User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2023

Happy New Year, Stepho-wrs!

Happy New Year!

Stepho-wrs,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
VictorTorres2002 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! Same back to you.  Stepho  talk  04:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Removal of spaces in infoboxes

Hey, I saw you reverted and reapplied my image changes for my recent edits on the Toyota Concept Vehicles page. I just wanted to reach out since it seems like some people take issue with the space removal, but its actually something that Wikipedia seems to do automatically on my end. I didn't think it mattered, but some people have mentioned that it does, so I wanted to see if you knew what causes that and how to avoid it in the future. ~~ TKOIII (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I do all my editing by hand, so I don't know what causes it. My guess is that whatever tool you use has this has some side effect. My day job is a computer programmer and it is a well known thing in my profession that good layout of code has a measurable effect on how easy it is to understand that code.  Stepho  talk  21:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't use any plugins or third party tools other than Twinkle, which I very rarely use. The only tool I use is the default Wikipedia visual editor. I'm not sure how to prevent the space removal from happening other than abandoning visual editing and only using the source editor. ~~

I agree, the spaces are very useful. Personally I find the visual editor nearly entirely useless (I also drive a manual car and nearly all my powertools have cords), but that's a separate story.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. But since a lot of people use the visual editor then this is going to be an ongoing problem. Hopefully I'm not pushing it uphill :) .  Stepho  talk  00:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Lol, im still kinda new here thank you for the tip... Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to WP.  Stepho  talk  09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit on Nissan GT-R

Sorry to hear that my fellow Wikipedian, I would like to inform you that I did not undo your recent edit on my own. As I submitted my changes, your changes were automatically got reverted for some reason. Gaayhan (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit grumpy. Probably what happened is that we both edited at the same time. I think my edit was saved first. You saved your edit after me. The system is supposed to tell you that there is an edit conflict and allow you to choose to keep mine, keep yours or to make a combination of both our edits (cut and paste from parts from each one). I think you chose choose to keep yours, which then erased my edit by mistake.  Stepho  talk  11:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but there was nothing to choose between, it just erased your changes on its own. But still thank you for letting me know about edit conflicts. Gaayhan (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletionists

What is going on with people deleting all kinds of articles for bad reasons? I just Toyota C transmission; I had no clue. They just deleted Nissan TD engine; I am working on getting it reinstated (please help if any sources), but I wish there was some way of knowing what else is threatened. I have no way of noticing all 4,000 items on my talk page. Someone also tried to delete Sinpar but at least I got that one stopped. Please tell me if you know of any other deletion requests that are currently active and need support. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks. Thankfully I don't see any other articles on their radar that worry me.  Stepho  talk  07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Metre: "nearly all ... except"

You reverted my change of "nearly all English speaking nations except the USA and the Philippines" to "nearly all English speaking nations but not the USA and the Philippines". In the first version the "nearly" implies that there are additional exceptions beyond the USA and Philippines. The second version implies that USA and Philippines are exceptions that make it "nearly all" rather than "all"; they might be the only exceptions or there might be additional ones. I am not sure that the first version has the meaning intended (What would be the additional exceptions?), so the second version is safer. I don't think that the second version is any less grammatical or harder to understand, so I am surprised that you saw fit to revert! Will you reconsider? It's a small point, I realise!

If the text had been "all countries except the USA and Philippines", there would not be an issue to discuss: it is the "nearly" that makes the difference. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No reply, so I have repeated my edit. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I got distracted by other stuff and forgot to respond. I believe the original version is better. But it's only a small thing so I'm not going to make a fuss about it.  Stepho  talk  21:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive and generous attitude. Good that we can agree to disagree over this very marginal matter. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Quantum Motors

Thanks for additions and alterations, and suggestions. Do you think the article is ready for submitting to publication? - NealeWellington (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Soon. I haven't worked my way through formatting all the references yet.

I'd also like to remove the Alibaba reference until we find another reference that explicitly ties them together. At the moment, the most we can say is that they look very similar to each other.  Stepho  talk  05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that unless Quantum come out and say who the obtain their car bodies from we won't ever know. Anyway, there is our comments on the talk page and these should point others in a direction to look. I agree there should be no reference to Alibaba in the article. I'll keep digging around to see if I can find anything else, but I think we are almost at the end. Thanks. NealeWellington (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nationality edits

MuhammadOkky1234 is adding nationalities to multiple articles, not just automobile makes. And doing so repeatedly after being warned to stop. DarkAudit (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Was just giving him the benefit of the doubt for youthful exuberance before labelling him as malicious. If he continues then he's had ample warning.  Stepho  talk  04:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I sorta read that as, "Oi, don't pick on the new kid!" too. DarkAudit (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

SUV

Sorry about that. I had multiple tabs open trying to sort out that preceding edit, and I must've clicked "edit" on an older revision instead of the current one. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries - done similar myself enough times :)  Stepho  talk  00:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The number 25 was derived from long discussion on the talk page, not copied from FIA

Where did you come up with number 25 if the number is not copied from FIA rules from 1969, and that was for Group 4 cars.

Group 1 : series-preduction touring cars (5,000) Group 2 : touring cars (1,000) Group 3: grand touring cars (500) Group 4 : sports cars (25)

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/688871134DFCB847C12574A5003A1E8B/$FILE/Hist_App_J_69_Art_252_a.pdf

In 1971 that changed:

Group 1 : series-production touring cars (5,000) Group 2: touring cars (1,000) Group 3: series-production grand touring cars (1,000) Group 4: grand touring cars (400) Group 5: special production cars deriving from Groups 1 to 4

https://web.archive.org/web/20060314212503/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1846658806__Hist_App_J_76_Art_252_a.pdf

In 1981 that also changed:

Group 1 : series-production touring cars (5,000) Group 2: touring cars (1,000) Group 3: series-production grand touring cars (1,000) Group 4: grand touring cars (400) Group 5: special production cars deriving from Groups 1 to 4

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/09FC817B422E9133C12574A30052AEB6/$FILE/Hist_App_J_81_Art_251_a.pdf

That 25 is obsolete number, production number should be at least 400 for example 500 Bugatti Chirons were produced, not including other variants like Chiron Sport, Chiron Super Sport, Chiron Noire, Chiron Pur Sport, Chiron Profilée, etc.). 141.138.24.111 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Different record keeping bodies conflict on the number of eligible cars. The number was decided on after looking at FIA, Guinness Book of Records, various other record keeping bodies and discussion. See Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration/Archive_1#New_criteria_for_entries and the equivalent at Talk:Production_car_speed_record#Notes_for_editors. If you wish to change that number then please open a discussion at talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration .  Stepho  talk  00:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it. Also, I don't know what should the number be? From FIA, 400 cars produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.24.111 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that 25 is a good number and that we do not have to blindly copy FIA's number but if you think the number is wrong then go to talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration, click on "Add topic" (top right) and make your case.  Stepho  talk  21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

R(o)uble

The "dispute" is one between just two editors who are obsessed by the topic, NRS and TCG (who has been banned but pops back up repeatedly as an IP). NRS is on the edge of a block (see their talk page). Compromise and proportion are alien concepts. My advice is not to get involved: I did and regretted it, but not any more. The RFC closed in January should have put an end to further discussion and I should have seen it lot earlier. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty much done anyway.  Stepho  talk  19:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

BRD? Yeah, right!

Way to go, kiddo! Gonna slap a warning on my talk page for reverting your edit? You reverted my edit, quoting WP:BRD. So where is the "D" part of that claim you make? You know, that bit that spells it out: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." But you win... Close, but co Cigar! I can't be bothered to argue with experienced editors who should know better. There's too much vandalism around this joint that needs more immediate attention for me to waste my time. BTW, it may have slipped your attention, but my revert was a good faith revert. Gone with the wind... --Technopat (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Maxeto0910 made a bold claim that I had suspicions about, so I did a revert and listed my reasons in the edit summary. I have also added a topic on the discussion page. If you follow my history you will see that I can be passionate about pursuing the truth but I am not vindictive to the editor. I also try to be civil. I have suspicions about an American bias in American references (found to be true many times) but if the discussion supports the original claims then I will happily remove my objections. Are there any other names you'd like to call me?  Stepho  talk  11:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Prayknack2 and Bethesans2

Yep, they are socks. FYI, that's WP:LTA/LB2 - they've been targeting Toyota Supra (J29/DB) lately. Thankfully ScottishFinnishRadish protected that page. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 13:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Toyoda/Toyota

That is a nice logo in the background, though!

Hi Stepho - I am not entirely clear on Toyota's earliest history, but wasn't their first car sold as the Toyoda AA? Did they change the name and badging in August 1937? Not necessarily saying Toyota AA should be renamed, but I imagine the first prototype should be Toyoda A1 and Toyoda AA should at least receive mention. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to do some research but some quick checks reveal that the name change Toyoda -> Toyota happened in Sept 1936 and that Model AA was released sometime in 1936. It's possible that the AA was always a Toyota AA but also possible that it was a Toyoda for a few months. The A1 was never released (just 3 prototypes for factory testing that lead into the AA production model). But it's not hard to add redirects for the Toyoda names. I'd shy away from renaming the article because it would confuse more than it clarify. But depending on what research brings up, we could mention the company name change in the text.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at Toyota's own timeline and they refer to the AA/AB and GA as Toyoda products in 1936: September 14-16: Exhibition held commemorating the completion of Japan-made Toyoda cars for the general public. Model AA, AB phaeton, GA truck, and other vehicles announced (Tokyo Prefecture Commercial and Industrial Promotion Hall). Then, in August and September 1937 Toyota Motor Co., Ltd established - Risaburo Toyoda and Kiichiro Toyoda appointed company president and vice president, respectively, [and on] September 29 Toyoda Automatic Loom Works' automotive manufacturing operations handed over to Toyota Motor Co., Ltd..  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only done some cursory looking but it looks like they always referred to it as the Model AA, never as the Toyota AA or Toyoda AA.

In "A history of the first 50 years" on page 65 it says:

• Feb 1936 - design work of AA begins, based on A1.
• Jul 1936 - they ran the competition for the new company logo.
• 14 Sep 1936 - Toyoda Automatic Loom Works sponsored an exhibit in Tokyo to show the AA, AB cars, the GA truck and DA bus.
• Oct 1936 - renamed the Model AA as the "Kokusan Toyota Goh" ("the domestically produced Toyota") and always used the new name after that.
• 28 Aug 1937 - Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. established as a new company (page 66-67).

The exact date of starting sales/advertising of the AA is not mentioned, so there maybe a short time between start of sales/advertising and the rename where it was called the Toyoda AA. Feb-Oct 1936 at most.  Stepho  talk  02:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Very well - it doesn't look like there is any reason to even add an aka without any clear support from references. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Starlet

Hi Stepho-wrs, I recently added a chunk of information on the toyota starlet page under P90 section, a lot of it regarding the UK models. This information was gathered by a few of us collectively due to our interest in the subject, and has taken us a long time to gather this information for ourselves. I thought I would be a good idea to share that information, particularly with how little information about the SR model we have here in the UK.

I am new to editing wiki pages, and you said in your reason for the bulk revert was there were no reliable sources to back this up. Our information was gathered through many dealer brochures and accessories brochures, information from toyota's own website (history of the toyota starlet), UK vehicle registry information, and TTE's website that can be accessed via the way back machine archive. All of this information I can provide via links & image's, however, being new I don't know how to do this.

If you could please let me know how I can go about proving these reliable sources to have this information restored, I would appreciate it. Thank you Trevstar34 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mostly it is digging up the sources that you used to come to your conclusions. These have to be publicly published sources, such as books, brochures (although this counts as a primary source and may be treated as biased towards Toyota), magazines, websites of well known companies (not fan sites) or any other source that is likely to have vetted by professional editors. See WP:RS. This allows us to double check you work instead of simply taking your word for it. I have been in your position of gathering and presenting data. Sometimes I have made mistakes. Or incomplete sources made my presented data slightly wrong. Wikipedia lives and dies by reliable sources.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Model-T edit

This is a reminder of why I just took a 3 year break editing. Nyth63 01:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

We have a minor disagreement. I'm happy to discuss on the Model T talk page and come to some agreement over the best grammar to use. Please read MOS:NOTE first.  Stepho  talk  02:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just seen your revised changes and I have no problem with them. Cheers!  Stepho  talk  02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: motor spirit

Perhaps it is a bit archaic in vernacular use: I used it because it is the absolute generic name for the fuel which is used in government documentation. For example this report on gov.uk, which includes the line

Total petrol excise duty receipts which are calculated by summing together excise duty receipts from several different motor spirits, over 95% of which is unleaded petrol.

It does use "petrol" as well. "Motor spirit" is used to distinguish petrol manufactured for use in land vehicles from that used in aero engines ("aviation spirit"), which are both called "petrol" in vernacular parlance but for tax reasons are considered very different products, hence HM Revenue & Customs' continued use. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

True, motor spirit is technically more correct. But only older British/Commonwealth readers would understand it. Younger British/Commonwealth readers would not understand it. Americans have enough trouble with "petrol" - they would be totally lost, perhaps thinking that motor spirit means drinking gin while driving.  Stepho  talk  00:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, you were right, I was wrong. Its fine.

Or maybe they would think "motor spirit" means a ghostly car! 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

All good. Try a YouTube search for "Toyota HiLux - An Unbreakable Connection" :)  Stepho  talk  08:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ghost riders in the sky! XD 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Toyota Land Cruiser J300

I changed the 3.4 to a 3.5 due to the V35A engine nomenclature. 3.5 (3445cc) is correct, but look at the engine code nomenclature, if you write 3.4 it means the correct engine code is V34A. FelixGinting (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

3445 cc rounds to 3.4 L, not 3.5 L. The name of the engine is not always a true indication of its capacity. Toyota gave it a name that implies it is 3.5 L and markets it as a 3.5 L but it is in fact a 3.4 L. Marketing and facts do not always agree and Wikipedia always aligns with facts. However, if you disagree with me then please feel free to raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles.  Stepho  talk  07:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hi Stepho-wrs,

I see that you reverted an edit I made on the Tesla Inc. article and wanted to ask you about it. I changed "2019-present" to "Since 2019" and you commented in the reversion that MOS:TOPRESENT is for textual paragraphs, not applicable for infoboxes. . ."

The tables and infoboxes language in the MOS says that "pres." can be used when space is limited (with the example "1982-pres."). But the essence of MOS:TOPRESENT is to remove ambiguity. That plus MOS:DATED combined essentially say that terms like now, currently, present, etc. should not be used unless they also include a reference to the time it was written. The part about infoblocks and tables seems to be an exception when space is limited (probably because there isn't room to include additional wording for when). I do not see anything that specifically ties MOS:TOPRESENT to only textual paragraphs and do not see anything about headings.

I don't agree with your reversion unless there is more that you can provide in reference. Please let me know your thoughts on this as I see a lot of "-present" out there .

Thanks,

Edward Bednar (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Edward,

MOS:TOPRESENT applies to text paragraphs. It allows other parts to differ. In this case, we have a number of related section headings that say:

1. Founding (2003–2004)
2. Roadster (2005–2009)
3. IPO, Model S, and Model X (2010–2015)
4. SolarCity and Model 3 (2016–2018)
5. Global expansion and Model Y (2019–present)

The format of each is perfectly matched. To change the last one to "Global expansion and Model Y (since 2019)" breaks the pattern and jars the reader for no good reason.

However, if we still disagree then I am happy to have it raised at Talk:Tesla,_Inc.  Stepho  talk  22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm more interested in MOS:TOPRESENT generally than with this article specifically, so this thread doesn't really belong on the talk page for this article. But you're welcome to post it there, if you find that appropriate.

I see what you are saying about the pattern being broken, but I don't understand what that means from a Wikipedia orthographic standpoint. So, some natural questions are:

1. Where in the MOS, or elsewhere, is there specific guidance on not breaking the pattern in a list or "jarring the reader" the way you are describing, and how does that apply specifically w/r/t MOS:TOPRESENT, especially if contradictory? In other words, does not breaking a pattern across headings, which I agree can be good from a readership standpoint, override MOS:TOPRESENT?

2. Where in the MOS does it say that MOS:TOPRESENT (or MOS:DATED or others) only applies to text paragraphs, and, as you've said here, allows other parts in the article (e.g., headings) to differ, beyond what it says about infoblocks and tables? I have already asked you this question.

3. I really hate to have to ask this one this way, but is what you are saying just your opinion or a preference?

@Stepho-wrs, you have reverted an edit that was based on, and specifically referenced, MOS:TOPRESENT, and you have not yet offered a conclusive explanation with your rationale, one that is grounded in specific language from the MOS. I understand that there are overlaps, gaps, and edge cases, that, at times, have to be taken into consideration, which you may be touching on, but you have not done that, up to this point, in an objective manner (i.e., with citation).

Edward Bednar (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to raise the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (which is the talk page for MOS:TOPRESENT).  Stepho  talk  11:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit: ALKS (Automated lane keeping systems/Automated Lane Keeping Systems)

I have seen your reverted edit on Automated lane keeping systems/Automated Lane Keeping Systems due to assumed vague (and unverifiable[sic]) references.

I agree, this means that it would be possible to add URLs and more details.

Please, find hereunder few pieces of information to help you in that sense:

Section	Concept	Limitation	Verifiability / Proposed URL to search
Introduction	ALKS as (the/a) first step toward Automated Driving Systems (ADS)	I may agree the sentence might be limited to a UNECE/European view/context and may not need to be in the Lead	As such sentence is suggested by both Dutch and British authorities, might be googled with site:gov.uk and site:rdl.nl. Might be site:sec.gov would have some sentence on the "first binding international regulation on “Level 3” vehicle automation".
History	Mercedes is the first car manufacturer to implement such system in Germany, Europe.	Pure verifiable fact, without any kind of ambiguity	Let's search for level 3, Germany, Mercedes.
History	The company aims to target American ... market	Pure verifiable fact, without any kind of ambiguity	Let's search for level 3, Nevada, (or California), Mercedes.
History	The company aims to target (...) Chinese markets.	Might need additional verification
Regulation	the US, the UK and Japan are considering ALKS legalization	Don't know neither if legalization is the right word nor if it matches the US case, as the US may work differently than Europe, Japan and Korea	For the UK, information may be available on Internet For Japan, might be site:sec.gov would have some sentence on the January 2021, MLIT adoption of UN R157, which regulates automated lane keep systems (ALKS).
Regulation	US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Audi warn of liability concerns	May it be an open question?	Does this require a link toward Self-driving car liability?

77.193.104.36 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is the responsibility of the editor adding the fact to also provide a reference to directly back up that fact and that reference should go directly to the supporting evidence. Eg, when we use a book for a reference we also supply the page number. When we use a journal then we provide the volume/issue numbers or the issue date, along with the page number and article title. Or we provide a URL that goes directly to a web page that supports your fact. Instead, you have given me the bare minimum of clues and expect me to do hours of research to see if your facts are right or wrong. Double checking your facts via references should be the work of minutes, not hours. Obviously you know where you got your facts from. I ask that you tell us where you got them from, with enough details that we can check them in a simple manner without having to do hours of research ourselves. See WP:VERIFIABLE.  Stepho  talk  14:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If I give a source of information, and if one only rely on a single source of information I give, and if this source is ill-written, or poorly reflecting reality, or reflect a local view, I wonder which kind of verification the process provides.

In such a case it might have been an error to add such pieces of information, as it would be a good thing that information is confirmed by other sources. This is because with those new things, the media do not always use the exact right words and confusion may occur. I will let native speakers write it.

Front Wheel Drive Toyota Crown (New)

I've saw on YouTube that Toyota Crown was imported to the Philippines Do you think that price is Php 5.6 mil, a Flagship VIP Sedan 64.226.63.144 (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Be aware that Wikipedia does not list prices - see WP:NOTPRICE.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Toyota dealerships has been nominated for discussion

Category:Toyota dealerships has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Australia topicon

Template:WikiProject Australia topicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)