![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
. When I am editing, the visible text on the edit page randomly shrinks to three lines. Can anyone advise what the problem is and how I can fix it? Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'm working on getting Fleetwood Park Racetrack into shape for a WP:FA review. This would be my first FA. I see you are willing to mentor in the area of history; would this article be something you could help me with? RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Dudley: On 3rd March 2016, you undid my revision 708053201 “links added” by reason of “Already linked”; on 31st August 2023, you undid my revision 1173151462 giving the exactly opposite explanation “Links in lead and main text are separate”; the (repeated) links in my revision 708053201 were also in the lead and main text; it seems to be a Wikipedia rule that links should not be duplicated, and although I think this is carried too far in long articles, I do not think duplication after a few lines is necessary;
moreover, by simply reverting my revision 1173151462:
· you cancelled my “grammatical improvements” – I would strongly suggest that enwiki, especially history article, be written at least one level above the English spoken (or in this case: written) in “East London”;
· you restored the redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; I am not questioning the existence or non-existence of the Kingdom of Surrey, I am just commenting on the redirect;
pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert; Jan Hejkrlík ( talk) 12:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Note that in Wikipedia we use common names rather than official titles. While Æthelflæd had the title "Lady" she was still the ruler of a kingdom, hence a queen regnant. It is not helpful to remove her from a category with colleague queens regnant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Good morning, You reverted changes to the Sahelanthropus page on the grounds that earlier text was better. This is not entirely the case since: - in the caption of a photograph Professor Brunet's 'assistant' is in reality a Chadian civil servant working at the National Research Support Center and who therefore has no relationship of subordination with Professor Brunet, a retired French civil servant; - the Franco-Chadian Paleoanthropological Mission is in no way a financing organization. It was the French Embassy in Chad, through its Cooperation and Cultural Action Service, which provided most of the funding during the first years and provided a high-level technical assistant, a geographer experienced in Saharan zone with a Phd. On the other hand, I thank you very much in advance for restoring the previous version by providing the necessary additions so that: the National Center for Research Support, the Franco-Chadian paleoanthropological mission and Jean-Pierre Watté, who have Wikipedia pages in French, benefit from the appropriate link without having the skills to achieve this. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 ( talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the typo I made on the Miyake Events page. I fixed the typo and re-added the other edits which were part of that reverted edit. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Younger Dryas#Spaghetti code source. I'm not dropping this. The article source is a cluttered mess. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have Edward the Martyr up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward the Martyr/archive1. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Recently in your wonderful country. Enjoyed your Underground and the goodwill of those that stood so my wife and I could sit. Do we look that old? ― Buster7 ☎
Courtesy links:
Template:Reflib,
Template:Reflib/Anglo-Saxon history
Hi, Dudley. I'm Mathglot, and I'm working on a project to provide a centralized repository of quality citations (a "reference library") for various article domains of interest to editors for their article development. Goals include availability, vetting of quality citations, and providing shareability of citations across multiple articles from a single source. This project is still in its infancy, but there are five article domains now, including a first version of Anglo-Saxon history as of today. Mike Christie mentioned that you would be a good person to talk to about the Anglo-Saxon history domain. I'm looking for feedback and collaborators to advance the project, either on that topic, or on any other topic that might be a good fit for the project.
A couple of things would help. First, is any thoughts you have about the project generally (see the template doc page linked above), and in particular, thoughts about the appropriateness of "Anglo-Saxon history" as a choice for an article domain–is it too narrow? too broad? correctly named? (This question will make more sense after you've had a chance to have a read-through.) Second, is any thoughts you might have about creating new article domains (topic areas likely to have shared citations in common among articles in the domain) that might benefit from being included in Reflib and having a library of citations devoted to it. Mike mentioned you were someone involved with pre-Roman UK archaeology articles, and might comment on that topic, but I'm open to anything.
I tend to prattle on too long, so at the risk of leaving you mystified with insufficient explanation, maybe I better just stop and give you a chance to have a look at the documentation at Template:Reflib, to see if youre interested in this at all or would like to commment. The proximate backstory for this is at User talk:Mike Christie#Importing your Sci-fi library citations, and Mike's original citation list For A-S history is here. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 09:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Dudley Miles. I understand the revert on the PROD for Gillham Wood – nobody wants their article PRODed. However, an ostensibly experienced editor like yourself should be familiar enough with notability guidelines (please see WP:GNG and WP:NGEO, which both apply here) to understand how flimsy the stated reasoning behind the challenge was. "The article is notable and useful to readers who wish to know about [specific thing]" could be said to bypass notability guidelines for literally any subject. We draw the line at notability guidelines for very good reasons (the GNG sets the bar just trivially low enough that Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information), and that's not negated (or influenced whatsoever) by the presence of a hypothetical readerbase who would like to have an article specifically about every character from their favorite TV show, their favorite small local business, or a forest which otherwise does not appear to be covered significantly in any reliable, independent sources. Bulbapedia shows that an article about every single Pokémon, move, ability, town, and character would be widely useful to plenty of people. KnowYourMeme's article on 'Are Ya Winning, Son?' has 1 million views, so we'll need an article about that too. You see where I'm going here. Perhaps newspaper articles from newspaper sources could be dug up here to establish notability? That's often how it goes for this sort of thing. Preferably they would be regional or national, but either way, they need substantial coverage about the subject itself; not just a mention that WP:ITEXISTS.
Right now, the sourcing on the article is entirely primary, and I was unable to find a way to fix that. Please find reliable, independent sources which give the subject WP:SIGCOV, otherwise it objectively does not belong on Wikipedia. A mention on Wikivoyage, perhaps(?), but not an article here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from
Krampus!
|
The same to you SchroCat and the pictures are brilliant. Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you'd reverted a couple of edits by DuncanHill at " Wicken Fen" and " One Tree Hill and Bitchet Common" where he had reverted the changes made by an IP editor. The IP editor is a blocked user known as "Harry the house" (see the SPI archive here) and is very prolific. I'd like to try to coordinate a response to his activity. Would you mind joining the discussion here?
Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 11:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas Johnbod. I didn't know that sculptors were producing that level of realism that early. Is there anything equivalent in Italian painting in the thirteenth century? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Many thanks Ealdgyth. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have no excuses not to be productive as I am retired! Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I wish to use the delete bot edits option in my watch list, and I have implemented it many times, but each time bots are shown the next time I open the watch list. I cannot find how to save the change. Please advise. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy! — Scottyoak2 ( talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dudley Miles. I have started a talk page discussion on the whole four/five kings debate, and I would appreciate it if you could chime in. Best to you and yours. Vyselink ( talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently took Edict of Expulsion to GA, and I am hoping to bring Eleanor of Castile to that standard also in the not too distant future. I was wondering if you still do FAC mentoring and would be interested in helping with me taking the Edict of Expulsion page through the process? Next year is the 750th anniversary of the related expulsions by Eleanor of Provence from her dower towns (Cambridge, Worcester, Gloucester and Marlborough) so it would be great to get some of the related pages to a good state, starting with the 1290 Edict. Jim Killock (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
You referred to the cited article as "vague and speculative". As in contrary to the other sections of the article? It's called "Possible causes". Could you point out the part in the paper that disqualifies it as a source in the Wikipedia article, in contrast to the other sources? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb Hipporoo ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you know something I don't, but I thought Bristol West was being replaced by Bristol Central (UK Parliament constituency) for the next election. Tammbeck talk 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you reverted changes I made to the article regarding Henry III of England. In your summary you stated that it was "too colloquial", and I had some thoughts on that. First, I'm wondering if you read through the entire list of changes? For example, there is one point in the article where the way the sheriffs treated the lower classes during the reign of Henry III is described as "robust" when I assume they meant "heavy-handed", using "robust" (strong and healthy; vigorous / able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions) there doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why this part would warrant being reverted.
Also, how is making an article more colloquial a bad thing? I understand that some things can be lost in translation or over-simplified but I don't believe the edits I made reach that level and this website is to provide knowledge to as many people as possible, right? This can't happen if the language used is too complex or scientific, especially if the terms used are too archaic - but, again, I don't believe my changes really touched on anything like this to begin with.
I would like you to describe more thoroughly what the issues with my changes were so we can discuss it properly.
Sincerely, MeadeIndeed ( talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Byfield Pool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
. When I am editing, the visible text on the edit page randomly shrinks to three lines. Can anyone advise what the problem is and how I can fix it? Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'm working on getting Fleetwood Park Racetrack into shape for a WP:FA review. This would be my first FA. I see you are willing to mentor in the area of history; would this article be something you could help me with? RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Dudley: On 3rd March 2016, you undid my revision 708053201 “links added” by reason of “Already linked”; on 31st August 2023, you undid my revision 1173151462 giving the exactly opposite explanation “Links in lead and main text are separate”; the (repeated) links in my revision 708053201 were also in the lead and main text; it seems to be a Wikipedia rule that links should not be duplicated, and although I think this is carried too far in long articles, I do not think duplication after a few lines is necessary;
moreover, by simply reverting my revision 1173151462:
· you cancelled my “grammatical improvements” – I would strongly suggest that enwiki, especially history article, be written at least one level above the English spoken (or in this case: written) in “East London”;
· you restored the redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; I am not questioning the existence or non-existence of the Kingdom of Surrey, I am just commenting on the redirect;
pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert; Jan Hejkrlík ( talk) 12:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Note that in Wikipedia we use common names rather than official titles. While Æthelflæd had the title "Lady" she was still the ruler of a kingdom, hence a queen regnant. It is not helpful to remove her from a category with colleague queens regnant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Good morning, You reverted changes to the Sahelanthropus page on the grounds that earlier text was better. This is not entirely the case since: - in the caption of a photograph Professor Brunet's 'assistant' is in reality a Chadian civil servant working at the National Research Support Center and who therefore has no relationship of subordination with Professor Brunet, a retired French civil servant; - the Franco-Chadian Paleoanthropological Mission is in no way a financing organization. It was the French Embassy in Chad, through its Cooperation and Cultural Action Service, which provided most of the funding during the first years and provided a high-level technical assistant, a geographer experienced in Saharan zone with a Phd. On the other hand, I thank you very much in advance for restoring the previous version by providing the necessary additions so that: the National Center for Research Support, the Franco-Chadian paleoanthropological mission and Jean-Pierre Watté, who have Wikipedia pages in French, benefit from the appropriate link without having the skills to achieve this. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 ( talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the typo I made on the Miyake Events page. I fixed the typo and re-added the other edits which were part of that reverted edit. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Younger Dryas#Spaghetti code source. I'm not dropping this. The article source is a cluttered mess. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have Edward the Martyr up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward the Martyr/archive1. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Recently in your wonderful country. Enjoyed your Underground and the goodwill of those that stood so my wife and I could sit. Do we look that old? ― Buster7 ☎
Courtesy links:
Template:Reflib,
Template:Reflib/Anglo-Saxon history
Hi, Dudley. I'm Mathglot, and I'm working on a project to provide a centralized repository of quality citations (a "reference library") for various article domains of interest to editors for their article development. Goals include availability, vetting of quality citations, and providing shareability of citations across multiple articles from a single source. This project is still in its infancy, but there are five article domains now, including a first version of Anglo-Saxon history as of today. Mike Christie mentioned that you would be a good person to talk to about the Anglo-Saxon history domain. I'm looking for feedback and collaborators to advance the project, either on that topic, or on any other topic that might be a good fit for the project.
A couple of things would help. First, is any thoughts you have about the project generally (see the template doc page linked above), and in particular, thoughts about the appropriateness of "Anglo-Saxon history" as a choice for an article domain–is it too narrow? too broad? correctly named? (This question will make more sense after you've had a chance to have a read-through.) Second, is any thoughts you might have about creating new article domains (topic areas likely to have shared citations in common among articles in the domain) that might benefit from being included in Reflib and having a library of citations devoted to it. Mike mentioned you were someone involved with pre-Roman UK archaeology articles, and might comment on that topic, but I'm open to anything.
I tend to prattle on too long, so at the risk of leaving you mystified with insufficient explanation, maybe I better just stop and give you a chance to have a look at the documentation at Template:Reflib, to see if youre interested in this at all or would like to commment. The proximate backstory for this is at User talk:Mike Christie#Importing your Sci-fi library citations, and Mike's original citation list For A-S history is here. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 09:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Dudley Miles. I understand the revert on the PROD for Gillham Wood – nobody wants their article PRODed. However, an ostensibly experienced editor like yourself should be familiar enough with notability guidelines (please see WP:GNG and WP:NGEO, which both apply here) to understand how flimsy the stated reasoning behind the challenge was. "The article is notable and useful to readers who wish to know about [specific thing]" could be said to bypass notability guidelines for literally any subject. We draw the line at notability guidelines for very good reasons (the GNG sets the bar just trivially low enough that Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information), and that's not negated (or influenced whatsoever) by the presence of a hypothetical readerbase who would like to have an article specifically about every character from their favorite TV show, their favorite small local business, or a forest which otherwise does not appear to be covered significantly in any reliable, independent sources. Bulbapedia shows that an article about every single Pokémon, move, ability, town, and character would be widely useful to plenty of people. KnowYourMeme's article on 'Are Ya Winning, Son?' has 1 million views, so we'll need an article about that too. You see where I'm going here. Perhaps newspaper articles from newspaper sources could be dug up here to establish notability? That's often how it goes for this sort of thing. Preferably they would be regional or national, but either way, they need substantial coverage about the subject itself; not just a mention that WP:ITEXISTS.
Right now, the sourcing on the article is entirely primary, and I was unable to find a way to fix that. Please find reliable, independent sources which give the subject WP:SIGCOV, otherwise it objectively does not belong on Wikipedia. A mention on Wikivoyage, perhaps(?), but not an article here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from
Krampus!
|
The same to you SchroCat and the pictures are brilliant. Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you'd reverted a couple of edits by DuncanHill at " Wicken Fen" and " One Tree Hill and Bitchet Common" where he had reverted the changes made by an IP editor. The IP editor is a blocked user known as "Harry the house" (see the SPI archive here) and is very prolific. I'd like to try to coordinate a response to his activity. Would you mind joining the discussion here?
Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 11:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas Johnbod. I didn't know that sculptors were producing that level of realism that early. Is there anything equivalent in Italian painting in the thirteenth century? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Many thanks Ealdgyth. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have no excuses not to be productive as I am retired! Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I wish to use the delete bot edits option in my watch list, and I have implemented it many times, but each time bots are shown the next time I open the watch list. I cannot find how to save the change. Please advise. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy! — Scottyoak2 ( talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dudley Miles. I have started a talk page discussion on the whole four/five kings debate, and I would appreciate it if you could chime in. Best to you and yours. Vyselink ( talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently took Edict of Expulsion to GA, and I am hoping to bring Eleanor of Castile to that standard also in the not too distant future. I was wondering if you still do FAC mentoring and would be interested in helping with me taking the Edict of Expulsion page through the process? Next year is the 750th anniversary of the related expulsions by Eleanor of Provence from her dower towns (Cambridge, Worcester, Gloucester and Marlborough) so it would be great to get some of the related pages to a good state, starting with the 1290 Edict. Jim Killock (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
You referred to the cited article as "vague and speculative". As in contrary to the other sections of the article? It's called "Possible causes". Could you point out the part in the paper that disqualifies it as a source in the Wikipedia article, in contrast to the other sources? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb Hipporoo ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you know something I don't, but I thought Bristol West was being replaced by Bristol Central (UK Parliament constituency) for the next election. Tammbeck talk 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you reverted changes I made to the article regarding Henry III of England. In your summary you stated that it was "too colloquial", and I had some thoughts on that. First, I'm wondering if you read through the entire list of changes? For example, there is one point in the article where the way the sheriffs treated the lower classes during the reign of Henry III is described as "robust" when I assume they meant "heavy-handed", using "robust" (strong and healthy; vigorous / able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions) there doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why this part would warrant being reverted.
Also, how is making an article more colloquial a bad thing? I understand that some things can be lost in translation or over-simplified but I don't believe the edits I made reach that level and this website is to provide knowledge to as many people as possible, right? This can't happen if the language used is too complex or scientific, especially if the terms used are too archaic - but, again, I don't believe my changes really touched on anything like this to begin with.
I would like you to describe more thoroughly what the issues with my changes were so we can discuss it properly.
Sincerely, MeadeIndeed ( talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Byfield Pool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)