Talk:Tokugawa shogunate/Archive 1

Link
What is the point of the self link to Tokugawa Shogunate in the see also list? Emperorbma 02:24 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pictures/photos
Can anyone locate and add a few pictures/photos of the Tokugawa family crest or any other visual symbol of the Tokugawa Shogunate?
 * Visit Mon (crest) where I posted a photo of the crest on a lantern. Also try Nikko, Tochigi (and the link to Commons at the bottom of the article), Nikko Toshogu, Toshogu, Edo Castle, Kokyo, Nagoya Castle, and other articles on people aned places connected with the Tokugawa. Fg2 09:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, good links, but what about copyright issues?
 * When you click on a photo, you should get the image page. If the image is on Commons, you might have to click on the link that says "Please see its page on Commons" or something like that. Each image page should have copyright info. Mine are public domain; other people use a variety of licenses. Fg2 20:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Samurai government vs military government
The word "bakufu" (幕府) does not contain kanji such as "samurai" (侍) or "bushi" (武士), and therefore I think it is better to describe it with a more general term like "military", implying a warrior government, a military government more generally. That the Japanese warrior class consisted of the samurai, and that the only three shogunates in history were run by the samurai seems more or less a coincidence to me, and not essential to the definition. The character maku (幕), here pronounced baku, means a curtain or a tent, and refers to the concept of rulership from a military general's command tent. Though, historically speaking, that commander was without exception a samurai, I don't feel as though this is essential to the definition - the word "samurai" implies all sorts of aesthetics, codes of honor and discipline, and social ranking which the simply imagery of a military command tent does not, I feel.

I thought it pertinent to describe my reasoning for this change, though it is somewhat minor, here, as some may disagree with it. If people would like to discuss the issue and reach some sort of consensus decision, I would be more than happy to go along with whatever that decision is. My post here is not intended to force my opinion, but rather to stir up discussion, with the goal of improving the article, in however minor a way - the devil is in the details, after all. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate
Does anyone know what decisive battles besides the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600 dictated the Tokugawa's rise to power? this information would add alot to the page. thanks- HTM

In 1615, All members and supporters of the Toyotomi family were completely eliminated.

Hane, Mikiso. "The establishment of the tokugawa shogunate in Japan." The 1600's. Bonnie Szumski. 1. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. 131 - 132.

Requested move 2012

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tokugawa shogunate → Tokugawa Shogunate – Spelling should be capitalise, since it is the name of a political entity. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it is a dynasty, and our dynasty articles are split on whether to capitalize the term "dynasty". The term "shogunate" is also thus, referring to a type of dynasty/government form. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – It's not consistently capitalized in sources, especially recent ones ; so per MOS:CAPS and WP:CAPS, stick with lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Qing Dynasty's are capitalise for example. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can fix those; one step at a time. See, , .  Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (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.

1600 or 1603 ?
The article twice has the period beginning in 1600 and once in 1603. As far as I know 1603 is correct, but I'm reluctant to modify something about which I know so little, in case there are subtleties which are lost on me. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Tokugawa shogunate started 1603, but Battle of sekigahara is 1600 source here https://www.nakasendoway.com/the-story-of-the-battle-of-sekigahara/ --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1867 or 1868 ?
The article has the period ending in 1867 in some places and 1868 in others, with the the last shogun's dates given as 1866-67 in one place and 1867-68 in another. As far as I know he was shogun from August 1866 to November 1867, but the period is conventionally said to last unril the fall of Edo in 1868, but I'm reluctant to modify something about which I know so little, in case there are subtleties which are lost on me. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

the Return of Political Rule to the Emperor is November 1867 and Decree for the Restoration of Imperial Rule is January 1868 but I can’t find January 1867. --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Source here https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/japan/meiji-restoration --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2014

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The numerical vote favors the move but only by a small margin. The precedent at Talk:Han dynasty should also be kept in mind. If we decide to capitalize shogunates shouldn't we also capitalize dynasties? Britannica favors lower case for both dynasties and shogunates. Most editors who supported the move appeared to make arguments from common sense rather than specific policies. One editor appealed to his personal recollection but didn't give a citation. WP:COMMONNAME is not the rule for capitalization. Capitalization depends on what is considered a proper name, though people can disagree on that. The entire wisdom of MOS:CAPS is that "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." In this discussion some people thought that 'consistently capitalized' implied some kind of big majority; I'm not sure whether the guidelines require that or not. The Google Books Ngram results were not consistent between editors; I haven't researched why Eric and Dicklyon got different answers. I would have thought that people would be quoting from particular style manuals here, as they did in the Han dynasty move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tokugawa shogunate → Tokugawa Shogunate
 * Ashikaga shogunate → Ashikaga Shogunate
 * Kamakura shogunate → Kamakura Shogunate

– The previous move request reached no consensus and he who opposed said that the "Shogunate" was a "dynasty" and the S should be lower-cased because we have the dynasty pages lower-cased. This is wrong. A shogunate is not a dynasty it was a branch of the Japanese military (although it did basically control Japan). So this comparison does not hold. I'll be the first to say that our naming standards on Wikipedia are not the best they can be. Although it is irrelevant, I for one oppose using the lower-case d in our Dynasty articles. Back on topic, when the term shogunate is used as a general term it is spelled with a lower-case s. When referring to a specific [ shogunate ], this case that of the Tokugawa, it is spelled with a capital S According to English grammar rules on Chompchomp.com (don't ask haha): A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines proper noun as: a word or group of words (such as “Noah Webster,” “Kentucky,” or “U.S. Congress”) that is the name of a particular person, place, or thing and that usually begins with a capital letter and a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English —called also proper name. This is the same reason specific high schools are named "Blahblahblah High School" instead of "Blahblahblah high school" Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Also nominating other shogunates. If this needs to be taken somewhere else please link me to where I can start to discussion. Thanks. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 18:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:UE and typical usage at Wikipedia. This article is about a single shogunate called the "Tokugawa Shogunate" and not a general category or type of shogunate.  Unlike for example Romance and Slavic languages, English typically capitalises all major words of a proper name (cf. French Third Republic, not French third republic; Umayyad Caliphate, not Umayyad caliphate) even if it was not an official name.  —  AjaxSmack   18:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we have evidence of this "typical usage" on WP, please? Tony   (talk)  04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the very existence of MOS:CAPS and its rule to prefer lower case when sources are not consistent disproves the curious assertion that this kind of overcapitalisation is "typical usage at Wikipedia". The fact that we have a small number of RMs correcting some outlying cases of overcapitalization, standing out from a regular pattern of avoiding caps when not overwhelmingly preferred by sources, clearly indicates where actual usage at Wikipedia is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. Idk if my request for the move already meant I supported it but here is my support vote just in case. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose since sources suggest caps are not necessary; per MOS:CAPS then, we should not. This RM is based on Eric's personal preference, as he notes, which is OK, but sticking with Wikipedia style makes more sense for Wikipedia.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. You're "sources" are propagated. The Tokugawa Shogunate started in about 1600 and between then and 2008 British English has used the capital S over the lower case s by an extreme amount and American English is almost identical to that of its sister style!.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We usually pay more attention to recent decades than ancient usage. The plots are percentages, by the way; the higher percentages in older books mostly reflect the many fewer books back then. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't change the fact the dominate usage of the capital "S". Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The dominant usage is lowercase shogunate, especially in the last 3 decades. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't matter. Not to mention that your "source" is a very small percentage given and therefore it doesn't really provide much strength to the reference.  And may I ask you why you are participating in this discussion when you clearly have no association with historic project pages such as these and the Pullman Strikes?  You're mass grouping of page RMs are viciously attacking all articles under the circumstances of general guidelines we provide on Wikipedia which are not policies and you do not weigh the specifics of these pages and instead turn to the public perpective which is filled with unprofessional, careless mistakes you take for truth.  What do you wish to accomplish? It's tiresome and your arguments made here and here are weakly supported, delivered in a persuasive way that does nothing but accumulate a group of supporters who have not weighed their own opinions or have let you do that for them.  You conduct original research and preach policy in the Wikipedia guidelines and accuse through suggestion that other Wikipedians have not followed certain guidelines and need to follow them.  Do me and favor and do something productive rather than stir problems through your bulk move requests that affect pages which may not need move simply because your original research and own preferences suggest that it'd be done.  It's ridiculous.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "It still doesn't matter, it still doesn't matter." Please see WP:IDHT. You are not going to "win" by pretending opposing viewpoints and the evidence to back them up don't exist or shouldn't be considered. Your proposal has been completely out-reasoned and out-evidenced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say that in a disruptive manner. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this one. It's a tricky question.
 * It should be pointed out however, that the shogunate was not a branch of the Japanese military, but a form of nationwide administrative control by the military. That is a point that might seem to indicate capitalization is justified, but in Japanese usage the term 'bakufu' simply refers to a historical form of administration that held prominence in the archipelago for approximately half of its documented history through three manifestations.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that although the Emperor and his court was held in puppet status for the duration. And yes the shogunate was, in general, nationwide administrative control by reality but its actual design was military ruler of Japan.  Although translation of terms from other languages in their Latin form are often less looked into because English doesn't weigh significance in their words.  This is same deal with other languages, so it isn't just English. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed
 * The Shogun was the military ruler, the shogunate the feudalistic system of government administration. The emperor and court were maintained as something along the lines of a bearer of culture as well as symbolic and religious authority, but without any administrative authority.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess but it is still grammatically incorrect to use a lower case letter in this case. In fact, the statistics given for the lower case s may as well be just statistics about how many people overlook proper noun capitalization when they write.  It's a common mistake (like using alright instead of all right) that everybody does and it isn't correct.  Not to mention it is also downgrading the significance of the specific shogunate.  The lower case should be used when using shogunate as a generic or unnamed shogunate/referring to the system itself (yes I know it's a system but the shogunate was never meant to officially rule Japan as it did; that isn't the point though) but when referring to a specific shogunate you need to capitalize it as it is part of its proper name.  It isn't just a shogunate... it's the Tokugawa Shogunate... Another example would be "Boston College" instead of Boston college. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that you are right and more than half of reliable sources are wrong is not very credible. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? There can be no statistics to evaluate the correctness of grammar. There are those who choose to learn and understand grammar, and then there are those who do not and fail their native tongue; you being the latter option. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only one who has made "correctness" arguments is you. We don't need to know or care what you consider correct.  As MOS:CAPS says, we capitalize if sources do so consistently; otherwise caps are not necessary.  Both ways are correct in their respective styles.  We should use wikipedia style.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Eric): "There are those who choose to learn and understand grammar"—care to run the gauntlet with me on that? My talkpage, please, and we'll have a little test? Tony   (talk)  07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done with you, I can't seem to get anything across to you. You don't follow guidelines (NOT DAMN POLICIES) yourself.  How is it that we should follow the lower case consistency when there are just as many, if not many more, consistencies with the capital letter?  And if we use the correct style, which we must over Wikipedia's style (A PREFERENCE, MAY I REMIND YOU), then we must use the capital letter for the proper noun.  Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get your way by yelling at people in all-caps and declaring refusal to continue the discussion. I believe that's called not-very-gracefully conceding.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per AjaxSmack's reasoning and my recollection of how I've seen history books usually render the phrase. SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But MOS:CAPS does not list your recollection among the criteria for capitalization, does it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The snark in exchange for being honest that I'm not 100% sure what the more general academic use is is not appreciated. If you'd prefer the rationale in Wikipedia-ese, if not obvious, I am referring to a WP:COMMONNAME argument, which is a Wikipedia naming policy of far greater heft IMHO than any internal style guideline.  Wikipedia should mimic what the sources - ideally the high-quality sources - use.  I was merely qualifying that if someone could convince me that the academic use is *not* to capitalize and my impression is wrong, then I'd be willing to change my vote.  Insults are less likely to convince me. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the history references I've provided links to below.
 * Non-capitalized is the standard used by scholars as far as I can gather, and it makes sense in terms of history as well as for cleaner reading text.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose—indeed, conclusions on the basis of "recollections", and Ajax's vague assertions of "typical usage on Wikipedia" are non-arguments. Please come up with something better. "That still doesn't matter.", Kamek says? That really demonstrates blindness to evidence that doesn't support prejudice. Tony   (talk)  04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: These are not formal official names, like United Kingdom, they're descriptive appellations, and cross-language, mongrel exonyms at that. I agree with other objections above. This is more of the latest wave of "capitalise everything for the hell of it" nonsense. MOS:CAPS is clear: When in doubt, don't capitalise. There is obviously doubt here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? It is beyond me.  It absolutely is a formal official name.  A descriptive appellation?  This is not a descriptive appellation it is an appellation that is a proper noun when used to identify the specific shogun.  This is not capitalization for the hell of it.  And our guidelines are not policies.  So don't give me that nonsense.  Statistics are not a mean of citation for grammar.  Only correct knowledge of the language itself can prove that.  Your statement makes no sense.  Your claim also supports the idea that United Kingdom should be United kingdom. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I "can say that" because it's true. "Shogunate" is a made-up English neologism, based on the Japanese word we transliterate as shōgun, and was never used by the Tokugawa; it is not part of the actual, proper name of what we call the Tokgawa shogunate; see proper name for the difference between proper names and descriptive terms. You're clearly not reading carefully, since I specifically distinguished "United Kingdom" (capitalized as such). Moving on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's accurate, "bakufu" is the term that in Japanese that represents what Shogunate stands for in English.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how you all fail to realize that by identifying the specific shogunate you must capitalize the S in shogunate to give the "Tokugawa Shogunate" it's proper. (Name or noun, it doesn't matter) Did you read the part (French lundi, Canada, canadien; English Monday, Canada, Canadian)? Well this is English, so like lundi and canadien becomes Monday and Canadian it only makes sense to make shogunate Shogunate when referring to a specific Shogunate. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That simply isn't true, though. When we refer to the Yanomami tribe of South America, the "tribe" is not capitalized, because it is not part of their formal name, no matter the fact that we're referring to a specific tribe. When we refer to the Aroostook Band of Micmac we capitalize "Band" because it  a formal part of their name. "Kingdom" is capitalized in United Kingdom because it's formal part of its name, but we do not capitalize that word in the phrase "the kingdom of George V". We capitalize "Republic" in Central African Republic, but not in the phrase "the Canadian republic". And so on. Again, you are confused about what constitutes a proper name. Hint: referring to something specific is not the defining factor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But how can you compare Yanomami tribe (which is formally Yanomami) to Tokugawa shogunate/Shogunate? The formal name of the subject at hand isn't Tokugawa because Tokugawa is the clan in power. I understand what you're trying to tell me but I still don't see how that affects the formal name Tokugawa Shogunate?  Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Look at this. Another point someone made here explains what I was trying to say but didn't know how, the bit about capitalizing the second noun if they have equal force.  I see the term shogunate, when used to name the Tokugawa, equal force. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per usage by Marius Jansen and others, seen here and searchable in the pdf file here.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support On account of a number of the arguments above. Also WP:NAME doesn't take formal names into account, and per your reasoning we should have United kingdom. These should definitely be capitalized. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A) This !vote cannot be seriously considered because you didn't specify what rationales you agree with. B) WP:NAME certainly does account for formal names, of which this is not anyway, but an English-language post hoc descriptive phrase. C) I've already explained twice why "Kingdom" in "United Kingdom" is and must be capitalized, so you're just engaging in WP:IDHT and a patent straw man fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. These are generally used as proper names and should thus be fully capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except the actual source evidence provided has clearly disproved that assertion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except the actual source evidence actually proves that is often capitalized as seen here, with the highest smoothing (for averaging purposes) here Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Often capitalized" is far short of the MOS:CAPS criterion of "consistently capitalized". Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2015 (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.

Currency in the infobox.
When the infobox was first created the infobox listed "mon", this has changed to "ryoo", back to "mon", and then back to "ryoo" over the years. I propose changing it to Tokugawa coinage as that article covers all types of money, and scrip used during this shogunate. Also I think that It's very unlikely for over 99% of the population to have ever seen a single Ryoo in their lives, so "mon" would've been better, but I still stand with changing it to "Tokugawa coinage". 1.54.210.203 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ryoo's were the main unit of measurement for the Shogunal government itself, but despite official decrees of partitioning through 4's the Tokugawa coinage article itself names that this was rarely the case, and the "exchange" between Mon's, Shu's, Bu's, and Ryoo's changed when their respective metals had changed in market value. 1.54.210.203 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Tokugawa Shogunate flag missing and emblem wrong colour
The flag is missing in the infobox (File:Flag of the Tokugawa Shogunate.svg) and the emblem is the wrong colour. The emblem should be yellow, not green.--Kingdom of Sorfidan (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , its latest removal was justified with "Restored revision 1074050027 by Vif12vf (talk): The flag was only used on merchant vessels, merchant flags do not belong in this infobox.", This makes sense as merchant vessels often use recognisable flags that aren't necessarily national symbol (for a comparable case see the ongoing discussions over at the "Austria-Hungary" article, where also a lot of contemporary sources incorrectly claim that the merchant ensign is the national flag). As for the crest being the wrong colour, I actually do agree with that as most contemporary depictions actually seem to be either yellow or gold. But I'm not sure if the usage of this colour in military equipment is different from how it was used as a state symbol. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Hist401
— Assignment last updated by HistoryKrymz (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)