Talk:List of LGBT people from New York City

No sources

 * WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations."


 * WP:BLPSOURCE- This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.


 * WP:BLPREMOVE - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced.


 * Libel -I t is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.
 * -- Moxy 🍁 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just added external link to one of the listees, an example of what can be done to confirm sexuality. If this list is to be deleted (truly regrettable), will not add any further links. But if not, will add to other listees. Have always found it a remarkable listing. Impressive to see the quite extraordinary depth and breadth of LGBT(Q) influence in NYC. In the years following and contributing to this list, am not aware of a single incidence of a request for removal. Is clearly not being looked upon as erroneous or somehow inflammatory or a negative (or positive, for that matter). Virtually every name on here is also included in Wikipedia's other LGBT Lists, such as LGBT People or LGBT Writers or LGBT Lesbian Filmmakers, etc.Figurefour44 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely with Figurefour44 (talk) - very well stated. Castncoot (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we add a ballroom section?
There are already five performers from the NYC ballroom scene in this article: Venus Xtravaganza and Hector Xtravaganza (in the Performance arts section) as well as Kevin Aviance, Crystal LaBeija and Pepper LaBeija (in the Drag performance section). I think they, together with the performers I list below, could easily populate a designated Ballroom/Ball culture section (and that might be most appropriate, given the house structure of that scene):

Members of the House of Amazon

 * Leiomy Maldonado

Members of the House of Aviance

 * Erickatoure Aviance
 * Jean-Philippe Aviance (I'm not actually sure he's LGBT—Googling required.) (Update: He's LGBT but not a New Yorker. )
 * Mother Juan Aviance

Members of the House of Dupree

 * Paris Dupree

Members of the House of LaBeija

 * Kia LaBeija

Members of the House of Ninja

 * Benny Ninja
 * Javier Ninja
 * Willi Ninja

Members of the House of Omni

 * Kevin Ultra Omni

Members of the House of Xtravaganza

 * Angie Xtravaganza
 * Danni Xtravaganza
 * Hector Xtravaganza
 * Jose Gutierez Xtravaganza
 * Lorena Xtravaganza

Other
I'm not aware of any standalone articles from the Houses of Balenciaga, Infiniti, Mizrahi, Mugler or Pendavis, but if someone else is, it would be great to add them as well! I should note that many of the above-linked articles are not the best written or best cited, so we may need to do our own research to locate the sourcing needed to add them to this list.

How do people feel about creating a Ballroom category (No pun intended!) and adding these entries? Armadillopteryxtalk 08:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @: This is absolutely excellent, and I do agree with a separate section for ballroom culture. I wasn't aware of your contribution here when I added a new section entitled New York City Drag culture earlier, quite a coinicidence, but really not surprising in that it shows just how increasingly prominent the drag as well as ballroom scene in NYC is becoming. Perhaps this list could be added to this article, and then do you think you might be able to add a few summary sentences describing this overall culture in the new LGBT culture in New York City section? Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny timing! I just answered you on my talk page about that :-D Armadillopteryxtalk 05:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is! But I think that the notability of the subject matter itself is driving our ideas. Castncoot (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that the ballroom culture is probably significant enough to qualify for its own article, including a solid description. This list is already extremely long, to the point that consideration should be given to splitting off sections already. Risker (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, your guidance sounds good, Risker. See Armadillopteryx, this is what happens since you have come up with a great idea! Castncoot (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of splitting Ballroom (and possibly others) off into their own articles. I can't, unfortunately, devote much of my own time to those projects, but I will happily contribute what I can. Armadillopteryxtalk 05:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support an eventual spinoff but I have realized that for now it's going to be a little more complicated than at first appearance, because there is already overlap between this new list created by Armadillopteryx on this talk page and listees in the relatively short performance arts section of the article page itself. So (for now), I've combined them into one single section called ballroom and performing arts. I think what we ought to do first is to get these names above added piecemeal to the article page with proper sourcing. Once the names are in place, we can figure out the best way to recategorize the listees as needed and see which categories might actually be able to stand alone for new articles. Castncoot (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we do it this way, I have an idea: what if we create a new level-3 header called "Nightlife" and put "Drag performance", "Ballroom" and "Other" (where e.g. Klaus Nomi would go) as its subsections? Then we can use the level-3 header "Performance arts" for subsections on Broadway/theatre and dance. Does that have any appeal?
 * Also, a small comment about this edit: I wouldn't refer to any members of the LGBT ballroom scene as "ballroom dancers", since Ballroom dance is an unrelated art form/cultural phenomenon. What about "ballroom performer", for example? "Voguer" would also be appropriate in most (but not all) cases—sourcing should clarify that. Thanks for starting these edits, Castncoot! Armadillopteryxtalk 09:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, Armadillopteryx- I've changed the terminology on that edit to ballroom "performer". Meanwhile, please feel free to make whatever improvements you feel are needed! Castncoot (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have a few minutes now and will try something out. Feel free to comment/criticize/revert if it seems like a disimprovement. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made a change to the article, and I've started striking out the entries in the above list that have been added. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can add Miss Lawrence who splits time between NYC and Atlanta. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Literature and photography?
Combining authors and photographers into one section strikes me as a little odd. What if we move the three photographers in that section to Visual arts and then rename this section just "Literature"? Armadillopteryxtalk 01:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: decided to be WP:BOLD and do this; feel free to disagree/undo. Armadillopteryxtalk 08:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, please continue the boldness. Castncoot (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Manila Luzon
I saw you removed Manila Luzon from this list (and the NY-related external links from her article) with the summary "not quite NYer". She wasn't born there and doesn't live there anymore, but she did live there for something like 10 years. It's where she was when she became notable for appearing on Drag Race; her hometown was listed as New York City on the show (see RuPaul's Drag Race (season 3)). There was a source in this article to confirm her former residence there. It was an interview in which she stated, "I don't perform on stage that much, lip-syncing numbers because I live in New York City and there really isn’t that much opportunity to do it. ... I started in Minnesota but when I moved to New York City it's just a different environment here." Here are a couple more sources:
 * "Though she's a Cali queen now, Manila still calls New York home ."
 * "Luzon revealed she stumbled upon Drag Race by way of the late Sahara Davenport, whom she was dating at the time while they lived in New York City ."

Also, Manila Luzon begins with: "A longtime resident of New York City, Manila resided in Harlem ... "

Why say she's not a New Yorker? Not everyone on this list lived (or will live) in NYC from birth to death ... Armadillopteryxtalk 02:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, she is back in NYC, thanks for pointing that out. Castncoot (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Armadillopteryxtalk 03:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, just a comment: That Socialite Life interview, while published in 2018, states at the top that it's a flashback, part of a series where they publish their favorite interviews from past years. Nothing in that article should be taken to be true "as of 2018". In fact, in the article Manila speaks in the present tense about her former partner Sahara Davenport, who died in 2012. Given that she's also speaking about being on Drag Race (which for her was in 2011; see RuPaul's Drag Race (season 3)), I'd guess the interview was originally published in late 2011 or early 2012. Don't use this as a source to say she's back to living in NYC; it just records that she was there for a time, as do (perhaps clearer) other sources. Armadillopteryxtalk 03:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of LGBT people from New York City per consensus  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers → List of LGBT people from New York City – There are really three aspects to this. I'm hoping that doesn't muddle the discussion too much.
 * 1) "Self-identified" is unnecessary since we must follow self-identification project-wide anyway; I see this as parallel to WP:LISTNAME's proscribing words like "notable" in list titles.
 * 2) Other parts of WP:LISTNAME apply. "List of people from [city]" is explicitly given as an example, rather than the use of demonym.
 * 3) LGBT and New York City match those articles and similar ones (e.g., Lists of LGBT people, List of people from New York City). Note also:
 * Removal of the Q does not change the scope of the article.
 * While commonly understood in New York City to refer to people from the city, "New Yorker" is still the demonym for the whole state, and we are a global encyclopedia.

I would support any change that removes "self-identified" unless I note otherwise. I believe the other changes are also best given our policies but am more flexible on those. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholly support keeping the Q, it’s more inclusive and better represents those who it’s meant to represent. More and more people identify as queer who do not feel lgbt represents them.
 * Businesses, Media, and community groups already have switched over, and I feel the time is soon coming when all of Wikipedia will switch over for similar reasons. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you, but article titles should be consistent with each other. It would be better to move LGBT first. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would anticipate a long entrenched battle before certain editors would ever allow that to happen. By the same logic of fighting against letting the T or B in, no matter which side of history they were on. I say just keep making progress where we’re at and save that one for later. We already have loads of LGBTQ articles so it’s not that big of deal to leave it as is, whereas editors do war over letting the Q in after. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm looking in titles and LGBTQ is more common than I realized, though still nowhere near as popular as LGBT. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support maintaining the title exactly as is now. In its present form, this is the most appropriately functional and representative title on multiple levels. Castncoot (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-Identified seems unnecessary. List of LGBTQ New Yorkers is smoother, less cluttered. Announces precisely what the list consists of, LGBTQ New Yorkers. Mostly relieved and delighted that the list is alive and kicking.Figurefour44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind "List of LGBTQ New Yorkers" either. Castncoot (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the nominator makes good points, and I accept the initial proposal (List of LGBT people from New York City), though I do prefer "LGBTQ" over "LGBT". I also support List of LGBTQ New Yorkers if consensus goes in that direction. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all three aspects of the nominator's proposal for the reasons given. "Self-identified" comes off as too indirect, and "New Yorkers" is vague regarding city vs. state. Regarding LGBT vs. LGBTQ, at this time our article titles should be consistent, as an encyclopedia would be. LGBT is much more common in titles, so we should follow that. A decision to use LGBTQ can't be done by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at some requested move. No proof has been offered that LGBTQ is more common anyway. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Zppix, did you mean to include the Q or not? You didn't give it in the closing statement, but referred to its omission as a typo in the move summaries. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was meant to be included but due to a typo, wasn’t at first. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do mean to include the Q however it was an accidental omission. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The title of this article is misleading. The immediate thought is, how could there be a list of millions of people? The actual title should be "List of Notable LGBTQ people in New York City". (Many of the notable people currently in are not from.)71.230.16.111 (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Rename article
I suggest that the article should use "LGBT" rather than "LGBTQ" in the title, as LGBT is the standard usage on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have just requested the formal move of the article to the change you proposed. You can express your support if you want. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

List of LGBTQ people from New York City → List of LGBT people from New York City – "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ" is way more used in the titles of other Wikipedia articles and it's the common practice. Super  Ψ   Dro  11:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with the article LGBT. SnowFire (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There seems some confusion over the result of above, which was closed (correctly I think) as a move to List of LGBT people from New York City and the move performed. But closer subsequently moved it again to the current name with the edit Typo when acting on successful requested move. This rather strange action was queried and the reply was even stranger, see above. It looks like a unilateral attempt by the closer to act against consensus, but AGF and assume they're just confused. In any case, there is already a policy-based consensus that the name should be List of LGBT people from New York City and I will add my opinion that this is the best title in terms both of common name and consistency. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nicky Doll
I want to add Nicky Doll to this article, but although I can find dozens of sources to verify her ties to New York City (e.g. this one), I'm having a hard time finding a source to confirm she self-identifies as LGBT. Does anyone else know of a source that could be used for this purpose? Armadillo pteryx  03:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Gallery
While I love the many images of so many wonderful people, I'm concerned about the current image frame breaking so many section headings. On my screen, even the References section is forced to have a single column because the gallery goes so far down. I'm also concerned how the gallery might appear on phones and mobile devices. Thoughts on removing this image frame and replacing with smaller galleries within specific sections? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right--on a mobile device with a narrow display, the reader would have to scroll down past all the pictures to reach the body text. I agree that it would be better to distribute the pictures across sections. gnu 57 04:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one else has weighed in, so I've gone ahead and removed the galleries. Feel free to add back smaller galleries or images within sections. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. This has been throughly vetted at the administrative level. Castncoot (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what that means. Can you share a link? What are your thoughts on breaking up the single gallery? That's way, way too big. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see my talk page as well as this Talk page above. As far as breaking up the gallery- absolutely, I would be in favor of that. But deleting 10,000 bytes and every single picture is analogous to the horrendous expression throwing the baby out with the bath water. I do agree that a break-up would be helpful, however. Perhaps, 1) A-F, 2) G-M, 3) N-S, 4) T-Z might be a good start. Castncoot (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wouldn't galleries for some sections be better? This way people in politics are grouped together, others in drag, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that. One gallery per subsection would look terrific. Perhaps we can both work on that project, and others are of course always more than welcome to join. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've removed the single gallery again. There is not consensus to keep. I'm not opposed to section galleries being added, but the single one is not appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will work on the split galleries then. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. Castncoot (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured list?
My concern about the gallery aside (see above), this is a thorough and well-sourced list. Thoughts on what would be required to get the entry promoted to Featured list status? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just thinking aloud (well, in writing): what sort of metric could we use to assess this list's comprehensiveness? Armadillo  pteryx  01:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, I suppose comprehensiveness is one thing and extensiveness is another. I'm sure there are more names to be added, and of course the list will continue to grow, but from my perspective we should be more concerned about quality sourcing for existing content and a solid foundation for additional growth. I see this list as similar to the List of XXX University alumni entries and similar, some of which are decent in quality but not necessarily "complete". --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How do those things usually factor into an FL review? I've never partaken. Armadillo  pteryx  04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Featured list criteria has a note on comprehensiveness. Some examples of the alumni lists can be seen at Featured_lists. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kandy Muse
Assuming there's a source specifically confirming sexual orientation, I believe Kandy Muse could be added to this list. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Castncoot (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Castncoot (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Does the source you've added confirm sexual orientation? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Castncoot (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Image spam out of control
Article not legible for those viewing in mobile view...no one will scroll 100 time to find information. Example of what not to do.-- Moxy - 13:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP IUP: "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing  unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Herein is exactly the whole point- that each individual in the left column is as notable in their own right as the next- there are no metrics to say that one LGBT individual is "better" or "more" notable than another. If they are described in the text column the left, then they are pertinent, notable, and appropriately illustrated. I'm not aware of any specific numerical policy ratio. Never assume that everyone has the same look on their browser or uses their browser in the same manner you do. There is also a function called 'Desktop' at the bottom of the page on mobile that takes barely a couple of seconds to scroll down to. Generally speaking, putting an UNDUE emphasis on one single aspect of WP:MOS ignores the greater good accomplished by taking a more holistic view. Castncoot (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for regurgitating what I wrote years ago....its clear to me now we need to be more blunt as you missed all 4 points. Its wonderful you like images...but its to the point that its detrimental to the articles your editing (as has been said to you many times) - net negative.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy is policy, and that's what I'm following. Policy trumps opinion. Castncoot (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point it would be nice if you followed our basic MOS rules MOS:ACCIM. Perhaps you can structure the article to be accessible for all devices not just the one you're using and user-friendly like at List of people from Ottawa.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 10:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Gregory Gourdet
Where should we add Gregory Gourdet ?

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Now know why it won't load on mobile devices
Articles with many images will time out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images (regardless of how small). See MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page. Moxy - 04:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicole d-b 267 (1).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BH Headshot (New Flag).jpg

"LGBT from" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LGBT from and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we include Madonna
@BlueboyLINY and other significant editors of this article: should Madonna be included in this list, now that her social media account circulating the internet strongly suggests that she has come out? The referenced source would not be her social media account itself but a WP:RS that states that she appears to have come out? Does this meet threshold or not? Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * is it possible to present said source in this thread for review? NeutraI (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.etonline.com/madonna-appears-to-come-out-as-gay-in-new-video-192321 Castncoot (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or this Castncoot (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the effort of presenting sources is appreciated but unfortunately, titles and commentary with wishy-washy phraseology such as appears, strongly suggests, and seemingly automatically disqualify this proposal from meeting the required threshold. If independent reliable sources supporting the proposed change with authoritative language are brought forth, then by all means I'm on board (as everyone else should be too). Put simply, we have to wait until it's "official" before going in with the change, hope this helps. Best, NeutraI (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just wanted to see what others thought. Thanks for the affirmation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "from" NYC mean?
A lot of these people are not "from" New York City by any stretch of the word. Maybe they live here now that they're famous? What are the criteria here? Rubyedlin (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)