User talk:Papblak

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! -Burmeister (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Herpetological Review[edit]

Did you mean to create Template:Herpetological Review in the template namespace like that? We already have ISSN 0018-084X if you wanted to create a page on that journal (which has Herpetological Review as a redirect). Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I didn't mean you should create Template:ISSN 0018-084X as well. I meant you didn't need to create a page starting with "Template:" for either ISSN 0018-084X or Herpetological Review. That's not what template pages are for on wiki-based websites like Wikispecies. You could edit the existing ISSN 0018-084X page with the extra details you added to those two pages, apart from the "Template:" line which gives misleading information that won't actually work (did you copy that from the Zootaxa ISSN page?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I based the template on Zootaxa. I don't mind whether the page is the ISSN number of the journal provided it can be linked to from the paper.

Yeah what's happened is you didn't actually create a template, you created a regular page for a journal with the the prefix intended for templates. The actual template for Zootaxa, Template:Zootaxa, is actually very different, so you want to see that for comparison. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(Actually you probably won't want to make a template like the one for Zootaxa, it's a mess, and much of it probably won't apply to Herpetological Review anyway.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I left out several sections from the Zootaxa template that were irrelevent to Herpetological Review. Is it okay or do I need to edit it? If so tell me specifically what I need to do and I will fix it. I am simply trying to get some published papers catalogued on Wikispecies.

Unfortunately what you've written is just information on the series itself, which is all that's going to appear whenever you try to use the template you created in another page. Honestly you don't need to use a template like Zootaxa's in a reference anyway, just follow the guidelines at Help:Reference section and that should be enough. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So can I edit and correct it?

Perhaps I should just be frank and say that Zootaxa is actually a bad example to follow. Don't worry about making a special template for Herpetological Review. Just write the Herpetological Review references the same way you would write them for other non-Zootaxa articles. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay but I wish someone would sort the Zootaxa template because I have 3 papers submitted and accepted for that journal so will be wanting to add those references when they are published.

Reference templates[edit]

Hello Papblak, thank you for your contributions to Wikispecies. Here are some tipps for reference templates:

  • You can use the Substitution Code {{reftemp}}, after typing the text of the reference. This will create correct links to your new template and adds a category. (just click in the Wikispecies tools at the bottom of the editing window). Then save your page. In a second step, you can add nomenclatural acts and dates, just above "Category:Reference templates".
  • For more than 3 authors, please use "firstauthor et al., year" (without a comma after firstauthor).
  • Please add the template on the pages of all authors cited by the template, if blue-linked.

If you need more informations, do not hesitate to ask. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Thiotrix, I do need more help.

  1. The substitition code you provided, could you explain exactly where that needs to be placed after the text of the reference and whether it replaces existing code.
  2. With the 3authors+ use of et al., is it possible to edit the title of the template that I already constructed but which currently has a comma after first author. And is it possible to reduce a template title with four authors down to one author et al., ?
  3. I know what you mean by blue-linked authors but do you mean I should edit their pages to include the template for the paper I added?

I have spent some time reading through all the Wikispecies instructions and some things are still not clear. Thanks Papblak - I notice even my handle did not link through from Wikipedia where I have had a presence for many years. Do I need to set it up again in Wikispecies?

Seems I even need to work out how to ask questions or respond to comments. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papblak (talkcontribs) 15:08, 18 November 2020‎.

You can attract the attention of other users using the {{Ping}} template, like this: {{ping|Thiotrix}}, which renders as: @Thiotrix: - this will only work if you sign your posts in the same edit
You can sign your posts with ~~~~
Add {{Subst:reftemp}} immediately after the last character of the citation, leaving no space. See guide at {{reftemp}}.
Yes, citation templates should be added to the pages about each of the authors named in them.
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for the ping tip. I have looked for examples of another authors using {{Subst:reftemp}} to see where precisely it goes, but they don't seem to use it. I tested it to the end of one of my citations and it just appeared as text. Is it used in place of the text reading ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{int:Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference}}]]. ? Can you point me to an example. This is a learning curve and I would prefer to go back and correct errors I have made rather than leave them for others to fix. Papblak (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Papblak (talk)

"Subst:" is shot for "Substitution"; see En:Wikipedia:Substitution for an explanation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
yes I worked that out but if does not help one jot. I have now checked the code behind papers by half a dozen colleagues and nobody uses {{Subst:reftemp}}. Since I don't know what to do with it and all colleagues seem to manage fine without it, I shall continue without using it either. Papblak (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Papblak (talk)
Hello Papblak, and thank you, Andy Mabbett, for your help and information.
  1. After saving the reference template, you will not find the code {{Subst:reftemp}}, because it is replaced by something like<includeonly>[[Template:BASEPAGENAME|{{int:Reference page}}]].</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{int:Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference}}]]. [[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>. As an example, see {{Template:Ganglbauer, 1883}}, where I set the substition code immediately after the {{BHLpage|35918446}}.
  2. If there is a misspelling in the title of an existing page, it can be moved to the correct name. After renaming a reference template, {{Subst:reftemp}} needs to be done again, because the BASEPAGENAME is now altered. The misspelled page can then be deleted by an administrator. Just add {{delete|reason, e.g. misspelling}} in the first line. I am not sure, if you have already the option of page moves (it will be at the tab on the left side of the search window). If not, just list here the templates that need to be renamed. For future problems, use our discussion forum Wikispecies:Village Pump, there are always experienced editors online who will help you. Editing of Wikispecies seems to be a bit difficult in the beginning. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: Thanks for the explanation which does assist me considerably. My responses/queries below in response to your comments.

  1. That explains why I cannot see the code, but it also means I was already using {{Subst:reftemp}} because <includeonly>[[Template:BASEPAGENAME|{{int:Reference page}}]].</includeonly> <noinclude> was present after my citations, although I had included a link to the paper and whether it was open or closed access directly after the citation, just as you had with the example you provided for BHL. (NB. This should now be a new paragraph but I could not get it to break). :#I have issues with two of my reference templates. 1. <code><nowiki>{{O’Shea et al., 2016}}. This reference template is for four authors and I had originally listed all four, but following your comment that I should use et al., being unable to edit the original template I created a new one for O'Shea et al., 2016 but the reference template still defaults to the older version. I cannot find a way to prevent this but think it would go to the newer reference template if the older one was deleted. 2. {{Rhodin et al., 2015}}. I originally added a comma after Rhodin but the link dafaults to the original reference template with the comma every time. I would like to correct these two typos so that the link goes to the correct reference template and if it meant deleting the reference template so that the link shows up as a red template:O'Shea et al., 2016 that would be fine because I have the code stored in Word and could input it again.

So to summarise the following templates need to be renamed or deleted:

Template:O'Shea, Doria, Petri & Kaiser, 2016 to Template:O'Shea et al., 2016
 Done and added template to all author pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Rhodin, et al., 2015 to Template:Rhodin et al., 2015
 Done--Thiotrix (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You will have noticed that in several cases I have used code in this message which have not always worked as I planned. Line breaks and new paragraphs did not always work and numbering paragraphs sometime failed. Also when using only partially worked. I am publishing this now because I have to get onto some other work and have not managed to correct these errors.

Finally, just to confirm the content of Wikispecies. Only papers including taxonomic changes or nomenclatural acts, i.e. descriptions of new taxa, revisions of existing taxa, and relating to the distribution of named taxa should be included, not natural history. What about faunal surveys of previously undocumented islands/countries? And only include the subheader Nomenclatural acts in account where new taxa are described? or also when a revision of a taxon has resulted in new combinations? --Papblak (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Papblak, the two problematic reference templates linked to the old versions, because you did not use {{subst:reftemp}}! Instead you had just copied some code parts from one template to the other. I have corrected both templates by deleting all the misleading code and using subst:reftemp immediately after the template text. Finally I deleted the old versions.
  • You don't need to add {{access:open}} if the reference has a PDF, because a PDF is always open. Access information can be added after {{doi|numbers}}.
  • The subheader "Nomenclatural acts" is optional. Some Wikispecies editors like to list the new names cited in each research work. I do not use it, and rather concentrate my edits on taxa and authority pages.
  • The scope of Wikispecies is taxonomy and nomenclature. So we cite usually only references about this matter: taxonomical or nomenclatural works, descriptions of new taxa, revisions, typifications (Primary references), Floras or Faunas etc. (Additional references). But for articles on Wikipedia, further research works on ecology, distribution, physiology... are welcome. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: Okay I understand, the wrong {{subst:reftemp}} caused the wrong template to be sourced. I am getting there.... slowly. I did notice a problem with {{subst:reftemp}} though. When I added it to the end of a citation it also added a line of code ending in which means the date of publication and no new species text appeared on the authors' pages under the citation. But I see you added this after everything [[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude> and that should stop that happening.

Doi numbers - some journals don't use them and one paper I have just added has not had its doi activated yet so I linked to the journal page where the pdf can be downloaded. I will change that once it has been activated.
Nomenclatural acts - I do plan to spend time on the Papuan genera I particularly work on, updating the number of species and providing authors, type specimens, type localities etc. The genus Stegonotus needs a lot of work when I can find some time to action it and I can complete Toxicocalamus although we have two big papers in the pipeline which will dramatically increase that genus. I find this therapeutic when it is working, frustrating when it isn't. Thanks for all your help, the scales are falling away.

With regards to genus Toxicocalamus I notice that Toxicocalamus holopelturus is redirected from Toxicocalamus (Aphtocalamus) holopelturus but this is a typo, the subgenus was Apistocalamus so Toxicocalamus (Apistocalamus) holopelturus is correct. Is it possible to correct this. See Toxicocalamus (Apistocalamus) spilolepidotus where the spelling is also correct. Papblak (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The misspelling "Aphtocalamus" is now corrected. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Type locality[edit]

Hello Papblak! Welcome! I usually mark the type locality originally proposed in the description within “”, the additional data or clarification, I put out of the markup. I believe that we should inform the locations as they are in the original descriptions, since some may be restricted or corrected in later publications, especially older ones. I noticed that you removed several markings that I made, so I would like to know your opinion about the markings and other related issues so that we can build a more uniform database, and that the work of one does not undo the work of another user. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Burmeister: apologies, I did not realise about the quotations, I can put back the historical localities although in my experience people are often confused about what is the Territory of New Guinea, what is German New Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Papua, British New Guinea, etc. and that is before we get to the western half of the island. I have researched this genus considerably for many years, examined around 500 of the 517 known specimens in 30 collections and am familiar with the type specimens and type localities. Would it be okay to use the original historical location in "" and then clarify the locations more precisely using current geographical terminology? I also have high quality photographs of all the holotypes, lectotypes etc for all currently described Toxicocalamus, both full body and close up head, which I would add to the accounts if that is permissable. Regards, Papblak (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, welcome again, and good contributions. Burmeister (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Burmeister: My pleasure, I am getting my head around the process bit by bit having already played in the sandbox. I am working on Toxicocalamus at the moment so don't have a seizure if you see something you don't recognise, I sometimes have to save in order to prepare a new template and when I see mistakes I try to find out what is wrong and correct it. I should mention that T. preussi and T. loriae are complexes that we are working on at the present with papers in preparation so there will be some bigger changes when the papers are published in 2021. Papblak (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Toxicocalamus preussi[edit]

Hi Papblak.

Your additings are not good. See Toxicocalamus preussi. Idon't know what you mean. Are there subspecies or is one subspecies synonymized with Toxicocalamus preussi. PeterR (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: I am changing that page, I had put both ssp on the same page but found I can allocate them separate pages which is what I am doing at the moment. Give me a little time and it should be fine. Papblak (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: Okay, I think Toxicocalamus preussi is complete. If you can see anything wrong please let me know and I will fix it. I did not realise that subspecies account were acceptable so had include the very different Upper Fly ssp. on the same page. Not satisfied with how that looked I checked and found ssp. were acceptable, so now I have Toxicocalamus preussi linking to Toxicocalamus preussi preussi and Toxicocalamus preussi angusticinctus with links to their describing authors. I hope the pages are okay now. Papblak (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

    • It is nearly good. We described first Type locality and than Holotype. We don't use Combinations, but Synonyms see wikispecies tools. We started after Taxonavigation with the species in this case Toxicocalamus preussi and make a template. If you need help I help you.PeterR (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: I have done quite a lot of work on Toxicocalamus today, adding several pages for taxa that were not represented yet (in red on the generic page). I found two small mistakes, one of which I must ask you to fix because it is a missing comma from a template header, the other is a puzzle I can't seem to resolve.

  • Template:O'Shea 1996 should be Template:O'Shea, 1996 - I known I don't have the authority to fix this.
 Done --Thiotrix (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Template:Strickland et al., 2016 - "Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" is correctly indented but preceded by two dots instead of one. I have tried to figure out what went wrong without success. I could do with knowing what I did wrong here so I can fix it if it happens again. Many thanks, I don't wish to worry you but when Toxicocalamus has pages for each taxon I will turn to Stegonotus which is only have complete. Pablak (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There was a line break in the text that caused the wrong indentation. This has already been corrected by user:Burmeister, thanks to them. - If you add access info, please leave a blank between the doi-template and the access-template. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: What do you mean "We started after Taxonavigation with the species in this case Toxicocalamus preussi and make a template." Do you means do not include the information for T. preussi (sp.) on that page, reserve it for T. p. preussi (ssp.)? Please explain. I would have use Synonyms but saw Combinations had been used on a page for synonyms but someone else. I prefer Synonyms so will switch the term. Pablak (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I have made a sample Toxicocalamus preussi. This is the format who we make more then 10 years. Today I have no time so I look monday.PeterR (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The taxonavigation section begins with a template for the "parent taxon", followed by the "page taxon". On a page of a subpspecies, the parent is the species, here {{Toxicocalamus preussi}}. Next line is for Subspecies: ''[[Toxicocalamus preussi angusticinctus]]''. When you look at the preview or save the page, the species name is a red link, if there is not yet a template for it. Hold the control-key and click on the red link. A new window opens, where you can create the taxonavigation-template for Toxicocalamus preussi:
Species: ''[[Toxicocalamus preussi]]'' <br>
The subst:taxotemp is in the wikispecies tools and adds automatically all needed categories. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: I confess I cannot see what is wrong with my page for Toxicocalmus preussi which links to two subspecies. I have compared it with some of the pages for those Crotalus species with also subspecies and their seem to be no difference either in appearance or coding, apart from my using Synonymy rather than Combinations (at the request of PeterR. above and which seems to comply better with the Wikispecies instructions). Pablak (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The use of species template in pages with subspecies is not mandatory, so there is no problem with the format used in page Toxicocalmus preussi or the subspecies, It's only a difference in styles, some users like to use outhers don't, the use or not don't affect the final result. The use of Combinations/Synonyms or Synonymy was discussed in VillagePump both are allowed (Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_37#Synonym_conventions), I personally use the first one, for finding it better to separate combinations of synonyms since many people confuse the two terms, as example Protobothrops cornutus. I see that you changed my original format in pages, remove original combination, subsequent combination etc, Ok, there is no consensus for the standard formatting of the pages in WS, which allows for different formatting styles. But at least I could know why? Is confusing, is irrelevant for the readers? It would be interesting to know the problematic points to be able to discuss and improve the formatting of the pages to facilitate reading and understanding the content for readers. Other point, access template was create to use after doi's, BHL is always free and open, so is reduntant include access|open, I already correct this twice and you undo my corrections. Different opinion? Best regards, Burmeister (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Burmeister: I will read the VillagePump discussion. Thanks for the other fixes.

  • My understanding from PeterR was that I should have used Synonymy rather than Combinations and it seemed strange then to have original and subsequent combinations in a section that was now called Synonymy. I understand the differeniation between combinations of the existing taxon name and the synonymy of other taxa within the existing taxon. There is also a third scenario, when the name is misspelt in a publication (see my T. loriae page created earlier) and whilst there are several nomen terms that can be used I have used just one for this situation. I can reinstate Combinations if required although in a lot of papers the differentiation is not name, all being placed in synonymy.
  • I have now created pages for all those Toxicocalamus species for which they were lacking but whatever happens in the species loriae and preussi is temporary, pending publication of two papers in preparation for 2021.
  • I can go through and remove Access|open from BHL links but I notifed that with Boulenger some papers are represented by templates whilst others are located on the George Albert Boulenger page, and I must confess the lack of standardisation was awkward. I would like to see all of those citations linking to specific templates for the individual paper, but it would be a big job to fix for all Boulenger papers.
  • I would also ask, where the paper is available behind a paywall from Francis and Taylor but gratis from BHL, is there any need to list the doi that leads to F&T when users are bound to take the free option?
  • I have prepared a series of dorsal and right lateral head images for every one of the Toxicocalamus species and subspecies, all holotypes, except the longissimus lectotype, and buergersi, for which I do have holotype images but it is not a very good specimen so I would use a different specimen. It would be useful to know the preferred dpi and dimensions in pixels for Wikispecies.
  • I seem to have two messages from you but I only found the one in talk.
  • One final typo: Toxicocalamus loriae page. In additional references I have Lönnberg, A. but it should be Lönnberg, A.J.E. because the author used his last name Einar but I don't think he should be Lönnberg, E. Papblak (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Images are upload in Commons, not directly in Wikispecies, you need go there for help about images. In past references was not templating, so we have a lot of references not in templates. There is no standard format for paper with doi and BHL link, include one? both? I personally insert both. For me the synonymy in T. loriae is confusing, everything mixup without indication of what is synonym (and synonym have type data, type locality to include), combination, typographical errors, misspelling, but is just my personal opinion. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Burmeister: Is T. loriae clearer now I've differentiate between combinations of the original name and taxa that have been synonymised with T. loriae (loennbergi, pratti, nymani, lamingtoni), including those that were incorrectly transcribed as nomen incorrectum. Papblak (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

BHL link[edit]

@Burmeister: Re. the D.,B. & D. 1854 citation, as it currently stands the BHL hyperlink goes to the description of Lycodon cucullatum on p. 376, which is not very useful for persons seeking other pages. This was my mistake and I changed it to the title page of volume 7, part 1, from where a researcher simply has to locate the pages they require. D.,B. & D. 1854 doi's and links can be confusing. We had Zootaxa apply the doi to one of the other volumes to one of our papers. If a D.,B. & D. 1854 volume other than vol. 7 is cited it would have to be cited as {{Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854a}} etc. I am hoping to provide accounts for all the species in Stegonotus pending the publication of two papers, each with a new species in the genus. Papblak (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I correct the BHL link, i undo you because you remove the category of the template, don't do that please. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Burmeister: I did not realise I had removed the category, apologies, that was in error. [User:Papblak|Papblak]] (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Circular redirect[edit]

Hello Papblak, I noticed that Dendrelaphis aruensis redirects to itself. Please correct this error. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: , Sorry, been occupied elsewhere, could you explain the issue since Dendrelaphis aruensis is a synonym of Dendrelaphis calligastra. Regards, --Papblak (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Papblak, the problem has already been solved by User:Burmeister on 17 December 2020. [1]. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

You have made an error by placing a speedy delete inside Template:Reynolds, Niemiller & Revell, 2014, as it now asks to delete all the other pages on which this template appears. Make the replacement template, add it to the required pages, remove the original, blank then add the speedy delete. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Then it looks like I did not create the triple-author template, by bad I thought it was one of mine as I have added a number of python revisions. I had already created a template for Reynolds et al., inline with three authors requiring et al. and replaced it on the pages I was working on. I have now found all the pages using Template:Reynolds, Niemiller & Revell, 2014 and replaced them with Template:Reynolds et al., 2014 EXCEPT Apodora, I cannot see what the link remains because I replaced the template twice and the link is still there. I also marked a Template:Reynolds et al, 2013 for deletion because it was a typo. Could you take a look at Apodora and determine what the link remains, other than that I think it is done. Papblak (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The template "Reynolds, Niemiller & Revell, 2014" is correct created, and a substitute et al. for it is unnecessary and unrecommended, the use of et al. only occur when there are more than three authors. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Burmeister: By coincidence I was having the very same discussion yesterday but with regards student research papers and how some journals require et al. for three or more authors and others for more than three authors. If the Wikispecies style is only to use et al. for more than three authors I will comply with that style. Thanks for the heads-up. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papblak (talkcontribs) 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC).
Hi. Our praxis for the use of et al. (or not) is described in these two guidelines: Help:Name section & Help:Reference section.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC).