This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of digital library projects article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on November 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Hello everybody. I can see no mention for the Arabic Language nor the Arabic virtual libraries. Can you help me to update the page with this piece of info?
I know about AskZad.com, which is the first Arabic Virtual Library with more than 500 Million Pages archived on it. Thanks in advance.
___________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshawy ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all, I would like to support the comment by Imran. Categories could start with countries, perhaps (!) From a quick read below, it looks like this section has got off to a good start, and then ...
Not sure how to proceed from here, because the wikipedia editing rules are a lot to take in at first, but how do people feel about starting categories with countries? avaiki 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Links to other project from the Project Gutenberg article:
Also, Project Runeberg maintains a large list of digital library projects at http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/admin/foreign.html -- Stephen Gilbert 18:17 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
More links:
This list just looks like a data dump at the moment. I think we need to clean it up, break them into seperate categories and provide at least a short description for each. -- Imran 20:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
--
large western mss libs see http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DigitaleHandschriften
lots of unknown projects http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DeutscheDrucke#titelanker4
incunabula http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/InkunabelLinks
Shouldn't wikisource be on here?
We can add
It seems to be new. Oriel
The Hearth - Home Economics Archive at Cornell University http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/
--
Though I have found no firm statements, East of the Web appears to be inactive. Its copyright dates end in 2003 and there has been nothing in the "New Titles" section for some time. Should we perhaps place a note beside the link in this article? 82.11.32.93 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If an online library site is down long-term, then we should not maintain a link here.-- SallyForth123 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think that we should NOT double-link. If the online library already has a W page, then please do not provide a URL: it only contributes to linkrot overhead.-- SallyForth123 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be very reluctant to includee collections at individual libraries--I would argue for a certain major level of notability, such that Akron-Summit County Public Library's Digital Exhibits is not included. There's a distinction between a notable digital library project, and a mere Institutional repository, such as almost every major university now has DGG ( talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ external links}} template was added to this article with an edit history comment of
I think this is a misunderstanding of term external links. When external links are used as they are in this article at the moment, they are " embedded citations" and are covered under the verification policy. So unless there is a consensus not to do so, I would like to remove the template. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
... books from a bunch of publishers, as a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.25.184 ( talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:LIST, I think the only list entries allowed in the article should be those with their own article. At least until a different inclusion criteria is agreed upon and made clear in the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started cleaning up the list, removing all linkspam and entries without their own articles. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A complete rewrite of this page is being discussed over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 May 2009
This page has been in breach of Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK and Wikipedia:List for many years. It's a huge spam magnet, as the history clearly shows. An AfD attempt has failed. I tried to generate discussion over the rewrite, but failed. If anyone has any better suggestion, I'm all for it, but a rewrite like this is the only way I can see to bring the page in line with wikipedia polices. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a frustrating time trying to help maintain the list, but I see a number of problems with this approach:
A. There could and should be lists for each of the categories--as a general rule any category of discrete things should have a list. The links here should link to those lists, not to the categories. We will of course have similar problems watching them. The best way is to stick to the rule that they much have a WP articles, perhaps not including the exception that they be obviously qualified for one--for this subject such is not going to be all that obvious as for some lists of people.
B. In some cases, a comprehensive list may be appropriate: certainly with the major national digital library of those countries having one.
C. I see considerable problems though in deciding in which of the categories a particular project fits. There are not really clear divisions between them.
D. the meaning of the various types are perfectly clear to me, as they will be to anyone discussing it here, but I do not think they will be the least clear to most readers. There needs to be more of a discussion for each, and i think that there do have to be examples. The examples should be the 2 or 3 best known and unquestionably important of each kind. we'll still have spam problems, but it will be difficult for someone with a small database to argue that its as important as, say, Project Gutenberg.
This is not quite as easy a problem as it appears. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to the principle of not being a web directory--the rationale is that the purposes of these projects is very close to the purpose of our own. I think we could and should have fairly complete lists of major projects of this sort. We're an obvious place to look, and we are qualified to maintain it.
DGG (
talk)
20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have found this list quite useful in my digital library work. Please don't eviscerate it simply for policy's sake. In particular, I have not found that the list, as I used it, was full of spam, and the categorizations (and inclusion of sites and organizations not yet graced with their own WP article) was particularly helpful for providing a sense of balance and guidance for further inquiry. +sj + 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying my position. I'm not proposing that we follow the applicable policies and guidelines just because they are there. They serve a purpose - to keep us from creating articles we cannot maintain that are unencyclopedic. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not split this into two pages: One, Wikipedia:List of digital library projects would be a list of any digital library projects useful to Wikipedia editors. The other, List of digital library projects, would attempt a more encyclopedic, tighter admissions criteria? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A few days back I continued the cleanup that earlier editors started, deleting redlinks and external links, but before I continued too much further, I wanted to lay out my rationale (much of which echoes earlier comments on this talk page), so here goes:
In sum, can someone provide me with the reason I should not proceed with the cleanup that addresses these issues (other than WP:ITSUSEFUL)? UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no history at all with this page before today, but I have been chasing down external links to Wikipedia mirrors and forks where they don't belong, and this is one of the pages that popped up. I see the article has been tagged for various things since 2008, and I expect that in a few minutes I will even read the sections above this on the talk page and that they will say something about it being a big job to clean the list up. It really isn't; we're not a directory of external links, not even well-meaning ones, and we aren't a research service either, even though we might be sympathetic to such things. Anything without an article or reference also has no claim of notability - so I have removed everything without either an article or a reference, which turned out to be most of the list. The resulting list probably still needs work, but working on the reduced list should be much easier.
I encourage anyone who sees an obvious omission from the current list to add it if it has an article, or if notability can be established independently (but we're not a directory of external links, so much better if it has an article). I don't encourage adding bare external links again, because they will just attract more inappropriate content - of which there was a lot. Requiring notability from the start is the best way to keep such things out. In the meantime, please remember that the page history is still available - if my clear-cutting approach caught something it shouldn't have, it can be rescued very easily. Most of it, however, should stay gone. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I was unsure whether this fell into this list or not - "digital library" seemingly being a technical term and opaque in meaning to me. The National Library of Australia is a part of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program. They launched a program to have internet users collaborate on digitising Historic Australian Newspapers, from 1803 to 1954. link to website I do not know if this falls into the category or not. Useful in any case. SauliH ( talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
As it is becoming more notable and is a resource which serves a wider audience than just the University should the Cambridge Digital Library have it's own article in order to be a part of this list?-- Acc60 ( talk) 11:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste (AAARGH) is a far-right, Holocaust revisionist website, that promotes itself as a holocaust-research-site with a large collection of books on it’s site. Most of these books can easily be described as “very unsavoury stuff.” If someone would look for a reliable source for an article on WP, I wouldn’t advise to look at the AAARGH-site.
Now, since AAARGH is notable enough to have it’s own article on Wikipedia, I wonder if it should be included in this article. The question is:is this list a non-partisan list that includes the AAARGH-site, or should we exclude piles of rubbish-books and demand some quality standards here? (I think I know the answer, but when we have consensus about this we don't have to discuss this when it becomes neccesary.) Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Political think tanks aren't exactly digital library project. Greatder ( talk) 06:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this page is supposed to work, but I'm surprised these two sites aren't included:
We ignore non-English online resources at our own peril. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hola bien dia Como estan Los saludar Gloria Roman Macias Jose Alfredo roman recinos ( talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I propose the addition to the list of BEIC, European Library of Information and Culture. See Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC and the links there. Regards, Federico Leva (BEIC) ( talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
List of digital library projects. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of digital library projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Name | Subject(s) | Volumes | Description | Provider(s) | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Darakht-e Danesh Library (DDL) | General | Library of open educational resources for Afghanistan | Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan | [1] [2] |
I propose adding this entry (but have a COI so won't do so myself). Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Pinging @ DGG: who is more familiar with this list and its requirements than I am, to garner their input on this request. Spintendo 08:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
overlapping content, very similar subject fgnievinski ( talk) 21:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of digital library projects article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on November 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Hello everybody. I can see no mention for the Arabic Language nor the Arabic virtual libraries. Can you help me to update the page with this piece of info?
I know about AskZad.com, which is the first Arabic Virtual Library with more than 500 Million Pages archived on it. Thanks in advance.
___________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshawy ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all, I would like to support the comment by Imran. Categories could start with countries, perhaps (!) From a quick read below, it looks like this section has got off to a good start, and then ...
Not sure how to proceed from here, because the wikipedia editing rules are a lot to take in at first, but how do people feel about starting categories with countries? avaiki 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Links to other project from the Project Gutenberg article:
Also, Project Runeberg maintains a large list of digital library projects at http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/admin/foreign.html -- Stephen Gilbert 18:17 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
More links:
This list just looks like a data dump at the moment. I think we need to clean it up, break them into seperate categories and provide at least a short description for each. -- Imran 20:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
--
large western mss libs see http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DigitaleHandschriften
lots of unknown projects http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DeutscheDrucke#titelanker4
incunabula http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/InkunabelLinks
Shouldn't wikisource be on here?
We can add
It seems to be new. Oriel
The Hearth - Home Economics Archive at Cornell University http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/
--
Though I have found no firm statements, East of the Web appears to be inactive. Its copyright dates end in 2003 and there has been nothing in the "New Titles" section for some time. Should we perhaps place a note beside the link in this article? 82.11.32.93 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If an online library site is down long-term, then we should not maintain a link here.-- SallyForth123 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think that we should NOT double-link. If the online library already has a W page, then please do not provide a URL: it only contributes to linkrot overhead.-- SallyForth123 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be very reluctant to includee collections at individual libraries--I would argue for a certain major level of notability, such that Akron-Summit County Public Library's Digital Exhibits is not included. There's a distinction between a notable digital library project, and a mere Institutional repository, such as almost every major university now has DGG ( talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ external links}} template was added to this article with an edit history comment of
I think this is a misunderstanding of term external links. When external links are used as they are in this article at the moment, they are " embedded citations" and are covered under the verification policy. So unless there is a consensus not to do so, I would like to remove the template. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
... books from a bunch of publishers, as a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.25.184 ( talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:LIST, I think the only list entries allowed in the article should be those with their own article. At least until a different inclusion criteria is agreed upon and made clear in the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started cleaning up the list, removing all linkspam and entries without their own articles. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A complete rewrite of this page is being discussed over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 May 2009
This page has been in breach of Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK and Wikipedia:List for many years. It's a huge spam magnet, as the history clearly shows. An AfD attempt has failed. I tried to generate discussion over the rewrite, but failed. If anyone has any better suggestion, I'm all for it, but a rewrite like this is the only way I can see to bring the page in line with wikipedia polices. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a frustrating time trying to help maintain the list, but I see a number of problems with this approach:
A. There could and should be lists for each of the categories--as a general rule any category of discrete things should have a list. The links here should link to those lists, not to the categories. We will of course have similar problems watching them. The best way is to stick to the rule that they much have a WP articles, perhaps not including the exception that they be obviously qualified for one--for this subject such is not going to be all that obvious as for some lists of people.
B. In some cases, a comprehensive list may be appropriate: certainly with the major national digital library of those countries having one.
C. I see considerable problems though in deciding in which of the categories a particular project fits. There are not really clear divisions between them.
D. the meaning of the various types are perfectly clear to me, as they will be to anyone discussing it here, but I do not think they will be the least clear to most readers. There needs to be more of a discussion for each, and i think that there do have to be examples. The examples should be the 2 or 3 best known and unquestionably important of each kind. we'll still have spam problems, but it will be difficult for someone with a small database to argue that its as important as, say, Project Gutenberg.
This is not quite as easy a problem as it appears. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to the principle of not being a web directory--the rationale is that the purposes of these projects is very close to the purpose of our own. I think we could and should have fairly complete lists of major projects of this sort. We're an obvious place to look, and we are qualified to maintain it.
DGG (
talk)
20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have found this list quite useful in my digital library work. Please don't eviscerate it simply for policy's sake. In particular, I have not found that the list, as I used it, was full of spam, and the categorizations (and inclusion of sites and organizations not yet graced with their own WP article) was particularly helpful for providing a sense of balance and guidance for further inquiry. +sj + 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying my position. I'm not proposing that we follow the applicable policies and guidelines just because they are there. They serve a purpose - to keep us from creating articles we cannot maintain that are unencyclopedic. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not split this into two pages: One, Wikipedia:List of digital library projects would be a list of any digital library projects useful to Wikipedia editors. The other, List of digital library projects, would attempt a more encyclopedic, tighter admissions criteria? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A few days back I continued the cleanup that earlier editors started, deleting redlinks and external links, but before I continued too much further, I wanted to lay out my rationale (much of which echoes earlier comments on this talk page), so here goes:
In sum, can someone provide me with the reason I should not proceed with the cleanup that addresses these issues (other than WP:ITSUSEFUL)? UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no history at all with this page before today, but I have been chasing down external links to Wikipedia mirrors and forks where they don't belong, and this is one of the pages that popped up. I see the article has been tagged for various things since 2008, and I expect that in a few minutes I will even read the sections above this on the talk page and that they will say something about it being a big job to clean the list up. It really isn't; we're not a directory of external links, not even well-meaning ones, and we aren't a research service either, even though we might be sympathetic to such things. Anything without an article or reference also has no claim of notability - so I have removed everything without either an article or a reference, which turned out to be most of the list. The resulting list probably still needs work, but working on the reduced list should be much easier.
I encourage anyone who sees an obvious omission from the current list to add it if it has an article, or if notability can be established independently (but we're not a directory of external links, so much better if it has an article). I don't encourage adding bare external links again, because they will just attract more inappropriate content - of which there was a lot. Requiring notability from the start is the best way to keep such things out. In the meantime, please remember that the page history is still available - if my clear-cutting approach caught something it shouldn't have, it can be rescued very easily. Most of it, however, should stay gone. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I was unsure whether this fell into this list or not - "digital library" seemingly being a technical term and opaque in meaning to me. The National Library of Australia is a part of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program. They launched a program to have internet users collaborate on digitising Historic Australian Newspapers, from 1803 to 1954. link to website I do not know if this falls into the category or not. Useful in any case. SauliH ( talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
As it is becoming more notable and is a resource which serves a wider audience than just the University should the Cambridge Digital Library have it's own article in order to be a part of this list?-- Acc60 ( talk) 11:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste (AAARGH) is a far-right, Holocaust revisionist website, that promotes itself as a holocaust-research-site with a large collection of books on it’s site. Most of these books can easily be described as “very unsavoury stuff.” If someone would look for a reliable source for an article on WP, I wouldn’t advise to look at the AAARGH-site.
Now, since AAARGH is notable enough to have it’s own article on Wikipedia, I wonder if it should be included in this article. The question is:is this list a non-partisan list that includes the AAARGH-site, or should we exclude piles of rubbish-books and demand some quality standards here? (I think I know the answer, but when we have consensus about this we don't have to discuss this when it becomes neccesary.) Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Political think tanks aren't exactly digital library project. Greatder ( talk) 06:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this page is supposed to work, but I'm surprised these two sites aren't included:
We ignore non-English online resources at our own peril. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hola bien dia Como estan Los saludar Gloria Roman Macias Jose Alfredo roman recinos ( talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I propose the addition to the list of BEIC, European Library of Information and Culture. See Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC and the links there. Regards, Federico Leva (BEIC) ( talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
List of digital library projects. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of digital library projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Name | Subject(s) | Volumes | Description | Provider(s) | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Darakht-e Danesh Library (DDL) | General | Library of open educational resources for Afghanistan | Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan | [1] [2] |
I propose adding this entry (but have a COI so won't do so myself). Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Pinging @ DGG: who is more familiar with this list and its requirements than I am, to garner their input on this request. Spintendo 08:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
overlapping content, very similar subject fgnievinski ( talk) 21:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)