Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
![]() | Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
![]() | Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process
[edit]What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
[edit]Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
[edit]- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
[edit]Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
[edit]V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 42 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 71 | 76 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
[edit]A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
[edit]- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
August 21, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:WikiProject Noongar has 5 talk page disscussions, 3 are automated and for the remaning two they were never replied to by anyone. This project has never been active. Since Noongar are indigenous Australians, there really is no reason to have another project when Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia exists. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- keep preserve, lots of activity around Noongar topics with discussions taking place on articles more than the project page. Number of discussion on a project page a poor criteria when the project covers 1,000's of articles Gnangarra 13:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one is arguing that any articles regarding Noongar should be deleted, the argument was that the project itself is and was always dead, as evidence by the extreme lack of any activity on the project pages, including yours. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The project was not always dead, but many people suffer racial attacks trying to work on content so editors were driven away by the community. Contributors to noongar content and of noongar knowledge are driven into hiding even now, racial attacks on Indigenous Australian communities is not a sexy bias thats gets global attention. Wikimedia Australia still reports condiserable issues with access of accurate Indigenous Australian knowledge including global events to favour colonial perspective over Indigenous ones. The Project serves a very important way for those editors to contact people like me who are willing to stand out on the these matters. Arvhicing and redirectings isnt ideal and just adds another barrier to participation. Gnangarra 08:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one is arguing that any articles regarding Noongar should be deleted, the argument was that the project itself is and was always dead, as evidence by the extreme lack of any activity on the project pages, including yours. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do whatever is done to inactive WikiProjects: There is a talk page archive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Noongar/Archive 8 (which is not listed on the main talk page) which shows that there was at least some degree of collaborative activity years ago. This isn't a dead-on-arrival project but just one that has become inactive. As such it should not be deleted, but instead be archived or marked historical or marked inactive or whatever is done to such inactive projects. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've moved the archive to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Noongar/Archive 1 and fixed the archiving instructions on the main talk page. I have no opinion on what should happen to this project (but I live in a geographical area covered by it). Graham87 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mark historical or Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia - This project is completely dormant at present. In the year 2023, there were 141 pagesview of the project page; that is annual pageviews, or approximately 0.5 daily pageviews. Most of the work of a WikiProject is done on its project talk page. In 2023, there were 11 pageviews of the project talk page; that is total annual pageviews. One of those was a mass message, and at least two of them were for archival. In 2024, there were 20 pageviews, and some of them were for archival. Looking back, the project was lightly used between 2015, when it was created, and 2017, and has been essentially unused from 2018 on. Maybe we need a discussion about what should be done with dormant WikiProjects when. This project was never very active, because it always should have been a task force, but was not completely unused. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Project serves a very important way for Noongar editors to contact people like me who are willing to stand out on the these matters. Archiving and redirecting isnt ideal and just adds another barrier to participation. Gnangarra 08:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
August 19, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Requested lists (2nd nomination)
[edit]All prior XfDs for this page: |
This page for requesting the creation of lists in articlespace has been largely ignored; there are requests on this page which have been pending for 12 years. It would be better to delete this page and redirect it to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead, as the subpages corresponding to that process appear to be somewhat better noticed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blank and mark historical: As is done with such redundant/inactive project pages, pointing to WP:Requested articles through the comment parameter of {{historical}}. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with marking as historical. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living/Article Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
No useful content. This page was written in 2009 and has gotten no attention since. There's nothing here worth keeping. Daask (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are not listed as a member of the WikiProject. Why are you trying to manage a WikiProject that you are not a member of?
- If the WikiProject is inactive, maybe it should be archived wholesale. Selective archiving by deletion is not a good idea.
- How did you come across this page? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Historical page of an inactive WikiProject. There's nothing here worth discussing.—Alalch E. 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator appears to be ragpicking. Maybe the WikiProject should be marked historical. Is that what SmokeyJoe means by archived, or do they have a different concept of archival? If the nominator had some reason to come across the page other than ragpicking, maybe they should explain, or maybe not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living/Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
No useful content. This page and its talk page have never been used. Daask (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't matter.—Alalch E. 17:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Maybe the WikiProject should be marked historical, but that is not what we are here for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 17, 2024
[edit]Okay, so quite a while ago I nominated this for speedy deletion but changed my mind since it was just a draft. I am doing a normal deletion discussion, as I have decided that this obviously not an actual thing. Nowhere can I find evidence for Eiichiro Oda creating a show called Terminator. This article, as far as I can tell, is a blatant hoax. It is made even more suspicious as it has the word "fanfic" in the title. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- whoops, I think speedy deletion was actually the right choice, probably should've read Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity before submitting this. My bad! Gaismagorm (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as G3. No results for "Dawn Island Arc" "Terminator" on Google which leads me to believe it is a hoax. I would've just left it if it weren't still being actively edited. C F A 💬 23:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time, only because I am assuming good faith that good-faith editors think that this is a hoax. Otherwise I would have said Weak Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: as a probable hoax. As it is being actively edited, it is a good idea to bring it to MfD for deletion as a hoax. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete hoax.—Alalch E. 15:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 16, 2024
[edit]Project was created in 2015 and has 1 member (the creator) and zero non-automated talk page discussions. This never was a project. A single singer or band don't need a stand-alone project and usually not even a task force as the amount of articles isn't that big. Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete stale attempt at a wikiproject and any and all associated subpages and templates.—Alalch E. 09:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians per nom. C F A 💬 23:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The WikiProject page had 153 pageviews in the year 2023. That's total annual pageviews, or slightly less than 1 pageview every 2 days. The work of a WikiProject is done mostly at the project talk page. The project talk page had 6 pageviews in the year 2023. That's whole months that no one even looked at the talk page, let alone posting to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 August 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
August 13, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unnecessary WikiProject that was created in spite of the objections of a number of users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. As predicted there, this WikiProject has immediately become dormant, because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year). Women's Premier League (cricket) is a cricket tournament, and so a breakaway WikiProject from WP:WikiProject Cricket is not required. Note: I do not support any of the existing breakaway WikiProjects (WP:IPL, WP:PSL, WP:BPL, WP:LPL etc), and will be considering nominating them for merging with WP:CRIC too. As per WP:OSE, the existence of these other WikiProjects is not a reason to keep this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Joseph and also, accept that I made a mistake as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. I have been thinking about this for a while and was actually going to make a proposal this weekend, which would've been for these WikiProjects to be superseded by respective taskforces of WP:CRIC. Current WikiProjects can be renamed and reworked into new taskforces as shown below.
- Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have just started a discussion about these taskforces at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Merge WikiProjects back into this project, and would personally be more than happy for WPL to have a representative task force. (I was drafting the text for that discussion before I saw Vestrian24Bio's reply here, but agree with what they have said). Please anyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Joseph2302 just summed up what's wrong with Wikipedia as a whole with the statement
because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year).
There's a shit-ton more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than merely regurgitating yesterday's headlines and trending topics. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC) - Delete per the nom's opening statement. Recreate if there is consensus to add it as a taskforce.—Alalch E. 15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 10, 2024
[edit]Spam page Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. We should not be encouraging ragpicking, or the reviewing of new drafts to delete. This is a biography of a living person with no reliable sources, and would be a candidate for deletion in its present state. But with new drafts, which the originator might (even if it is unlikely) be about the improve, do not bite the newbies applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: It was just created yesterday. They may well have been working on it until the deletion notice popped up. I agree, I can't find any sources that would establish notability, but deleting it seems excessively harsh. C F A 💬 02:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Move to draft and let the creator continue expanding it, if they don't it can then be deleted after x amount of months. No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced BLP.—Alalch E. 15:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No point in this page's continued existence. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
July 22, 2024
[edit]Stale unfiled RfAs
[edit]- Group of stale unfiled RfAs – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DebashisM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Watcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D4135t~enwiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoBlackhawksGo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atomicthumbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OliveTree39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobsmith319 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Countryboy603 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shonyx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JASDVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr.Mani Raj Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LewisT34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmanlucas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chikukiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ToadetteEdit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
Each of these has either been languishing since before 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all, obviously per nom. It's a shame they're not CSDable; if they were drafts they'd be dead already. ——Serial Number 54129 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics
. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of thehistory of the project governance
? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)
- LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.
- If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?
- LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g🗯️ 22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
- Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19. I responded to the 'Requests for adminship are now being considered' type notice the only way I knew how. Was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 the wrong way to apply? I received no response, positive or negative. I sometimes struggle with editing but seek to improve. Though I still aspire to be an admin I realise that I may not yet be as technically able or have enough dedicated time as the role demands. The intention of my request for adminship was genuine even if the method of my application was incorrect, therefore Keep. AndrewSE19 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do not keep at current titles, but do not delete. The option was presented above to "userfy", so that may be an option. Either way, these RFAs never went live, so keeping them at their current titles is misleading since the structures of these titles assume they are the 1st time these editors were subject to a live RFA, which never happened. Maybe the creation of a page such as Wikipedia:Requests or adminship (drafts) may need to be created to allow these never-live RFA pages to become subpages of it, in addition to potentially being a landing page for potential RFA candidates to post their draft RFA statements prior to moving them as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when they go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Turns out one of these pages, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand, was previously nominated for deletion previously in 2021: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand. The discussion resulted in "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all except AndrewSE19 as obsolete useless cruft. If a specific user wants a specific request userfied, I have no objection, otherwise these pages' existence is pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless and to preserve the page history. C F A 💬 02:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)