Main Talk Awards To Do Sandbox Resources Bird Watching 

Voting for coordinators is now open!

edit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Pppery

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery
 

  Oversighter changes

  Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

 

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-36

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

edit

CS1 errors

edit

Just a heads up, your recent aircraft-related edits (example) have been mass-adding CS1 errors (specifically Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter‎) to pages, because the |aircraft type= parameter is somehow getting added to the citation templates instead of the infobox. Seems to be some sort of JWB fail. :Jay8g [VTE] 06:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jay8g Thanks for letting me know. I think I reverted all the problematic JWB edits, but feel free to revert any I might have missed. It seems I failed to consider that some of the old infobox parameter names are commonly used by other templates. As a workaround, I can instead add the old parameter names to the new infobox to avoid messing with common parameter names within articles. I'll work on updating the template and JWB preset tomorrow. - ZLEA T\C 08:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-37

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mil ko-10

edit

you are wrong, according to the register, mi-10 has not been flying since 2009 JustasIn (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

JustasIn We have a source confirming that the Mi-10K was still flying as late as 2014. I think you might be mistaking the original Mi-10 variant for the type as a whole. - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
all aviation lovers know that not a single mi-10(k) is flying, you are just spreading bad information JustasIn (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am an aviation lover, so evidently not all of us know this. - ZLEA T\C 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you're not a true aviation lover. Sadly, I'm apparently not one either. Carguychris (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
After reading the source a bit closer, I do see that it says "The last helicopter has mothballed in 2009." However, this is referring to the Mi-10 variant, not the Mi-10 type (which includes the Mi-10K). - ZLEA T\C 17:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have the entire registry of mi10k, not one of them has taken to the air after 2009 JustasIn (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
JustasIn Where can I find this registry? If it meets the WP:RS criteria, then we can update the article. Otherwise, we will continue to use what actual reliable sources say. - ZLEA T\C 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-38

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

edit

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Lincoln cent mintage figures for deletion

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lincoln cent mintage figures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln cent mintage figures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Longterm solution to sock

edit

We're both aware of the IP sock/meatpuppet problem at List of equipment of the Kosovo Security Force. I'm inclined towards requesting a one or two year semi-protection at RPP but wanted to run it by you first. My only concern is that it serves as something of a DUCK filter, inclining me towards leaving it open to simplify SPIs. If you have any thoughts, let me know. Thanks for covering that page and others! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pbritti RPP sounds like the way to go. I have lost faith in SPI's ability to deal with IPs, so I'm open to whatever solution will actually help fix the problem. - ZLEA T\C 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My estimation is that we need at least four more CU and a couple SPI clerks on top of that. Will kick it over to RPP upon next disruption; feel welcome to beat me to the punch. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-39

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

edit

Tech News: 2024-40

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A huge thankyou

edit

Thanks for your support on the Carvair article. I was going to leave it there, but then you came back with WP:AIRMOS which I had not seen before. That has given me much to think about, including the possibility I need to revisit about 200 previous edits and bring them up to a higher standard. So half of me wants to curse you too!

You are a star!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome. It's not uncommon (it's actually expected) for newer editors to miss the various MOS pages, especially the WikiProject-specific pages. No one is expected to know all the guidelines from the start. Even I still learn something new about guidelines every now and then after seven years. - ZLEA T\C 01:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 
 

  CheckUser changes

 
 

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Template:McDonnell Douglas aircraft

edit

Why did you put the 188 and 210 in different categories in the newly reorganized template and omit the 188E? All are based on the Bréguet 941, but the 188E and 210 were substantially redesigned, and none of them were actually built. Carguychris (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Carguychris From what I understand, the baseline 188 was not intended to be an airliner, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The omission of the 188E from the airliners section was simply an oversight. Although the 210 was not built, I included it in the section as most of the other unbuilt McDonnell and MD aircraft were included in their respective sections as well. - ZLEA T\C 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, checked the Francillon book, and it actually doesn't say what use the 188 was being proposed for. It's more specific about the 188E and 210, mentioning that they were designed as airliners and were promoted more heavily, which makes sense given that the 188/941S was relatively small. I'm OK leaving the 188 where it is, but I split out the 210 in the template so as not to suggest that it was a minor variant of the 188E or a rename; specs indicate it would have been a much larger aircraft with little in common other than layout. Carguychris (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-41

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-42

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

edit

Tech News: 2024-43

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

E-130

edit

Thanks for adding the non-sequential section on the E-designations navbox. I really wasn't sure what to do with it, hence my edit summary. I swear, the Air Force Department must be hiring straight out of kindergarten. I didn't think it could get worse after the OA-1K. Makes me afraid for what's next. BilCat (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, it's no longer just the Air Force. The E-130 is a Navy designation. - ZLEA T\C 16:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Air Force Dept approves the designations. BilCat (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
True, but the Navy's new designations had been more or less sequential until now. - ZLEA T\C 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-44

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

October 2024

edit

Hello, I'm 72.81.136.3. I noticed you reverted my edit because I didn't have a reliable source, so I was wondering if this site was reliable http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV09f.html. It covers Navy squadron deployments, aircraft carriers and carrier air wing deployments. So, if this is reliable can my edit be reverted back? Thank you. 72.81.136.3 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks like a self-published source. While this does not automatically make a source unreliable, I see no indication that the creator of this website is a subject-matter expert in this field, so I'm going to say it's probably unreliable. - ZLEA T\C 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would this site be reliable? https://www.seaforces.org/usnair/CVW/ATG-201.htm 72.81.136.3 (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Once again, this site appears to be self-published by someone without any indication of being a subject-matter expert. You might want to try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Research desk. Perhaps someone there has access to a newspaper from the time or some other reliable source that contains the information you're looking for. - ZLEA T\C 03:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would this classify as a self published source? http://www.anft.net/vf-11/history.html If it isn't could you help find one? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that would be self-published as well. I'm afraid I do not have the time to hunt down sources for this, but there are several options you can do. First, you can ask the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Research desk if anyone there knows of sources that might have the information. Otherwise, you can also ask the creators of these websites where they got their information. Although none of them cite their sources, they might be able to point you in the right direction anyway. - ZLEA T\C 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverted change

edit

I made an update to the P-51 survivors page, adding an estimated number of airworthy aircraft. I did this as I wanted other users to be able to see this information without having to physically count every one (the Spitfire has this, for example.) I used the article itself as a source, and I counted 171 airworthy P-51s. 155.186.59.95 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are numerous reasons as to why we cannot just use the article as a source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the list may be incomplete, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate. Counting the number of list entries, especially if the completeness or accuracy cannot be guaranteed, is also original research. We need sources which explicitly state the number of surviving aircraft if we are to include the figure in the article. Also, thanks for pointing out the issue on the Spitfire article, the content has been tagged as needing a citation and will likely be removed if no source is found. - ZLEA T\C 07:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 
 

  CheckUser changes

  Maxim

  Oversighter changes

  Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-45

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

edit

Existence of J-31B and reversion of the J-35 wikipage

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Given your fixation to the SCMP article, you should realize that there's no FC-31 based aircraft that ever has side weapon bay in its design. (Quoting the article : “J-31B seen in the video was also the first variant to feature weapon bays on the side")

So there's 2 scenario: One, a reality where J-31B truly exists simply based on the 3D model of a video from CCTV program; a variant of the FC-31 that has never been seen outside of the said 3D model and yet has already been officially adopted by the PLA given the J- suffix, which magically skips the J-31 and J-31A in its naming convention, and also amazingly has side weapons bay, running contrary to the recently revealed J-35A.

Or two, a reality of which the J-31B is just a small mistake at the hands of a video editor within CCTV and the aircraft doesn't exist, given how 3D model might just seem to be a placeholder to talk about the aircraft that hasn't been revealed at the time, and by now has been succinctly disproven by the announcement and actual appearance of the J-35A in real life.

This just seems like a pretty simple decision on Occam's Razor, and I suggest you revert all your edits which is based on that SCMP article. Lgnxz (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lgnxz This just seems like a pretty simple decision on Occam's Razor. No, it's WP:OR, plain and simple. You still have not provided a reliable source that challenges the status of the designation, and therefore you have no grounds to remove the information. If you have sources which directly dismiss the validity of the J-31 designation, feel free to provide them. Until then, any further attempts to remove it will be considered disruptive. - ZLEA T\C 05:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well it's simple, the 'J-31' aircraft, especially the mythical J-31B with side weapons bay, has never been seen nor confirmed by anyone other than that single 3D model. Also how's the recent confirmation that the aircraft is named and shown in the airshow to be called as J-35(A) not a ground of dismissal of the J-31B? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people like you that keeps insisting that the J-31B still exists as a separate aircraft, instead of just unofficial name from years ago for the J-35 of today? Lgnxz (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also how's the recent confirmation that the aircraft is named and shown in the airshow to be called as J-35(A) not a ground of dismissal of the J-31B? Because that would be affirming a disjunct. The apparent absence of the J-31 and J-31A designations are also not enough to discredit the existence of the J-31B, and the burden of proof has been met by the video released by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. No more WP:OR. Unless and until you provide a reliable source discrediting it, I'll consider this matter closed. - ZLEA T\C 06:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Video from SAC isn't available in the article. There's no actual quote from the people speaking in the supposed video, and all the analysis done in the SCMP article relies purely on the screenshot alone.
Besides that, I asked you many times already whether you understand about the J- suffix. SAC, CCTV, or any other government institution does not have the authority to use or determine the use of the suffix, that alone is the responsibility of the PLA. Therefore, how are you so sure that it's not a mere mistake by the SAC, a False advertising so to speak?
Chinese military also isn't the kind of institution that do a retraction/clarification on direct official statement from the past, let alone mere speculation from third parties to fill the information blackbox. Goodluck chasing those source that can satisfy yourself, who am I to tell you otherwise anyway right. Lgnxz (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This matter is closed until you can provide reliable sources discrediting the video. - ZLEA T\C 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tech News: 2024-46

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 00:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

edit

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

edit

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

edit

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-47

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Beechcraft Baron production number

edit

Regarding this edit: I tried to check the serialization list but it says I have to log in. Did you use the correct URL? If the list cannot be viewed without logging in, suggest you change the citation accordingly.

Also, is the document still titled "1945 thru 2013" although it's been updated thru 2023?

Lastly, unless there's some specific reason you included it, I suggest deleting the Airlife's General Aviation citation from the infobox, as the book is no less than 29 years out of date! It's presumably still valid for the 55 and 56 since they were dropped well before 1995, but it's no longer valid for the 58 nor the overall production total. Carguychris (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Carguychris The Textron site requires a free registration and 2FA, which is slightly inconvenient but there is currently no alternative way to acquire the up-to-date serialization list. As for the Airlife's General Aviation citation, I used it because it includes prototypes and military production which are usually left out of the official Textron list. Also, "1945 thru 2013" was a mistake and has now been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. - ZLEA T\C 22:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome, and it sounds like everything is good. I suspected as much regarding the Textron site login, but I know that some sites offer permalinks that aren't access-limited, and which can be easy to forget if I'm routinely logged in. As an aside, I still have it on my "To Do" list to try to find another source for the obscure claim that a version of the Twin Bonanza was designated as the T-42 by the Navy and then cancelled. I'll use this as an excuse to check out a local university's aviation library that I've never visited. Carguychris (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I double checked the Textron site, and from what I can see there is no permalink for the Beechcraft serialization list. They don't even appear to archive previous versions of the document, which is a shame. - ZLEA T\C 03:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-48

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 22:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

edit

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-49

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

US Currency Denominations removal

edit

On the US Currency Wikipedia page, the side bar has plenty of denominations that were not meant for circulation, but do exist. You removed my page update where I included denominations like the $4, $25, $50, $100. Any reason for that? Milodevine (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Milodevine I removed them for the very reason I mentioned. All of the other coins mentioned in the infobox were at one time made for circulation (even the one, believe it or not), while the denominations you added were not. The $4, $50, and $100 denominations were once considered for circulation, but were canceled long before such plans came to fruition. As far as I'm aware, the $25 denomination was never intended for circulation, with it only appearing on bullion coins. - ZLEA T\C 01:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nowhere in the infobox does it say anything about meant for circulation though? It just says denominations as the category Milodevine (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean look at the $100,000 lol Milodevine (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The $100,000 bill was indeed circulated, just not by the general public. The denominations you added were canceled before they reached circulation or were only released for non-circulation purposes like bullion. The infobox may not use the word "circulation", but it only has parameters for "Freq. used" and "Rarely used" denominations. The infobox does not have a parameter for "Never used" denominations, but if you believe there should be one, feel free to propose it at Template talk:Infobox currency. - ZLEA T\C 02:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If its legal tender I guarantee at least 1 person has spent it, therefore classifying it as a rarely used denomination. Milodevine (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you can back up your guarantees with reliable sources, then by all means do so. Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, and the idea that someone successfully used a non-circulating denomination at face value in a transaction, either intentionally or accidentally, is incredibly unlikely. - ZLEA T\C 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
What evidence do you have for the exceptional claim that out of the 100,000,000+ coins not meant for circulation have never ever (even 1 time accidentally) been spent at face value? Milodevine (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:COMMONSENSE. The accidental use of a non-circulating denomination would require an unfathomable level of stupidity, and the intentional use would almost certainly constitute some sort of money laundering or fraud as the coins themselves are worth hundreds or thousands of times more than their face value. - ZLEA T\C 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You widely underestimate the ignorance of some people Milodevine (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe so, but any accidental usage of such a coin would almost certainly mean that it was not used for the correct face value, so to say that it has truly been circulated is a very big stretch. With that said, there is next to no logical or legal scenario in which such a denomination could be considered circulated. - ZLEA T\C 09:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll add that even if such coins have been used in money laundering, you'd have a hard time finding anyone who agrees that they can be counted as circulating coins if the only evidence for circulation is for fraudulent purposes. - ZLEA T\C 03:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 
 
 

  Interface administrator changes

 
  Pppery

  CheckUser changes

 

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Beechcraft Baron

edit

After writing that loooong post on my Talk page, it looks like we independently reached the same conclusion (I missed TG-1, total production 7,004). It's a satisfying feeling. Carguychris (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-50

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Banknote Contest/new

edit

 Template:US Banknote Contest/new has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Banknote Contest/imported

edit

 Template:US Banknote Contest/imported has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

edit