I glanced at your userpage. Shouldn't it mention Poland as one of your interests too? :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
.. but I'm not sure the best way to do it, where the venue should be or whether there is etiquette around open AfDs. Should I start it and link it to the AfD discussion? Or maybe wait for another time? Any thoughts? JMWt ( talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I apologize for eavesdropping, but you're conversation with Uncle G might be bordering an ANI discussion where neither of you comes out on top (likely a user v user talk ban). I understand you're frustrated at him as he is way more frustrated and taking out the dictionary to hurl insults at your reasonable arguments. That being said, I think you may have to stop messaging him. If he continues to berade you though, well... I guess you'll know what happens next. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I checked a few of the red links: all were in GNIS. Not sure how many are legit: some may be, and some definitely aren't. These do not exist for all states. Mangoe ( talk) 01:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
From user Piotrus I learned about the confusion on the English Wikipedia related to articles about Polish towns. We started a conversation about this topic on Piotrus' Polish discussion page. After discussions about deletion on Wikipedia, I saw that you were interested in this. Maybe you'd like to discuss it on my English talk page? XaVi PROpolak ( talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hike395 is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— hike395 ( talk) 21:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Foarp, I wanted to get your opinion. I've been reading talk pages and the recent rfc about notability on wikipedia. My thinking is most of the AFDs that come up, can be dealt with by just a boiler plate argument for delete or merge. I want to write one and use it. Would that be frowned upon by anyone that matters? James.folsom ( talk) 22:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There's another huge placenames dump: basically all of Myanmar was put in back in 2010 by one of the usual offenders, using (supposedly) GMaps and Bing maps as the source. Tehre are of course hundreds of "populated places". And I suspect the loyal opposition will do anything to prevent a mass deletion. Mangoe ( talk) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive | |
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.
| |
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Re the close at Talk:King of Malaysia, recognizability in WP:CRITERIA is specifically tailored to be about "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Given more articles use YDPA, including both the sources on the page and those presented in the RM, YDPA is quite plainly a name that will be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area. Very odd to read the idea that this more used name is less recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area as being "incontestable". CMD ( talk) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
"as an english language reader, the title "King of Malaysia" is recognizable"
"King of Malaysia makes much more sense to anyone unfamiliar with the Malayan language or decent familiarity with Malayan politics/culture". I understand your point that the WP:CRITERIA talks about familiarity with the subject, but Traumnovelle appears to think "familiarity with the subject" is not the same as familiarity with Malay-language terms, and that it would require a decent (i.e., high) degree of familiarity to recognise this name.
"Support as more recognizable"
"YDPA is in the Malay language (we are on the English wiki), and King of Malaysia is known to both locals and outsiders". Kaiixin does not explicitly use the term "recognisability" but this is clearly an argument based on "King of Malaysia" being more recognisable than a Malay-language term. I understand your point is that the term is also used in some English-language texts, but this does not appear to have been endorsed by many other editors in the discussion.
"per nom and ease. King of Malaysia is used officially in sources and even if its not the primary official usage its still the common and easier usage in English."References to ease of use are essentially references to recognisability.
"someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area"is (from my understanding it would be someone who already knows the official title in Malay of the King of Malaysia), but the place to make that argument was in the RM and I don't see it having been made there. It appears that a substantial opinion in the RM discussion was of the view that actually you would need to be an "expert" (e.g., someone fluent in Malay as was referenced a number of times in the RM discussion) to know what YDPA was. FOARP ( talk) 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"The argument that you need to be an expert in Malay was not made in the RM"- sorry, the point that non-Malay-speaking English speakers would not recognise YDPA as easily as King of Malaysia was made repeatedly in the RM discussion. The excerpted quotes from GoodDay, Traumnovelle, Kaiixin, and VectorVoyager above all reference this. Conversely, the argument that this was the wrong standard for recognisability that you are making now was not made in the RM and does not anyway flow automatically from the wording of the PAGs. I can only assess arguments made in the RM (or anyway overridingly coming from the PAGs, which your point does not in my view since it relies on a definition of what some "familiar" with the subject would know that other people in the RM clearly did not agree with).
Hi FOARP, thank you for your effort on this close and your compliment. But with all due respect I appeal to you to reverse your decision and let an admin close, even if that takes some, it’s important enough to wait. The outcome of this close is difficult not only because it’s a CTOP, but because it has implications for all articles about warlike action related to unarmed citizens (existing and future). So although I respect your thinking, I would like the close to be by an admin, making the unassailable interpretation of COMMON official having considered these implications, if that’s the outcome. Thanks again. Ayenaee ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
In your close, you wrote that the move was acceptable to the Nom
, but I nowhere agreed to it. I am not asking you to undo the close, but to strike this comment from your rationale, since
Necrothesp is under the mistaken impression that title agreed at RM
. In fact, nobody agreed about anything.
Srnec (
talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
very well that this was [not] standard disambiguation. I made a BOLD move after the closure to switch from birth dates to death dates. You reverted. I was about to open a new RM when I checked the guideline and learned that birth dates are usually preferred. I work mainly in per-modern areas where such dates are often unknown. Death dates are the norm in my area. Community consensus is strongly against full date ranges and that is what I have long opposed. Srnec ( talk) 15:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, FOARP,
I been seeing a lot of broken redirects, like right here, because you do not leave redirects when you move article talk pages (or any talk pages). Please do so as in this case, another editor had to recreate the missing pages in order to fix all of the broken redirects that then occurred so they would not be deleted. I'm not sure why Page Movers often omit leaving behind a redirect when they move articles and talk pages but it seems to be common behavior and frequently results in broken redirects.
If you don't want to leave a redirect when you move a Talk page then please check "What links here" and correct all of the existing redirects that have become broken. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi FOARP, I wanted to say that I concur with the gist of your comments in the deletion review on lists of airline destinations.
Regarding your comments on airline fandom, I do have to say that the only thing that matters is the arguments, not editors' background. I went too far in the British Airways AfD by trying to be "objective" and reviewing people's contribution histories... You can see what happened in the AfD, and I know what I did was wrong.
It's true, though, that this AfD attracted more attention from the people who actually edit these lists and value them. Naturally it's more likely that they !vote Keep, which is completely fine, but they need to provide strong arguments. I agree with you there that their and other Keep !voters' arguments were weak. Sunnya343 ( talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I know that the AN discussion left us with this method of doing multiple AfDs, but given that there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists, whether they're stand-alone or embedded within the parent articles, I don't think this strategy made sense. I'm starting to support the idea of having another RfC that notifies all interested parties as OwenX said. An all-or-nothing RfC. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD.I agree with you, and that's what I tried to demonstrate in the deletion review. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to point to that 2018 RfC, people will continue to highlight its limited participation, especially from the people who actually maintain the lists. I think the key is to have a widely-notified, well-attended discussion on all of these lists – stand-alone lists, the ones in airline articles, and the ones in airport articles* – and to demonstrate clearly how they undermine our first pillar (not that we haven't done so already...).
*Earlier you'd said that you think the lists in airport articles are different. Do you still feel that way? Consider John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations. Sunnya343 ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise.You may be right. But perhaps there could be an RfC like this:
if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed?I agree. I respect the people who maintain the lists; I myself have made hundreds of edits to the ones in airport articles. But we have to be honest: our list of current British Airways destinations is just this map in list format. This is what we've had so many debates about since 2007.
let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articlesYou're probably right. You don't know how many discussions I've started over the years about the lists in airport articles... Sunnya343 ( talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
There are, at a basic level. In my view, the comment vastly overcomplicates the matter to the point that no discussion of it would be possible. And who is going to create a list in the style of
Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all– "Here's a list of most of the cities that British Airways flies to as of April 2024". Or, "Here's a bunch of lists of the airline's destinations from each decade of its existence". What? Thryduulf appears to be addressing problems that don't exist.
they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC– Good point. I actually said something similar in the AfD: "It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators."
It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200! My intention isn't to say "gotcha!" though. As you know I agree with your point-of-view on these lists. Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I glanced at your userpage. Shouldn't it mention Poland as one of your interests too? :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
.. but I'm not sure the best way to do it, where the venue should be or whether there is etiquette around open AfDs. Should I start it and link it to the AfD discussion? Or maybe wait for another time? Any thoughts? JMWt ( talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I apologize for eavesdropping, but you're conversation with Uncle G might be bordering an ANI discussion where neither of you comes out on top (likely a user v user talk ban). I understand you're frustrated at him as he is way more frustrated and taking out the dictionary to hurl insults at your reasonable arguments. That being said, I think you may have to stop messaging him. If he continues to berade you though, well... I guess you'll know what happens next. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I checked a few of the red links: all were in GNIS. Not sure how many are legit: some may be, and some definitely aren't. These do not exist for all states. Mangoe ( talk) 01:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
From user Piotrus I learned about the confusion on the English Wikipedia related to articles about Polish towns. We started a conversation about this topic on Piotrus' Polish discussion page. After discussions about deletion on Wikipedia, I saw that you were interested in this. Maybe you'd like to discuss it on my English talk page? XaVi PROpolak ( talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hike395 is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— hike395 ( talk) 21:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Foarp, I wanted to get your opinion. I've been reading talk pages and the recent rfc about notability on wikipedia. My thinking is most of the AFDs that come up, can be dealt with by just a boiler plate argument for delete or merge. I want to write one and use it. Would that be frowned upon by anyone that matters? James.folsom ( talk) 22:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There's another huge placenames dump: basically all of Myanmar was put in back in 2010 by one of the usual offenders, using (supposedly) GMaps and Bing maps as the source. Tehre are of course hundreds of "populated places". And I suspect the loyal opposition will do anything to prevent a mass deletion. Mangoe ( talk) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive | |
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.
| |
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Re the close at Talk:King of Malaysia, recognizability in WP:CRITERIA is specifically tailored to be about "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Given more articles use YDPA, including both the sources on the page and those presented in the RM, YDPA is quite plainly a name that will be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area. Very odd to read the idea that this more used name is less recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area as being "incontestable". CMD ( talk) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
"as an english language reader, the title "King of Malaysia" is recognizable"
"King of Malaysia makes much more sense to anyone unfamiliar with the Malayan language or decent familiarity with Malayan politics/culture". I understand your point that the WP:CRITERIA talks about familiarity with the subject, but Traumnovelle appears to think "familiarity with the subject" is not the same as familiarity with Malay-language terms, and that it would require a decent (i.e., high) degree of familiarity to recognise this name.
"Support as more recognizable"
"YDPA is in the Malay language (we are on the English wiki), and King of Malaysia is known to both locals and outsiders". Kaiixin does not explicitly use the term "recognisability" but this is clearly an argument based on "King of Malaysia" being more recognisable than a Malay-language term. I understand your point is that the term is also used in some English-language texts, but this does not appear to have been endorsed by many other editors in the discussion.
"per nom and ease. King of Malaysia is used officially in sources and even if its not the primary official usage its still the common and easier usage in English."References to ease of use are essentially references to recognisability.
"someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area"is (from my understanding it would be someone who already knows the official title in Malay of the King of Malaysia), but the place to make that argument was in the RM and I don't see it having been made there. It appears that a substantial opinion in the RM discussion was of the view that actually you would need to be an "expert" (e.g., someone fluent in Malay as was referenced a number of times in the RM discussion) to know what YDPA was. FOARP ( talk) 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"The argument that you need to be an expert in Malay was not made in the RM"- sorry, the point that non-Malay-speaking English speakers would not recognise YDPA as easily as King of Malaysia was made repeatedly in the RM discussion. The excerpted quotes from GoodDay, Traumnovelle, Kaiixin, and VectorVoyager above all reference this. Conversely, the argument that this was the wrong standard for recognisability that you are making now was not made in the RM and does not anyway flow automatically from the wording of the PAGs. I can only assess arguments made in the RM (or anyway overridingly coming from the PAGs, which your point does not in my view since it relies on a definition of what some "familiar" with the subject would know that other people in the RM clearly did not agree with).
Hi FOARP, thank you for your effort on this close and your compliment. But with all due respect I appeal to you to reverse your decision and let an admin close, even if that takes some, it’s important enough to wait. The outcome of this close is difficult not only because it’s a CTOP, but because it has implications for all articles about warlike action related to unarmed citizens (existing and future). So although I respect your thinking, I would like the close to be by an admin, making the unassailable interpretation of COMMON official having considered these implications, if that’s the outcome. Thanks again. Ayenaee ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
In your close, you wrote that the move was acceptable to the Nom
, but I nowhere agreed to it. I am not asking you to undo the close, but to strike this comment from your rationale, since
Necrothesp is under the mistaken impression that title agreed at RM
. In fact, nobody agreed about anything.
Srnec (
talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
very well that this was [not] standard disambiguation. I made a BOLD move after the closure to switch from birth dates to death dates. You reverted. I was about to open a new RM when I checked the guideline and learned that birth dates are usually preferred. I work mainly in per-modern areas where such dates are often unknown. Death dates are the norm in my area. Community consensus is strongly against full date ranges and that is what I have long opposed. Srnec ( talk) 15:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, FOARP,
I been seeing a lot of broken redirects, like right here, because you do not leave redirects when you move article talk pages (or any talk pages). Please do so as in this case, another editor had to recreate the missing pages in order to fix all of the broken redirects that then occurred so they would not be deleted. I'm not sure why Page Movers often omit leaving behind a redirect when they move articles and talk pages but it seems to be common behavior and frequently results in broken redirects.
If you don't want to leave a redirect when you move a Talk page then please check "What links here" and correct all of the existing redirects that have become broken. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi FOARP, I wanted to say that I concur with the gist of your comments in the deletion review on lists of airline destinations.
Regarding your comments on airline fandom, I do have to say that the only thing that matters is the arguments, not editors' background. I went too far in the British Airways AfD by trying to be "objective" and reviewing people's contribution histories... You can see what happened in the AfD, and I know what I did was wrong.
It's true, though, that this AfD attracted more attention from the people who actually edit these lists and value them. Naturally it's more likely that they !vote Keep, which is completely fine, but they need to provide strong arguments. I agree with you there that their and other Keep !voters' arguments were weak. Sunnya343 ( talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I know that the AN discussion left us with this method of doing multiple AfDs, but given that there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists, whether they're stand-alone or embedded within the parent articles, I don't think this strategy made sense. I'm starting to support the idea of having another RfC that notifies all interested parties as OwenX said. An all-or-nothing RfC. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD.I agree with you, and that's what I tried to demonstrate in the deletion review. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to point to that 2018 RfC, people will continue to highlight its limited participation, especially from the people who actually maintain the lists. I think the key is to have a widely-notified, well-attended discussion on all of these lists – stand-alone lists, the ones in airline articles, and the ones in airport articles* – and to demonstrate clearly how they undermine our first pillar (not that we haven't done so already...).
*Earlier you'd said that you think the lists in airport articles are different. Do you still feel that way? Consider John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations. Sunnya343 ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise.You may be right. But perhaps there could be an RfC like this:
if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed?I agree. I respect the people who maintain the lists; I myself have made hundreds of edits to the ones in airport articles. But we have to be honest: our list of current British Airways destinations is just this map in list format. This is what we've had so many debates about since 2007.
let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articlesYou're probably right. You don't know how many discussions I've started over the years about the lists in airport articles... Sunnya343 ( talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
There are, at a basic level. In my view, the comment vastly overcomplicates the matter to the point that no discussion of it would be possible. And who is going to create a list in the style of
Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all– "Here's a list of most of the cities that British Airways flies to as of April 2024". Or, "Here's a bunch of lists of the airline's destinations from each decade of its existence". What? Thryduulf appears to be addressing problems that don't exist.
they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC– Good point. I actually said something similar in the AfD: "It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators."
It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200! My intention isn't to say "gotcha!" though. As you know I agree with your point-of-view on these lists. Sunnya343 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)