Talk:2022 United States elections

New problem
Early voting has already started in plenty of states. Already 2 million votes have been cast a new record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.52 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed; thanks for noting that. While states still govern duration and details of their respective early voting periods, accuracy going forward will benefit from listing the first voting start day - e.g., "State voting periods and mail-in ballot voting begin as early as..." Jetpower (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Map changes
The map needs to be updated, as 2016 Louisiana race was won by a Republican. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"2023 Louisiana gubernatorial election" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2023 Louisiana gubernatorial election. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Incumbent President is not known yet.
Currently Donald J. Trump is President and should be listed as such until sworn in for 4 more years or opposition is sworn in. BeardedZZ (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * what SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are reading/replying to a comment from December 2020. Is that why you are confused? 73.187.95.138 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
There is no need for PR to be part of this. There is no mid term election in PR. The people of PR do not vote for Democrats or Republicans. The politics in the island are different than in the states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:3942:1D00:2C6E:3DA7:C3DE:672C (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * They have non-voting members in congress don't they? BogLogs (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-voting members of the House are generally called non-voting delegates. American Samoa, D.C., U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marian Islands have non-voting delegates elected every two-years in concurrence with the regular House elections. However, Puerto Rico's non-voting member (called the Resident Commissioner) is instead elected every 4 years. So, there are no island-wide votes (at least regularly) in midterm years.
 * Basically, regardless of their voting rights status, they do not have an election this year. ProfKevin (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation! I honestly had no idea Puerto Rico's non-voting member/delegate (Resident Commissioner) was elected every 4 years. BogLogs (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the mention of PR in the state legislative elections section. If special elections are added to that, there is one scheduled for Dec. 4 (House of Reps. D3). For consistency with all the other years' tables of it should stay mentioned there. &mdash; Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Request
Would it be possible to set it up so that searching "2022 Midterm Elections," redirects to this page? I feel like that would make things easier for a number of people. MrJ567 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Estimates of outcomes?
Are there any reliable predictions currently available that we may want to mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.183.22 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Most credible projections suggest the Senate will be close, the house will also be close. with the governor races tied. My projections depend exclusively on turnout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:9F0:D140:E036:977A:9884:6998 (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

When it becomes available, could someone provide a number(s) in this article as to the total votes across the entire country, for each party? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.204 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Issues section probably could use a serious look/rewrite
I tend to think that it has way too many subsections, it relies too heavily on extremely finnicky things like issue polling, and doesn't give enough space to how parties are actually campaigning. The issues sections in the 2018/2020 articles are probably decent models to follow - both focus on the actual campaigning emphases of both parties, and they're way tighter (no longer than 3 paragraphs, not split into subsections with two-lines of content. Obviously it's a pretty significant shift and I'm new so I'd rather suggest and try to get a consensus than totally rewrite the section by myself. Cheesylameradish (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Article Title
Was there a discussion before moving this page to 2022 United States midterm elections? All the other articles in this series (Category:General elections in the United States) use just "elections", not "midterm elections." Beyond that, while the federal elections are considered midterm in relation to the presidency, those aren't the only elections covered on this page, many of which aren't midterms (gubernatorial, municipal, tribal, etc.). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Trivia section
I skimmed through Manual of Style/Trivia sections and to my understanding this should be removed? Not sure but I haven't noticed anyone else talking about this Ocemccool (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not really trivia; it's a relevant fact about the election cycle. Because it's talking about spending in state and federal elections together, it might best fit in the lead or as part of the Campaign section. Ideally it would also be sourced to a secondary source, not a press release. WP:TRIVIA usually is dealing with things like "The 2022 midterm elections were mentioned in such-and-such movie." — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Charts to show possibility of majority?
Uwappa (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Uwappa I've WP:BOLD-ly added the "Senate Seats" chart under, but how it's placed (under what section it should be placed at, how it's styled in the page) might not be satisfactory. I'm not sure what to do about the "House Seats" chart, as it is harder to verify. LightNightLights (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. New charts to show results: Republicans gain House, Democrats hold Senate:
 * Uwappa (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the choice of the y-axis on both of these charts greatly exaggerates the actual effect of the midterm considering that the min/max of each respective body is actually 0/435 and 0/100.
 * Also, the slope of the lines of the House chart when viewed next to the slope of the lines of the Senate chart (visual slope, not unit slope) makes it appear as if the swing in the House was much more impactful than the swing in the Senate. My rough measurement shows the visual slope of the Democrats line in the House chart to be -2, and the visual slope of the Republicans line in the House chart to be -0.33. So the House Democrat line is roughly 6x steeper than the Senate Republican line. However, in reality, the percentage of seats the Democrats lost in the House is only ~2x the percentage of seats the Republicans lost in the Senate:
 * ((9/435) = 2.07% vs. (1/100) = 1.00%).
 * I know that changing the min/max of the y-axes of these charts to 0/435 and 0/100, respectively, (while it would be an accurate depiction of the size and slope of the swings relative to the size of each body) would create readability issues because these are actually small changes relative to the size of each respective body. As such, I instead propose the following:
 * Express each as their % majority. So for the House:
 * Republicans:
 * 2021: (213† - 218)/435 = -1.15% ➡️ 2022: (222 - 218)/435 = +0.92%
 * Democrats:
 * 2021: (222 - 218)/435 = +0.92% ➡️ 2022: (213 - 218)/435 = -1.15%
 * And for the Senate:
 * Republicans:
 * 2021: (50 - 50)/100 = 0.00% ➡️ 2022: (49 - 50)/100 = -1.00%
 * Democrats:
 * 2021: (50 - 50)/100 = 0.00% ➡️ 2022: (51 - 50)/100 = +1.00%
 * Then if the min/max of the y-axes for both charts are set to -2% to +2%, the data visualization would accurately reflect the data and would allow for a meaningful comparison of the impact in the House vs. the impact in the Senate. So here's what that would look like:
 * †I could be misunderstanding something with regard to this number shown in the left chart, but shouldn't the 2021 # for Republicans in the House be 213, not 212? Snoski83 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, R 2021 should be 213, corrected chart. And yes, it is good to make the scales comparable. Yet would like to keep it based on number of electees. +- 2% converted to number of electees gives duplicate y-axes labels, so as a workaround I suggest to use -4%, +4% resulting into y axes ranges: house 200-235 and senate 46-54.
 * Uwappa (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Uwappa. I agree with your suggestions. I have gone ahead and updated the article to reflect this. I did make one more minor edit changing the House chart so that it also begins in 2020. Snoski83 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Uwappa (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Uwappa. I agree with your suggestions. I have gone ahead and updated the article to reflect this. I did make one more minor edit changing the House chart so that it also begins in 2020. Snoski83 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerns of Bias
"Following trends since 2012, minority voters, particularly those who were working class or Hispanic, moved towards the Republicans, while affluent and college-educated whites overwhelmingly moved towards the Democratic Party."

Might as well say... uneducated Hispanics voted GOP and smart college adults voted Democrat... seems biased. Could this be phrased better? Michael-Moates (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The whole page reeks of left bias. Feels like propaganda.  Loosely: "the (superior) Ds are gaining more seats than ever before in mid-term elections  while the (inferior) Rs are losing... etc." but failing to pre or post conclude: "The Rs are winning (and the Ds are losing)" - Ds coming in second and Rs coming in one before last is a twisted way to say: Rs won, Ds lost - it is a 2 party race... IAmOren (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

“College educated whites” is a frequent cross tab sub demographic group highlighted by political analysts. I see where you are coming from in how it sounds, though. SecretName101 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

”Result unknown”
How comesome results are ’unknown’? That word makes me think the result for some reason would be a secret. Isn’t the real meaning, that the result is not yet counted and clear? Ove Raul (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that 'unknown' raises questions that need not be. 'No yet counted' sounds like counting has not even started. Suggestions: 'still counting' or 'being counted'. Uwappa (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ove Raul Unknown is fine for me -- the result isn't known. I think it's a given that it's because results are still being counted. it's short and sweet. if something were amiss, I'm sure the article would mention it 172.92.144.28 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would 'pending' be an alternative? Uwappa (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ’Pending’ or ’not yet counted’ would both be good. I think I would prefer ’pending’. Ove Raul (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022
Mohammadsolgi (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC) We are in the process of translating this page into Farsi. Please provide us with the template link. Thank you
 * As far as I can see, that's a Wikidata thing, not a Wikipedia thing, and it's already been done anyway. Endwise (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis’ victory in the lead
Gives undue weight to him just because he is a potential presidential candidate. Whitmer, Pritzker are seen as potential candidates if Biden opts out. Etc. etc. Would reason we’d give them mention too if we gave DeSantis mention.

My view is that the lead should summarize trends overall, and should not delve that specifically into a single gubernatorial race. SecretName101 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, not sure why any one candidate would get that much attention in the lead of this article unless some extraordinary circumstances existed in their race, which here I don't think are present for any candidate on the ballot including DeSantis. Yeoutie (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's part of the lede for the 2022 Florida gubernatorial election, not the article covering the full range of 2022 U.S. elections. &mdash; Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Per all of the above, I've removed it. For my own view, these midterms are for sure significant for DeSantis, but not significant enough to discuss this kind of critical commentary in the lead section. Endwise (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WELL TOO bad cuz now they're being restored in some form Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * absurd take Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with removal. Multiple reliable sources have identified DeSantis as a key winner in this election. Guardian / Hill / CNN / Vox. With Republicans disappointing, he shone bright.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * dw, i've added it back to the lede lad Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit.
The opening sentence: "The 2022 United States elections were a set of elections that were primarily (with the exception of absentee balloting) held on November 8, 2022," should read: "The 2022 United States elections were a set of elections that were primarily (with the exception of absentee ballots and early voting) held on November 8, 2022." Early voting should be included in the parenthetical. We don't want readers to be given the impression that early in-person voting is somehow illegitimate. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe just say "primarily culminated on November 8, 2022". The article covers the entire swath of elections from primaries to municipal and tribal elections to the marquee (federal) elections. The wordsmithing to work absentee, vote-by-mail, and early voting ballots into the lede is unnecessary. &mdash; Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
Early results showed that DeSantis fared significantly better among Hispanics and Latinos than Republican candidates in other states.[13] The Winner of midterms is not yet clear after the results. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/09/the-winner-of-the-midterms-is-not-yet-clear-but-the-loser-is-donald-trump Kostankon (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That piece of text has been removed now (see above), so this request is moot. But FWIW, in the context of the 2024 Republican primary, a loss for Trump is presumably a win for DeSantis, given they are the two prominent candidates for the position. I think that article is saying the winner in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans isn't clear, but the winner in terms of Trump vs. DeSantis is: All this affects Trump’s prospects for 2024, not least because his most obvious rival for the Republican nomination, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, had such a good night. DeSantis was re-elected in his own state by a landslide, racking up big numbers in historically Democratic counties. Endwise (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Workers Rights Amendment in Illinois
Tennessee's Amendment 1 is touched upon but Illinois's Amendment 1 is not, could it be added in the referendums section? Hoosier24 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Davide King (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are these links necessary?
The lead contains links to two redirects, both of which seem awkward and unnecessary:


 * → Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election
 * Use: While Republicans saw a surge in traditionally Democratic New York, this was accompanied by a historic underperformance in critical battlegrounds, where voters rejected Republicans that were backed by Donald Trump or that denied the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, defying election analysts' predictions and Republican expectations of a more Republican-leaning national environment.


 * → Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States
 * Use: In addition, six referendums to preserve or expand abortion access uniformly won, including in the states of Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Montana, as did those increasing the minimum wage (Nebraska and Nevada) and expanding Medicaid coverage (South Dakota), while Maryland and Missouri became the latest U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis.

Why not just do this?


 * -> denied the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election
 * -> U.S. states to legalize recreational cannabis

I attempted to alter one of them but was reverted by the creator of these redirects, apparently per WP:REDIRECT and WP:PIPED, but I don't see how these apply. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Your proposed solution is literally what WP:PIPED is though (see MOS:NOPIPE). Besides, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The redirects work just fine, and if you suggest we use different wording, including unlinking them, that's fine, but don't pipe them and let's avoid WP:EASTEREGGS. But if we have to link them, we have to avoid piping them (hence WP:REDIRECT) and make clear to our readers what we're linking to. Davide King (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not an WP:EASTEREGG, though, because the proposed text is still relevant to the article name. Looking at recently-promoted featured articles, the setup I proposed is well in-practice and accepted by the community at large:
 * From Aliens (film):
 * → Aliens earned $131.1–183.3million during its theatrical run, one of the highest-grossing films of 1986 worldwide.
 * From Electric eel:
 * → They are known for their ability to stun their prey by generating electricity, delivering shocks at up to 860 volts.
 * From Today's featured article/November 4, 2022, which was excerpted from Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun (I'm focusing on the second link):
 * → Conserving the burial goods required a ten-year effort, and their opulence inspired a media frenzy, intensified by speculation that misfortunes connected with the tomb were the result of an ancient curse. (Note that this has already been modified to be more clear by making the word "an" part of the link text, as well as that the entire paragraph was brought up at WP:ERRORS.)
 * Do you know of any other instances in which your setup has been used for strings like that? If this is something that is common and accepted practice, then I'd like to hear it. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I love consistency, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make it right. I'm fully aware that most of our articles have such linking problems, that doesn't mean we must take this problem to articles that are actually in line with our linking policies. At least one of it is undeniably Easter eggs, or at the very least piped link that is not clear to the reader what they actually link to, and can be easily improved by simply unpipe them through redirects. For example, I expected "highest-grossing films of 1986" to redirect me to a list of such highest-grossing films of 1986, not to films published in 1986. Sometimes we can change the wording to improve linking clarity, such as this: "As electric fishes, they are known for their ability to stun their prey by generating electricity, delivering shocks at up to 860 volts." Or in case where the changed wording made the sentence worse, I'd simply unlink it and link it later on where it's more clear. I don't know what you've against redirects, I was like that too and always piped them a long time ago because I wanted the main article's direct link, then I realized how stupid that was considering WP:REDIRECTS exist for a reason, and as long as they're working, there's no need to fix it. Davide King (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually of the mind that redirects are cheap myself, I just find these ones awkward because of their unusual structure. Though, at this point, I think I want more voices to chime in before I continue any further. Maybe this discussion is better suited for elsewhere? -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2022
Change House control back to TBD, nowhere has called it officially for Republican control yet. 45.3.30.146 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @PlanetJuice I WP:BOLD-ly undid it (in this edit), as DDHQ (albeit it's only one source) has called it for a Republican majority in this tweet. LightNightLights (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm. I would be inclined to keep it listed as undecided for now since most major news outlets have not officially called 218 seats for the Republicans, but it looks like other editors have already listed them as taking control in the article (which is almost certainly what will happen anyway). I don't really have an interest in involving myself in this area though, so I will just defer to whatever consensus may be established. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @PlanetJuice @Zzyzx11 I agree that, as far as I'm aware, most news outlets haven't called the seat majority for Republicans. For now, I'm looking at "Republican gain (according to Decision Desk HQ)" in the infobox as a possible compromise. LightNightLights (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that many news outlets are currently occupied with Trump's announcement that he'll run in 2024, among other stories. Since it is almost midnight Eastern Time as I write this, I do not think they are going to update anything on the election for the next few hours. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022
Change first sentence to make tense consistent ("...are a set of elections..." to "...were a set of elections", or similar). Certfiedsoup (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: As the article mentions, absentee balloting has not fully taken place. The elections are not over yet. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with using Decision Desk HQ as a source
You're not supposed to be the quickest in calling races according to Lakasha Jain. It's about getting your races called accurately, which the SplitTicket guys and most major news networks have done. I therefore think Decision Desk is massively overused as a source and shouldn't be used on the Wiki page as a credible source. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Repetition
The intro section for this article is far longer than it was for the 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 cycles. In particular, paragraphs 3-5 of the intro are all repeated in Sections 4.1, 4.5, 8.1, and 8.3. Agree or disagree to trim this? Ideas on how? RenewIR (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What other articles do is not a good argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and as the lead is supposed to both introduces and summarizes the topic, it's not a surprise it repeats as summary what the body says; it's not a bug, it's a feature. Maybe we may just move "The Democratic Party's unexpected strength in state-level and senatorial elections was historic" at the start of the third paragraph, and move the trivia paragraph ("2022 is the first midterm ...") to the body. The rest is just prose of the results. Davide King (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding precise data to the Polling subsection
Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or the like, MOS:WTW admonishes us. Let facts alone do the talking.

Happily, polling produces numerical facts. And we often can impartially express them as a median, mean, range, and so on. See OR#CALC about routine calculations generally.

I hope you'll accept these calculation results as correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources that the mainstream publisher (RealClear) chose to compile. Comments welcome! Substituting the publisher's own calculations, found deeper in website. (RealClear aggregates all 17 polls, not just the most current 5.)

Dervorguilla (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy
"2022 is the first midterm since 1934 in which the president's party did not lose any state legislative chambers or incumbent senators."

This is not true. The Republican Party won control of the Alaska House of Representatives. LordofChaos55 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No it didn't. The chamber is still Coalition-controlled. marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of State Legislative Elections
State legislative elections should be included on every US elections page. They are very important to state wide affairs and decide the governors' agenda, and control of legislatures can have federal affects. TRJ2008 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Turnout
I believe all midterm pages would be greatly improved if turnout rates are listed at the top of the page like they are on the presidential election pages. 70.36.193.220 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Michigan state legislative elections
In section discussing Michigan senate flipping to democrats, it says that democrats had previously won the chamber but lost the popular vote in 2014. However according to Wikipedia this is not true Stanlana12 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

leftist slant
Gerrymanders in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio, gave Republicans an advantage in the House, while Democrats won 24 of 30 seats, or 80 percent, in Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon, with 54% of the popular vote across these four states. This is the first sentence when I looked up 2022 elections on Google. I didn't find it in my quick perusing of your article in Wikipedia. If this is language your editors approve of, I would like to make it known that it is unacceptable. I'm not claiming that this could not have been done by Republicans. Indeed, the practice is quite overused by both parties, I have no doubt. However, it makes obvious the opinions of the presenters and is entirely unfair and unnecessary. Shame on you! "The Democratic Party's strength in state-level and senatorial elections was unexpected, as well as historic." This is in your article. If I were presenting this, I would go on to state what I believe to be the obvious and that is that Democrats in those races cheated. Would that be fair and/or necessary? 2601:3C5:100:300E:D5A5:524A:6492:1A28 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)