AFC Challenge Cup. I do intend to nominate the recreated templates from the August 2010 Tfd for deletion as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{AFC Challenge Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox with no clear navigational purpose. Only linked to five articles and will not be updated since there were only five AFC tournaments played. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has a clear navagational purpose - to navigate between managers who won the AFC Challenge Cup. Five articles is a fine amount, regardless of there being no potential for further expansion. --SuperJew (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No information can be gained from this template as there already exists a table of the top scorers on the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can make that claim against most templates, as templates should be created only when supported by a mainspace article/section. Such a claim makes templates in general redundant and is therefore not a valid case for deletion of a template. --SuperJew (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can we tell they were the top scorers? Navboxes are not for this purpose. Navboxes are for mainspaces, not sections. This doesn't make templates generally redundant. This template is redundant for the purpose it was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I didn't understand the question How can we tell they were the top scorers. How can you tell anything? Via the information in the mainspace article/section. I don't understand what difference you're making between mainspaces and sections (Navboxes are for mainspaces, not sections) - the section is part of the mainspace.
So to clarify: Would you say based on this logic that {{UEFA Champions League top scorers}}, {{UEFA Europa League top scorers}}, {{FIFA World Cup top scorers}}, {{UEFA European Championship top scorers}}, and {{Copa América top scorers}} (to name a few of the same style) should be deleted? --SuperJew (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should be looked at. Navbox crust is an issue that relates to templates like these. It just links to the articles of the players. That's a similar issue with the winners of the football/soccer tournaments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: It just links to the articles of the players - but that's what every navbox does. What navbox does anything beyond link to the articles it lists? --SuperJew (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a template helpful for navigation. I'm not aware of any sports-related or navigational template that's for stats or about player's stats. And if a template in its title links to an article section even if it includes the mainspace link, it's an issue. The title of navboxes should only link to the mainspace article. And this template isn't used on the mainspace and so does some of the related templates I looked at. It's redundant to the main AFC template which is far more useful for navigation. All these tournaments' top scorers information are better off on a section of the main article, not on an individual template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I'm not sure if we're looking at the same template. And this template isn't used on the mainspace - how so? Every player linked in the navbox has the template used on his page. I'm not aware of any sports-related or navigational template that's for stats or about player's stats. - almost every top scorer award of a major tournament or league that I'm aware of has a navbox to link between the recepients. So do leading goalkickers in the Australian Football League and the AFL Women's (for example {{Melbourne leading goalkickers}}). And I would appreciate if you answer the question and provide an example of a navbox that does anything beyond link to the article it lists.
The mainspace is the AFC article where there already exists a template for it. That's the mainspace template. And that template makes this one and all other AFC-related templates, at least the ones I nominated, redundant for its purpose. The issue with these templates, sports-related, mainly football/soccer templates is that there is too much of this redundancy. Too much of this crust. There is no need for multiple templates when one can do the job. And for stats, at least the articles for stats, it doesn't need a template as every page doesn't need its own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under navbox crust and only linked to the articles of the winning teams in the template. Redundant to Template:UEFA Women's Championship which makes better usage of the mainspace topic it was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. Superseded by Template:AFC Asian Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{AFC Asian Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{CONCACAF Gold Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{Copa América}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIFIA Winners Templates

Recreations of deleted templates from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. These should not have been recreated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{Oceania Nations Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. -- S ellinson (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wii series with Template:Wii.
There's a significant amount of overlap here. I don't see any need for these to exist as separate templates. The (very little) information not present in "Wii" can simply have it added. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 17:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

  • (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
  • (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
  • (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The narrative timeline of the Metroid games has been one of the few VG series - like Zelda - that has been the subject of secondary sourcing, see for example [1] and [2]. Normally, yes, these narrative timeline templates border both on OR and fandom, but Metroid's is unusual because it has this type of coverage. --Masem (t) 19:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To stress, these are discussing the timeline as as whole (up to the time of press), and not trying to piecemeal multiple timeline pieces together. If we only had pieceparts of the timeline from various sources, and "assembling" them to make a whole one, that would start to venture into SYNTH. --Masem (t) 19:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Metroid's chronology from game to game is not as in-depth as Metal Gear's, the idea that the navbox is a acceptable alternative is flippant, as the games are only listed in release order. There is a place on Wikipedia for quick, glanceable information that newcomers can use to confirm which games take place before others. Was Super Metroid titled "Metroid 4" before the start screen in order to "appease obsessive fans"? Clearly, the developers are following a basic narrative structure, and articles can be cited verifying each game's place in the timeline. Video games do not need sweeping overarching plots across titles for chronology to be relevant, and the attempt to argue otherwise is based on pure conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.142.211 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When a game series operates with different chronological storylines and settings for the same set of characters, such an arrangement in the form of a table is useful, but only for the article covering the game series as a whole (such as done for here in The Legend of Zelda). It is not acceptable to include this for every plot section in every article covering a game in that series, because what is relevant about that to readers: what do they possibly need to know about the chronological position of the story in the series as a whole? A brief description of this in an opening paragraph, even for a setting sub-section, will more than suffice, than a template like this. GUtt01 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Metroid has an overarching narrative and games were not released in chronological order, thus meaning the average reader may be unaware of the order of which they come chronologically. I mean come on, Prime was the fifth game in the series yet chronologically takes place after the 1st game, and I could continue. This is no different to a franchise like Metal Gear in which games there were released not in chronological order and that uses a chronological template like this and yet that hasn't been marked for deletion. A nav-box is a worse replacement for this. I mean perhaps putting it on every single game article may not be fully necessary but to delete it altogether is stupid. 100% keep. Segavisions1991 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2021 (BTS)
  • Delete: A symptom of the fannish tendency to focus on lore - don't think it's necessary for our purposes. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The series is not really notable for its overarching storyline, so having a template just for it violates WP:DUE. It's also WP:FANCRUFT and of little importance to the general reader. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

  • (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
  • (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
  • (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or effectively merge this into the article prose. Assuming this isn't WP:OR, third party coverage about the sequence of the stories can be covered in a plot section of the main series article. That's the way that chronologies are meant to be addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and a separate article or template is inappropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic (Continent)

Unused navboxes filled with nothing but red links. Redudant to the templates with the continent name in front then topic. Example: Template:Africa topic. Topic (Americas) is nothing but a duplicate of Template:Americas topic. These templates are not used anywhere except linked to the templates through Template:Continent-based templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment they are not red links per se. These infoboxen require parameter 1 to work properly, which fills in the the "topic" the template skeleton is supposed to address. So just looking at them as is, is not the function of the templates, instead the topic must be supplied. -- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{topic (Europe)|President}} -- supplied topic of "President" -- not all redlinks Template:Topic (Europe)

  • Template:Europe topic, could do the same thing. But what doesn't make sense is why is the countries are in parenthesis. It's pointless to have regardless whether the topics should be supplied. Redudancy is the major issue here. And the two links from the example you've provided are redirects. Templates with redirects make it essentially useless. The red links issue was a major reason why Topic (South America) was deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the templates are not unused (see, for example, List of post-nominal letters (Sarawak) and others in Special:PrefixIndex/List of post-nominal letters).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a multi-level warning for this relatvely minor MOS guideline (MOS:ISLAMHON), or just a single-issue notice? Other common types of honorifics don't get their own warnings. A search for keywords found 216 uses of the level 1 template, 47 of level 2, and 9 of level 3. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be substituted onto the 2008 article rather on a separate template per the standard on Republika Srpska election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be substituted onto the 2008 article rather on a separate template per the standard on San Marino election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team relegated to amateur level and the squad is 99% redlinks for the foreseeable future. BlameRuiner (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team dissolved, template not needed. BlameRuiner (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A table which is article content and used on only RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5). Was taken out of the article seemingly because of vandalism, but that isn't how we do things. If vandalism is an issue, the page should be protected. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My own creation, currently no inclusions since the information in all articles was updated to later years. Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My own creation, currently no inclusions since the information in all articles was updated to later years. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my creation.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]