Talk:Q39/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Language

Rhéto-romand is not an official language of Switzerland. It's a national language. Switzerland have 3 official language (de, fr, it), 4 national languages. Ludo29 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see w:Romansh_language#Official_status_at_the_federal_level. I still have to learn how to add sources to "claims". --Docu (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to read the Swiss constitution. This article and this one. Ludo29 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You too. I suppose I have to figure out how to link http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/101/a70.html --Docu (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So we are agree. According to this link. Three official languages. Special statut for Romansh. Ludo29 (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. It clearly includes Romansh. I think you refer to the pre-1996 situation. --Docu (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't refer to the pre-1996 situation when I invitated you to read an official document of 2012. Ludo29 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does mention Romansh. Somehow you seem to disagree with Wikipedia. This isn't really the place to develop a new theory. Please refrain from reverting everybody else. --  Docu  at 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does mentin Romansh, but not at the same point that german, french and italian. «  Somehow you seem to disagree with Wikipedia. » ... We don't have to use Wikipedia as a reference. We have to use external documents (with quality) as reference. However, it seems that I agree with Wikipedia ; this article. You can see that I'm not redactor of it. Ludo29 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no use of edit warring over it. You risk being blocked. You even removed the reference I had provided.

The article you mention seems self-contradictory (compare the introduction to the Romansh language section). --  Docu  at 06:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For an editwar, one person is not enough. So, we risk being blocked. For your reference, I'm sorry but I tried to read it. It was not possible. Can you give me the url here ? Please.

No, this article don't be self-contradictory. However, as I said, Wikipedia can't be used as a reference. Ludo29 (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it can. Especially if it provides detailed sourced articles. In this case, you even quoted it as a reference.

Other than myself, you reverted User:Wester just now, and possibly others. This isn't helpful. --  Docu  at 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ludo: As Wikidata allows for several views, I think you should just add references stating that it's not an official language. --  Docu  at 20:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference that you use to try to say that Romanche is an official language say that Romanche is NOT an official language. Stop your POV-pushing. Please. Ludo29 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I read there "Romansh is also an official language of the Confederation". It seems to be the point of view accepted by Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, try to finish the sentence. «The official languages of the Confederation are German, French and Italian. Ro- mansh is also an official language of the Confederation when communicating with persons who speak Romansh.» After, please read that. Ludo29 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So? Spanish is not an official language even when communicating with persons who speak Spanish. Have a look at w:Languages_of_Switzerland#Romansh --  Docu  at 21:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible to discuss seriously ? Ludo29 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't bother reading my comments, I can't really help you. BTW, I'm not sure if it's a good idea if you data on Wikidata if you never edited any of the related articles on Wikipedia. Some of these subjects are fairly technical and editing just the summary point on Wikidata is quite ambitious. --  Docu  at 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want somehow separate Romansh from other languages you can use some qualifier. Infovarius (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Romansh is not an official language of this country. Romansh is an official language just for person who Romansh is their native language. So, stop to insert Romansh in the official language of CH. Thanks. Ludo29 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Romanche

Hi,

I'm begining a new topic to try to have a solution for this solution. For me we have to use external reference to build Wikidata. It's to dangerous to use Wikipedia. We know that Wikipedia have some mystakes. So we have to use good references to build wikidata. No ? Ludo29 (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. --  Docu  at 20:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

capital

Bern is only defacto, not the captial. We have to describe this better with propertys. I will link this change to a discussion in de:wp. Greetings, Conny (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

Bern is a seat of government (Q1901835). Do we have a property for that or is instance of (P31) precise enough? —★PοωερZ_talk 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to add Q680849 as a qualifier. --  Docu  at 20:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This option is proposed at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#subject_of. —★PοωερZ_talk 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Odd, that this one wasn't created yet. I guess none wants to create it just to see it deleted again ;) --  Docu  at 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha... Zolo said he is going to create it, but he wants to discuss the details first. Oddly enough, I think this behavior should be standard. —★PοωερZ_talk 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if he should be doing it himself. He is participating in the discussion that is not consensual. --  Docu  at 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You think he might be biased? Valid point, but as he's not the original proposer I see little risk. —★PοωερZ_talk 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Language, again

Hello,

Please read this document. It's the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation.

Art. 4

The National Languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh.

[…]

Art. 70

The official languages of the Confederation are German, French and Italian. Romansh is also an official language of the Confederation when communicating with persons who speak Romansh.

The Cantons shall decide on their official languages. In order to preserve harmony between linguistic communities, the Cantons shall respect the traditional territorial distribution of languages and take account of indigenous linguistic minorities. […]

So :

• three official language : german, french and italian
• four national language : german, french, italian and romansh

Romansh is official language for only native speaker of romansh.

So don't insert Romansh in the official language of Switzerland. It's false. Ludo29 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ludo29,

First I think your understanding of the scope of official language (P37) is too narrow. Don't focus on the label of the property, it can be changed at any time (at the creation, the label was in fact « national language »), but rather on the meaning of the property. The meaning is « officially designated/recognised language », this language can be an official language, a national language or any language (or even group or familly of language). As Romansh (Q13199) is officially designated/recognised by Switzerland (Q39), it seems logic to use official language (P37) = Romansh (Q13199) on Switzerland (Q39) (same thing for Yenish (Q1365342)).

Then, the current situation is far from ideal as we go from one version with 3 languages to one version with 4 languages but there is never qualifier nor ranking to accurately render the situation. Indeed, there is big need for distinguish the three official language from the four national language (and from yeniche).

What I propose :

• Adding official language (P37) = Romansh (Q13199) but with P794 (P794) = national language (Q319972) as qualifier (or maybe instance of (P31) like on Sweden (Q34)} ; and maybe creating a specific swiss sub-item of national language (Q319972) like « swiss national language » would be better).
• Adding P794 (P794) = official language (Q23492) on the three other official languages (same comment as above).
• Adding Yenish (Q1365342) (with minority language (Q61566) or maybe a specific item).
• Adding statement is subject of (P805) = languages of Switzerland (Q1751392) as qualifier for all values.
• Adding start time (P580) (1848-1938-1997 accordingly) as qualifier for all values.
• Adding ranking. Either « preferred » for the three offical and « normal » for the two others or « normal » for the three offical and « deprecated » for the two others (I prefer the first but it's very similar).
• Probably other things I forgot.

Ludo29 what do you think of my proposal?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I like your proposal about qualifiers. But ranks are intended for different things: deprecated is for popular wrong value, and prefered is for current value when there are historical also presented (marked by normal rank). --Infovarius (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Infovarius and you're right, my proposition for ranking is a bit unusual and exotic but I think it fits the need here. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi VIGNERON,

Bon, on va parler français. J'ai démarré ce post en anglais, ça a intéressé tellement de personne que personne n'a daigné y répondre depuis plus de deux ans. Tu y interviens aujourd'hui, vu que tout le monde s'en contre-fout, on va le poursuivre en français.

Ma compréhension de P37 serait trop étroite. Ecoute, si un texte officiel - je pense qu'on peut considérer la constitution de la confédération suisse comme un texte officiel ? - fait le distinguo entre langue officielle et langue nationale, c'est que le distinguo existe, au moins dans ce pays. Le romanche n'a pas le même statut que les trois autres langues (de, fr, it) aux yeux de la confédération suisse, il faut, simplement, le prendre en considération.

Si une propriété Wikidata a pour but d'associer à un pays sa ou ses langue(s) officielle(s) on y associe les langues officielles, pas des langues ayant un autre statut. Un des buts, parmi d'autres, de Wikidata est de pouvoir reporter sur les Wikipedia des informations factuelles issues de de Wikidata. Il n'est donc pas concevable d'avoir un paramètre à géométrie variable. À termes, au bon vouloir des gens passants par ici, l'intitulé et le contenu des langues ayant un lieu plus ou moins établis avec tel pays seront affichés commet langue officielle dans les infobox sur Wikipédia ? C'est ça le souhait ? Ludo29 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Salut Ludo29,

Je suis entièrement d'accord avec toi sauf sur un point : malgré son libellé, official language (P37) n'est pas que pour les langues officielles ! Il ne s'agit pas de géométrie variable mais simplement de contexte, cette propriété n'est pas conçue ni utilisée uniquement pour les langues officielles (statut qui malgré une dénomination commune est d'ailleurs très différent d'un pays à l'autre). C'est d'ailleurs le cas pour toutes les propriétés sur Wikidata, elles ont un champ et un périmètre à prendre en compte et pas simplement leur libellé.

Concernant le distinguo, il existe et il faut absolument le faire mais c'est justement le but des qualificateurs (et dans une moindre mesure des rangs). Il y a peut-être d'autres solutions que celle que j'ai proposé, je me suis juste basé sur ce qui se fait habituellement et je suis ouvert à la discussion (il y a même quelques points où j'hésite et où j'ai donc besoin d'avis). N'hésite pas à proposer des alternatives.

Quant à la réutilisation externe, notamment par les projets Wikimédia, c'est aux ré-utilisateurs à gérer cela (encore une fois, justement à l'aide des qualificateurs et des rangs). Je remarque cependant que sur la quasi-totalité des Wikipédias, le romanche est mentionné parmi les langues (que ce soit dans le texte comme dans l'infobox) avec un caveat sous diverses formes mais mentionné tout de même. Il semble logique de le mentionner aussi sur Wikidata, reste à voir la meilleure façon de faire (de nouveau et à nouveau, j'ai fait une proposition qui est sujette à discussion).

En dehors du romanche, peut-être pourrait-on au moins avancer sur les trois langues officielles ? Comme je le disais, la situation actuelle est loin d'être satisfaisante.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Donc ta solution, c'est on fout toutes les langues liées au pays avec le même statut ici, c'est aux réutlisateurs de se démerder ? La solution la plus simple est donc ne pas se servir de Wikidata Ludo29 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Pas du tout, ma proposition est de préciser les données justement pour faciliter la réutilisation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Personne n'a créé une propriété langue nationale ou propriété différente de de langue officielle. Si tu sais faire, just do it. Ludo29 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Crée une propriété langue nationale est une solution mais official language (P37) sert déjà pour les langues nationales. Et scinder une propriété est toujours compliqué car il est difficile de savoir en combien scinder : une propriété pour langue officiel, une pour nationale, une pour langue minoritaire, une pour langue de facto, une pour langue de jure, une pour langue administrative, une pour langue à facilité, etc. Je peux lancer le débat pour créer ces propriétés spécifiques mais cela me semble avoir peu de chance d'aboutir (et cela va sévèrement compliquer la réutilisation sur les projets Wikimédia).

Actuellement, tout ces concepts (différents mais similaires) sont regroupés sous la propriété official language (P37) avec des qualificateurs pour apporter les précisions et distinguos nécessaires. Ce n'est peut-être pas parfait mais cela me semble correct (et cela ne semble pas soulever de problèmes sur d'autres éléments comme Spain (Q29) ou Sweden (Q34) même si ces deux éléments serait à améliorer).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

qualificateurs what ?

Pour l'instant, j'ai vu des tentatives de mette le Romanche au même niveau que de, fr et it.... Ludo29 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ce qui est une grossière erreur, on est d'accord.

Une propriété pouvant être interprétée différemment selon les personnes et les cas, l'habitude est d'utiliser des qualificateurs pour apporter des précisions (cela devient de plus en plus courant et nécessaire à mesure que Wikidata grandit), notamment - mais non exclusivement - dans le cas où une propriété a plusieurs valeurs (par exemple, précision de la data quand il y a plusieurs valeurs de population ; précision de statut biologique/adoptif quand il y a plusieurs pères, etc.) ; c'est justement le cas ici et c'est ce que je propose plus haut. Pour plus d'infos sur les qualificateurs : Help:Qualifiers/fr.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Et est-ce que tout ça va faire arrêter les contributeurs de mettre le romanche comme langue officielle ? Ludo29 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (Question purement rhétorique)

@Ludo29: évidemment ; si on le met du coup, il y est déjà et tautologiquement les gens ne peuvent plus le mettre. Les gens comme la nature ont horreur du vide et cherche à le combler, si il n'y a plus de vide, il n'y a plus besoin de combler. Reste la question de savoir comment le mettre, j'ai fait une proposition ; si elle convient à tous, on la mets en place et on voit les réactions. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON:. Que l'on créé un champ langue nationale pour le mettre, comme ça effectivement, il ne sera pas rajouté à langue officielle. Le rajouter à langue officielle, ce qui est une erreur manifeste, c'est permettre à des Wikipédia d'afficher le romanche comme langue officielle. Ludo29 (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ludo29:

Crée un propriété « langue nationale » ne me semble pas une bonne idée mais je vais le proposer (dans un premier temps sur Property talk:P37), on verra.

Quant à la réutilisation par Wikipédia, si Wikipédia fait n'importe quoi, ce n'est pas la faute de Wikidata. Ceci dit, d'une part, généralement les réutilisations dans Wikipédia tiennent compte des qualificateurs et des rangs ; d'autre part, comme je le disais, même sans Wikidata, le romanche est déjà indiqué dans le champs « langue officielle » de la plupart des infoboxes des différentes Wikipédia. Dans le cas où les Wikipédias reprendraient Wikidata, le résultat serait le même qu'actuellement.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Quant à la réutilisation par Wikipédia, si Wikipédia fait n'importe quoi, ce n'est pas la faute de Wikidata. Oui ben pour l'instant, avec le romanche c'est sur Wikidata qu'on fait n'importe quoi. Et sur Wikipédia certains contributeurs font n'importe quoi avec Wikidata : cf Villeneuve. T'as raison, je vais arrêter de suivre cette page et laisser les contributeurs Wikidata faire n'importe quoi en mettant le romanche comme langue officielle et laisser les Wikipedia faire n'importe quoi en reprenant cette donnée de Wikidata. Je vais retourner faire n'importe quoi de mon coté. Ludo29 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland became a sovereign state in 1291

Unless we have references that support that, I don't think this statement should be added. From the random HLS articles added, can we see quotation (P1683) that actually support this? Note that the claim includes three parts:

• statehood
• sovereignty
• 1291

--- Jura 18:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Any progress on this? In the meantime, I deprecated the statements. An article describing a 19th century custom about August 1 seems hardly relevant. --- Jura 05:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland instance of (P31) of "Helvetic Republic"?

Somehow that seems wrong, but I can't even explain how. How is it meant to work? --- Jura 18:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, you seem to be using cryptic short sentences to avoid justifying your removal of perfectly well sourced information. All the information regarding the origin of Switzerland, as well as regarding the Helvetic Republic, are contained in the sources given. Sapphorain (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland isn't an instance of the Helvetic Republic. I'm not sure if you understand how statements at Wikidata work. If you provide references, your references need to support the claim you are making. If I ask you to quote the part that supports the claim, I don't see what so difficult about it. --- Jura 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(switch to French to read the French version your title:)

La instance of (P31) "Suisse" est une "République helvétique" (entre 1798 et 1803)

Yes, there seems to be a problem. In English Wikidata the «  Statement » reads that «  Switzerland » is an « Instance of » the Helvetic Republic from 1798 to 1803, which doesn’t make too much sense. Mais en Wikidata français, la « Déclaration » sur la « nature de l’élément » (which does not in any way translate to « Instance of »), est que l'élément « Suisse » était la « République helvétique » entre 1798 et 1803, ce qui est une affirmation tout à fait correcte, aussi bien du point de vue grammatical qu’historique. Since in French the entry perfectly makes sense, there is no reason to suppress it. Now regarding your countless additions of « possibly invalid entry requiring further references », I find them rather irrelevant: may I remind you that the infinite number of so called « references » reading « Imported from Wikimedia project » with « (any language) Wikipedia » could all be labelled thus… (and much more legitimately) Sapphorain (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Help:Basic_membership_properties attempts to explain how it works. --- Jura 05:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It attempts, but it doesn't succeed... If you switch to "français" this text becomes absurd and most of it makes no sense at all. As I already mentioned "instance of" and "nature de l'élément" have completely different meanings, and can in no way be used to express the same notion. Sapphorain (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Flag color

Flag color should be #f00 as it required by https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20091656/index.html#app1ahref0 Replace with File:Flag of Switzerland.svg. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Igel B TyMaHe: this source also give the pantone code so File:Flag of Switzerland (Pantone).svg is equally valid (and even more valid if you want to print it as RGB can't be print). And to be precise, you should use https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20091656/index.html#app2ahref0 as a ref not https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20091656/index.html#app1ahref0 Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Pantone 485 C is equal to "RGB 218 41 28 HEX/HTML DA291C CMYK 0 95 100 0", pantone 485 U is equal to "RGB 228 93 80 HEX/HTML E45D50 CMYK 0 73 92 1". There is obvious contradiction in source, so shoud be used less contradictory statements. They are hex #FF0000, CMYK 0 100 100 0, RGB 255 / 0 / 0. And Wikipedia is not printed encyclopedia, so there is no need to use "printable" version of color. "Screen" version should be marked as recommended. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Igel B TyMaHe: yes, there is contradiction in the source (as always when you try to convert screen color into print color, especially PMS, as color space can't be converted without loss) that's why there is two flags files and yes, it could make sense to rank the RGB file as preferred. My point is that the statements should follow the source. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A logo cannot be an alias

An alias is "an assumed name" (Webster's). Or "autrement appelé (de tel ou tel nom)" (Robert). A logo is not a name. Un logo n'est pas un nom. It is a logo. It may be included somewhere in the page, but not as an alias. And the assertion according to which "it is done on other pages, so why not on this one" does not stand: an incorrect entry on other pages doesn't justify an incorrect entry on this one. Sapphorain (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• An alias in Wikidata is described at Help:Alias. It makes items searchable by that string.

"🇨🇭" is a Unicode regional indicator symbol not a logo. It's an abbreviate way of writing just as "ch".

Please refrain from deleting valid content from Wikidata. --- Jura 18:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Help:Alias does not mention anything else than names for aliases. The symbol "🇨🇭" is not a name. It is a small Swiss flag, and the Swiss flag is already included elsewhere in the page. Sapphorain (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Names and other abbreviations are frequently included elsewhere in a structured way. "🇨🇭" is not a flag, but a regional indicator symbol. --- Jura 18:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You may give it any name you please, it will not transform it into an alias. An alias is a name. Sapphorain (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a reference for "logo" you used? --- Jura 18:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"logo" was not quite right. "Swiss flag" is more correct. The Swiss flag is not an alias. Sapphorain (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I see references for these two statements? --- Jura 02:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, stop that now. The symbol you want to use clearly depicts a small Swiss flag. This does not satisfy the condition to be an alias, which is defined as a name by dictionaries, as I pointed in the first place. Sapphorain (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can't provide a reference for your claim, we can't let your argument stand. Please refrain from disrupting Wikidata. --- Jura 16:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I did provide two references for the (well-known) fact that an alias is a name. Common sense tells us that a picture is not a name. You are claiming that it is, and you should provide a reference to your claim. Sapphorain (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reference for Help:Alias being the alias you mention nor "🇨🇭" being a logo or whatever else you called it. If you want to build consensus to implement the change you seek, please take the time to properly argue your issue. If not, please refrain from disrupting Wikidata any further. --- Jura 08:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The first line of Help:Alias reads "Aliases are alternative names". "🇨🇭" is not a name, it is the picture of a small Swiss flag. You are the one disrupting Wikidata by adding it as an alias, and you are the one who should seek a consensus for doing so. Sapphorain (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You attempt to change the agreed version, removing Unicode regional indicator symbols. Please provide a reference for your interpretation of "🇨🇭". --- Jura 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You don’t seem willing to read what I wrote. I am not interpreting, I am using referenced definitions. I provided 2 references specifying that an alias is a name, qu’un alias est un nom; this is confirmed by Help:Alias. Now a name is « a word or phrase by which a person, thing, or class of things is known, called, or spoken to or of » (Webster’s), « un mot servant à designer une personne, un animal ou une chose » (Larousse). This small Swiss flag, no matter how you want to call it, is not a name, ça n’est pas un nom, so it cannot be an alias, by definition.Sapphorain (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Qualificatif injustifié

J’ai supprimé le qualificatif « obsolète » de state (Q7275) et l’explication qui en était donnée, anachronism (Q189203), qui était parfaitement injustifiée. En précisant que la date indiquée, 1er août 1291, est approximative, l’information donnée ne contient aucun anachronisme, et est corroborée par de nombreuses sources admissibles.--Sapphorain (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)