Talk:Verification and validation

Separate page
This general V & V page was created Sept 7, 2007 and Verification and Validation (software) was given a separate page with the software limitation. Rlsheehan 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have some of the content been moped up from this version ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_Validation&diff=207412488&oldid=207287464

If one does not agree with the writing, edit it please with your reasons provided

See Also Section
Please remove Atsec information security, this is a description of a company. It does not contribute any informative value to the subject that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.78.55 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge of V&V Section from Formal verification
I agree that V&V does not belong in Formal verification except, perhaps, by reference. There is a useful and common description of V&V in that section, however, that would fit nicely into Verification and Validation. Softtest123 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * merge You are right. A merger with a link from here to that page is OK. Sae1962 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It's been 3 years since the merge tags were added and since then changes to the articles mean they don't make sense (e.g. the section referred to no longer exists). I suggest that the merge tags be removed (or at least updated). Are they really needed anyway ? DexDor (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not needed, but removing them isn't a matter of on editor's opinion, but consensus. We should wait a few days to be sure that no one still wants them merged, then close both discussions and remove the tags. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please verify the link of...
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/ as I'm having difficulties to see the whole page--222.67.204.83 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

and the article of

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TG9-3VVMNBN-11&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4f97b06a577bb7fc16f8b6602d5db3ff --222.64.30.132 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Verification is failed for....
the logo in the letter http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf

http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=WL+No.+320-08-04&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*&x=15&y=22 --222.67.209.78 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

with the website of http://www.hhs.gov/ --222.67.209.78 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry founded http://www.hhs.gov/web/policies/webpolicies/logopolicies/#symbol

However, I'm confused that why government logos do not coexist with their department logos at the offical department home page.

or

provide a distinguished link to the logo page--222.67.209.78 (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone verify if....
the document is authentic...??? http://lib.njutcm.edu.cn/yaodian/ep/EP5.0/02_methods_of_analysis/2.2.__physical_and_physicochemical_methods/2.2.45.%20Supercritical%20fluid%20chromatography.pdf

Can it be found at EU government site?

an academic review of this is not available though http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+2.2.44+European+Pharmacopoeia&btnG=Search --222.67.205.250 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

additional info http://www.globalspec.com/reference/7531/Pharmaceutical-System-Suitability-Testing-Simplifying-a-Critical-Element-in-the-TOC-Monitoring-Process --222.67.205.250 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Verification and validation V & V (from Software Quality perspective)
== Verification versus Validation == Verification Vs Validation

Verification ensures that the system (software, hardware, documentation, and personnel) complies with an organization’s standards and processes, relying on review or non-executable methods.

Validation physically ensures that the system operates according to plan by executing the system functions through a series of tests that can be observed and evaluated.

Verification answers the question, “Did we build the right system?” while validations addresses, “Did we build the system right?”

Keep in mind that verification and validation techniques can be applied to every element of the computerized system. You’ll find these techniques in publications dealing with the design and implementation of user manuals and training courses, as well as in industry publications.

Reference: 2006 CSTE Common Body of Knowledge CBOK Added by Ahmad Al-Musallami (AMUS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amusallami (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that I see verification being done before validation. Who cares if the function is verified (done right), until you have validated the function to be required (done the right thing)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.186.28 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because validation is an actual test of real-world function, not an analysis of the spec before starting. Implementation is usually done hand in hand with verification, which is why the verification usually comes first (despite seeming kinda backwards). In many (most?) informal developments, validation probably does come before verification (give it to the customer - it breaks - do some tests to figure out why). Adx (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

IEEE definitions of Verification and Validation
Contrary to the above definitions of "Validation vs. Verification", IEEE defines them as such:

Validation : "Confirmation by examination and provisions of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled." i.e. is it the right design? does the product meet the needs of the customer?

Verification : "Confirmation by examination and provisions of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled." i.e. is the design right? does it work as specifed?

Thus, It is clear that you can perfectly verify what turns out to be an invalid design... it is hinged in the requirements definition.

FULLY AGREE, THIS PAGE IS INCORRECT. I suspect Walter X (see how often he erases all material) to perform -for whathever reason - Wiki vandalism. He is refusing to accept how international standards define V&V. This also counts for the V-model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.70 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Suspect all you want. Add reverences and you'll have my support. There are two competing definitions of the term. Sorry you don't understand that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The above is not the IEEE definition, it is the ISTQB definition 78.141.139.10 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where's those definitions at, yo?
So let's have a few.

From: "IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology", IEEE Std 610.12-1990:

VALIDATION: "The process of evaluating a system or component during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. Contrast with: verification." VERIFICATION: "(1) The process of evaluating a system or component to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. Contrast with: validation. (2) Formal proof of program correctness. See: proof of correctness. VERIFICATION & VALIDATION (V&V): "The process of determining whether the requirements for a system or component are complete and correct, the products of each development phase fulfill the requirements or conditions imposed by the previous phase, and the final system or component complies with specified requirements. See also: independent verification & validation"

From: "Standard glossary of terms used in Software Testing; Version 2.2 (dd. October 19th, 2012), Produced by the ‘Glossary Working Party’ International Software Testing Qualifications Board"

VALIDATION: "Confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that the requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled. [ISO 9000]" VERIFICATION: "Confirmation by examination and through provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. [ISO 9000]"

The [ISO 9000] reference above is meant for "ISO 9000:2005. Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and Vocabulary.", which I don't have at hand.

From: "European Cooperation for Space Standardization - Glossary of Terms" ECSS P-001B of July 14, 2004, ECSS Secretariat, ESA ESTEC, Requirements and Standards Division, Nordwijk, The Netherlands:

VALIDATION: "Confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence that the requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled. NOTE 1: The term “validated” is used to designate the corresponding status. NOTE 2: The use conditions for validation can be real or simulated. [ISO 9000:2000]" VERIFICATION: "Confirmation through the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. NOTE 1: The term “verified” is used to designate the corresponding status. NOTE 2: Confirmation can comprise activities such as (1) performing alternative calculations (2) comparing a new design specification with a similar proven design specification (3) undertaking tests and demonstrations, and (4) reviewing documents prior to issue. [ISO 9000:2000]"

The [ISO 9000:2000] reference above is meant for "ISO 9000:2000. Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and Vocabulary.", which I don't have at hand.

From: "Galileo Software Standard" (Galileo Industries document "GAL-SPE-GLI-SYST-A/0092", 24/05/2004):

VALIDATION: "Confirmation, by examination and provision of objective evidence, that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled, i.e. to ensure that specification requirements of the product are met." VERIFICATION: "Confirmation, by examination and provision of objective evidence, that specified requirements have been fulfilled, i.e. check to ensure that the requirements process for a dedicated phase is properly applied."

78.141.139.10 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

High-Level Flow of Validation and Verification
step 1. create a high-level behavioral model to validate a customer's reqmts. step 2. from that model one extracts reqmts for the design. step 3. verify the reqmts for the design against the previously validated model.

as long as each step is performed correctly, prior to the subsequent step you should satisfy both validation and verification of the design.

In the international counsil on systems engineering provides it like this

1 Needs --> 2 Requirements --> 3 Design --> 4 Product

FIRST VALIDATE (2) Requirements against the Need (1) THAN VERIFY (3) Designs against the Requirements [e.g. Analysis] (2) AND/OR VERIFY (4) Products against the Requirements (2) [e.g. Testing] THAN finally VALIDATE (4) PRODUCT AGAINS THE NEEDS (1) (customer review...)

So, verification is ALWAYS against the Requirements AND Validation ALWAYS against the real world, which is the whol purpose of all of it: The NEEDS from (internal) Customer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.70 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Different approaches for the same goals in different contexts
Since I was insterested in program verification, a long time ago, I start to read about Software Engineering. Broadly speaking I observed two approaches Quality Assurance and Formal Methods. The first QA, place more emphasis in organizational aspects in software development, the second FM, logical and algebraic methods to make proofs to ensure the quality of programs.

Giving a sight to the v&v link talking about QA standards like iso9000, that are used in many engineering projects, like building NASA's navies.

QA, may use the approach of formal methods to achieve some goals, but FM are independent of the way a team building software is organized.

I think that the pages should not be merged, just be disambiguated for the context, this does not exclude that the entry V&V (QA) pointing to V&V (FM) when necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Validation is not a quality assurance activity
I disagree that validation is a quality assurance activity. It is in fact a quality control activity, just like verification. Quality assurance is about providing visibility to various stakeholders into the process used to develop the product (including quality control activities) through objective evidences, in order to provide confidence and assurance about the product quality. Mobius80 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)mobius80


 * In my opinion validation cover both quality control and quality assurance aspect, because in the process of validation it has to verify that the product meet specification which is quality control, parameter,measurement ect. but at the same time it has to follow and compliance with the general regulation (standards) and products - user requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.94.29.180 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. I think you are not applying the formal definitions of QA and QC/testing but rather the common terms where the three are interchangeable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The version comparisons of this topic......

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=242149275&oldid=242149126
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241979557&oldid=241977367
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=240600664&oldid=240600208
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=301641447&oldid=301640554
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=301632693&oldid=301628413
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=301621997&oldid=301621156

Just let you know that all the writers for these versions maybe proxy writers or the writers who are cloned, except for the originals. This can be evidenced by the fact that the original references were retrievable --222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=FG-Kk57grGwC&pg=PT1&dq=Robert+A.+Nash+Pharmaceutical+Process+Validation:+An+International+Third+Edition&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Robert%20A.%20Nash%20Pharmaceutical%20Process%20Validation%3A%20An%20International%20Third%20Edition&f=false


 * Anyway, The above 6 links are like modern hexograms. The bottom three can been further traced whereas the top 3 remain questioned.  I don't know whether wiki admin should be responsible for the traceability--222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Welll, I let my cloned writers to add the following info....
--222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) --222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC) --222.67.201.249 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC) --222.67.201.249 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20verification%20compendial&sa=N&tab=sw
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=validation+compendial&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=validation+compendial&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+verification+compendial&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a758573502~db=all~jumptype=rss

The following info is about the writer who maybe a vandalist.....
as some of the critical infos of the article have been modified inappropriately, at least not in a common sense. --222.67.203.108 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.78.208.150
 * http://whois.domaintools.com/124.78.208.150


 * Then report the vandal, but I don't see a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do further tracking using various means --222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also...the following trails is not normal either......and....
the critical infos of the article have been wrecked off....
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&offset=20080930080230&action=history

See what those have been done --222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241728578&oldid=241728284
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241729955&oldid=241728578
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241730589&oldid=241729955
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241730758&oldid=241730589
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&diff=241730962&oldid=241730758

Therefore, some of the content which are critical and which are not referenced could be damaged by the above practice --222.67.203.108 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The majority of these edits look perfectly correct to me. If there's a problem, and remember these edits were all done a eighteen months ago, feel free to revert them with an explanation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

can someone correct a typo I tried am to busy and give up
I only corrected the spelling of word from Waning Letter to Warning Letter after ascertaining that “Warning Letter” was the correct title and spelling. When I pressed the link to download and save the PDF document the complete name appeared automatically on the save as document name window, above the saving format window, the complete title of the reference and the link all together, both spellings incorrect and correct concurrently in one. Thus the word WARNING was spelled incorrectly on the title of the link but correctly in the URL link which I copied and pasted entirely. However, I modified in bolde here the text pasted for this explanation only to emphasize the problem visually subsequently: 36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "Waning Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

So I could not changed I hope that this explanation brings the matter to your attention so someone can make the necessary corrections I tried to make.

It should read when corrected: 36. ^ United States Department of Health & Human Services (2009). "Warning Letter (WL No. 320-08-04)". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/ucm085293.pdf. Retrieved 12 July 2009.

I have edited and corrected a couple of times before small errors or false links and had no problems yet on this occasion despite my efforts and since I do not have much time and for some reason the text in question when I pressed edit button did not appear in the editing box & page as it should maybe there are special methods to deal with text within the reference section which seems not very logic as if there is something more necessary than so many other things is to facilitate the referencing system from adding citations, changing, improving, to deleting them, The reliability of any encyclopaedia, academic publication, published dictionaries or non fiction book that calls for references is key to its credibility and finally its acceptance and usefulness. So if dealing with citations and referencing becomes specially painful, well we might as well close the kiosk and go fly a kite because the primary objective, that Wikipedia becomes respected world wide and can be used as a reliable source specially in Academia, and while it is visible that citations and Wikipedia has improved very much in the last years it has still a long way to go before it becomes an accepted and serious source in academic circles. It would be a pity that after so much efforts such a project would finally become worthless due to a lack of a serious yet easy and dependable referencing methodology. If I need to make such a fuss only to correct a typo... well what can I say? Best regards, Santiago 91.157.28.241 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the typo, thanks for the notice. Often references are defined at the place they are used (and not in the references section). To find where a reference is used, click the "^" (or "a" or "b" etc, if multiple usages occur) link at the beginning of the line with the reference in the references section. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

QC vs QA
Quality Control and Quality Assurance have a variety of usages: see. Often QC is internal and is product oriented while QA is much broader and is process oriented. The terms have definitions by ASQ and several other groups but I have not seen a definitive link between verification and QA and validation and QC. Unless we can find a universal connection (and reliable source) between these concepts, I say we remove the claimed connections. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you're referencing two statements in the overview section. I'm not sure we need to go into that when their articles do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The present QA and QC items are not supported by citations and seem to be incorrect. Please do not just delete legitimate tags and ignore questions.Rlsheehan (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have deleted the dubious claims about QA and QC. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can ask me questions or text the questions 66.175.134.115 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to completely revise this page
It is confusing, bad written not compliant with international standards for systems engineering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.70 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems adequate and since the group you mention is only one interested party, we can't cater only to their terms and definitions. Are there specific changes that you'd like to see? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire entry seems to have been written by a non-English speaker. Noun verb agreement is often incorrect. The grammar is horrible. Read the section on the FAA. Every sentence contains at least one grammar mistake. Content aside, this one of the worst Wikipedia entries I have read. PLEASE edit for grammar. It was probably written by a foreign engineer. Engineers, even native English speakers are notoriusly bas writers. I am a native English speaking engineer, albiet with a BA in a liberal arts discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.39.2 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Verification and validation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090531024300/http://www.peptisyntha.com:80/processdevelopment/commercialscaleproduction/0,,3660-2-0,00.htm to http://www.peptisyntha.com/processdevelopment/commercialscaleproduction/0,,3660-2-0,00.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606085627/http://www.fda.gov:80/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Verification and validation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090606085627/http://www.fda.gov:80/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110911212217/http://www.caspharma.com/Method-Validation/ to http://www.caspharma.com/Method-Validation/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090720030042/http://www.fda.gov:80/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124720.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012043133/http://www.transfusionguidelines.org.uk/docs/pdfs/oig_tools_qa_bb_e-issue_validation.pdf to http://www.transfusionguidelines.org.uk/docs/pdfs/oig_tools_qa_bb_e-issue_validation.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927015752/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/68/in01_731.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/68/in01_731.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013150443/http://lanl.gov:80/projects/ei/model_v/about.shtml to http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ei/model_v/about.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

IEEE 24765 changed (2017 update)
Some definitions are given refering to IEEE 24765:2010. But this standard is updated with IEEE 24765:2017 with new definitions for "verification" and "validation".

Differences can be seen here: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec-ieee:24765:ed-2:v1:en

--RomainTT (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the new definition, but we should indicate that this is from an older standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't rewrite the dictionary
We should be very careful with giving new specialistic meaning to existing common words such as 'verification' and 'validation'. Words are very fundamental for being able to think and reason, so no authority such as ISO or IEEE or even Wikipedia should be allowed to make up new definitions of common words, and present them as generally accepted.

In articles like this, it should be clear that the specialistic meaning is being used, so instead of 'Validation' this article should say 'ISO 9000 Validation' or something, because in other contexts, validation has a different meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.116.215 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)