Talk:Asquith Xavier

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1966-07-15/debates/b65aca94-436b-4d17-90a6-3a40aaa9716c/ColouredWorkers

Panorama to add later

The ‘colour bar’ at Euston station A Panorama reporter investigates an unofficial ‘colour bar’ at Euston Station. A spokesman for British Railways denies any racial discrimination in their recruitment policy. However, the experiences of four Jamaican men applying for a porter’s job contradict his account. A leading member of the National Union of Railwaymen is more forthright. He claims black men are not employed because of a poor work ethic and relations with white employees. First broadcast in 'Panorama' on 17 September 1956. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xf0mt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.137.20 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Unseen

​Hi everyone, for anybody who has contributed to this biography or is watching this page, here is an exciting update. ​We're project partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation ​for Unseen. It is a​ project ​ initiative ​combining innovation and creativity ​ in hopes of​ address​ing​ the lack of visual representation of Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of colour on our projects and by extension, in the wider ecosystem of free knowledge. We are sharing the works during Black History Month to celebrate this effort. Asquith Xavier is amongst six biographies that were chosen for the first-ever pilot of Unseen and for whom artwork has been commissioned. Up-and-coming artists from the same region as the selected figures were commissioned for this project and their work will be released under CC0. We plan on updating their Wikipedia articles with the commissioned artwork on Wednesday, the 9th of February and wanted to let you know. The prospects are exciting. Thanks Shanluan (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shanluan. Why not instead use a photograph of him, which is permitted under WP:NFCI #10? Surely that would be more encyclopedic than this highly impressionistic work of art, which I like in other contexts. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Shanluan: I've updated the article and put a fair use image in, of him standing on Euston Station on 15 August 1966. I've moved the excellent watercolour image to below the main infobox. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

However, it seems to have no point except to bring attention to the artist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

DiannaaMarchjuly, if you feel like reading this thread and the one below, and then contribute some wisdom, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki unseen image

@Scope creep: It being created for the article should have no impact on whether we choose to use it; all we should be considering is the criteria at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and per those criteria I don't believe it is suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BilledMammal: How goes it? The image is public domain so there is no requirement to remove it. As any image in Wikipedia commons, it has equal weight to any public domain image, that is available to add to an article. The artist thought the person notable enough as an activist to sit down and create the watercolour in the first place. It is not some vanity project. I don't see how removing it is to going to improve the article. It takes away the fact that well known artist was willing to do the work in the first place. scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how most of that is relevant; the only bit that I can see the relevance of is I don't see how removing it is to going to improve the article. Removing it would improve the article as the watercolour is primarily decorative, and adds nothing to the article not already provided by the photograph; including it is against MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lets have an RFC. Lets have a go at having some external consesus. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Do you have view whether it should be removed. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I thought of removing it myself, but I didn't because per WP:CHOICE I don't have to. But I can't think of a WP-good argument to have it in the article. Like I said above, it seems to have no point except to bring attention to the artist, or possibly Wiki unseen, both of which are bad reasons to have it in the article. I'm guessing you've both seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/In the media. On a related note, I'll probably look for a photo for the Mercedes Richards article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see you left the watercolour in. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't have to remove it (and it kinda, sorta, a bit, maybe, fits under Awards and honors, perhaps), but the same argument pretty much applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And the Xavier artwork kinda, sorta, a bit, maybe, fits under In the media, perhaps. I'm grasping at straws here because I think the Wiki unseen people have good intentions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well. That suits me as think it is decent place to position it and it brightens the article up and its public domain. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe any of those reasons align with policy; I assume you want to open an RFC on whether we should include it? BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328@Nick Moyes@Shanluan@Czar@Vexations, other interested, any thoughts on an Rfc or other form of discussion regarding Wiki unseen pics in articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's completely unencyclopedic and some anonymous blogger at the WMF promoting this as "close the visual knowledge gap" is a dishonest at best. That I'm unable to figure who is organizing this mildly irritating, but the involvement of social media platform owned by Adobe (Behance) does not convince me that this is a grassroots effort. Vexations (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion at Talk:Communications/Wiki Unseen on Meta. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I think I read that there are WP:s that doesn't allow any WP:NFCI, that would be a different context for these images. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The water colour has been traced and flipped horizontally from the photograph. It depicts the exact same person at the exact same time, just rendered differently. It adds nothing. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Don't think we need a full RfC, as these work the same as any free use image work: The portraits fit nicely in the articles that had no prior free use images, and in cases where the portraits are redundant, it's appropriate to consider the image's relevance, as mentioned in the original post above. That should be on a case-by-case basis, as the context is different for each article. (There is also a question of whether the commissioned portraits were based on Wikipedia's existing free use image, which may have other copyright implications I haven't researched.) czar 14:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• My apologies, scope creep. I will re-iterate here what I said in my edit summary, though: Just because an artwork was commissioned for use on Wikipedia does not mean it actually improves the encyclopedia. For articles where no usable image exists I entirely understand the point, but in this case we already have an image of the subject in which he is quite well illustrated. The artwork in question in this case does not aid in depicting the subject of the article, it's just colourful decoration. So I don't really see the point. Endwise (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Endwise, not that it matter very much, but the Wiki unseen image was added first, the article had no image at the time. The photo was then uploaded and replaced the artwork as leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I originally missed this specific article's case but the photograph is fair use and the illustration is free use. Usually that is cause to remove the fair use image (WP:NFCC) unless there's a strong case that the watercolor illustration detracts from the article. czar 14:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I put the fair use image is, as I thought the free image wasn't suitable for an infobox. I think that is still the case. The watercolour is pretty decent as work of art but it is not representative as a portrait. I think both can be kept. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Asquith Xavier Watercolor for Wiki Unseen

I'd argue per WP:NFCCP/WP:NFCI that the artwork is not "equivalent"/"close substitute" of the photo. That's my interpretation. It was noted in another discussion [1] that if a netizen selfpublished painting/whatever is considered "equivalent"/"close substitute", then the existence of such means that a free-use fair-use pic must be deleted, and this may not be considered "good" by all considerers.

Another example: Inspired by the Hyperallergic article [2] I added a free-use fair-use photo to Marian Ewurama Addy (there was no image in the article when I added it). But File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy for Wiki Unseen.jpg is on Commons, and if that is "equivalent"/"close substitute", then the photo must be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue those images are unsuitable for use generally, as due to their decorative and unrealistic nature they do not improve understanding, and instead are likely to distract the reader. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the Wiki unseen contribution at May Miller? Here [3] is a photo, there are others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In theory, it is acceptable; it uses realistic colour and style. However, I don't recognize them as the same person - do you have the same issue? BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing the painting is meant to be younger than the photo. Or maybe that's artistic vision. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at an earlier image I can't see the resemblance either. It might be artistic vision, and if it is I think it should be removed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I see at [4] that Wiki unseen has a list which includes Yeshaq I, 15th century. I looked and couldn't find any depiction, but I feel relatively strongly that art in articles like this should not be recent art made for the WP-purpose, it should be published in some WP:RS on history or art to have any relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; non-contemporary images can be relevant, such as at Jesus and Muhammad, but being intended to depict the individual is not sufficient to establish relevance. If Wiki Unseen intends to continue producing these art works, I think we need a central discussion on what requirements need to be met for us to use the work. BilledMammal (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:VPWMF? WP:IMAGEHELP? TWITTER (I see related posts)? Somewhere else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:VPWMF for the initial discussion, and then WP:VPP if we need a formal discussion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no better proposal atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Although, would a "Should we have WP unseen Xavier or fair-use Xavier as WP:LEADIMAGE" rfc be helpful first as a kind of "test-case"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A test case would probably be useful, but I think the question we should be asking is whether we use WP Unseen Xavier at all. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Both? IMO the question on if the free image makes the non-free photo "illegal" against guideline is quite important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we answer that, or should we ask WMF Legal? BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

When I said "illegal", I meant against guideline, WP:NFCI#10. I think it's within rfc-scope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense; I agree then. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation response

Pinging MPourzaki (WMF) and GVarnum-WMF. Hello! I saw you both had edited Communications/Wiki Unseen. Do you have any input on the musings on Wiki unseen in the threads above? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting a reply at Talk:Communications/Wiki Unseen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for the ping. Thank you scope_creep for sourcing an image for the article, although I do wish it were CC0 so it could be used everywhere as StarryGrandma points out. And Nosferattus, you bring in an angle I wasn't even thinking about – indeed the artwork has a much more agreeable license for our projects than the image, even if some folks here are not pleased with the artistic interpretations :) It's quite difficult to commission artwork of deceased people. Thank you all for contributing to this discussion. I trust that the community will come up with a sensible resolution here and that each case will be judged separately based on its unique circumstances, no firm rules after all. Bluerasberry , I'm happy to provide further context. This project took inspiration from WhoseKnowledge's great work in this area. And as has been mentioned on this page already, at the time that this project was conceived by AfroCROWD and the Unseen team, none of the selected biographies had pictures. For what it's worth, Unseen has already succeeded since 3 out of the 6 figures now have images, and in the process, up-and-coming local artists have shared their work on Commons for the world to use. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@MPourzaki (WMF): I would like to simply and directly ask you as the representative of the Wikimedia Foundation to cease making editorial decisions in what content Wikipedia should have, paying for the creation of content, or speaking on behalf of Wikipedia's community of editors. The documentation at meta:Communications/Wiki Unseen says "Wiki Unseen is a Wikimedia Foundation project" and these kinds of Wikimedia Foundation editorial decisions in Wikipedia's content are new and different. I object to the WMF's claim to power which belongs to the Wikimedia community. It is not your place as the Wikimedia Foundation to speak for AfroCROWD, Whose Knowledge, or any other Wikimedia community organization or demographic. Fund minority communities to speak for themselves instead of having paid WMF staff speak for them. There is a standard grant funding process at meta:Grants:Start which the Wikimedia community can recognize as the normal relationship between the WMF and the community, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is the funder but the community makes its own strategic choices and has editorial control over the content. I want respectful boundaries, and WMF claims to speak for the underrepresented are out of bounds. I will ask you directly and you can respond as you like: will you please stop the Wikimedia Foundation from speaking for the Wikimedia community, and instead fund the Wikimedia community to speak for itself? If you like, you could remove the WMF branding from meta:Communications/Wiki Unseen and let AfroCROWD and community organizations speak for the program from here forward. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry , I am always appreciative of your passion. I responded here because I was directly pinged to provide input. When we don’t respond, we get called out for ignoring. When we do respond, it gets called out for speaking on behalf of others. I read between the lines and see that this discussion has now taken a different tone and is no longer about the picture or the project per se, as other folks on this page have also pointed out. The Foundation is happy to share expertise and resources to help a valuable community pilot take off, especially one that addresses a very real need. I'm saddened that this conversation starter and what was a healthy discussion has now turned divisive and political – the full sentence of the referenced documentation states that Wiki Unseen is a Wikimedia Foundation project in partnership with AfroCROWD. You omitted that part, that's misinformation. I apologize if you perceived providing context about a project as intervention. I don’t sense good faith in your tone and can’t help but feel cornered on what was otherwise a lively and healthy discourse, so I will respectfully step away. I wish you well. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on images in this article

Asquith Xavier Watercolor for Wiki Unseen

Two questions:

• Should the WP:LEADIMAGE of this article be the image provided by Wiki unseen, or a fair-use photo (see article, can't put it here per rules) per WP:NFCI?
• If consensus is for a photo, should the Wiki unseen image remain in the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Wiki unseen is covered here:[5][6][7] Pinging commentators in the 2 recent threads ShanluanCullen328Scope creepBilledMammalVexationsczarEndwise. If you have any good ideas for WP:APPNOTEing, please act on them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fair-use photo and not in the article. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative and Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. The Wiki unseen image meets neither of these requirements; it does not look like what it is meant to illustrate, and the artistic choices made for it makes it primarily decorate, rather than relevant to the readers understanding of the article. Further, the vibrant and unnatural colours are likely to be distracting to the reader.

If this was a self portrait, or a significant work of art depicting the individual, then it might be appropriate, but this is neither. BilledMammal (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• (editconflict) On #1, it should be a photo. My reading of WP:NFCCP/WP:NFCI is that the watercolor image is not "equivalent"/"close substitute" of the photo. On #2, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE speaks of "primarily decorative", and this can be seen as that. It can also be seen as having the primary effect of drawing attention to Wiki unseen/the artist of the work. Otoh, I don't mind if we see it as part of the "media coverage" section per the Hyperallergic article. I would rather see a photo of one of the plaques mentioned in the article though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment In a somewhat similar situation, File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg is nominated for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Now at WP:Files for discussion/2022 March 8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• If there were no photo, the painting could be used following precedent for every person depicted on Wikipedia who lived before the age of photography, or who was never photographed while alive. I doubt this would be considered controversial.
  If the photo was suitably licensed, there would be no objection to its use, with or without other depictions of the subject assuming it does actually depict the subject of the article (I do not dispute this, but it would be a condition for acceptance).
  I do not think it is overstretching free use to use the photo which is an accurate and realistic depiction, as well as an artistic depiction which is not as accurate, in the same article, as the painting is a published reference on the topic by a recognised? artist with known provenance. (would she meet the notability requirements for WP? Maybe this should be the deciding criterion?). I consider the use of both to be acceptable. The painting may be considered decorative, but it is not only decorative, and so I argue to Keep both arranged much as they are at present. If it is decided for any reason that both may not be kept in the same article, the photo is a more accurate depiction of the subject, as I do not accept that the painting "adequately provides the same information". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes art in lead, but no Wikimedia Foundation editorial power to commission art The image with the Wikimedia compatible license is preferable to the restricted use photo with incompatible copyright. Most language versions of Wikipedia do not even have the option to include photos based on English Wikipedia's fair use copyright rules, and I think it is preferable to better for English Wikipedia to take steps to address challenges across Wikipedia language versions. As to the art - obviously it is an artist's interpretation and not a photo, but I think that is fine. Humans mostly look alike anyway, and we have a million biographies in English Wikipedia all of which need images, so why not paint a few thousand of them blue to add some variety. Black and white photos are not realistic and we use those too. The photographs are artistic interpretations anyway and many celebrities around the world have both complained about the low-quality photos of themselves in Wikipedia while also refusing to give us a copyright license for better ones. For both living and dead people we need a solution to get photos when none are available otherwise, and artistic representations are an option. Already the technology exists to dump a few photos into an AI which spits out a new photo from a new pose, so that is coming soon to Wikipedia as well. A few years ago I commissioned a portrait of Jashodaben Modi, the wife of the prime minister of India. See the documentation at commons:File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg. I did this because she is a prominent person and even since 2015 when I did this, there are not many images of her in circulation and none with free licenses. Also in 2015 user:Anna Frodesiak designed a project called Wikipedia:Donated artwork which discussed the idea of having artists paint portraits.

I object to Wikimedia Foundation commissioning art. Instead the WMF should make grants to the Wikimedia community to have such options. Commissioning art is an editorial decision that the WMF should not make, and when they do these kinds of activities it is an undue social pressure on the Wikimedia editorial community to accept the content they produced. The WMF is breaking a taboo in getting involved in content creation without the expected standard of community participation. I am in favor of halting WMF commissions and instead directing the WMF to fund community partners directly, who get the credit for organizing while WMF can be noted as funder. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support art in the lead per WP:NFCC: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available. We have a free equivalent, so there is no justification for using copyrighted photographs. Otherwise our fair use rationales won't hold water. Nosferattus (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• No art in lede but no Wikimedia Foundation editorial power to commission art. I agree with Blueraspberry that I think the WMF should hand out money in a project based manner to commission works for all Wikipedias. It would be the ideal thing to do, to brighten up a lot of these articles that are sometimes dreadfully dull. Wikipedia is already a desert when it comes to images, colour or b&w. We live in a world where social media is predominant and those social media entities that are the most predominant are the one where colour and movement are utlised at their best. Younger folk expect to see colour images, that why in the last 15 years, all the web sites have added lot of colourful images to landing page and why instragram and tiktok is so predominant. I don't agree that black and white photograph are not realistic and people mostly look the same. Most artists would laugh their heads off and break their ribs if they heard that. Black and White photograph are seen by the photo industry and photographers are being more true to their subject and more arty and creative. I think a good in-focus black and white photograph is ideal in the lede. Readers expect to see a photograph and if b&w is the only one available, then that is ideal. Colour is better. Regarding the work of art, it is public domain image and has a right to be in the article as much as any public domain, as it is related to the subject. It is not suitable for an infobox, due to it not being an accurate composition of Xavier. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Fair-use photo should be used, and the artwork image should not be included. Regarding WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI the artwork is not remotely "equivalent" or "close substitute". Per MOS:Images Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative and Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate. We are an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. In general subjects should be depicted Accurately, especially when the key lead purpose is identification of the subject. Highly "Artistic" depiction runs directly counter to that purpose. As far as I can see, there is absolutely no encyclopedic purpose for additionally including the second image. Alsee (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Include fair use photo and exclude painting The painting is very far from being realistic and I do not think the WMF should be hiring painters to create content. That bothers me. Leave content creation to the various Wikipedia communities. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Include fair use photo and include painting later in the article - The photo is clearly better in this case. I have no problem with an artistic rendition appearing further down in the article, but the photo is much better suited for the lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, It is great that WMF is sponsoring artists to do this. Leaving it to the communities is not feasible; both we and Commons are very hard on amateur artistic efforts. Most Wikipedias can't use fair use images so the alternative is no image at all. This is a good support for diverse images in the other language Wikipedias. See Mercedes Richards where we can have a photo and es:Mercedes Richards where the photo can't be used. Here on en.wiki we have more choices and editors at each article are free to use them or not. I wonder if there is some way to request that images be more realistic? However the artists are working from photos under copyright and must be very careful that the result cannot be considered a derivative image. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes no image is better than an inappropriate painting; see the discussion above about the May Miller painting. I have similar opinions about this painting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Use the painting. There is no policy excluding styles of art that individual editors do not like. For many historical figures there are no images of the types preferred by editors commenting here, and we should not exclude those because of individual preferences. Artistic representations serve many purposes besides being a type of proto-photography, such as historical and artistic context. And we shouldn't exclude it because it provides the usual suspects a venue to complain about the WMF, per WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a policy excluding styles of art that do not look like what they are meant to illustrate, which includes this painting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If you are referring to the manual of style, this is a guideline, and I do not concur with your personal interpretation of this guideline. Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @BilledMammal: Could you let this proceed on natural course please without disagrees with every comment into the RFC. I wouldn't say it is far as WP:BLUDGEON but it would be better if it proceeded on it course. If you need to talk about your views, please do it in the attached discussion section. That is what its for. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)