Wikipedia:Simple talk

Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Auntof6 in topic I made a draft. Is it well written?
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Is deleting pages only admin?

change

Hi, I know this may be a stupid question but are deleting pages only for admins? Or is there other permissions like rollbackers or something that can do it? Please help me clear this question up, thanks and happy editing! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, only administrators can do this. In addition to them, global administrators (on some wikis), stewards, WMF employees and system administrators can also do this. I have not yet encountered the possibility of deleting pages by non-advanced user groups in any Wikimedia project. BZPN (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BZPN: The Portuguese Wikipedia has this (pt:Wikipédia:Eliminadores). JJPMaster (she/they) 18:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BZPN Oh okay, makes sense because they don't want inexperienced users or anons going around deleting a whole ton of good pages, am I right? (lol) Well I am an experienced user and I am not an admin (maybe someday). But thank you for answering! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 18:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@JJPMaster True, but I cannot read Portuguese yet. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 19:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Adelaideslement8723: Google translate can be your friend! :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
True, but posting machine translated articles can also get you blocked. Cactus🌵 spiky 08:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Cactusisme: We were talking about reading, not writing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok Cactus🌵 spiky 01:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6 Yes true, thank you. :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 21:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
hello all, I think that this wiki has a policy where adminship is easy to get, and I would also guess that most regular contributors have the flag. AI generated content may be bad, but it's no reason to not run an RFD when in doubt Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is this site reliable

change

Can someone please help me check if this site is a reliable reference for Wikipedia article Amandachapin (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Basically, it looks like a regular news portal. I don't see any problems with reliability (it's the BBC). BZPN (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I   Support BZPN here. The BBC is a very reliable source. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 11:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Amandachapin, If you go to en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that tells you all of the sources that are acceptable (and unacceptable) here, The BBC is a widely trusted, reputable and reliable news source so that can be used here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Amandachapin Also no that website cannot be used as it's a user-made website hosted on NeoCities.... which to my knowledge has nothing to do with the BBC, Please only use https://www.bbc.co.uk/news, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, thanks Davey for noticing this! The original BBC Igbo website is here: [1]. So this website is illegally impersonating the BBC. BZPN (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've reported it to Google as an impersonation site and (if I get time) will contact the real BBC to notify them of the impersonating page.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've also reported it to NeoCities to hopefully stop it at the source.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Grant (money)

change

Is it better to keep Grant (money) as its current AI version as a complete article, or revert back to the non-AI, incomplete, version? 2601:644:907E:A70:C990:69D7:57E4:7FC8 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the article, removed nonsense, added references and simplified it. It should be better now. BZPN (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BZPN See also Manufacturing. 2601:644:907E:A70:D0FE:95B8:1B95:70CF (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hellabyte/Ronnabyte merge

change

Hi, @No more redundancy had redirected Hellabyte to Ronnabyte per the "consensus" at Talk:Hellabyte#=_Marge_with_Ronnabyte,

Unaware of that discussion I had changed it and redirected Hellabyte back to Byte#Names_for_larger_units as per the Enwiki and per the fact the Ronnabyte article didn't even mention Hellabyte so it didn't make sense to me,

Anyway @Superfroggy21 has since stated in that discussion that they disagree with my actions and that it should be discussed here (I did state I'd come here if they objected),

Given consensus was achieved even though I wasn't aware of it I still sort of feel crap for changing this so wanted to seek opinions, I have wondered if both are the same thing but surely if they were the Enwiki article would point to the Ron article too ?, Anyway many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 21:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Davey2010: Yes, they are. en:Hellabyte redirects to en:Hella#SI prefix, which states:

An online petition begun in 2010 by Austin Sendek of Yreka, California, seeks to establish "hella-" as the SI prefix for 1027... In 2022, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopted the prefix "ronna-" to represent 1027, as the symbol H, commonly used to represent "hella-", is already in use in the metric system for the Henry, a unit of inductance.

Sidenote: I strongly suspect that Special:Contribs/No more redundancy and Special:Contribs/Superfroggy21 are the same person. In particular, Special:Contribs/No more redundancy was created today, has done nothing outside of advocating for the merge, and has a username that suggests their account was created for this purpose. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @76.212.74.243, Oh okay interesting thanks for the heads up, If no one else comments then I'll self revert and add mention to that article,
Re those two; Agreed it looks very odd so I've filed a CU request, I hadn't looked at their contribs so thank you for also pointing this out, Your help has been very much appreciated thank you :), Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Struck as both are now sock-blocked, Given Enwiki redirects I feel we should follow suit for simplicity but if others believe a merge should happen then I'll do that, Thanks 76 for spotting this your help is very much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

taxonomy template help

change

I've tried making Taxonomy templates for Eleotridae and Tyson, for the article Arrow wriggler, but they have lua errors. Can someone explain what I did wrong? I'm looking at other taxonomy boxes and don't see anything i did wrong... 💠Ely - Talk💠 17:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Elytrian: Can you provide links, please? Did you copy from English Wikipedia, or make them from scratch? -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Template:Taxonomy/Tyson and Template:Taxonomy/Eleotridae. The Tyson one sort of works on the speciesbox but the Eleotridae one is broken completely. I did take the sources off of English wiki but i did write them by hand off of the Simple wiki, i used the page Tiger as reference for the speciesbox. I did fiddle around with different things but the Lua errors didn't get fixed 💠Ely - Talk💠 06:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I mean I also looked at the Template:Taxonomy/Gobiiformes and I found nothing wrong with what I was doing 💠Ely - Talk💠 06:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Elytrian: I tried a few things, but I think I reached the limit of what I understand. Maybe someone else will be able to help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, somebody else helped. Ty for trying though <3 💠Ely - Talk💠 18:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did some random things and it appears to be working now. Best, Griff (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Although, how did you fix it? It certainly didn't seem straightforward. 💠Ely - Talk💠 18:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources

change

Is Newsbreak a reliable source Sign them in (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some context and why you think it might be a reliable source is helpful here. That said, some quick searching finds this story and other information that calls it a news aggregator at best which should never be used as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
No; see en:WP:RSP and Ctrl+F for "Newsbreak" in the table. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
^ This, Newsbreak is deprecated as per en:WP:RSPSOURCES and shouldn't be used, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Change filter stopping me from making article

change

hello everyone i made the VinFast article and i am making car articles for VinFast but when i always try to make VinFast LUX SA2.0 article the change filter keeps stopping me from making the article saying its harmful even though i did nothing wrong i am a good faith ip editor and also i will keep making car articles but its hard to make this one because of this change filter bug.

Also the reason why i said this here not on change filter mistakes its because i am scared of being a victim of vandalism on change filter mistakes due to frequent vandalism on that section anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I already explained it to you here. Please provide any external links you use and we will try to find the problematic one. I will also mention that using links to online stores is not common, and it should not be done without a clear reason. BZPN (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would be better if an admin looked at this because they can see what links were being used. 205.154.244.130 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes links like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes for example, the filter is triggered because it prevents you from adding spam links into articles. And IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia so the filter stops you from adding such links. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 00:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
i basically tried i removed the sources that arent promotional but it still appears to me but there's no problem i will probably make other car articles but thanks guys for the help 179.109.143.137 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reply to my comment: Also shopping links are not allowed on Wikipedia, because the filters will take it as spam. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 00:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@179.109.143.137 Of course, happy to help. Happy editing! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Happy Valentine's Day!

change

I hope everyone has a great Valentine's Day today, and a great weekend as well! :) Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same for you :). BZPN (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
me too Reatom2 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you and same for you! <3 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 21:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
You too!! Cactus🌵 spiky 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposal of a list of current automobile brands article

change

Hey guys do you think we should made a article that list current automobile brands since it already has this type of article on en wiki and i think it would be good a article of this type here what do you think? let me know also good luck with all your contribuitions best regards!. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support I support this idea, great idea! :) 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 21:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
i agree and probably would be in alfabetic order each automobile brand and the good thing is that it will make this wiki have more articles about automobile brands and cars 179.109.143.137 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
How about a list of "all" makes, with an indication of which ones are still viable. I would be disappointed to see a list of makes (and models? - I don't know what "brand" means when it comes to cars) that omitted Desotos, Stanley Steamers, Hupmobiles, Packards and Studebakers. Kdammers (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
brand is a word that is used to refer to a maker or marque of cars also i think its great to make separate lists of current and defunct car makers 179.109.143.137 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I'm a native speaker of American English, and that use (brand) is foreign to me when referring to cars. Kdammers (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is an okay list, at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers

. 2001:2020:311:F266:891A:7ECF:6A7D:80DB (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
See, List of Current Automobile Brands By Country.--Note: a manufacturer can have more than one brands.--If "brand" does not mean "manufacturer", in British-English, then our title seems wrong. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:30AD:1764:22F8:A55B (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:311:F266:891A:7ECF:6A7D:80DBReply

Template:Where

change

Hi, I'm inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Where. Have a nice day, everyone! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Help with changing name of a page

change

Hi,my question is possible to change default name of an page here ? Page is Albanian Stars of the Diaspora to be changed to default name : Yjet Shqiptarë të Diasporës. I will appreciate if possible,Thanks in advance. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only logged in and Autoconfirmed users can change name on pages, Wiki-fan-editor-68568 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes but i thought an admin can do that. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I don't see the need for this. "Albanian Stars of the Diaspora" is the correct translation of the original name into English, present in the sources, and it should remain so. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, i understand, mostly i say becouse of original title of script,anyway thank you. 93.93.171.92 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

My opnion on extremely short articles

change

Guys i am here to tell my opnion on extremely short articles:the objective of this wiki is to have acessible language to readers and to use shorter less-complicated and simple words.

But some people they take the simple word a little bit too far in my opnion because they take articles (not only about cars but also about other topics) and they remove so much content on them that they leave a extremely short article with only a phrase and sometimes these stub articles even dont have a infobox (and one of the rules is to not simplify too much a article many dont respect it).

And also in my opnion i am not a big fan of these extremely short articles since they have only one phrase with useless info to the reader and they arent updated since the 2010s or even in 2020 2021 2022 and 2023 also i said this first on BZPN talk page when i used a account to edit (due to the loss of my two accounts i made the 2 one to keep editing after losting the access of my second account i am now editing as a ip editor) and this is my opnion anyways good luck with all your contribuitions best regards. 179.109.143.137 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some editors tend to be "starters" and some are "finishers". If both types of editors work together and do what they enjoy, the wiki can thrive and quality articles can be created. I would say a stub with a small amount of information is better than no article at all (as long as the article meets the standards to be an article), but I do agree it is helpful if people can help expand them as well. Ternera (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This problem exists in most translated articles on language wikis. It is simpler for people to just translate the lead so that's what they do. On enwiki the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article so it should contain most of the key information the rest of the article has. Unfortunately this is often not the case and we end up with small articles. I know, in my case, I try only to create articles that have a comprehensive lead. fr33kman 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Isn't there a list somewhere of articles that need help?Kdammers (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also my car articles have a small summary of what cars are:brand that makes them the type and production years then i write the History and Features of the car in History and Features section that have in many of my articles.In Markets section i say where they are sold and sometimes the sales and some infos like in the VinFast VF 8 article that i made i explained on a simple way that it was criticized by the press in the US.
And for discontinued cars i add a discontinuation section and sometimes i say the reason why they were discontinued and my articles have infobox infos about the car and are simple and i will probably expand existent car articles on this wiki 179.109.143.137 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi 179, Do you have any diffs showing what people are removing ?, There could be lots of reasons for removals (such as vandalism, unsourced content etc),
Anyway we all start off small; I certainly did although as noted above we have editors whos English is their second language so would find it harder to expand the article they're creating, –Davey2010Talk 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
No i dont have diffs since as a new editor i dont know what is this also yes editors here start small and i saw someone saying the reason why there are stub articles its because its to make people expand the article but sometimes it dosent work for example the:Audi 100 unfortunely isnt updated since 5 years so i dont think it works 179.109.143.137 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
'Have no worries' about the "Audi 100" article (because it has fantastic pictures) !--If this post is regarded as polite and helpful, then fine. Thank you so much for the link to that car article. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:30AD:1764:22F8:A55B (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Semi AI article review

change

I decided to see if it would be possible to use an AI to co-write an article. Please review User:Fr33kman/deep learning and tell me what you think on the talk page. If the consensus is positive ill finish the article with citations etc. I think the current Deep learning article is too complex and doesn't contain useful info on how it works and examples of what it can do. Thanks, fr33kman 14:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sentence number three: "Digital learning is made up of core units of programming in languages like Python and C++ containing many millions of lines of code."--Not a clear idea, one might say.--For now, it seems like a looser of an idea - to have A.I. write stuff (or 'generate' stuff) for the lede of this article. 2001:2020:311:F266:69C0:7359:28F3:C54B (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's much easier to rewrite the whole thing taking bits of content from enwiki than fix that. Not encyclopedic at all in the later sections. BRP ever 10:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would like to share something else regarding AI and writing articles. Well, some models can be taught to write articles really well (here's an example and a chat). You can test it here. Should this be forbidden? I invite you to share your feelings. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The example from User:BZPN, had at least 'two good sentences/lines' for a lede.

Please see 'How to approve sentences/lines (for an article), out of an AI-generated text',

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABZPN&diff=10083894&oldid=10077691

. Good for you, for picking (the subject of) a ' physical thing ', and one that is easy to describe (for both man-and "-model").--Note: I am guessing that many LLM-whatever-models would have done just as, uh, not-too-bad. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:45DE:19F:A519:E090 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
i have made an 'article', out of some of the text, that was harvested by user:BZPN. See,

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatra_National_Park,_Poland&oldid=10084261

. I have checked that the two numbers in "my" article, match the infobox at En-wiki. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:B94A:A4E9:C707:A8CB (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC) / 2001:2020:325:D0A7:45DE:19F:A519:E090Reply

Brand recognition

change

I have become aware of a problem: It is almost impossible to tell if you are on English or Simple English Wikipedia when reading an article on mobile. People sometimes end up here by accident and are surprised when this project doesn't have the pages they want, or they are too simple. In other cases, they might edit the articles to make them more complex without realizing where they are. Can we try to find a solution for this? 2607:F140:6000:802A:34CB:4958:DA33:888 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm simple english wikipedian, i readed article in my mobile, what's your problem right now? Raayaan9911 06:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unreasonable blanking of talk-pages

change

SPA has started an article. I started its talk-page, and now the SPA has 'deleted' the talk page.
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJ_Vee&diff=10082733&oldid=10082639

It might seem counter-intuitive, for me to go back to that talk-page. Is "admin noticeboard", a good place to go (or is there a "patrollers noticeboard")? 2001:2020:311:F266:79EE:7E0:9295:D13 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Update: the article 'that belonged' to the talk page, has been deleted: "14:38, 17 February 2025 ... (QD G11: Advertising)". Thanks. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:7C95:121B:EFAF:D2A4 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:311:F266:79EE:7E0:9295:D13Reply

I made a draft. Is it well written?

change

I made a userspace draft here User:Immanuelle/Sarutahiko Ōkami. I hope it is well written but I am not sure. Does it seem ready as an article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not ready, in my view.--The first sentence/line is not okay.--If the text had been at Articles-for-Delete, then i would quite possibly say "Delete". Some, or many, might disagree with me. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Update: Weak Neutral, that is my view now.--Please do not expect user:Emannuelle to be able to continue to work on an article, if it gets into mainspace (because of a partial block). Therefore, we should not publish any of user:Emannuelle's articles, unless it is already good enough. 2001:2020:325:D0A7:9CA0:6C73:79BD:B34E (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
others can improve it Cactus🌵 spiky 02:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Cactusisme: Others can improve every article we have. We shouldn't publish articles that aren't good with the expectation that somebody will fix them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
oh, okay Cactus🌵 spiky 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle some of the catgories, templates and related pages do noy exist here. Cactus🌵 spiky 01:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it up a little bit. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle: The sentences look fairly simple -- good work on those. The article also seems laid out logically, so the information is easy to follow.
My only criticisms would be:
  • Please remove the interwikis. Not only do they not belong in userspace, they also don't belong in the article if it goes to mainspace.
  • You might also simplify the {{ill}} templates. The way they're coded is intrusive. One link should be enough in each use.
  • Another comment would be to condense the navigation template at the bottom so there isn't as much white space. That might require shrinking the image. You'll also need to move the template to template space.
Other than that, it looks good. :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply