Template talk:Talk header: Difference between revisions

YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE. This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Template:Talk header. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep, 17 August 2017, see discussion. Keep, 8 March 2009, see discussion. Keep, 28 December 2006, see discussion. Keep, 16 February 2006, see discussion. Keep, 2 October 2005, see discussion. Keep, 18 September 2005, see discussion.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change more then to more than. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor

ed. ^put'r there 07:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that there is a test case in Template:Talk header/testcases for a custom_text parameter: "custom_text=Custom body text" but it looks like this isn't supported by the template. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used in the documentation for the newish archival parameters. But there is no output, likely because the nowiki template demo hasn't been given any archived content for the template to detect and therefore show.

As you can see I have added a message explaining each of the two examples' output. If you can make the demo template output something sufficiently self-explanatory, feel free to remove.

I've created both Template:Talk header/Archive 1 and Template:Talk header/doc/Archive 1, so that both on the main template page and on the /doc subpage, you can see the archive links and notice.

Suppose I just want the archives search and nav part of this header. How do I get that? I know I can suppress "find sources" but how do I suppress "Put new text under old text" and article policies (arpol=no doesn't work)? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GA-RT-22:, somewhat misleadingly perhaps, |arpol=no is not a valid param value and has no effect on the appearance of the template in any namespace. Only |arpol=yes has an effect, and that can be used outside of article talk space to *add* the article policies. Probably the documentation page should be clearer about this, and I'll probably make an update to it. As to your question about suppressing article policies, do you mean for all articles everywhere it appears? Or just for a particular Talk page? In the latter case, it would be possible to do that, but not recommended. If you want it for all pages that the header appears on, without affecting how it appears for other users, you can modify your common.jss by adding this line:

.talkheader-policies{display:none;visibility:hidden} /* Remove TP header policy links per Template talk:Talk header */

and it will do what you want. Note: in theory, the 'display:none' should be enough to remove it and allow the box to the left of it to expand to the full width of the template, but that isn't happening on my setup for some reason, so the second part about 'visibility' is there to make sure it gets blanked; in that case, the box on the left will just occupy half of the width of the template, and the box on the right will be empty. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how it appears to me. I'm just trying to follow the the template instructions, which say to add this template "only where it's needed". See the section "Consider updating..." on this talk page. Is there some other template that will give me just the archive box and nothing else? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GA-RT-22: Is this what you want:

If so, and if there is no existing Talk page header already on the page, you can add it like this: {{Archives|banner=yes}}.

(For the record: to suppress just the article policies, the common.css line to add is #talkheader .talkheader-policies{display:none})

Hope this answers your question. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! I could have sworn I already tried that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is linked to from CENT, here's a link to the template at issue in this discussion: {{Talk header}}.

This is one of the most useful talkpage templates, giving advice to new users on how to use the talkpage. It is one of the earliest talkpage templates (dating back to 2005), and as such met with some resistance in the early years - including being taken to AfD six times, so there was some restriction on its use. However, over the years it has developed, and has absorbed the task of linking to talkpage archives and to sources useful to building the article, so its function and usefulness has increased, and it is now used on over half a million talkpages. Yet the instruction to use only when needed, which has been on the documentation since 2006, has not been updated - despite the increase in acceptance, popularity, usefulness, and functionality. Given that it provides sourcing information and guidance to users on how to use a talkpage, and also provides a link to archives, my feeling is that it is useful on all article talkpages, especially on the talkpages of new articles where links to sources would be most useful. I feel at this stage all articles and their talkpages would benefit from having this talkpage header on the talkpage - I'm seeing positives in terms of helpful advice and functionality, and seeing little in the way of negatives, and so I feel that the wording "This template should be placed only where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." and "In accordance with talk page guidelines, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. That changes the "discussion" tab at the top of the page from a "redlink" into a "bluelink", which may mislead people into thinking there is discussion." should be removed from the documentation, allowing users to add the template to any talkpage, including new ones. The notion that a WikiProject template, which has a very limited use for the bulk of users, is allowed to be added to a blank talkpage, and so turn the discussion/talk tab to blue, but a template which gives guidance on how to use the talkpage (and so encourage new users to talk) and provides links to sources (and so enable all users to build the article) is not allowed to be added strikes me as an aberration which we need to fix. When visiting talkpages - and this is purely anecdotal, I haven't done any research - it has appeared to me that talkpages which don't have this template are those where new users either don't put forward their queries and suggestions, or do so with inappropriate formatting. SilkTork (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only where it's needed" is what prompted me to ask how to get just the archive search banner and not the rest of it. Is it acceptable to add the talk header if that's all I want? GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question. I would say yes, as the functionality you want/need is built into this template. Hard to see a reason why not. SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal of text highlighted by SilkTork for the reasons given. I would add another reason to remove it: in addition to the helpful advice given, the header by default now includes the "{{find sources}}" functionality (added less than twelve months ago) which addresses the core issue of WP:Verifiability, certainly one of the main issues of new articles as they are being developed, and an ongoing issue for any article as it is expanded or modified. The Talk header is the best vehicle for presenting this useful sourcing information imho, and provides a standard location and presentation for it which makes it easier for a user to find and take advantage. The source links alone are a good enough reason to include the template on article Talk pages. Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is for now due to the principle that the more tags you have on a talk page, the more that people ignore them. That said, with some measures to reduce the tag overload, I think placing this on more talk pages could be a good thing. For example, if you could embed the Wikiproject and OldXfd templates within the talk header, collapsed by default, it would draw attention to the talk page guidelines, with the other information still there, but not distracting. I think there needs to be a broader discussion about talk page tags in general and making sure that we're drawing attention to important information while less important information is not prominent. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "broader discussion", see the preliminary discussion at this VPI discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The main hesitation I'd have is with regard to obscure talk pages that never really get much discussion. I don't expect Talk:Amastra subsoror to ever become a buzzing hive of discussion, and experienced editors know that dropping a comment on such a talk page is basically casting it off into the void. Giving newcomers "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to [article]" is kinda misleading in that circumstance. If talk header could be modified to automatically identify and provide better advice in those instances (perhaps a link to Help:Introduction to talk pages/5), I'd be more comfortable with approving its use everywhere. But at that point, it should just be integrated into the software rather than a template that has to be manually added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support having some kind of talkpage advice and links built into the software so the equivalent of this template, adapted as appropriate, appears automatically on every new article talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Sdkb, considering that adapting Talk header would be easier than getting the software changed how would you identify an obscure talk page for TalkHeader to modify its presentation? Count links in, page views, and/or watchers? Or could we just create a separate Talk header template just for low use talkpages, with guidance to editors as to when to use the Low use Talkheader and when to use the regular Talkheader? SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a tricky question. It could be any of those things, or rate of posts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with
  wolf 19:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There appears to be to be a movement toward support for removing the restrictions, though not quite support for encouraging universal usage. Would there be an objection to me simply removing "This template should be placed only where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." and "In accordance with talk page guidelines, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. That changes the "discussion" tab at the top of the page from a "redlink" into a "bluelink", which may mislead people into thinking there is discussion."? No encouragement for people to increase usage, just a removal on the restrictions on placing it on new pages or empty pages. Meanwhile discussion can continue on adapting the template for less visited pages. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps such a move should be discussed more widely, since it will have an impact across the project, and those who frequent this talk page are probably not a representative sample. Kanguole 11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've put it on Cent: Template:Centralized discussion. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks – here via CENT ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per SilkTork. Awhile ago I suggested on the
  WP:RATER talk page to have rater automatically add this template, and I was surprised when people started quoting this documentation as an argument against it. It really doesn't seem like this template has a downside. The archive page numbers and archive search by themselves are immensely useful and are a good reason to allow inclusion on all pages, in my opinion. The "talk page rules" and "find sources" are a little more questionable, but are probably helpful for new users. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think I agree with sdkb: how universal is the advice this template gives? I'd support the proposal as an improvement over the current situation, but there are differences in how small and large talk pages operate. On low-volume pages I use talk pages for general notes on editorial decisions, sources that could be useful in the future, and keeping track of what needs to be done; basically I use it as a public notebook. For high-volume pages though it's truly more of a discussion venue and the "notebook" style of talk page use is less productive. I think including the template in general would be a good idea as we increase the visibility of talk pages, but I also think we should work to improve our guidance to include how to use talk pages effectively. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Removing the quoted instruction parts looks good to me, per the proposal. I have wondered about this in the past, but didn't bother enough to complain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as people don't launch
  ☖ 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as is. This is another unfortunate example of discussions that have a broad effect on huge swaths of editors and articles being held on a page that few are aware of or watchlist (and it has taken me two days to find where the current problem in medical headers originated). This template has been since November 2020 linking to misleading information about sourcing of medical articles, with respect to
  WP:MEDRS. Until that is done, the template should not be foisted upon every talk page. And neither should ordinary content editors be forced to learn complicated syntax to control the misleading output of this template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi Sandy! If I understand you correctly, your objection is with placing this on medical articles, yes? If this template is a problem on medical articles, then it is a problem on ALL medical articles, not just new ones. Would you remove your objection to this proposal, which is not related to your objection, and start a RFC on placing this template on medical articles. If you like, I'll help you with that. SilkTork (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi,

  MEDRS-compliant editing should never have been contemplated anywhere, and I am quite astounded that it was.

  Perhaps I am missing the distinction between using this on new or existing; for now, I want to retain the ability to remove the Talk header anywhere it is used, as it is a trainwreck, and how do I know the same problems aren't being introduced outside of medicine content? Please feel free to pop over to my talk, or to email me, if I am completely missing the point, but I entered this page somewhat perturbed at having to spend several days finding the source of the problem, and encountering what felt like stonewalling earlier on. I hope/believe we are beyond that now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have struck my position above, and have no opinion now. After a slow start, we have now made great progress working together with template editors at

  WP:MEDRS in the header, so this template is no longer something I don't want to see used anywhere, any time. I do have a separate question on how Wikipedia came to preference The New York Times over all other news sources, and will start a new section for that question. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep as is per Oiyarbepsy and SandyGeorgia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that Sandy struck their opposition, but I affirm that I don't want to see it struck. What would the point be of having pages upon pages that have nothing but this template? An open invitation to banner blindness. If we need a template over every talk page, MediaWiki:Talkpageheader is the place to put one rather than gunking up edit histories. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support conditional upon the fixes being discussed over at
  WT:MED reaching a satisfactory conclusion, which it looks like they will. Fretting about turning a red link into a blue one is just silly (and as noted, WikiProject banners already do that). Moreover, the wording in question is self-contradictory. On the one hand, we're told don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. On the other, talk pages for articles often subject to controversy are good places for it. What if the creator of a page is pretty damn sure that the topic will be subject to controversy? Should we forbid them from starting off the talk page in the best way? This advice is an artifact of arguments in a bygone era. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WikiProject banners convey information specific to the article (e.g. that the article is being tracked by a WikiProject). The talk header on an empty talk page conveys no such information. The editor starting the first discussion on such a page would be served just as well by an editnotice. Daß Wölf 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbundle Any general instructions for using talk pages should be a standard part of the mediawiki interface. I attended a training session recently at which new users required instruction in using such pages and even the instructor forgot that you can't use the visual editor on them. So, there's a long way to go before these pages are usable by our general readership.
• I don't like the {{
  talk page header}} because it's too long and bloated. The find statistics were recently forced into the template and the alternative templates were deleted. As a regular user of {{FSS}}, I've been trying the talk page template for my new articles but still don't like it because of all the other baggage.

  The project templates are largely useless as the relevant project is usually inactive or otherwise of no help.

  So, the general approach to these templates has yet to settle down and so we should not be trying to micromanage this. As and when the WMF get around to making the visual editor work on talk pages, we'll need to think again and so shouldn't get too invested in the current bodges and stopgaps.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, if a talk page doesn't need this template, it is probably dead and we shouldn't encourage people to post there. (I would support using a general template for all the meta-information; why is article quality in Wikiproject templates and not in this one?) —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, lets do this separately in meta-information and link our main normal format help page. Moxy- 17:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is until suitable replacement prose is approved. While I support the idea of "updating" the documentation instructions (by less stringent prose and clarification) I oppose any changes that simply remove existing instructions without regard to retaining the cautionary sentiments intended by their remit.--
  John Cline (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would support the well-reasoned removal of "only where it's needed", and I'm baffled by the opposes. "We shouldn't encourage people to post" on low-traffic talk pages? That's incomprehensible to me. But I wouldn't want this template to be widely added by means of automated tools such as AWB or bots because that's a needless strain on the server -- let's just say that it can be boldly added to any individual talk page by any editor who sees fit.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  This seems to overlap in important areas with the new discussion tools functionality for empty talk pages. I have included an animation of that functionality here. Ppl should probably check that out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks User:TheDJ, that looks interesting. Your link is broken, though. Is this the page you were aiming to link to: [2]? SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Link fixed —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider reorganizing /doc page section #Appearance variations, maybe starting with just renaming it. My issue is, any template with a rich parameter set pretty much is all about appearance variations (other than invisible, behind-the-scenes changes, such as categorization) because that's what params are for, so "Appearance variations" doesn't really help much as a section header. I don't have a specific proposal, just wanted to brainstorm this. If we're going to stick with "appearance variations", then section "#Hiding the template" just above it should be part of it as well, because hiding is also about an appearance variation (but I'm not voting for doing that).

My first-blush idea would be to rename it "Parameter details", and go into more details about each Parameter and how to use it; or maybe just the complex ones where a brief one-liner in the Parameters section isn't enough. I'd remove the transcluded sample TP headers that are there now, which currently make the section vertically very long without imparting very much extra information or making it easier to understand, and move them down to a new "Examples" section. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the section title for now, to: #Testing by functionality group, but that's maybe a stopgap, and the whole organization of the doc may need review. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section is now moot; I went ahead with a fairly major re-org of the doc to try to rationalize it and make the whole thing more comprehensible. I kept one aspect of the original with some misgivings that is unusual, namely, there is no complete list of parameters with descriptions all in one place in the #Parameters section. There is a complete param list, in fact two of them: one vertical, and one horizontal, but no complete plain-text enumeration of all the parameters along with a brief description of each, including whether they are optional, and what their defaults and valid values are. Previously, there was scattered information about (some of) the parameters scattered all over, and I've tried to group them by functionality, which is a bit better than the way it was before, imho; but there's still no complete, alphabetical enumeration (outside of the TemplateData, where I suspect few will go). Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new 'find-sources' functionality with dynamic WikiProject autodetection and optional search-domain override is now live. For articles belonging to certain WikiProjects, you will notice a change to the {{find sources}} links in the Talk header to provide more targeted links. In the initial launch, this includes articles belonging to WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Video games (others may be added in the future); articles not belonging to either one of these projects, continue to show the same 'find-sources' links as before.

There are some known issues, already discussed in the planning stages, which will be addressed in future releases, after the dust is allowed to settle on this one. Probably chief among these, concerns articles that belong to two (or more) projects, and how we want to deal with that. For example, Talk:Marie Curie belongs to a number of projects, including Medicine, but also Biography, Military history, and several others. In this first launch, because the new functionality detects "WikiProject Medicine" at that article, the Talk:Marie_Curie header now displays "find sources" links associated with the "medical" search domain, whereas perhaps the default links might be better (or maybe both sets should be displayed). Find-sources link sets for search domains "Biography" and "Military" already exist (see {{find biographical sources}} and {{find military sources}}), but are not incorporated into the Talk header in this release, but may be in a future one.

Documentation updates are in progress. If you find bugs, please refer to a test case or add one to Template:Talk header/testcases. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good overall. I would suggest displaying both/all sets of links for articles belonging to multiple projects, as well as the default ones. It may at times result in some duplication, but that's harmless. – SD0001 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this on a COVID-19 page. It's pretty neat; good work! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite disappointed to see that the source of information that could mislead editors (particularly new editors we most need to reach), by failing to make any mention of

WP:MEDRS, will mislead the very editors we hope to reach via adding this info to talk page headers. Meanwhile, these additions have rendered this template unuseful and even misleading on medical article talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe the discussion should continue now here, not at WT:MED, since the issue originated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was disregarded by multiple who continued to respond not here but there, so it appears that the main discussion is now over at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement: improved Wikipedia Library links launched

In a separate development undertaken by WMF involving some software changes, the "Wikipedia Library" link in the "find sources" section of this template has been upgraded. Previously, it was a static link to the WP Library portal, from which one would have to log in, navigate to the search page, type in a query, and submit it to get results.

This has been improved so that now when you click it, the Wikipedia Library link provides a search results page populated with the results of your query. Here's an example of how it might appear on the page Talk:War guilt question:

This will really improve the ability of editors to find reliable sources for articles they are working on; so a big shout-out to Samwalton9, Jsn.sherman and all the members of the WMF team who helped make this a reality. Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Params |search_term3= and |search_term4= serve no purpose, and should be dropped. Currently, |search_term1= provides "exact search" (double-quoted search) capability, and |search_term2= provides unquoted (i.e. "normal") search. The other two search terms provide no additional functionality not already provided by search_term2. They appear to be a legacy left over from {{Find sources multi}}, which has positional search terms 1 – 5, and where only terms 1 and 2 ever made any sense, and 3 – 5 never served any purpose and should be dropped. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes. In favor of removing unused template parameters... and unused code in general. Is there any way to quantify the usage of specific parameters? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure; maybe an advanced search with ":insource" and a search query looking for "search_term3". I'll have to come back to this later and try it. If we can't figure it out, someone at

WP:VPT will know. As a first step, if there's consensus to drop it, we should stop documenting the existence of those terms in the doc page, to discourage future use, although I can't imagine too many pages are using it, outside the doc page examples. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

First step might be to gray out and flag as deprecated... and remove from any active examples. Is there a parameter removal process that would prevent old implementations from throwing an error? Like maintaing a known-but-ignored list of deprecated parameters in the template code after deprecation? - Wikmoz (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikmoz @Mathglot This search should do it, and if I haven't made a mistake, only Talk:Trick-or-treating uses these. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerfjkl Nice work, thanks! Great news that it's not more widely used, and a good confirmation that removing search_term3 and -4 is the right way to go. I think we can start by dropping any mention of 3 & 4 from the documentation immediately. We can take our time about changing the code, there's clearly no hurry with that aspect of it. There will eventually be analogous changes to make with the "find sources" suite of templates, but they can start with the documentation, as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed references to search_term3 and search_term4 from the documentation, and adjusted Talk:Trick-or-treating so there's not a single page that uses those terms anymore. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Template talk:Find sources § New York Times

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]