Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→When can we expect results?: Would you like a page ban, the both of you? |
|||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{shortcut|WT:DATEPOLL}}
== Bug filed ==
With a great deal of thanks to [[User|MZMcBride]], I finally managed to get disabling DynamicDates (setting $wgUseDynamicDates = false in LocalSettings.php) tested on a private wiki. The results are good - autoformatting of article text is disabled, whilst date preferences in article histories/logs are left intact. I've therefore gone and filed a bug [[bugzilla:18479|here]] to make the change. '''Please keep discussion here, so to avoid filling the bug request up with threaded discussion and I'll link from the bug to here'''. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
* Where can we look at the results of what you are talking about? Are you saying that all the date formats shown in the big table, above, look OK simply by turning DynamicDates off? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
**Yes, I would like to have access to this (or a similarly serving) test wiki. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
** No, but the vast majority of dates are fine. If there are any that are broken, they can be fixed manually. This isn't something we need to worry a lot about. By far the greatest number of linked dates are in the format [[15 April]] or [[April 15]]. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
***About how long will it take for this request to be actioned upon? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
****Most probably quite a long time - hence why I've got it in early. Although it could be quick - it's really hard to tell. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::* With regard to turning off DynamicDates: I sure hope you know what you’re doing, Ryan. I’ve only got about two hours where I ''think'' I understand some of the ramifications. Anyway… What about date de-linking?? The community consensus on that issue couldn’t be clearer. With millions of linked dates, only a bot can handle it. What’s the plan? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
::::*Indeed, I'll get to that in the morning - That's going to be part two of the discussion as the autoformatting is close to being resolved. I'm about to go to bed, so it'll give me time to think. Hope that's ok. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
(outdent). Well, from Bill Clark’s reaction on the [[bugzilla:18479|Bugzilla]], he has a firm grasp of the risks. He sounds to be someone with wherewithal, as he will be gathering statistics on just how many of the above junk-style formats will be junked with this move. I especially liked his quick grasp of the big picture at the end: {{xt|I expect to have that list ready later tonight, at which point a decision could be made to either fix those pages before disabling DynamicDates, or that the problem isn't widespread enough to be concerned with (since bots will be starting delinking of ALL lesser-relevant dates soon anyway.}} Sweet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 459 ⟶ 108:
===An important point===
The majority of people don't have date preferences set. We're worrying what will happen to the people that have date preferences set, well we should thing of what's happening right now. If a date is linked as [[2009-04-15]], then the majority of users see a red link - it's already broken and will stay broken if dynamic dates are turned off. These dates need to be fixed regardless of what happens to dynamic dates and it shouldn't effect our thinking at all here. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::that's apparently not quite right, Ryan Postlethwaite - according to the discussion above Dynamic Dates masks certain errors - like your example - even for people who don't have preferences set. i don't have preferences set, and i see your example as a healthy blue link; some of the charts above show what i'll see when DD is turned off. a bot can start spotting and fixing those errors even before DD is turned off, and GregL is right that that should start ASAP. (but for me that doesn't mean there's a reason to postpone turning off DD - both things should happen.) [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC) [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 566 ⟶ 215:
== When can we expect results? ==
I have asked this above in another section and haven't heard back, so perhaps I should ask in a new section. I've never been involved in arbitration before. When can we expect a decision from ArbCom and go back to editing dates (i.e. when will the date editing injunction be lifted)? [[User:RainbowOfLight|<
:I have the same question. I did not align with either side but don't see why a portion of the issues that are decided on should continue to block editing. For example it seems to me there is consensus on the common sense position that date links should have no special status- that although we could link every single word in an article we instead eliminate links that readers would most likely would see no reason to click on. It is baffling to me why after 4 months there is still a ban on removing date links that make no sense and there is consensus support for allowing their removal. It seems to me that the consensus position is pretty simple to understand, but surely we could have a single document that spells the rules out crisply and thoroughly, then the link ban could be lifted.
:Whether or not we can phase in certain aspects of what has been decided, I echo RainbowofLight's question. Is there any sort of guesstimate on when this arbcom ruling is going to finished with? I have family of date templates whose consideration at MOSNUM is crying out for an RFC but it's pointless to solicit wider input now since the results of the arbcom decision will undoubtedly have dramatic impact the opinions solicited. To remove doubt of the validity regarding any consensus positions reached, I would have to rerun the RFC. From where I stand, everything having to do with dates is in gridlock. I'm a patient guy, but I'd like to have a reading on how much time I should be expecting on resolution of this matter. -[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 574 ⟶ 223:
:::::I think we should leave Ohconfucius alone with his rather silly ideas regarding "consensus". —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Ohconfucius and Locke, just carry on hitting each other on the head with your sandbuckets if you’d like to see me propose a page ban for you on ANI. At a minimum, please say something actually witty to each other next time. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
::::::: Trout, anyone? ;-) [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::''Bishonen slaps Ohconfucius around a bit with a ginormous shark.'' [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
::::::::*Hey, I hope you're gonna be even handed with the shark, Locke will be extremely jealous. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::The formatdate parser function? People argued that the existing systems syntax was "too complicated" by virtue of it using square brackets (as with normal links). I can only imagine the kind of complaints we'd receive if we forced people to mark dates up using <nowiki><code>{{#formatdate:November 11, 2001}}</code></nowiki>... There's been a proposal to simply remove the linking in the software, but for whatever reason this continues to be resisted. It's simpler, doesn't involve the use of bots, and keeps dates auto formatted. (And of course the other issues can be fixed with time, assuming opponents don't try for RFC5 and a half...). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Off topic... What's formaldehyde got to do with anything? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
*Ohconfucius, yeah, it's an attempt at humour, but please be sensitive to the feelings of people on both sides of this former argument. It is in everyone's interest that the temperature be cooled down. We all need to live with each other productively. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
* This dispute has raged an absurd length of time due to intransigent wikilawyering. It should receive [http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/images/product_images/23053.jpg all the dignity] it deserves. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
== Throwing fuel onto the fire - Google Timeline ==
Line 580 ⟶ 235:
Google has recently (last few days?) put up a new method of data aggregation, [http://newstimeline.googlelabs.com/ Google Timeline]. It combined metadata from several sources to create a at-a-glance timeline for the information and probably will be expanded in the future. Presently it is pulling three streams of data from WP: "Wikipedia events", "births" and "deaths".
Unfortunately, I can't find out how they are pulling date data, but the last thing we want to do is limit what they are doing. I realize it is entirely possible they are pulling from unlinked data, but it would be helpful to know if they are in any way taking advantage of date autoformatting or if they're using other means. --[[User:Masem|M<
* Google's success isn't an accident. I don't think the sages there would built an entire timeline system relying on something which they couldn't control, and which could change at any minute. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 587 ⟶ 242:
::: As for the specifics of the Google timeline as of the time of this post: They really have not done much work on the data extraction. If you take a look at Year 1865 by Month, you will see that all the graphics for all the battles are the same, and they all link to the same article: American Civil War. Really, they don't need to do much more than code filters for a half dozen infoboxes, and they basically have all they need regardless what we do.
:::An obvious improvement is to link the time coordinates to ___location coordinates using google earth. Google Earth now allows the encoding of timespans inside markers, and [[KML]] supports them so basically all the other virtual earths will be able to follow suit. Some geewhiz and technical observations [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Wikipedia_articles_filtered_by_date_in_Virtual_earth_applications|here]]. Some elaboration of time, metadata, and strategic implications for Wikipedia as a global knowlegbase for these sorts of applications [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=277428901&oldid=277379257 here] ([[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_19#Announcing Free text time templates|link to entire thread]]). -[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::And just to reinterate, it is inconceivable that Google would use the old square-bracket system to locate dates. It is blindingly easy to automatically locate dates in WP's text without them. [[User:Tony1|<
:::::Completely agree.-[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
== "Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing? ==
I have made [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#.22Dates.22_case_and_temporary_injunction:_likely_timing.3F|a formal request]] for information about when we are likely to see movement on these matters. [[User:Tony1|<
== Turning date linking off in one fell swoop ==
In the discussion around the DynamicDates config option, I think we missed something discussed very early on. Someone, and I unfortunately think it was UC Bill (what a sad situation that is, regardless of position) who suggested a one line change to the autoformatting code to turn off date linking within the current version of autoformatting. This would *not* turn off autoformatting, it would just fix the "sea of blue" All without editing one article, let alone millions. Before we unleash the bots, I thought it would be good to at least consider that option for a minute. Personally, I think this is just a first step, but I like the effect it would have of addressing the clear consensus regarding unlinking dates quickly while giving time for the options where there was more balance and which might require more discussion. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:As you say, this could be a decent first step. It definitely wouldn't be appropriate as the only solution, as many of us opposed because we don't like the increased complexity for editing. It also assumes that autoformatting will continue, and I don't think there is consensus for that. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::... there are two long sections above ("action plan" and "bug filed") discussing that very idea, its repercussions, why it's not that simple, etc. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::: I believe we're talking about two different things Ssoul. Above is discussion about the Dynamic Dates config line which would disable autoformatting entirely. I'm referring to a patch which would not touch autoformatting per se (which is what all the complication above appears to be about) but merely modify it to not link dates. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) ah - sorry! you mean the patch that uses linking markup for dates but instead of linking them it autoformats them, apart from serious problems handling punctuation and date ranges? that was thoroughly discussed while the last RfC was being constructed, and even the pro-DA people decided it was not a good idea to propose that route to the community. someone else can i'm sure direct you to that discussion. meanwhile it's very hard to see any justification at all for a "first step" that would entail complicating the editing process simply to prolong the existence of a function that the community doesn't want: that patch would entail eye-glazing instructions for using double square brackets to link/not to link and for punctuating bracketed dates. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 04:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:* I think I'll stop trying to explain this now, because clearly what I thought in Good Faith would help move this forward is something that you're prepared to keep arguing will not. At this point, I'm sure we could find arguments against gravity thoroughly discussed in the talk pages of MOSNUM, but I'll let you find those for yourself. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
::*This has been the problem all along. Any solution, no matter how intuitive or well reasoned, will be shunned or argued against if it doesn't involve mass delinking of dates via bots. Apparently Lightmouse is the way, the truth and the light, and anything else is... well, clearly not good enough. They've apparently "won" something, and they want their trophy (all dates sans square brackets), even if that doesn't have consensus. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be a silly [[kludge]] which would turn off all autoformatted links, including the ones which do comply with the new [[WP:LINK#Chronological items]] guidelines, and wouldn't turn off any non-autoformatted link, including the seventeen occurrence of [[2007]] (without a day link) in the same section. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]], not [[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know that I'd call it a kludge so much as a stop-gap solution so auto formatting can be salvaged without keeping all the links intact. And from my perspective it's a reasonable compromise considering I want to keep all date links (the effect here is that I lose all the date links, but they can be manually added where appropriate). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 19:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
== Article list ==
{{See also|User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Article list}}
Apologies for the misuse of the {{tl|seealso}} template, but I think it's important to keep discussion as centralised as possible, or at least have links to where discussion has taken place.
I see that Ryan is suggesting that removal of date links should not be done by bot. I'd like to disagree with that opinion and give the reasons:
# In my humble estimation, there are millions of links within articles leading to date articles which are not germane to the subject and offer no value to the reader of the article. I submit that the community has clearly made its wishes known and that those links should be removed;
# In my humble estimation, there are no more than a handful of links within articles leading to date articles which are germane to the subject. So few, in fact, that they could be easily enumerated.
If I am correct, then a list of articles containing useful date links would be simple to compile. This could then be used as an exclusion list for any bot tasked with delinking dates. The "thought need[ed] to go into each and every one to decide whether that is important" (actually ''relevant'' is the correct adjective) would then all be done prior to a bot run. Manually delinking millions of dates is a complete waste of editors' time, when a bot could accomplish the identical task far more accurately and rapidly. The other advantage of making a page which lists exceptions is that the arguments about whether the articles [[12 February]] or [[1809]] are relevant to the article [[Charles Darwin]], etc. could be kept in one place and out of the article itself.
As I believe I'm right about the paucity of relevant links to date articles, I'll start by nominating an article that I believe contains a germane date link. If I'm wrong, then other editors should be able to list far more examples. I don't believe that can happen.
* Article [[MM]] contains a relevant link to date article [[2000]]
--[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:*I agree that bots should be used, and that an exclusion list might be a solution; but remember that an article could have a relevant date link as well as irrelevant date links. I'd have to be honest and say that I don't believe the link to 2000 is relevant in the MM article. Someone might be interested to find out that MM and 2000 can be synonymous, but why that means they would be interested in finding out what else happened in 2000 is beyond me. [[User:HWV258|<b><span style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial; font-size:small;"> HWV258 </span></b>]] 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::*Well, MM is a disambig. page, whose function is supposed to point readers to different articles; if you think the reader wouldn't be interested in the contents of [[2000]] there shouldn't be any entry about it on the page; --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]], not [[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:::*I understand the point you are making, however I still feel it is okay to associate MM with 2000, but without necessarily linking to 2000. For example, a reader might plug "MM" into WP and say "ah, so it means 2000 does it". Note that there are other entries on that page that have no link, e.g. "Missing Men, a Sky Sports game" (although that might be because no one has created the page yet). [[User:HWV258|<b><span style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial; font-size:small;"> HWV258 </span></b>]] 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::::The purpose of a dab page is to direct readers to articles. From [[WP:DAB]]: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link". Anyone searching for "MM" (for example, if they saw it at the end of a film) ought to be able to reach [[2000]] from that dab page. Annoyingly, they ought to be able to reach [[2000 in film]] as well, but can't! Frankly, I'd either remove "Missing Men, a Sky Sports game" or red-link it, then remove it if nobody creates it after a short time (and that's being generous). --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I've red-linked it myself. Please feel free to delete the entry if I forget. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
*Can we all be very careful to specify whether we mean full (three-part) dates or date ''fragments'' (month-day items and years)? I can see confusion creeping in here. First, the proposal ''was'' that a Lightbot remove the square brackets around only ''full'' dates (February 5, 1972). These full items are what we normally think of as date autformatting. Although it's true that month-day links (July 19) are by default autoformatted because of the unfortunate piggybacking of DA on top of wikilinking, these two-component dates were never part of the proposal for mass treatment by Lightmouse (see his talk page). The reason is that Option #1 in the month-day question (Q2) of the RFC left open the rare possibility that a month-day item might indeed meet the relevance test for linking to its month-day article. Solitary year links, the subject of Q3, were excluded from the Lightbot proposal for the same reason. The proposal deliberately avoided the administrative and political issue of mass bot removal of these items because the community has endorsed a relevance test, albeit a very tight one. On the contrary, three-item full dates are not subject to a relevance test, and this was never at issue in Q1 of the RFC. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 12:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
: I take your point, Tony, but please consider this: a full (three-part) date not only autoformats, but produces links, because of the crazy system we have at present. Any of the date-delinking objectors could claim that the original editor intended not only to autoformat, but also to produce one or two links. They then have a perfect excuse to object to using a bot to remove the markup around full dates, "since the bot cannot determine the original intention and may be removing a relevant link". It is far better to sideline these objections before a bot run. I am sure that a bot will eventually have be used to remove the massive amount of useless date links, both of the full- and fragment- variety. For that reason, I feel we need a solution that is applicable to both varieties, although I can see sense in proceeding carefully. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Why are we still acting as if autoformatting has support for remaining? The poll went clearly against it. The best action is probably to remove the misguided javascript that does autoformatting. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
==What does this solve?==
Does this result actually solve anything or make edit warring any less likely? surely we will now get into arguments over what 'germane to the subject' actually means in practice. It could be argued that year links are in some cases by definition germane to the subject if they add historical context to a subject of international politics say. [[User:G-Man|<span style="color:blue;">G-Man</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<span style="color:#00BFFF;">?</span>]]</sup> 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:Well, it sorted out the autoformatting issue. The rest can percolate through at whatever speed. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
== Cleanup up poorly formatted dates ==
Please see a discussion at [[WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Cleanup up poorly formatted dates]]. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk:Tcncv|talk]]) 06:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
== Date unlinking bot proposal ==
The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see '''[[Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot]]''' and comment [[Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC|here]]. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
== Protected edit request on 8 June 2022 - Deprecated source tags ==
{{edit fully-protected|Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses|answered=yes}}
Could all the <code><nowiki><source></nowiki></code> tags please be replaced with <code><nowiki><syntaxhighlight></nowiki></code> tags per [[:Category:Pages using deprecated source tags]]? [[User:Aidan9382|Aidan9382]] <sub>([[User talk:Aidan9382|talk]])</sub> 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{not done}} however, I've unprotected this old page; that being said I don't see any of that tag in the text - so check carefully. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|xaosflux}} Unfortunately, you unprotected the ''wrong'' page. The issue is on a subpage of this page (See the precise edit request ___location), and that page is still protected, so I can't fix the issue. [[User:Aidan9382|Aidan9382]] <sub>([[User talk:Aidan9382|talk]])</sub> 14:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Aidan9382}} unprotected that one too now - go for it! — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |||