Template talk:Infobox ET: Difference between revisions

(24 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 43:

:::: I guess because the 41 fifths doesn't close at the octave in 53edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out. Similarly, the type of fifth that ~~53edo~~ has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out. I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out. Similarly, the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out. I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

: "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Yes, I did mean that the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean". I fixed that in the above comment. Thank you. I don't know how I botched that. Unfortunately, I don't see what you're getting at with much of the rest of your comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 08:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Line 155:

Line 157:

::::::: OK, I could live with that, as long as all 3 numbers are there in edosteps --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::: In editing all the EDO pages, I came to realize that the cents for the m2 and A1 are very handy. Yes, you can do the math and calculate the cents, but it's really handy to see at a glance how many cents a sharp sign is. Also for large edos, doing the math is too much work. So on second thought, I would only like this proposed format if it also included the cents. Also, this is a bit of a quibble, but "semitone" means half a tone. And in a lot of these edos, it's nowhere near half. So the term semitone is a bit misleading, and IMO better avoided. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 08:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: Looks alright to me. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: Update: see [[#Reduce parameters]]. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I just removed all the disputable parameters. I carefully moved all the data entries to a better spot on the EDO page. Example compositions got moved to "Introductory Materials". Important MOSes got moved to "Rank Two Temperaments". Common uses and subgroups got deleted. I considered working the common uses into the theory section, but they just seemed so arbitrary. Every edo has a thousand uses. I didn't do anything with the intro section. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

== Intro sentence on EDO pages ==

Line 163:

Line 173:

:: Good point --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

== Reduce parameters ==

I think it's enough to specify the ''fifth'' since the parameters ''M2'', ''m2'', and ''A1'' are not independent (see [[diatonic range]]). Also the sizes could be calculated by the template or a module. What do you think? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 22:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

: Yes, especially as they don't make sense for nondiatonic edos such as 13 or 16. Maybe specify the other parameters for diatonic edos but not for nondiatonic edos. Yes, they could be computed. [[User:Inthar|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar|talk]]) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

:: The sharpness is an important piece of information that I find really handy. That's why I've always argued for ''semitones (A1:m2)''. It saves a line. Semitones are also helpful in that they are the basic building blocks for 12edo users. Chromatic semitone and diatonic semitone are established terms long before xen practice. And cent values still can be shown along with step numbers. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

: As discussed in the Discord server, I'm adding ''sharp fifth'' and ''flat fifth'' for dual-fifth edos. I define a dual fifth edo as those whose error of the fifth is greater than 1/3 edostep, since it is the point where the approximation of the major second (9/8) becomes better than the fifth (3/2) itself, and where doubling the edo guarantees a better fifth. For dual-fifth edos, I'd like to reflect their two typical interpretations as 2.3-.3+ and 2.9, so we'll use ''sharp fifth'', ''flat fifth'', and ''major 2nd''. For other edos, ''fifth'' and ''semitones''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

: I have a strong preference for M2, m2 and A1 all spelled out like they used to be, like this:

: M2: 4\22 (218¢)

: m2: 1\22 (55¢)

: A1: 3\22 (164¢)

: There's almost always room on the page, since the infobox sits opposite the table of contents. The various L/s ratios can be read quite easily. Diatonic is 4:1, chromatic is 3:1. Heck, you can even figure out that 2L3s[5] is 5:4 pretty easily. -- [[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 00:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

:: Before this was even decided CompactStar added a M3 line instead. I'd say I don't find a use for either M2 or M3 cuz I'm accustomed to apprehending the edo structure by chromatic ratios. 41edo is 4:3, 53edo is 5:4 etc. The M3 is particularly questionable. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

::: The only thing I can think of as a use for a modified version of the M3 line is as the representation for [[5/4]] for systems that have a consistent representation of it- and this merely because 5/4 is such a common reference point for major thirds. I wouldn't bother with those systems where 5/4 can reasonably be mapped to one of two possible EDO-steps. Other than that, I do indeed think that adding the M3 line is questionable. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:::: There's the prime harmonics table for that, and assuming the diatonic major third to be consistent with 5/4 is very meantone-centric anyway. The semitone ratio is already plenty of information. I agree that the M3 field should be removed, because it adds more clutter for no new significant information. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

== Consistency level ==

I'd like this to be present in the infobox because it quickly captures how the edo is likely to be used (in an RTT way or in an JI agnostic way). It's present in the theory section of basically every edo, often for the purpose I just mentioned. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Added diamond consistency and diamond monotonicity. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

: Deprecating monotonicity. It wasn't a considerate decision. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

== Highly composite sequence past 5040 ==

The template shows [[9240edo]] as highly composite, yet it's not a member of the highly composite sequence, it's only largely composite. Also, past 5040 the sequences split into highly composite and superabundant so it would be worthy to get this noted. [[User:Eliora|Eliora]] ([[User talk:Eliora|talk]]) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

== Ed4 navigation ==

At the moment, if you are on a page for an ed4, say for example 5ed4, then the the "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" links will link to '''4ed4''' and '''6ed4''', both of which will immediately redirect you to the relevant edo page (2edo or 3edo):

I think this is a bit of a hinderance for navigation. It would be more helpful, I think, for "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" to link to '''3ed4''' and '''7ed4''', instead of 4ed4 and 6ed4.

Similar problems may also occur with other non-prime EDs (ed6, ed8, ed9, ed10, etc.), I haven't checked.

--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 07:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

: As of now, this is resolved for ed4's, ed9's, and ed9/4's. Ed8's may still link to edos. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

== Automatic link to xen-calc? ==

Would it be hard to add an automatic to xen-calc like the template for intervals has? (Something like "Open this temperament in xen-calc".) [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 22:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

: It should be possible, although I will note that only edos are supported in xen-calc (i.e. nonoctave equal tunings are not supported), and large edos will either take a long time to load; for instance, 1000edo just took me 30 seconds to load. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Wrong step size at 0EDO ==

This template shows step size 0 ¢ for 0EDO [[Single-pitch tuning]]. That is wrong because it is either undefined because of division by zero or infinity as a limit of ‹x›EDO for ‹x› going to zero. To be consistent with the article, I think that it should show step size ∞ ¢. The article says “As a result of the step size of 0edo being infinite, the relative error of all intervals is zero.”.

[[User:Matěȷ|Matěȷ]] ([[User talk:Matěȷ|talk]]) 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

== Make zeta optional ==

As has been discussed before, I don't believe zeta list status is worth being so prominantly displayed in the infobox. Preferably this information is made opt-in and thereby turned off for most of the edo pages.

– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

: Done. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 18:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 :::: I guess because the 41 fifths doesn't close at the octave in 53edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
-Hmm...  Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out.  Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out.  I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
+Hmm...  Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out.  Similarly, the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out.  I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 : "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: Yes, I did mean that the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean".  I fixed that in the above comment.  Thank you.  I don't know how I botched that.  Unfortunately, I don't see what you're getting at with much of the rest of your comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 08:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 155: / Line 157: @@
 ::::::: OK, I could live with that, as long as all 3 numbers are there in edosteps --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: In editing all the EDO pages, I came to realize that the cents for the m2 and A1 are very handy. Yes, you can do the math and calculate the cents, but it's really handy to see at a glance how many cents a sharp sign is. Also for large edos, doing the math is too much work. So on second thought, I would only like this proposed format if it also included the cents. Also, this is a bit of a quibble, but "semitone" means half a tone. And in a lot of these edos, it's nowhere near half. So the term semitone is a bit misleading, and IMO better avoided. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 08:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: Looks alright to me. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: Update: see [[#Reduce parameters]]. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
+I just removed all the disputable parameters. I carefully moved all the data entries to a better spot on the EDO page. Example compositions got moved to "Introductory Materials". Important MOSes got moved to "Rank Two Temperaments". Common uses and subgroups got deleted. I considered working the common uses into the theory section, but they just seemed so arbitrary. Every edo has a thousand uses. I didn't do anything with the intro section. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 == Intro sentence on EDO pages ==
@@ Line 163: / Line 173: @@
 ::  Good point --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Reduce parameters ==
+I think it's enough to specify the ''fifth'' since the parameters ''M2'', ''m2'', and ''A1'' are not independent (see [[diatonic range]]). Also the sizes could be calculated by the template or a module. What do you think? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 22:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
+: Yes, especially as they don't make sense for nondiatonic edos such as 13 or 16. Maybe specify the other parameters for diatonic edos but not for nondiatonic edos. Yes, they could be computed. [[User:Inthar|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar|talk]]) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
+:: The sharpness is an important piece of information that I find really handy. That's why I've always argued for ''semitones (A1:m2)''. It saves a line. Semitones are also helpful in that they are the basic building blocks for 12edo users. Chromatic semitone and diatonic semitone are established terms long before xen practice. And cent values still can be shown along with step numbers. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
+: As discussed in the Discord server, I'm adding ''sharp fifth'' and ''flat fifth'' for dual-fifth edos. I define a dual fifth edo as those whose error of the fifth is greater than 1/3 edostep, since it is the point where the approximation of the major second (9/8) becomes better than the fifth (3/2) itself, and where doubling the edo guarantees a better fifth. For dual-fifth edos, I'd like to reflect their two typical interpretations as 2.3-.3+ and 2.9, so we'll use ''sharp fifth'', ''flat fifth'', and ''major 2nd''. For other edos, ''fifth'' and ''semitones''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
+: I have a strong preference for M2, m2 and A1 all spelled out like they used to be, like this:
+: M2: 4\22 (218¢)
+: m2: 1\22 (55¢)
+: A1: 3\22 (164¢)
+: There's almost always room on the page, since the infobox sits opposite the table of contents. The various L/s ratios can be read quite easily. Diatonic is 4:1, chromatic is 3:1. Heck, you can even figure out that 2L3s[5] is 5:4 pretty easily. -- [[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 00:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
+:: Before this was even decided CompactStar added a M3 line instead. I'd say I don't find a use for either M2 or M3 cuz I'm accustomed to apprehending the edo structure by chromatic ratios. 41edo is 4:3, 53edo is 5:4 etc. The M3 is particularly questionable. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
+::: The only thing I can think of as a use for a modified version of the M3 line is as the representation for [[5/4]] for systems that have a consistent representation of it- and this merely because 5/4 is such a common reference point for major thirds.  I wouldn't bother with those systems where 5/4 can reasonably be mapped to one of two possible EDO-steps.  Other than that, I do indeed think that adding the M3 line is questionable. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::: There's the prime harmonics table for that, and assuming the diatonic major third to be consistent with 5/4 is very meantone-centric anyway. The semitone ratio is already plenty of information. I agree that the M3 field should be removed, because it adds more clutter for no new significant information. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Consistency level ==
+I'd like this to be present in the infobox because it quickly captures how the edo is likely to be used (in an RTT way or in an JI agnostic way). It's present in the theory section of basically every edo, often for the purpose I just mentioned. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
+Added diamond consistency and diamond monotonicity. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
+: Deprecating monotonicity. It wasn't a considerate decision. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
+== Highly composite sequence past 5040 ==
+The template shows [[9240edo]] as highly composite, yet it's not a member of the highly composite sequence, it's only largely composite. Also, past 5040 the sequences split into highly composite and superabundant so it would be worthy to get this noted. [[User:Eliora|Eliora]] ([[User talk:Eliora|talk]]) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
+== Ed4 navigation ==
+{{Infobox ET|5ed4|debug=1}}
+At the moment, if you are on a page for an ed4, say for example 5ed4, then the the "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" links will link to '''4ed4''' and '''6ed4''', both of which will immediately redirect you to the relevant edo page (2edo or 3edo):
+I think this is a bit of a hinderance for navigation. It would be more helpful, I think, for "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" to link to '''3ed4''' and '''7ed4''', instead of 4ed4 and 6ed4.
+Similar problems may also occur with other non-prime EDs (ed6, ed8, ed9, ed10, etc.), I haven't checked.
+--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 07:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
+: As of now, this is resolved for ed4's, ed9's, and ed9/4's. Ed8's may still link to edos. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
+== Automatic link to xen-calc? ==
+Would it be hard to add an automatic to xen-calc like the template for intervals has?  (Something like "Open this temperament in xen-calc".)  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 22:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
+: It should be possible, although I will note that only edos are supported in xen-calc (i.e. nonoctave equal tunings are not supported), and large edos will either take a long time to load; for instance, 1000edo just took me 30 seconds to load. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
+== Wrong step size at 0EDO ==
+{{Infobox ET|0edo|debug=1}}
+This template shows step size 0 ¢ for 0EDO [[Single-pitch tuning]]. That is wrong because it is either undefined because of division by zero or infinity as a limit of ‹x›EDO for ‹x› going to zero. To be consistent with the article, I think that it should show step size ∞ ¢. The article says “As a result of the step size of 0edo being infinite, the relative error of all intervals is zero.”.
+[[User:Matěȷ|Matěȷ]] ([[User talk:Matěȷ|talk]]) 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
+== Make zeta optional ==
+As has been discussed before, I don't believe zeta list status is worth being so prominantly displayed in the infobox. Preferably this information is made opt-in and thereby turned off for most of the edo pages.
+– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
+: Done. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 18:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)