Revision as of 12:57, 19 December 2024 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,948 edits →PANDAS: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:54, 19 December 2024 edit undoJulius Senegal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users778 edits →PANDAS: Water fluoridationNext edit → | ||
Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
::::::::I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- ]°] 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ::::::::I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- ]°] 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. ] (]) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | :::::::::I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. ] (]) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
== ] == | |||
If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - ] - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --] (]) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:54, 19 December 2024
Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!
We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.
- Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
- Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
- Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~
). - Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived.
- Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list
List of archives | |
---|---|
|
This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon
Martha Hughes Cannon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) as MEDRS?
Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable WP:MEDRS source? There is a six-year old discussion about using PCORI that was pointed out to me. -Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I place PCORI in the same category as CDC or NIH. But I have seen edit wars centered on whether or not an NIH medical dictionary was WP:MEDRS, and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be WP:MEDRS. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is WP:MEDRS. Jaredroach (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that it is depending on what is being shared from the source and if it is a medical claim or paraphrased background information that fills an important gap in an article.JenOttawa (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Arthur E. Hertzler
I've started an article on Arthur E. Hertzler. Having started to dig into the numerous references about him, there's much more there than I currently have the time to write about, particularly in material found at this page. There is also other material that I can see referenced, but can't read because of journal paywalls, such as this article, and there's material about him in The Kansas Doctor: A Century of Pioneering by Thomas Neville Bonner, which I also don't have access to.
Hertzler by all accounts seems to have lived a fascinating life, and was clearly both brilliant and quite a character. Would anyone here be interested in expanding this article? — The Anome (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The JAMA article is available via Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library. After you're logged in, this direct link will probably work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Autism on Misplaced Pages
Hi, a friend at Wikimedia UK suggested it could be wise to post about this here: I have a piece just out in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, on 'How Misplaced Pages Systematically Misleads People About Autism'. It describes some of my experiences editing relevant pages here, and argues that Misplaced Pages's autism coverage is badly out of date. I don't use the term in the article, but effectively Misplaced Pages's guidelines tend to enshrine a strong status quo bias. One consequence of this is that a biomedical framing of autism is largely taken for granted, despite the attitudes and insights of contemporary autism specialists, not to mention autistic communities.
I understand that similar biases have affected Misplaced Pages's coverage of marginalised groups across the board, but it seems that to date, there has been far more coordinated and institutional investment in correcting systematic gender bias, LGBT exclusion and racial prejudice.
I bring this up here because my impression is that Misplaced Pages's main Autism entry has inherited a framing and structure that is ubiquitous in our coverage of diseases and disorders, but which is questionably relevant and arguably unhelpful when it comes to something like autism - with pathophysiology, management, prognosis, epidemiology and so on.
Its physiology is much-studied, but still poorly understood, and many would question the appropriateness of the 'patho-' prefix; 'management' is not really an appropriate way of thinking about a difference that affects someone's entire way of being; 'prognosis' can be summed up in the single word 'lifelong'; 'epidemiology' …I mean, there are some reasonably interesting things to be said about the statistics (variations in which inevitably reflect the limitations of the data more than objective real-world differences) but there are so many other things that are more important.
So I guess I'm posting here partly to just give people a heads-up about the article, and partly to enquire about how attached people are to this general structure… and why?
I note that gender dysphoria is a separate article from transgender, allowing one to focus on the formal, medicalised interpretation of trans experience, while the other is more about being trans. Stuff that non-clinicians are actually likely to want to know, or benefit from knowing. Not sure that's an ideal solution, but it's an interesting one that's been discussed a couple of times in Talk:Autism as well; there are various helpful parallels that are worth considering, I think. Oolong (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing milestone
Hello, all:
We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now less than 100 unsourced articles on the list! A few years ago, that list was over 400 articles. Less than a year ago, it was over 200 articles. We have made really good progress this year. Please take a minute and see if you can add a source to at least one article.
We are doing this now to support the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024 and also because we think that sources are particularly important for anything medicine-related on Misplaced Pages. The backlog drive has officially resulted in about 7,000 of Misplaced Pages's unsourced articles getting a new source (i.e., with #NOV24
in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.
Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
valvular heart disease: treatment
In the valvular heart disease article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. 38.55.71.51 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue"
If someone with the relevant expertise could look at this baffling language in the Fatigue article, that would be wonderful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles
Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on Retinal tuft or Vitreomacular traction syndrome, common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome. I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?
Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for WP:AFC. IntentionallyDense 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Neurocysticercosis Peer review
Hello everyone, in an attempt to get Neurocysticercosis to FA status I have begun a WP:Peer review on the topic which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Any input is welcomed! IntentionallyDense 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
New disease outbreak
I've created 2024 unknown Democratic Republic of Congo disease outbreak. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- lab results pending doubtful it's 'unknown'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed there was already 2024 Kwango province disease outbreak. Will merge. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Delay, Deny, Defend (practice)
I recently created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend (practice), which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the Killing of Brian Thompson. There is currently an article for the book Delay, Deny, Defend, but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Images
We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? Pelvis_justo_major - Giant Pelvis
Hi! I came across this article from the list of uncited articles. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!
JenOttawa (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- this is the only thing I found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies
Here's the discussion for anyone interested. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Introducing Let's Connect
Hello everyone,
I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.
Why are we outreaching to you?
Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Misplaced Pages, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.
We want to invite community members who are:
- Part of an organized group, official or not
- A formally recognized affiliate or not
- An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
- An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.
To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.
Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)
Many thanks and warm regards,
Let’s Connect Working Group Member
Serine Ben Brahim Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions
Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
TNIK and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials
I started this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. TNIK caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Misplaced Pages coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like USP1 (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to CD47 (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). BD2412 T 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- added some recent papers, general research--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Drowning
The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.
Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood : 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source?
Hi WikiProject Medicine,
The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this.
- I was asking in general but here is an example:
- Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract
- discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal is to move the page Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
PANDAS
There are a lot of new SPAs at Talk:PANDAS; more eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could some people please put this article on their Watchlists? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. IntentionallyDense 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. Ajpolino? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:
- ... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- We could take it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin° 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin° 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- We could take it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Water fluoridation
If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - Garbage in, garbage out - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: