Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Possible flare-up in Liberia

This news story suggests that there may be a new flare-up in Liberia. I can't immediately find any other corroborating stories. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[1][2][3]another... (note and now a second case [4] -not to mention the 7 or 8 cases/fatalities in Guinea- is it just me or is this not the same outbreak continuing (instead of "flare ups"))? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think these are still best characterized as flare-ups. There's no sense of these individual disease clusters starting to achieve epidemic status. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

sitrep

latest WHO situation report still not out(usually every two weeks)[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• found it[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• WHO[7]....([8][9]) late again w/ sitrep?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• they seem to have stopped offering updates...only the end of actually 42 day period[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• its over[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

70%

The page says that there was a case mortality rate of 70%, but the info box says that only 11,000 died out of 28,000 total cases, which is much less than 70%. Why the discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.161.242 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

right, if you follow the lede the sentence following the ...slightly above 70%...indicates [12]among hospitalized patients was 57–59%(additionally, I was looking thru the archives and sierra leone fatalities came up in discussion due to [13])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

To the question, I can only say we did our best what with so much conflicting information. BTW, it seems a shame to me that no one ever conducted a study to make a better guess on exactly how many people got the disease and how many died. The 28,000 figure is now reported as though it is accurate while in truth thousands of cases went unreported. Every one was so afraid - people were afraid to report due to the stigma, people were afraid of going to the hospitals what with wild rumors that the hospitals were infecting people, local governments were afraid to report cases and national governments were afraid that cases were affecting their tourism and economy. The WHO was, in the beginning, part of the cover-up and not until the epidemic was well underway did they do much of anything. Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

exactly true--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying reason for reversion

@Ozzie10aaaa: I'm going to question this revert: "Reverted to revision 881309900 by Himomitsmedannyb (talk): Article is being published will reflect these changes and more in a few days". Could you clarify? Is the article essentially now locked? Will "peer review" be required to make further non-trivial changes to it? I'm trying not to overreact, and I'm not concerned about my recent edits, rather the general principle that this seems wholly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I had assumed that when the Med Project journal published something that just meant a peer-reviewed copy was archived elsewhere for reference, but this seems not to be the case here? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

it still hasnt been published(though I suspect soon), Im not certain once the published version is placed here (see Hippocampus for example) what exactly happens..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is just a temporary hold while the article gets published (although I cannot see why that can't simply be exracted from the history?) then perhaps it should be temporarily protected to indicate that? I'm not qualified to judge hippocampus, but as a featured article it seems likely to have attained a higher standard than this one. (Btw, I genuinely wasn't trying to be disruptive, but the sentence at the end of the lead, added after the article was reached GA, struck me as promotional & outdated; I'm surprised it wasn't just snipped during the peer-review process, as it isn't directly relevant to the subject.) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

it was eventually altered (in the preprint version), BTW I view any opinion you might have as constructive, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Proofreading notes

• I removed two recently added "the"s because they were in reference titles. Reference titles are normally treated as direct quotes.
• I think the article overemphasizes 2015 instead of 2014. The big story of this article is that thousands died, not that one or two cases continued afterwards.
• Why is w: added to all the wikilinks? I don't know of any other Wikipedia articles using w: links. Art LaPella (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

good points Art,the W: is from it having been copied and pasted from wikiversity, you have a point about 2015 and 2014 (I'll read thru it again)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that means I can undo all the W: changes. They don't affect readers, but they will confuse editors. Art LaPella (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you Art--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing archives

The last listed archive in the archive box ends in November 2014. But the oldest sections on this page are from April 2016. Where are the missing 2 years of discussion? The {{Old moves}} template has a number of links that use numbered archives (e.g. Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 4#First USA case), but they're all red. Anyone know what's going on? Colin M (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

good question...Talk:West_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic/Archive_1(found in talk/history)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M and Ozzie10aaaa: I just did my best to resolve the archive organization issue. There may be a bit of date disorganization around archive pages 6—9 due to intersecting timelines (which can be resolved via cut/paste if anyone so desires), but it should look a lot better now. (Heck, even this comment was on the wrong page, so I'm moving it when I post this comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have corrected/updated the move discussion links on Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic in the old moves box so that the links target the correct pages. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of archive and collapse templates on this page

@Ozzie10aaaa: I think the current use of collapsing and archiving templates on this page is confusing, to the point of looking malformed. The {{archive top}} template (which puts its contents in a lavender box labeled "The following discussion is closed... No further edits should be made to this discussion") is placed so that it swallows up the table of contents, the archives box, and the first three top-level discussions. I've never seen the template used this way (I've only ever seen it used when closing a formal discussion like a requested move or RfC). The other issue is a mysterious {{collapse}} box labelled "answered/1 (90 day)", which by default hides the other top-level sections on the page. This is confusing and makes navigation difficult, because it breaks links to those discussions, including the links generated in the table of contents (e.g. Talk:Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Clarifying_reason_for_reversion) and makes the discussions hard to find. I tried to express these issues in my edit summaries when I removed these templates. I'm not satisfied with the message you wrote when you reverted my changes, "Better version, and has had no issues till now", so I'm hoping you can explain in more detail why you think these uses of templates are helpful. Colin M (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

see prior answer on edit (to alter talk page you would need consensus from those who contributed to it and article, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what prior answer you're referring to. I quoted your edit summary in my comment above and explained that it needed clarification. I've explained the issues I see with the use of these templates in some detail - it's not helpful to respond by simply saying "there are no issues". And it's not true that an editor needs to seek consensus to alter a talk page - see WP:BOLD. If you want to revert my bold change, that's fine, but that should give way to a discussion. Colin M (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Since you haven't responded (other than editing your reply above to add underlining...), I'm removing the non-standard template usage from this talk page again. If you think it should stay, please provide a justification for why you think it improves the page, or why you think the problems I described above are invalid. Let's discuss rather than edit war. Colin M (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I see you have reverted my change again with the edit summary "Per prior reason left on talk page, thank you". This is not a sufficient explanation, as I have explained. I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion about this so we can reach consensus. By reverting my changes and refusing to discuss the matter you are edit warring. In my time on Wikipedia I have never had to go through formal channels to resolve a dispute - please don't make me do it over something as trivial as this. Let's just discuss it. If we still can't reach consensus after discussing, we can seek a third opinion.

Also, you reverted the edit where I removed the templates and the edit where I left the comment above (which I've since restored). I assume this wasn't on purpose, but it's the second time you've deleted one of my comments - please be mindful about diffs when reverting. Colin M (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Seem to have been inadvertently caught in this. Must I make mention of WP:TPG#YES which encourages keeping a clear talk page layout? In any case, using {{archive}} for more than one section is non-standard, to say the least, and using it for an entirely unrelated discussion and simultaneously swallowing the table of contents seems bad practice if it is not merely an error. Same for using {{collapse}} to hide a section (it is typically used to hide off-topic discussions or lengthy examples/proposals/...), let alone multiple sections. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

This has been subject to some back and forth, so I figure per WP:BRD it may be time to discuss. Pinging @Bondegezou, 107.190.33.254, and Ozzie10aaaa: (not sure if pings work for IP editors - worth a try I guess). Context for anyone else: for a while, this article has had flag icons in the table of casualties in the infobox. Recently, Bondegezou removed them citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Since then, the article has flip-flopped with reverts 6 times on this. Ozzie favours the flags, indicating that they had been there since 2014, and that other articles use flags in infoboxes. IP editor favours keeping the flags, at least pending the outcome of this discussion.

My preference is to remove the flags. I think the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG guideline makes sense, and I have no wish to WP:IGNORE it. And I don't think the exception ("in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text") applies here. IP editor mentioned that in this case, the flags serve as visual aids to quickly identify countries, but that could be said of any use of flags in infoboxes. I also don't see the outcome of the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election being particularly relevant here - at best it might resolve into some consensus about whether to show flag icons in the election infobox. But it's not going to result in abolishing or rewriting MOS:INFOBOXFLAG - that would need to happen somewhere more centralized. Colin M (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

would prefer(support) flags, however not a big issue--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I linked the talk at the election infobox because the editor who removed the flags here also did so on a rather large number of election articles (see these contributions, there's about 15 edits (mostly election articles, but the odd one like this) where the edit summary is essentially MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, so I felt this was some form of related behaviour in enforcing some MOS guideline). Regarding the flags in this article, a look at MOS:FLAG does not seem to give much weight to removing the flags; they obviously do not fall under the "Historical considerations"; "Political issues" or "Inappropriate use" section; and if the table was not in the infobox (It is a relevant piece of information which could go in some form of section about the effects/death toll of the epidemic), MOS:INFOBOXFLAG would not even be into consideration. Even as it stands, the wording of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG seems to have been intended at suppressing overuse in infoboxes where there is a |country= attribute (in fact, not intending to sound like a lawyer, but it does refer explicitly to those...), not for a table which happens to be nested inside an infobox. The remaining guidelines of MOS:FLAG suggest to "accompany flags with country names" (which is done here!) and that appropriate use is done "where the subject actually represents that country or nationality"; in this case I can hardly see how that is not true since the subject is the number of Ebola-related victims in given countries; and they otherwise meet the suggestions of MOS:IMAGES in being "illustrative aids to understanding." As for the reverts, I think WP:BRD applies and since @Bondegezou: is the one who attempted the removal, would like to hear more than radio silence from him on the matter. And no, pings don't work 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your view in more detail. You make some very good points. I also hope that Bondegezou will chime in on this. Colin M (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor's reading of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG seems idiosyncratic to me. That guidance begins, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." That's pretty to the point. The section is titled, "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". Which of those five words is causing confusion here? The exceptions listed at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (e.g., ships) do not apply here. The claim that somehow a table nested inside an infobox creates an exemption... there's nothing to support that interpretation.

MOS:IMAGES does not apply. These are not useful illustrations of the virus or the epidemic. WP:ICONDECORATION is the appropriate guidance here.

Before my initial edit, I reviewed multiple epidemic articles: articles like 2017 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak, 2018 Équateur province Ebola outbreak and (at the time, but not now) 2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak all follow the Manual of Style. Equally, Spanish flu, 2009 flu pandemic, 2017 Central Luzon H5N6 outbreak, 1889–90 flu pandemic &c. all follow the Manual of Style on this. I saw no evidence of a general pattern of flags in infoboxes for epidemics that required some central discussion. I have worked in flu/pandemic research and have been familiar with pandemic articles for several years and haven't seen much use of flag icons like this before.

The Manual of Style has developed over many years and much thought has been put into it. We should endeavour to follow it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Manual of Style has developed over many years and much thought has been put into it. We should endeavour to follow it." Indeed, but these are just guidelines and the wording of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is far from being as unequivocal as you seem to think ("Avoid", "generally", "should" all suggest that there can be exceptions); and in any case these statements should not be interpreted as some form of unbreakable law. Speaking of interpretation, MOS:FLAG is just a particular case of using images to represent something (in this case, using a flag to represent a country) - as such, the guidance of MOS:IMAGES that images (of any kind) should be "illustrative aids to understanding." applies nonetheless to the present scenario.
I have explained why the flags are not merely decoration (and editors at the related election infobox discussion also have made very similar points, if in a slightly different context); therefore I fail to see how it can still be argued that their usage is just WP:ICONDECORATION. As for other articles not using flags in infoboxes, I must point out some of these don't even have an infobox, and sometimes not even a table listing victims in different country (Spanish flu, for example, falls in this category), and others rely merely on images to convey this information (which, since we're talking of "breaking rules", IS a breach of MOS:ACCESS). This also ignores that some of the articles you link were entirely within the borders of one country (in which case a table listing victims per country is probably not helpful...). With these consideration, the comparison you suggest appears like a textbook apples and oranges case. Therefore, there is no real "global consensus" on the matter, and this remains a case-by-case matter.
Final point, the table is a relevant piece of information which could very easily stand on it's own (i.e. outside of being nested in an infobox), and in that context all the other guidelines of MOS:FLAG should be followed (I just looked at MOS:TABLES but again found nothing against (or just about flags) using flags, except in headers (and that obviously is not the situation here)); I have gone through each one above and found nothing suggesting that in such a context the use of flags would be inappropriate. It actually being in the infobox does not suddenly supersede all of those and make it impossible to have flags in the table simply because INFOBOXFLAG suggests (and I'll reiterate, "suggests", not "mandates") that flags should be avoided in infoboxes. Thus we must use our best judgement and in this case the simple fact is that flags help identifying countries; and looking at other policy (i.e. not just one "rule" which deals with one particular issue but at other related rules too) seems to support this usage. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be a good reason for any exceptions. You haven't given one. The country information is already conveyed clearly in words. Flag icons do not add any information and "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many". The intent of the Manual of Style is clear here: "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". It is clear and easy to follow. Your argument is WP:WL and WP:ILIKEIT: you want flag icons on election article infoboxes, and so you're contesting an article of a type you've never previously edited. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasons why flags are OK. If you personally find them distracting, there's always the instructions at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE on how to remove them. And in this particular case, they do not give undue prominence to "one field among many" - the proper identification of the countries is not "undue prominence" (and the flags are relatively small, so again that argument falls flat on its face). Your argument, on the other hand, that there is one policy which states that flags should be "avoided" and that we must ipso facto follow it unconditionally, does seem like rules lawyering. And please, WP:AFG - discuss the message, not the messenger. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter and IP editor have edited back and forth on this. Can we conclude this discussion to reach a decision here?

IP editor talks of "instructions at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE": this is a mechanism where editors with accounts can personalise their stylesheet. It is not a solution. We write Wikipedia for the average user, not for people who can personalise their stylesheets.

IP editor claims that flag icons are not unnecessarily distracting or give undue prominence, claiming this argument "falls flat on its face". The only argument in favour of this position s/he gives is that "the flags are relatively small". The argument that flag icons are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence is that that's what the Manual of Style says, and the MOS trumps the personal opinion of one editor. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG was written about flag icons of this size, the argument that they are small does not hold.

IP editor repeatedly suggests that that "there is one policy" is somehow insufficient. This is an idiosyncratic position. When the Manual of Style writes about flag icons in infoboxes, it seems reasonable to take that as sufficient policy when considering flag icons in infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You have made this exact argument at Template talk:Infobox election, and I feel it has been sufficiently countered by me and others there, and I don't feel like repeating the same points over and over again. The only thing I shall add: your very literal interpretation of the MOS is not supported by policy nor by the discussion that led to it's writing, as pointed out at the other talk page. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I make 3 points above: 2 have not been discussed at Template talk:Infobox election. The thesis around "the discussion that led to it's [sic] writing" was raised there, but is weak: there wasn't much discussion and it doesn't really point one way or the other, but the text has remained unchallenged for years, so I see no problem with reading and applying the text as is.

My interpretation of the text saying "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" is that, generally, we should not use flag icons in infoboxes. I concur this is very literal, but then I don't see that hermeneutics are required. Bondegezou (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"2 have not been discussed" - all 3 points have been previously discussed either there or directly here (where they have been discussed is immaterial - what is is that you keep making the same points). In short: Regarding MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE -> see this; Regarding the meaning of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (spirit vs letter) -> this (and the diffs of the next point); Regarding MOS:INFOBOXFLAG being only "one" policy and how there can be exceptions, see the first half of this and the analysis of multiple policies regarding the use of flags here and here. Your interpretation of the text is too literal, ignoring the whole spirit of the law (which is "Don't overuse flags", not "Don't use flags at all"). Even the MOS you list gives exceptions: "Examples of acceptable exceptions [...]" and that clearly implies that these are not the only ones (If the meaning of INFOBOXFLAG is "Don't use flags at all under any circumstance" (which is what your comments seem to hint at), can you at least understand why they are ubiquitous in articles about countries (ex. Canada); or certain political/governmental offices (ex. President of the United States, Monarchy of the United Kingdom (where it is a coat of arms not a flag, but same thing - an identifying symbol)))?
Also, a new argument! Flags seem to be used frequently in tables of countries, see for example List of sovereign states, List of countries by literacy rate, World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country, Member states of the United Nations; etc... I don't see why we should not use them simply because the table has the bad luck of being in an infobox. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline isn't a black-and-white "never use flags" rule. But if we were to sort articles according to how well they fit the criteria from MOS:FLAG#Appropriate use: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.... I think this article (Western African Ebola virus epidemic) would be below all those other articles you cited. Most of them are about nations themselves or national political offices. The following are more questionable, but...

• List of countries by literacy rate: The topic of the article expressly involves dividing up by national borders.
• World War II casualties#Human losses by country: A conflict between nations. MOS:FLAG mentions "military units" and "military conflicts" as examples of exceptions. Also note that there are several other similar tables in the same article (e.g. World_War_II_casualties#USSR) which don't use flags.

This article is about a disease epidemic which is not an inherently political topic (though the article will certainly mention how different countries' governments varied in their responses). Dividing up the casualties by country is useful to give a picture of the geographic distribution of the outbreak. But there is a risk of giving "undue prominence to one field among many" (i.e. the "Country" column of the table). Colin M (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The initial reason I objected to the removal was indeed that User:Bondegezou seemed to interpret MOS as though it was a black-and-white case, and it seemed to be bad behaviour in suddenly enforcing it so forcefully on so many different articles.
I fail to see how flags are inherently political (in fact, the case about flags being "political" or not (in a context where their purpose is identification) has been made and soundly refuted here). I similarly am not convinced by the argument that flags impede readability/article quality by giving undue prominence (identifying which countries were worse affected is not "undue prominence", and the statistics do seem to be divided, as in the examples I gave, by national borders...); the MOS:FLAG exemptions for military conflicts apply for cases like this well known battle - where the purpose of flags is, nevertheless, exactly the same as here: identification - the table in the WWII article, meanwhile, is exactly like the table here: a listing of countries, with flags provided as visual aids (in any case, I think there are sufficient other examples to show that using flags in tables is accepted practice) - if anything, the presence of flags improve said table by allowing readers to identify countries at a glance. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding flags being "political": the discussion you linked seems to be talking about the 3rd definition at wikt:political: Motivated, especially inappropriately, by political (electoral or other party political) calculation.. I was talking about definitions 1 and 2 - i.e. relating to politics or a wikt:polity. I'm not saying flags are necessarily politically inflammatory or partisan. I'm just saying that they refer to political entities. 'Cause that's what nations are: polities. And politics are relevant to this article, but not of absolutely central importance (unlike Canada, or List of sovereign states). Colin M (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In which case we agree that politics are relevant but not of central importance (whether them being of "central importance" is a requirement for using flags [in what I consider a reasonable manner] remains a question, on which I think my position is rather clear). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you are "not convinced by the argument that flags impede readability/article quality by giving undue prominence", but the broader community have agreed a Manual of Style that takes that position. You are free to suggest an amendment to the MOS, but until then, it is our starting point. If it comes down to MOS says X and editor says not X, then we do what MOS says. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What is not clear in what was said previously? Me and other editors have pointed out multiple reasons why, in this case, having the flags in might actually be better than not (and WP:IAR, which is a direct elaboration of one of the five pillars) is very clear on this: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."); yet you keep insisting that we should follow the MOS as though it was law. Now, please move on to the current topic, which is whether, in this case, the flags give undue prominence to one field or not. If your only argument is "because the MOS says so", then, in addition to the above, I suggest you add this to your reading list, and come back with the focus of improving the article, not merely following the rules. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ebola

In the title should be a capital from what I understand. So restored to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you Doc James

Age of Emile Ouamouno

This page states that Emile Ouamouno's age at the time of infection (and death) is one year, as according to citation 62, however the page Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea instead states he is two years old at the time of infection and subsequent death.

While it seems that majority news outlet consensus leans towards Emile being two years old at the time of contracting Ebola, I am going to include both ages here and include the CNN article from the aforementioned page. Both are reliable news sources so I cannot rule either of them out here. I reckon I'll do the same for Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea.

I worked extensively on this article and am aware of the age problem. I finally settled on the "one-year-old", but have long forgotten my reasoning. I think to change it to one or two would be a fine solution. Gandydancer (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Template to external project

Please archive the old GAs so this talk page can become usable.

Regarding this revert, the external source is clearly not a reference for this article, so does not belong in references, and the external source breaches WP:ELNO, so the template doesn't belong their either. The template belongs on talk, if anywhere, although it should possibility be deleted in lieu of a standard sister project template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Substed GA banner

The fact that this article's GA banner was substituted is messing up various queries; could this please be remedied? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Aircorn; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)