Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2019

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:14:07 27 October 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another state, another list of governors. This one was hard. I've been going generally in alphabetical order, and Georgia is the first state that was both a colony and secessionist, so it had complications from all corners. The fact that there were, at one time, as many as three schismatic governments didn't help. The state finally supplied a list from a blue book from the '70s that helped a lot in filling in the gaps, and I think it's ready. Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• The most immediate thing that jumps out is that the lead is far far too short. It should have three good-sized paragraphs, not three sentences.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleshed out. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The governor of Georgia is the head of the executive branch of Georgia's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor also has a duty to enforce state laws, the power to either veto or approve bills passed by the Georgia Legislature, and the power to convene the legislature." - none of this seems to be in the body, so it needs citing here
  • Done
• "the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War" - same for this
  • Done
• "The state seceded and was part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War," - ....and this
  • Done.
• "each of which served two full four-year terms" => "each of whom served two full four-year terms"
  • Done.
• "The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp who assumed" - need a comma after his name. Also I would tag this onto another paragraph so that we don't have a one-sentence "paragraph"
  • First part, done. Second part, What do you propose? The previous graf is about extremes in the office, so it seems improper to just latch this on to it for the sake of avoiding a single sentence graf.
    • I think it would fit OK onto the end of the very first paragraph.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
• Governors section starts with another one-sentence "paragraph" - join this onto the next para
  • Done.
• "This article relies on" - we try to avoid using "this article" or "this list" within an article, so find a way to re-word this bit
  • Done
• Maybe it's because I am dumb and/or British, but I really don't understand why the first governor is number 7. The note says "It begins the numbering from the colonial governors" (which, BTW, should really be "it continues the numbering....."), but our article on the colonial governors says there were 10 of them???
  • Each state has a unique method of numbering. Alabama ignores acting and repeat governors; some states don't. Georgia and Connecticut number starting from their colonial governors. According to the source, that puts Bulloch at #7. I haven't looked at our other list, so I don't know where they get ten governors. I have to use exactly what is in the source, because there are so many different ways of counting and listing Georgia governors that once I found the source, which is the closest I'm going to get to an official source, I had to rely on it entirely. Deviations are handled in footnotes and text, but the numbering should stay. Either we start at 7, or we come up with our own numbering system. Changed to 'continues'. For fun, looking at the colonial list.. our source omits their #1, since he was a trustee, not governor; it omits their #8 and #9 because they were military/provisional governors; and #10 is the same as #7, and they don't number repeats.
• Once you're re-sorted the table, it's impossible to get back to the original order, because there are 3 nulls in the "no" column. I suggest using hidden sort keys to make sure these appear in the appropriate place when sorting by number.
  • Done.
• Quite a few of the notes are unsourced.
  • I'll work on this.
    • Done. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Some notes are not full sentences are therefore don't need a full stop
  • Is this really that important? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it isn't correct as it stands.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • oh fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it from me at the moment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

• I know this isn't the place to go into detail, but "local rule was re-established" (used twice) is quite the euphemism for "the right of black citizens to vote was no longer protected"! "exerted some control" also obscures that it enforced the US Constitution, the fifteenth amendment being relevant here. I'm not sure the best way to word this but Georgia during Reconstruction should at least be linked.
  • It's nicely euphemistic, isn't it. But that is the terminology near-universally used for the end of reconstruction. I did drop 'some', as the generals had dictatorial power.
• I support your decision to go with your source on numbering to begin at 7, but this should be explicitly stated in the prose, not just hidden in the footnote. The numbering in List of colonial governors of Georgia should be made consistent with this source then, since it also goes through 7.
  • Made an attempt.
• No comma after "provided for a lieutenant governor"
  • I dunno, that makes it seem like the constitution provided for the Lt Gov to serve the same time, etc ... no, it provided for a lieutenant governor, stop, which also has these other qualities.
• The second paragraph could be split to be more chronological
  • I don't know which paragraph you mean.
• The final paragraph seems out of order, should be more chronological
  • You mean the one about the Battle of Savannah? I thought it would be useful to mention it right before the list. It's also a separate topic from the constitutional changes, so making it chronological doesn't seem to help...
    • The entire thing being chronological may be the clearest. It reads as early history - statehood - civil war - back to statehood, term limits, and succession - civil war again and term limits again - back to succession, back to term limits - finally back to the revolution era for some reason? I know you're doing history of the state - everything in the constitution chronologically - facts relating to numbering, but it feels quite jumbled. It would would be more cohesive to do everything chronologically (the cleanest, which puts the line on readmission dates and the capture of Savannah near the relevant constitutional changes, or do one paragraph with everything about term limits, one with everything on succession, one with Civil war changes, etc. Subsections either way could also work, but not the best if a couple only have one paragraph. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I combined the first two grafs, since they're purely about when it became a state. As for the ordering, I agree. When I wrote this I probably thought chronological was needed, but yeah, it works better going by subject. I still think we need a notice why the list is going to be so different from most lists online, and it doesn't work "chronologically". --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The final sentence is not grammatical, I think "which" and the comma should be removed.
  • Dunno how the 'which' got there, but I don't know which comma you mean.
    • The one between clauses, I got it.
• Update see also link to First Ladies of Georgia (U.S. state)
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The early days were chaotic with many gaps and schisms in the state's power structure, as the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War." 1. "The early days" is vague and the word "early" is repeated later in the sentence. 2. The sentence is a non sequitur as a battleground does not necessarily cause schisms. Maybe "The state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War and between x year and y year the state's power structure was chaotic with many gaps and schisms."
  • Tried to fix.

• "as the state capital of Savannah was captured". "as" implies that the capture was the sole cause of the schisms. Is this correct? Otherwise, I would profer "and" or "partly due to". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources linked say or indicate that the fall of Savannah was the sole cause. On the other hand I have no sources that state any other cause; therefore it would be incorrect to offer a sourced statement of "partly due to", wouldn't it?

• "The state was solidly Democratic-Republican until the 1830s" Only from 1789.
  • Parties didn't exist before then. I tried to fix.
• "split elections" This sounds odd to me. Is it AmEng?
  • Don't think so? They split elections, they went back and forth. Like how you might split your time between work and home. Not sure how better to write this.

• How about " the governorship swung between the Whigs and Democrats"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried something.

• The rest of the paragraph is vague on dates and I suggest clarifiying.
  • Is it? It has few dates at all, because it's prose, not a rote list of dates. That's what the list and later paragraphs are for.
• The second and third pagragraphs of 'Governors' are the wrong way round.
  • I'd disagree but since I rejiggered that section anyway, this criticism is moot.
• "While the 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, the other constitutions surrounding the American Civil War brought lots of changes." "surrounding the American Civil War" does not sound right and "lots of changes" is too colloquial. Maybe "The 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, but later constitutions during the American Civil War and Reconstruction brought many changes."
  • In the above-mentioned rejiggering I fixed some of this. Did a little more editing.
• "An amendment in 1941..." This belongs in the next paragraph, not the one about the Civil War period.
  • Moot, I think, since I moved things around.
• "The revolutionary government was thrown into disarray by the capture of Savannah in 1778, which led to two governments with varying levels of influence; they would reunite in 1780. The Official and Statistical Register of Georgia ignores the Council of Safety of William Ewen in favor of Archibald Bulloch's government, and omits the government of William Glascock and Seth John Cuthbert.[26] The Register also begins the numbering at 7, including the previous colonial governors." 1. I think it would be better to merge this with the first short paragraph of 'Governors'. 2. I assumed at first that the omitted governors were British appointed, but I see that this is wrong. I think you should clarify this, particularly for Ewen as he is not mentioned in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried clarifying this. I still strongly think that a paragraph explaining 'why is this list different than all the others' is about more than just chronology, it's important info.

• I still think you need to clarify that Ewen, Glascock and Cuthbert were not British appointees. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were British appointees. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review! --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 20:12:10 6 October 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a comprehensive list of the material and a great addition to Wikipedia's featured list of episodes. After reviewing the criteria for a featured list I believe this list meets all the criteria. I also looked at all the similar lists and realized that no reality show has a FL list of this nature so it would be great for a reality TV show to have a list of this nature pass the FL process. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• When we have lists of episodes for dramas/sitcoms/etc, normally there's a two or three sentence summary of each episode, but here there's nothing, so I can't glean anything about the content of the episodes from the list. Could a brief summary of the key moments in each episode not be given........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Traditionally when the series has individual season articles the episode tables are transcluded from the season articles. So the season one table is transcluded from Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S. season) and the second season table is transcluded from Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season). The way the template is set up the episode summary is not displayed when transcluded but only remains on the individual season article. So the short answer to your question the episodes do have summaries on the season articles but they do not appear here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Its exactly like how TheDoctorWho described where the tables are trancluded from the season articles the summaries don't show up here. This also happens with dramas like Lost (TV series) where each season has its own article and the tables are transcluded to List of Lost episodes. Shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians which don't have individual season articles have the summaries on their list of episodes articles (see List of Keeping Up with the Kardashians episodes). Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I created this list I looked at a lot of FL examples like List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, List of Dexter episodes, List of Millennium episodes and List of Quantico episodes and structured this list based on them. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough, if it's the norm then I guess that's OK. My other comments:
  • "last remaining HouseGuest in order to win a grand prize of $250,000" - I don't know how important it is to mention this in this article, but do the celebs actually receive the money themselves? I only ask because here in the UK celebrity editions of quiz shows, reality shows, etc, without exception have the celebs playing for a nominated charity rather than looking to pocket the money themselves.
  • "Allison Grodner and Rich Meehan serve as executive producers and is produced" - missing "the show" or similar before "is produced"
  • need a comma after "host of the series"
  • Not sure the words "on multiple nights" are needed. If it airs over more than two weeks then obviously the episodes aren't all on one night.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I fixed the second through fourth issues. In the American version the winning celebrity receives the money themselves. Even I found this a bit odd at first as this is the first American celebrity reality show I know of where the winner receives the grand prize instead of it being donated to charity. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I wasn't sure if it was just us Brits who deemed that celebs didn't need the money for themselves ;-) I am now happy to support this nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the review Chris Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonnym

• I'd rearrange a bit the lead so instead of Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is an American reality television series that premiered on CBS as counterprogramming to NBC's coverage of the 2018 Winter Olympics on February 7, 2018. and The show is a spin-off of the American adaption of Big Brother created by John de Mol. change to Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is the American adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Big Brother, which was created by John de Mol. The series premiered on CBS... or instead "adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Celebrity Big Brother" which is more precise.
• including competitions and the nomination/eviction process. - MOS:SLASH so maybe "including competitions and the nomination and eviction process."
• In note "a" (both of them) you have "Days" with an uppercase "D" - it's a normal word so should be lowercase.
• In the reference section you have 2 section headers which should follow MOS:HEAD and act as normal section headers (== ==).
• The image used should have an "alt", see MOS:IMAGESYNTAX
• Not required by the FL criteria (no idea why not), but would help and nice to have, is to add archive links to the refs so this article won't have WP:link rot.

Other than that looks good. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review Gonnym! I fixed all the issues you mentioned and I reworded the notes in the table. With the English language adaptions of Big Brother they capitalize the word Day(s) when talking about a specific time in the house. The American & Canadian versions will also capitalize week if someone is talking about "Week 2", etc. Here is an article from CBS where day and week is capitalized when referring to a specific day or week. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would expect to see a synopsis of the major events in each episode, especially given that there are only 26 in total. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: The reasoning for this is explained above after the issue raised by ChrisTheDude. It's not possible because of the way the template is set up. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't use the template. That's hardly a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode. This, in my opinion, does not qualify as part of Wikipedia's finest work as it stands. Don't get overtaken by templates, even just handcrafting the table would be better than trying to excuse a lack of detail. The template is clearly insufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Okay what about this being a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode? This is the standard on list of television series episode articles including featured lists such as List of Dexter episodes, List of Millennium episodes, List of Quantico episodes, and List of Lost episodes. It also follows MOS:TV specifically the paragraph that reads It may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. [...] If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries. Each section should have a {{main}} link to the sublist.. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well times have changed. And I'm sorry, I cannot support this as being amongst Wikipedia's finest works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thank you for your comments and with all due respects I followed MOS:TV when creating this article and looked at various list of featured episode lists to find the appropriate table setup to use for this article. While this series is short with 26 episodes currently it has individual season articles where the episodes are summarized. All the featured lists I looked at with this setup do not have episode summaries even the series with less than 40 episodes that could accommodate short episode summaries. Instead of going against the established guideline would summarizing each season similar to List of Lost episodes work for this article? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Lost example you've given is a reasonable compromise. If you could write a few paras on each season as a summary, then I could be convinced to reverse my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay The Rambling Man I've added the paragraphs to the seasons as requested. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've struck my oppose. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• These colours should be removed from tables because they have no any meaning (no legend) and they are just bad (readability). Eurohunter (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eurohunter: Do you mean the colors used in the series overview table, episode tables and the ratings graph? Those are standard across all List of episode articles and the series overview acts as the legend as per MOS:TVEPISODELIST. The guideline according to the manual of style states they should conform to color guidelines and both colors used in this list does meet all guidelines as per MOS:COLOR. If there is an issue with the colors in general then that would be something to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television or WT:TV. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 01:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These colours are just unacceptable. Eurohunter (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Eurohunter: If there is issue with the colors used in this article then I would be open to changing them but overall there is nothing wrong with the use of colors or the ones chosen here as they follow the established manual of style. If you have issues with colors in general which are used in other featured lists like List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, List of HolbyBlue episodes, etc. then I recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television or WT:TV so a broader discussion can take place. I don't think this is the right place to discuss this as it would derail the FLC process for this particular list which isn't fair. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This may be a question that's bigger than this FLC, but is the 'No. in season' column really necessary, given the 'Title' column? It seems a little redundant to me. Obviously Episode, say, 7 is going to the the seventh episode in the season. I may bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television...
• The caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
• "purpose built" -> "purpose-built"
• "Julie Chen Moonves continues her role as host of the series, a position she ...". This confused me the first time I read it, as I didn't know that she had hosted the regular series. How about "Julie Chen Moonves hosts the series, continuing a position she ..." instead?
• Both the Season 1 and 2 sections seem quite under-referenced to me. This might be fine if this were an article on a fictional TV series (per MOS:PLOTSOURCE), but, since we're dicussing living people here, it might be best to err on the side of caution and make sure that the text is fully-referenced, even if that just means citing to the CBB episodes themselves.
• In the Season 1 section, I don't think you need to repeat the phrase "grand prize of $250,000" quite so quickly.
• What are the "Head of Household" competitions? They're mentioned out of nowhere without any context given for what they are and what they represent. Presumably the houseguests competed in regular challenges, which meant that they were exempt from eviction, or something like that?
• "season long" -> "season-long"
• "Days 14-20" -> "Days 1420"
• "never used it where she wasn't nominated for eviction". I didn't really follow this. Do you mean she never used it because she wasn't nominated for eviction? Also, avoid contractions in prose.
• Could you maybe write a paragraph about the show's ratings for the Ratings section? I don't think I've never seen a level 2 header with nothing but one image in it. You could just merge the sentences about ratings from the Season 1 and 2 sections into it, then maybe say, for example, which episode was the highest-rated of each season. Happy to help, if you'd like.
• Most of the publishers in the References section aren't wikilinked. Is there any particular reason for this?
• Avoid shouting in reference titles (see citation 3).

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Thanks for reviewing this! I've implemented most changes sorry for not getting back sooner work has implemented mandatory overtime and its been brutal LOL. Here is some things that I haven't done yet or some comments I have:

• I will be going back and adding references to the summaries to Season 1 and Season 2. All of this information is backed up and verifiable by the episodes but I totally understand your point of wanting to err on side of caution here since we are dealing living people here. I will try to use the episodes since I currently subscribe to CBS All Access and episode recaps from reliable sources like Entertainment Weekly as well.
• I added a new summarized paragraph in Season 1 describing the elimination process which explains the regular competitions and terms such as Head of Household and Power of Veto, etc.
• I moved the two lines about the season averages to the ratings section I will be going back to expand upon them later like you suggested when I go to add the references to the summaries. I'm gonna try to do this on my days off this week (around Tuesday-Thursday hopefully).
• Had to edit the actual pages since the tables are just translucent here. Some publishers are not wikilinked like Programming Insider because they don't have a English Wikipedia page and some like TV By The Numbers were wikilinked once I was unsure if they should be wikilinked everytime so I went back and made sure they were.
• For the reference (like citation 3) I thought we had to copy the title exactly as written so since the press release used all caps I did here. Sorry about that.
• I can't remove the "Title" column it is required by default and the show doesn't name the episodes so these default titles are used. If I remove the "No. in season" column then "No. overall" defaults to just "No." which may cause some confusion to new readers. What's your take on this?

Thanks again for the comments! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard 16: This nomination seems to have stalled out; are you still working on this? @A Thousand Doors: Did Alucard address all of your points? It seems they have some open questions for you. --PresN 03:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Sorry about this due to RL work commitments I had to unexpectedly stop working on all my Wiki commitments for a period of time. I'm still working on this as my top priority but my work has slowed considerably. I just finished one of A Thousand Doors big comments which was to source the season summaries since this is a reality show dealing with real people to alleviate any potential BLP concerns. I'm gonna wrap up work on their second big comment today which is to create a summary of the ratings section and then barring any other comments all work should be complete. I had already addressed A Thousand Doors' other concerns in my comments above. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I just completed work on the last comment from A Thousand Doors which was to add a summary to the ratings section to go along with the ratings graph. While writing several drafts I realized I kept writing the same summary I created for the parent article back in April. So I used the List of Game of Thrones episodes as an example tweaked the summary on the parent article and transcluded it from Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series)#Ratings. This should address all of A Thousand Doors' comments. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.