![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a draft of the article at Draft:Theresa Greenfield. KidAd ( talk) 03:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could an admin. please add the {{ R with possibilities}} template within the Rcat shell? This will put the standard notification of the existence of the draft on the page itself, in addition to the talk page notification above. Also could the section target be changed to #General election, since Greenfield is the major-party nominee and we are in that phase? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ KidAd and Jackie.salzinger: I am opening a section as to why content cited by reliable sources such as NPR.org and the Des Moines Register should be included or excluded. Peaceray ( talk) 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
self-identified farm kidis campaign WP:PUFF. Information about her (2018) campaign manager is not relevant to her article and reads like a news story (see WP:NOTNEWS). The line "
If she wins the senate election she will be the first Democrat elected to the senate from Iowa since Tom Harkin retired in 2015" is incredible unnecessary. Being the first Democrat elected to Senate in five years is not noteworthy. And the "Stances on Issues" section is written like promotional material. KidAd talk 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest that you prioritize gaining consensus for your material over being offended. KidAd talk 17:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Gain consensus for this material per WP:ONUSis hardly instructive on how to gain consensus. Please see WP:NEWBIES. Peaceray ( talk) 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold policythat states
When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.This did not happen on the first reversion's edit summary. KidAd has stated that this was an oversight.
Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page).It may be uncertain as to which editor should start this, but I will point out that of this time, Jackie.salzinger has about 31 edits. As such, the Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guideline applies, & this new editor should have been directed to discuss any disagreement or contention on this talk page. A new editor getting an edit reverted without explanation then getting a second reversion that merely pushes them toward the Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion policy without direction on how to resolve an issue is clearly discouraging. I count it as a failure on our part that this editor has not returned to discuss the matter.
Hello fellow editors of the Theresa Greenfield draft. As I'm sure you have seen, draft articles on Greenfield have been declined several times, with two primary complaints: (1) "reads like a campaign flyer", and (2) doesn't establish notability. Do you think that the edits over the last week have eliminated the first issue? If so, that leaves us with notability. WP:NPOL says that candidates for office are not necessarily notable, but "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are "presumed to be notable." There seems to be a sentiment among Wikipedia editors (see here for some examples) that candidacy can never make someone notable, which I disagree with both on commonsense grounds and based on the wording of the official standard for politicians. My question for you is: should the article be submitted again for approval (or potentially for an AfD discussion if we think it will still be declined for notability) now that it has been improved? Thanks, Js2112 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.I have not seen an explanation of how the multitude of sources fail to be intellectually independent, not secondary or tertiary, or not reliable. Given that, we must presume that Greenfield is notable. Peaceray ( talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly notable. This is one of a handful of tight U.S. Senate races that will determine control of that body in 2021. She's received a lot of coverage already and more to come. No objection to reevaluating after the election. But this belongs in mainspace. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Dreamyshade, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Malcolmxl5 - Perhaps we need to clarify the policy on general notability of candidates for political office. It is the usual practice, with very few exceptions, that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates. Greenfield was not considered to be generally notable before she became the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. I declined the draft three times for that reason, and I think that I applied policy as it is normally applied in Wikipedia. The fact that the current draft may be much improved is not relevant to that situation. Greenfield is still a major party candidate for the Senate, and still was not generally notable before her campaign.
It is also not the usual practice, when a redirect is fully protected due to repeated efforts to replace it with an article, to unprotect the redirect to allow a draft to be reviewed. The draft can be reviewed while the redirect is protected, and the reviewer can request unprotection, or the reviewer can decline the draft and leave the redirect protected. Unprotecting the draft would permit the Greenfield campaign (or whoever) to copy-paste the draft over the redirect, bypassing the review.
I do not see a strong case for unprotecting the redirect, and I do not see a strong case for reviewing or accepting a new draft. Perhaps the policy on general notability of candidates should be reviewed. Late November 2020 and early December 2020 would be a good time for that review. This is not the time to try to revise the policy, and this is not the time to resubmit a draft.
I don't want to have to request that an administrator read the ARBAP2 riot act. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(Just a note for anyone watching only this draft - a discussion thread is happening in the copy of this comment over here: Talk:Theresa Greenfield#Reviewer Comments.) Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates.The basic criteria for notability guideline is
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Observing the "please do not edit this submission while this message is displayed" during the current review process, I wanted to note a couple additional potential sources here, with significant coverage of Greenfield in national newspapers: Washington Post news analysis from June 2019 + Associated Press article from yesterday. Dreamyshade ( talk) 21:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This is like the fourth time that this has been submitted despite the fact that it was made very clear she is not notable. We can keep this draft in case she wins in November, but as of now she is not notable enough for her own page. There is no point in requesting review so many times just for it to be declined for the exact same reason. Nojus R ( talk) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Theresa Greenfield I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I think this is pretty silly to say that someone who won a primary with like five times the votes of many state representatives ( who are all notable), has raised over 10 million dollars, is often leading by a little against a senator, and could very likely determine the balance of the chamber, is not notable. DemonDays64 ( talk) 17:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Concur to everything said above. It seems abundantly obvious that she passed the noteworthy test. | MK17b | ( talk) 22:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Patently obvious she passes the noteworthiness test. We can either have this discussion now, or in January. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Typing in "Theresa Greenfield" into Google gives autocomplete results like "Theresa Greenfield wiki" and "Theresa Greenfield wikipedia" as autocomplete is based on the popularity of the search among other things, people want to know more about this candidate but cant as theres no article. There is no reason at this stage to not restore the article especially since she is notable. Lochglasgowstrathyre ( talk) 12:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a copy of my comments at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield in case anyone isn't paying attention in draft talk space to what is being said about drafts.
User:Dreamyshade, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Malcolmxl5 - Perhaps we need to clarify the policy on general notability of candidates for political office. It is the usual practice, with very few exceptions, that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates. Greenfield was not considered to be generally notable before she became the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. I declined the draft three times for that reason, and I think that I applied policy as it is normally applied in Wikipedia. The fact that the current draft may be much improved is not relevant to that situation. Greenfield is still a major party candidate for the Senate, and still was not generally notable before her campaign.
It is also not the usual practice, when a redirect is fully protected due to repeated efforts to replace it with an article, to unprotect the redirect to allow a draft to be reviewed. The draft can be reviewed while the redirect is protected, and the reviewer can request unprotection, or the reviewer can decline the draft and leave the redirect protected. Unprotecting the draft would permit the Greenfield campaign (or whoever) to copy-paste the draft over the redirect, bypassing the review.
I do not see a strong case for unprotecting the redirect, and I do not see a strong case for reviewing or accepting a new draft. Perhaps the policy on general notability of candidates should be reviewed. Late November 2020 and early December 2020 would be a good time for that review. This is not the time to try to revise the policy, and this is not the time to resubmit a draft.
I don't want to have to request that an administrator read the ARBAP2 riot act.
But these resubmissions are getting tiresome. If you don't like the way policy is being applied, change the policy or clarify the policy with an information page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
expected to be the most expensive in the state's history, and the second most expensive Senate race in the United State
This whole argument is totally ludicrous. She easily passes GNG, you guys are just trying to impose extra requirements beyond that because you don't like GNG. It's an absolute abuse of the "Famous for 1 event" thing to treat a months long election campaign as "1 event." john k ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, the WP:BLP1E argument you guys are making is even dumber than I thought. As far as I can read it, all three of the WP:BLP1E conditions have to be met for it to apply, and only the first one applies even arguably. A candidate for public office is not a low-profile individual, so the second condition is not met. And obviously both the event (the 2020 Senate election) is significant and Greenfield's role in it (one of the major party nominees) is both substantial and well-documented. This is ludicrous gatekeeping that is ignoring the actual policies involved here. john k ( talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain using the guidelines excluding a page for this candidate why then nominee for Michigan Senate John E. James should then have his own page? A page that began during his first political run just as Greenfield is doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.101.127.247 ( talk) 15:28, October 14, 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since Greenfield is covered from the infobox on down, can we remove the anchor to General election, which skips past a lot of useful information? Thanks. -- 184.153.150.57 ( talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jackie.salzinger and Green red tan. I wanted to alert you that I created a separate draft of a Theresa Greenfield article a couple weeks ago, which you can find here: Draft:Theresa_Greenfield_(2). (Because of the redirect in place when anybody searches for Greenfield's name, I didn't realize that the draft you've been working on already existed.) This likely already contains much of the material you have been adding. In any case, the issue for now is not expanding the article, but that there appears to be a substantial contingent of Wikipedia editors who believe that candidates for office are by definition not notable unless they have either held another significant elected office or were notable for non-political reasons before running for office. I disagree with this view, as it is not in accord with the written Wikipedia standard for politicians, but so far it doesn't appear that there are many others who feel similarly. You can check out (and contribute to) the discussion under the title "Advice for improving draft article re: notability" at the Teahouse for reference. Thanks, Js2112 ( talk) 02:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
To try to help anyone who wants to read or participate in conversations about this article, there are active related threads in the following places:
Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at AN has closed with the decision to move this draft into the mainspace. As a show of good faith, I'll be executing the move. Please give me a couple of minutes to make sure everything is cleaned up here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ ST47: your edit summary here says "here's another source for the urban planner thing" but then in your edit it looks like you actually undid an entire recent string of edits from me. Was that intentional? Marquardtika ( talk) 02:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a draft of the article at Draft:Theresa Greenfield. KidAd ( talk) 03:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could an admin. please add the {{ R with possibilities}} template within the Rcat shell? This will put the standard notification of the existence of the draft on the page itself, in addition to the talk page notification above. Also could the section target be changed to #General election, since Greenfield is the major-party nominee and we are in that phase? Thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ KidAd and Jackie.salzinger: I am opening a section as to why content cited by reliable sources such as NPR.org and the Des Moines Register should be included or excluded. Peaceray ( talk) 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
self-identified farm kidis campaign WP:PUFF. Information about her (2018) campaign manager is not relevant to her article and reads like a news story (see WP:NOTNEWS). The line "
If she wins the senate election she will be the first Democrat elected to the senate from Iowa since Tom Harkin retired in 2015" is incredible unnecessary. Being the first Democrat elected to Senate in five years is not noteworthy. And the "Stances on Issues" section is written like promotional material. KidAd talk 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest that you prioritize gaining consensus for your material over being offended. KidAd talk 17:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Gain consensus for this material per WP:ONUSis hardly instructive on how to gain consensus. Please see WP:NEWBIES. Peaceray ( talk) 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold policythat states
When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.This did not happen on the first reversion's edit summary. KidAd has stated that this was an oversight.
Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page).It may be uncertain as to which editor should start this, but I will point out that of this time, Jackie.salzinger has about 31 edits. As such, the Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guideline applies, & this new editor should have been directed to discuss any disagreement or contention on this talk page. A new editor getting an edit reverted without explanation then getting a second reversion that merely pushes them toward the Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion policy without direction on how to resolve an issue is clearly discouraging. I count it as a failure on our part that this editor has not returned to discuss the matter.
Hello fellow editors of the Theresa Greenfield draft. As I'm sure you have seen, draft articles on Greenfield have been declined several times, with two primary complaints: (1) "reads like a campaign flyer", and (2) doesn't establish notability. Do you think that the edits over the last week have eliminated the first issue? If so, that leaves us with notability. WP:NPOL says that candidates for office are not necessarily notable, but "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are "presumed to be notable." There seems to be a sentiment among Wikipedia editors (see here for some examples) that candidacy can never make someone notable, which I disagree with both on commonsense grounds and based on the wording of the official standard for politicians. My question for you is: should the article be submitted again for approval (or potentially for an AfD discussion if we think it will still be declined for notability) now that it has been improved? Thanks, Js2112 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.I have not seen an explanation of how the multitude of sources fail to be intellectually independent, not secondary or tertiary, or not reliable. Given that, we must presume that Greenfield is notable. Peaceray ( talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly notable. This is one of a handful of tight U.S. Senate races that will determine control of that body in 2021. She's received a lot of coverage already and more to come. No objection to reevaluating after the election. But this belongs in mainspace. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Dreamyshade, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Malcolmxl5 - Perhaps we need to clarify the policy on general notability of candidates for political office. It is the usual practice, with very few exceptions, that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates. Greenfield was not considered to be generally notable before she became the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. I declined the draft three times for that reason, and I think that I applied policy as it is normally applied in Wikipedia. The fact that the current draft may be much improved is not relevant to that situation. Greenfield is still a major party candidate for the Senate, and still was not generally notable before her campaign.
It is also not the usual practice, when a redirect is fully protected due to repeated efforts to replace it with an article, to unprotect the redirect to allow a draft to be reviewed. The draft can be reviewed while the redirect is protected, and the reviewer can request unprotection, or the reviewer can decline the draft and leave the redirect protected. Unprotecting the draft would permit the Greenfield campaign (or whoever) to copy-paste the draft over the redirect, bypassing the review.
I do not see a strong case for unprotecting the redirect, and I do not see a strong case for reviewing or accepting a new draft. Perhaps the policy on general notability of candidates should be reviewed. Late November 2020 and early December 2020 would be a good time for that review. This is not the time to try to revise the policy, and this is not the time to resubmit a draft.
I don't want to have to request that an administrator read the ARBAP2 riot act. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(Just a note for anyone watching only this draft - a discussion thread is happening in the copy of this comment over here: Talk:Theresa Greenfield#Reviewer Comments.) Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates.The basic criteria for notability guideline is
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Observing the "please do not edit this submission while this message is displayed" during the current review process, I wanted to note a couple additional potential sources here, with significant coverage of Greenfield in national newspapers: Washington Post news analysis from June 2019 + Associated Press article from yesterday. Dreamyshade ( talk) 21:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This is like the fourth time that this has been submitted despite the fact that it was made very clear she is not notable. We can keep this draft in case she wins in November, but as of now she is not notable enough for her own page. There is no point in requesting review so many times just for it to be declined for the exact same reason. Nojus R ( talk) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Theresa Greenfield I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I think this is pretty silly to say that someone who won a primary with like five times the votes of many state representatives ( who are all notable), has raised over 10 million dollars, is often leading by a little against a senator, and could very likely determine the balance of the chamber, is not notable. DemonDays64 ( talk) 17:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Concur to everything said above. It seems abundantly obvious that she passed the noteworthy test. | MK17b | ( talk) 22:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Patently obvious she passes the noteworthiness test. We can either have this discussion now, or in January. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Typing in "Theresa Greenfield" into Google gives autocomplete results like "Theresa Greenfield wiki" and "Theresa Greenfield wikipedia" as autocomplete is based on the popularity of the search among other things, people want to know more about this candidate but cant as theres no article. There is no reason at this stage to not restore the article especially since she is notable. Lochglasgowstrathyre ( talk) 12:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a copy of my comments at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield in case anyone isn't paying attention in draft talk space to what is being said about drafts.
User:Dreamyshade, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Malcolmxl5 - Perhaps we need to clarify the policy on general notability of candidates for political office. It is the usual practice, with very few exceptions, that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates. Greenfield was not considered to be generally notable before she became the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. I declined the draft three times for that reason, and I think that I applied policy as it is normally applied in Wikipedia. The fact that the current draft may be much improved is not relevant to that situation. Greenfield is still a major party candidate for the Senate, and still was not generally notable before her campaign.
It is also not the usual practice, when a redirect is fully protected due to repeated efforts to replace it with an article, to unprotect the redirect to allow a draft to be reviewed. The draft can be reviewed while the redirect is protected, and the reviewer can request unprotection, or the reviewer can decline the draft and leave the redirect protected. Unprotecting the draft would permit the Greenfield campaign (or whoever) to copy-paste the draft over the redirect, bypassing the review.
I do not see a strong case for unprotecting the redirect, and I do not see a strong case for reviewing or accepting a new draft. Perhaps the policy on general notability of candidates should be reviewed. Late November 2020 and early December 2020 would be a good time for that review. This is not the time to try to revise the policy, and this is not the time to resubmit a draft.
I don't want to have to request that an administrator read the ARBAP2 riot act.
But these resubmissions are getting tiresome. If you don't like the way policy is being applied, change the policy or clarify the policy with an information page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
expected to be the most expensive in the state's history, and the second most expensive Senate race in the United State
This whole argument is totally ludicrous. She easily passes GNG, you guys are just trying to impose extra requirements beyond that because you don't like GNG. It's an absolute abuse of the "Famous for 1 event" thing to treat a months long election campaign as "1 event." john k ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, the WP:BLP1E argument you guys are making is even dumber than I thought. As far as I can read it, all three of the WP:BLP1E conditions have to be met for it to apply, and only the first one applies even arguably. A candidate for public office is not a low-profile individual, so the second condition is not met. And obviously both the event (the 2020 Senate election) is significant and Greenfield's role in it (one of the major party nominees) is both substantial and well-documented. This is ludicrous gatekeeping that is ignoring the actual policies involved here. john k ( talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain using the guidelines excluding a page for this candidate why then nominee for Michigan Senate John E. James should then have his own page? A page that began during his first political run just as Greenfield is doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.101.127.247 ( talk) 15:28, October 14, 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since Greenfield is covered from the infobox on down, can we remove the anchor to General election, which skips past a lot of useful information? Thanks. -- 184.153.150.57 ( talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jackie.salzinger and Green red tan. I wanted to alert you that I created a separate draft of a Theresa Greenfield article a couple weeks ago, which you can find here: Draft:Theresa_Greenfield_(2). (Because of the redirect in place when anybody searches for Greenfield's name, I didn't realize that the draft you've been working on already existed.) This likely already contains much of the material you have been adding. In any case, the issue for now is not expanding the article, but that there appears to be a substantial contingent of Wikipedia editors who believe that candidates for office are by definition not notable unless they have either held another significant elected office or were notable for non-political reasons before running for office. I disagree with this view, as it is not in accord with the written Wikipedia standard for politicians, but so far it doesn't appear that there are many others who feel similarly. You can check out (and contribute to) the discussion under the title "Advice for improving draft article re: notability" at the Teahouse for reference. Thanks, Js2112 ( talk) 02:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
To try to help anyone who wants to read or participate in conversations about this article, there are active related threads in the following places:
Dreamyshade ( talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at AN has closed with the decision to move this draft into the mainspace. As a show of good faith, I'll be executing the move. Please give me a couple of minutes to make sure everything is cleaned up here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ ST47: your edit summary here says "here's another source for the urban planner thing" but then in your edit it looks like you actually undid an entire recent string of edits from me. Was that intentional? Marquardtika ( talk) 02:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)