Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 24

June 24

Category:Cabinets of Canadian provinces and territories navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Alberta to Category:Cabinets of Alberta navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Manitoba to Category:Cabinets of Manitoba navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of New Brunswick to Category:Cabinets of New Brunswick navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Cabinets of Newfoundland and Labrador navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Nova Scotia to Category:Cabinets of Nova Scotia navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Ontario to Category:Cabinets of Ontario navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Prince Edward Island to Category:Cabinets of Prince Edward Island navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Quebec to Category:Cabinets of Quebec navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Cabinets of Saskatchewan to Category:Cabinets of Saskatchewan navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories are navbox categories, and should be named accordingly. RedBlueGreen93 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Marshall Law School (Chicago) faculty

Propose renaming Category:John Marshall Law School (Chicago) faculty to Category:University of Illinois Chicago School of Law faculty

Nominator's rationale: The school was renamed and the corresponding alumni category was moved to Category:University of Illinois Chicago School of Law alumni. This should follow suit. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional children by occupation

Propose merging Category:Fictional children by occupation to Category:Fictional children

Nominator's rationale: Nominating this again, this time for merge. Right now it is a WP:NARROWCAT with only two subcategories. It might need to be dual merged, but either way it is clearly unnecessary with so few subcategories ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, didn't we go through this same thing before? And there were more categories in here before. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be rude and hostile, and most of the subcategories were removed for being blatantly incorrect so it's a different situation than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The old nomination was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_18#Category:Fictional_children_by_occupation. And now there are four subcategories. The only contents at the time of this nomination were Category:Fictional child prostitutes and Category:Fictional child soldiers; the other two, I thought we agreed to remove (alogn with two others) at the end of the last CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were re-added post nomination, but consensus agreed they did not belong in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layers with only two subcategories. I am discounting the two subcategories that were purged after the previous discussion as they do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think about this? AHI-3000 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is scope for expansion. On the topic of prostitutes, illegal occupations are still occupations. Dimadick (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was in the category at the time of the nomination, and still is. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AHI-3000, please stop edit warring on this matter. Do not repeatedly add members to the category that were purged as a result of the CfD discussion. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree there is scope for expansion. We have two subcategories here because Child prostitution and Children in the military are notable topics. I can't imagine any others for which this applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. I can't see any real scope for expansion beyond, say, Victorian children who were forced to work in mines or as chimney sweeps. Even so, I doubt if there would ever be enough subjects in each "occupation" to create anything more than a small category. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kenyon Owls

Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies to Category:Kenyon Owls
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies athletes to Category:Kenyon Owls athletes
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies athletic directors to Category:Kenyon Owls athletic directors
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords baseball to Category:Kenyon Owls baseball
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords baseball coaches to Category:Kenyon Owls baseball coaches
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords baseball players to Category:Kenyon Owls baseball players
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords basketball to Category:Kenyon Owls men's basketball
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords basketball coaches to Category:Kenyon Owls men's basketball coaches
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords basketball players to Category:Kenyon Owls men's basketball players
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords football to Category:Kenyon Owls football
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords football coaches to Category:Kenyon Owls football coaches
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords football players to Category:Kenyon Owls football players
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords football seasons to Category:Kenyon Owls football seasons
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords soccer to Category:Kenyon Owls men's soccer
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords soccer coaches to Category:Kenyon Owls men's soccer coaches
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies swimming and diving to Category:Kenyon Owls swimming and diving
Propose renaming Category:Kenyon Ladies swimmers to Category:Kenyon Owls women's swimmers

Nominator's rationale: Kenyon College changed its fight name from Lords and Ladies to Owls in 2022. See here and here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per nomination. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Necessary changes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mansas of Mali

Propose renaming Category:Mansas of Mali to Category:Mansas of the Mali Empire

Nominator's rationale: rename as more accurate, this is not about the modern republic of Mali. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The modern country of Mali gained independence in 1960. Alternatively Category:Mansas, as the title Mansa is used only for the Mali Empire. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alt rename or as per nom?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Category:Mansas is fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming as Category:Mansas of the Mali Empire, not as Category:Mansas. I think we need to mention the Mali Empire to provide the readers with that extra bit of information. Someone seeing Mansas might easily think it is about something else entirely, like Manassas. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CartoonNetwork-stub

Propose deleting Template:CartoonNetwork-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Template no longer needed. After the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#Category:Cartoon Network stubs resulted in its dedicated category being deleted as underpopulated, the uses of this template were purged for whether they needed to be filed directly in Category:Animation stubs or not, and it turned out that every article with this on it either didn't belong in that category at all or was simply redundant to the page already being in the Category:Animated television series stubs subcategory, meaning it's now been completely stripped from articlespace and is now in use only on a single ten-year-old user sandbox page that's still completely unreferenced for the purposes of becoming salvageable as an article.
Essentially, without a dedicated category this is just redundant to other templates, because any possible use of it would now just result in duplicate categorization of the page in both Category:Animation stubs and one of its subcategories at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Premier League clubs

Propose deleting Category:Former Premier League clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently empty but, until just now, it had only Leeds United in it. A total of 51 clubs have played in the Premier League and all except Leeds were in Category:Premier League clubs. Has someone been having a laugh? If the PLC category is meant to hold all 51 clubs, then FPLC is redundant. On the other hand, keeping FPLC will mean seasonal updates in both categories which no one will want to do. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Should I have left it alone pending the outcome of this discussion? I'll revert the edit if so. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. The decision should be made for all leagues from Category:Association football clubs by former league, not only for England. Even for all structure Category:Sports teams by former league. Keep all (first choice) or delete all. Teterev53 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no set purpose for the Category:Association football clubs by former league and its subcats. Are we talking about defunct clubs, or about clubs that have gone upwards from an amateur league to a professional one, or about all promotions/relegations. Take Category:Former Highland Football League teams for example. This includes Aberdeen, whose first team never played in the league, although one of their reserve teams did. Then there are four other clubs currently in the SPFL, three former clubs which became entities of Caley Thistle, and three fully defunct clubs. What exactly is the scope of that category?
As for the FPLC category, it is obviously not being maintained and I doubt if it ever will be. I'd have thought that the scope of Category:Premier League clubs is clubs whose teams have played in the PL, even if for only one season back in the 1990s. Similarly, I would expect to find the likes of Cove Rangers in Category:Highland Football League teams, as well as in the SPFL category.
We have to remember that categories provide essential navigation for the readers and so their scope and purpose must be certain. The use of "former" in a category title is bound to confuse and mislead. Does it mean "defunct" (like Wimbledon), does it mean "once upon a time" (like Oldham), or does it mean "not at the moment" (like Leeds). PearlyGigs (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 20:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-populate as above. The name of the category is a separate discussion. Giant Snowman 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if we re-populate the former clubs category, what happens to the 31 articles in Category:Premier League clubs about clubs that will not be in the PL next season? And will the two categories be updated at the end of each season? PearlyGigs (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is nothing to do with Category:Association football clubs by former league as the Premier League is a current league. Perspicax (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a strong argument. It also implies that a broader discussion about Category:Association football clubs by former league is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent point by Perspicax and I admit it didn't occur to me. I agree the proposed discussion is unnecessary within the context of this nomination. The question is whether relegated members of the PL, many of whom will eventually regain promotion, should be categorised as "former" or should be categorised as having played in the league. Remember that when I found Category:Former Premier League clubs, it contained Leeds only, so it was obviously not being maintained. Teterev53 did a partial population after this nomination was raised. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Association football clubs by former league is only meant to contain sub-cats relating to defunct leagues, as @Perspicax:'s comment seems to imply, than it needs some work, as it contains sub-cats relating to the Highland League and the League of Ireland, both of which are still very much in existence ("current") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Arab historians

Propose merging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge to 12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world Mason (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have been making efforts to phase out the Category:Medieval Islamic world WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT tree, step by step. I gave it a break in September, but I still think the whole tree should be phased out. Isolation is not a problem; the real issue is creating pseudo-historical unity where there was none for WP:POV reasons. NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alternative merge target? Such as 12th-century historians?Mason (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Nederlandse Leeuw. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a ~~Reverse merge~~ would work, at least for those who were Arab. We should check for Persian, Turkic etc. historians in the MIW cat. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Basil bar Shumna is described as "Syriac". Might fit in the Syrian subcat? Otherwise it seems fine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reverse merge doesn't address the issue of the isolated target. I'd much rather merge to Category:12th-century historians instead of a reverse merge, per egrs and the fact that the category is isolated. Mason (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Upmerging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians, Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world to Category:12th-century historians, or both to Category:12th-century historians? NLeeuw (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on reverse merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reverse merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The difference between the two is certainly insignificant. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on direction of merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since nom started the discussion. Merging to parent categorie(s), in this case Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world is the obvious fate of an undesirable category (or delete, but we all agree that delete is not applicable here). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with NLeeuw. A vague, and often contentious, expression like "medieval" or "middle ages" should not be in the title of a category that is essentially chronological (i.e., 12th century). The point is that there is no certainty about the timespan of the medieval period. I would merge both Category:12th-century Arab historians and Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world into Category:12th-century historians, as also suggested above. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National military histories by war

Propose renaming Category:National military histories by war to Category:Military history by war and country

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, agree with current name being confusing. The proposed target does not exactly describe what the category contains either. What about Category:Military history by country during wars? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename because of the confusion, but unsure about the proposed targets. Perhaps Category:Military history by country by war? This would introduce two specific criteria, enabling child categories like Category:Military history of the Soviet Union in World War II, or Category:Military history of Japan in World War II. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northwest Community College Conference football standings templates

Propose renaming Category:Northwest Community College Conference football standings templates to Category:Northwest Athletic Association of Community Colleges football standings templates

Nominator's rationale: The Northwest Athletic Conference sponsored football through the 1989 season when the league was known as the "Northwest Athletic Association of Community Colleges". Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct off-price department stores of the United States

Propose merging Category:Defunct off-price department stores of the United States to Category:Defunct department stores of the United States and Category:Defunct discount stores of the United States
Propose merging Category:Off-price department stores of the United States to Category:Department stores of the United States and Category:Discount stores of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category Mason (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain

Category:History of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: it contains articles like Britain in the Middle Ages and Anatomy of a Nation. A History of British Identity in 50 Documents, and a huge tree under Category:History of Great Britain by period while it's supposed to be about the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Ah I see that now. Well I would go with Option B, removing any subcategories which aren't related to the period between 1707 and 1801. And also the removal of any article that does not fall between 1707 and 1801. We should try to bring it back into sync with the original purpose it was created for. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One big problem with keeping the original intended scope is: what is Category:Kingdom of Great Britain for if not the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain? It's not as if that entity still exists. Ham II (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards Option A, in order to make the scope fully about the geographical area Great Britain and not the former sovereign state the Kingdom of Great Britain. Anything about the history of the latter – Category:Politics of the Kingdom of Great Britain, probably Category:Colonial United States (British), etc. – should be at Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, currently a parent category to this one. A new header stating this might be necessary, because the distinction isn't obvious (which seems to have led to the current situation). Ham II (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new header I'm proposing could be based on the existing one at Category:Great Britain. Ham II (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary per Johnbod and WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:SHAREDNAME. As Ham II pointed out, we've already got Category:Kingdom of Great Britain. I don't see the point of a separate tree for the island of Great Britain if everything is already in Category:History of the United Kingdom, Category:Kingdom of Great Britain and other subcategories and subtrees. NLeeuw (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the title is the problem here. It's ambiguous given that the Kingdom of Great Britain did exist. There are articles in the category which do not belong — for example, the Hampden Clubs were 19th century. We need to carefully recategorise each member and then delete this. I agree with NLeeuw that we should use Category:History of the United Kingdom, Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, etc. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. 1. As the nominator, I do not oppose deletion. However, deletion should be implemented as manual merge to Kingdom of Great Britain. 2. Deletion of this category moves the problem to Category:History of Great Britain by period. We should discuss that next, including subcategories, if this category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ultimately, the problems will snowball into a review of Category:History of the United Kingdom as a whole. That category includes, for example, Integration of Normandy into the royal domain of the Kingdom of France (in 911). The eventual solution might have to be strictly historical, keeping England to 1707 and Scotland to 1707 separate from all GB or UK coverage and commencing UK history with Acts of Union 1800. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain, if it's taken to refer to the island and not the Kingdom of Great Britain (and note the titles and scope of those articles), isn't an anachronistic term for any period, whereas United Kingdom is generally understood to be anachronistic for periods before 1801. England and Scotland are still current; Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland are not. Ham II (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant controversies

Propose deleting Category:Beauty pageant controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily purge, there are four articles that may stay here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I favour purging, but 4 items is barely viable for a category, although there is no absolute minimum. NLeeuw (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Omphalographer that there are WP:BLP concerns here, especially as the "controversies" tend to be storms in teacups that were overblown by the tabloid press (Helen Morgan being a case in point). If we purge, I assume one of the four will be Sexualization in child beauty pageants? I think a subject like that is far too serious to be trivialised by association with a category like this; its other four categories are appropriate. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four candidates I see are Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy, Mrs. Sri Lanka 2021 controversy, Sexualization in child beauty pageants, and Vanessa Williams and Miss America. The first two of those are perhaps "storms in teacups" themselves, but that's a matter for another discussion. Omphalographer (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]