Template talk:WikiProject Aviation

To do
To do: Was there a decision to not apply an importance scale to aviation articles? Certainly it's a useful construct for other wikiprojects, but I don't see anything on it here.LeadSongDog 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Add varous options to specify what type of infobox needs to be added.
 * Add option to say aircraft stats need to be updated to standards.
 * Add military aviation task force

I would like an administrator to please add a new taskforce, WikiProject Aviation/Australian aviation task force.}} Littleteddy (roar!) 11:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ Barely active would be a considerable understatement. Happy‑melon 20:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Space required
In "scale]].{{#ifexist:{{" a space is required so that it is "scale]]. {{#ifexist:{{". Gary King ( talk ) 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class
C-class has been implemented in Wikipedia, but this particular template doesn't support it yet. (e.g. Talk:GMF AeroAsia) Could someone who actually can add to the code implement this? Thanks.=) --DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. The way I've incorporated it, If someone assess an article as C-class without completing the B-class checklist, it will still come up as start class. An article will be C-class if the checklist is complete and at least three of the five items are "yes". Again, if all 5 items are "yes" then it will still automatically assess it as B-class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessing as "B" or "C"-class will show "Start"-class
Assessing an article as "B" or "C"-class will show as "Start"-class. Use either one of these templates: And both will show the same output as: Gary King ( talk ) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll need to use the B-class checklist. Martin 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was told that after posting this, to which I replied that the template should at least display a warning that the checklist is incomplete. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Different image for portal icon, instead of standard one
Just a suggestion, since there are so many nice photos out there for the aviation portal, could the standard icon in the portal link be updated to include a photo? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and we should use this:File:Wrightflyer thumb.jpg. I was gonna do it but its locked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template not closing
This template doesn't appear to be closing correctly, and it's making it look like other page content is part of the template when used. See, for example, Talk:Hawaiian Airlines where both the WikiProject Hawaii template and the discussion items below all appear to be part of the template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think the problem was due to an edit on Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/collapsed, see, I think when you put back WPAVIATION to the way it was, that you should protect this hook template as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Has you're reversion fixed it, WOSlinker? I ask because I wasn't online today and I saw no errors yesterday, and can't see any now. Can the banner be reverted back to the meta form? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reversion of Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/collapsed fixed it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is related, but the template is showing an error message with a comma in a category link. For example see Talk:F/A-18_Hornet. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that and have reverted back to the version that does not show "Expression error: Unexpected < operator-" in big red letters. I have no idea how to fix the other problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the template now uses Template:WPBannerMeta, it's not a problem with the template itself, but one of the templates being used in it. I'll try to track it down. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a small bug which has now been fixed. I must say that I question the wisdom of reverting the banner (and therefore affecting thousands of pages) because of an error message which occured on just one page. It does seem a little like using a sledgehammer to break a nut. Anyway, apologies for the inconvenience. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. The comma error affected many, maybe all the pages where this banner was used.  I just listed one example to show what it was doing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Military task force
Please add parameter


 * Military=yes

(or "military", "military-task-force", "Military-task-force")

to the template, and link it to

WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force

76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello 76.66, you seem to get everywhere! Um, that is not a taskforce of this project but of MilHist so I'm not sure that it is appropriate. Perhaps a member of the Aviation project could confirm that this is desirable? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Imageneeded
I know I am not the only one to make the mistake of upper and lower case. It is possible to make the parameters in the template not case sensitive? SO that, for example, imageneeded=yes and Imageneeded=yes have the same result. Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed section
The code for the collapsed section hook has recently been enhanced. One benefit is that the text can be made to line up with the rest of the banner (which I have now done). Another benefit is the ability to selectively collapse the section depending on how many rows are displayed. It is rarely useful to collapse one row, because the header of the section takes up the same amount of space and so information is hidden without any space saving. On the sandbox is an implementation whereby 2 rows or more are collapsed but 1 row isn't. See the /testcases for some examples. Please let me know what you think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now implemented this. Let me know if there are any problems. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment subpage
When a comments subpage includes a section header, the page TOC becomes embedded in the banner, and if the comments section is hidden, the TOC is also hidden from the page. I discovered this on the Talk:UH-1 Iroquois page. --Born2flie (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The banner uses Template:WPBannerMeta, so I'll bring it up there to be fixed. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a banner problem, it's just something that happens with transcluded pages and headers. The only way to fix it is, if you see this problem, then delete the headers from the subpage. They usually won't have any so this problem should be rare. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disconnect between the banner and the Assessments Dept.
The banner lists five criteria for B and C class, but the list on WikiProject Aviation/Assessment shows six. Does the banner need correction? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No the banner is correct, it's the assessment page that needs fixing. This is mainly because its a copy of the general Wikipedia-wide assessment structure, which uses 6 criteria. Ours is more specialised. Someone (probably me) will eventually get around to fixing the page. Check out WP:MILHIST's page on the same matter to see how they fixed theirs. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  06:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to draw it to somebody's attention. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Book-class
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, could someone edit Template:WPAVIATION/class and add
 * Book

immediately below
 * Project

and
 * Book

immediately below
 * Project

?

Thanks. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zyxw, 4 April 2010
editprotected

Request that:

be replaced with:

Since the plural form works without "-project", the singular form should do the same (also, I mistakenly used "Airport=yes" on a few talk pages of new airport articles). Thanks. Zyxw (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal Image
Can the portal image be updated from to to match that used by the portal template. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  — fetch ·  comms   20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Link for "full instructions" needs to be updated
The instructions are now located at the /doc subpage, so the "full instructions" link in the template needs to be updated. See the version in the sandbox for current coding:. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories have inconsistent capitals
Comparing Category:List-Class aviation articles and Category:List-Class Aviation accident articles it seems the category name capitalization being applied is inconsistent. Not sure how general the problem is, but it ought to be addressed. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Category:Indexes of topics (or one of its subordinate categories) would seem to be something that this template should apply. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SARISTU project
I would like to thank you for enlisting the wiki article under the "Aviation WikiProject", and i would like to participate and join the project. Could you please provide me some information about what my next steps should be (e.g how and where to insert the Aviation WikiProject banner, etc)? Thank you in advance --Gmygdak (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

imageneeded categories
Moving of some articles out of Category:Aviation articles needing images to more specific categories of: Please update the template to version currently in sandbox.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft
 * Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of airports
 * Okay, done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 August 2012
Hello, I'm in the process of converting WikiProject Defunct Airlines to a task force within parent project WP:AIRLINES. I've already moved the Defunct Airlines page to reflect its task force status. Please change the link to the task force accordingly. You can just keep the code to add it to the project be the same; that way, we won't have to have a bot go around and change everything. Please change the paramater that was used in this template from Defunct-Airlines-project to something like Defunct-Airlines (basically just remove the "Project" from that parameter). I will try and request that a bot go around and make this change.

Thanks, Comp dude 123 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Could you update the sandbox with the relevant code? I'll make the change for you after that. Also, it would be helpful if you could link to the discussion where a consensus was found to turn the project into a task force. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 05:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't think this template needs to be changed at all. I just realized you can use Defunct to signify that the page is part of the defunct airlines task force. (I thought the parameter was Defunct-Airlines-project) No change is needed after all. &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2012
I would like the text "This article is part of the Defunct Airlines project" to be changed to "This article is part of the Defunct Airlines task force." Discussion to change it to a task force can be found here. And I edited the sandbox to reflect this change; just copy/paste the whole sandbox into the main template or whatever. Thanks,

Comp dude 123 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, see, but please note that prior to doing so I because two instances of   had mysteriously been altered to   and there is no Template:Defunct-Airlines-project. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't notice that. It's a good thing we have these pages protected so that people like me don't go screw them up!  &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the section below is part of this edit request. &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Change the Banner
Currently the B-class checklist in the Banner does not have criteria 6 on it! Change + +  +  +   }}

to: + +  +  +  +  }}

Petebutt (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding a sixth criterion would reclassify all the B-class articles as C-class. I think you need to discuss this with the project first. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2013
The Defunct Airlines project was converted into a task force last August, and now after I've waited months, has finally run his bot to edit talkpages of defunct airline articles and remove the parameters like yes or yes and change them to yes. Now that the bot has removed those parameters, I'd like to request an admin to remove the parameters Defunct-Airlines-project and Defunct-project from the template. Thanks.

&mdash;Comp dude 123 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Comp dude 123 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles used on portals classification error
I've just tagged the talk page of new redirect (Comet (aircraft) → De Havilland Comet) with this template using only the parameters |class=redirect and |aircaft=yes but Talk:Comet (aircraft) is still being categorised into Category:Aviation articles used on portals, which based on my understanding of the template and category it shouldn't be. I can't figure out why though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is still the case; Category:Aviation articles used on portals currently has 17837 pages in it (including such pages as Talk:1919 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system and Category talk:2000s aircraft stubs).


 * I suggest the template is edited to remove the reference to this category (comment it out) until someone who understands the template can fix it properly. DexDor(talk) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've reverted the addition of the four aircraft parameters to note 2., do you remember why you did that? Alakzi (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it was a request by User:Traveler100 - see above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - Wright flyer thumbnail
Please consider changing the image in the template to, which is slightly larger (to match the size of use in the template), and closer to the brightness levels of the source image, and easier to identify. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Implemented in the sandbox
 * Note: there are two useful comments also in the sandbox which should be uncontroversially made live at the same time.


 * Live:


 * Sandbox:

Note however&hellip; the image actually displays, (at least for me) as 100px × 46px.


 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC).


 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Yes check.svg Done Both done. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Change photo requests to image requests
As part of a nearly-completed shift to distinguish requests for photos from requests for images in general, it is requested that this template be modified to place talk pages in "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories, rather than the old "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." categories. As such, please supplement all references to "photo(s) of..." and "photograph(s) of..." with "image(s) of..." in both the template and its documentation, while maintaining backwards compatibility for the old "photo" parameters. In particular, change "photograph or picture" to simply "image". Note that the "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories have already been created. Thank you! — s w p b T 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Mock-up in sandbox. — s w p b T 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An addition, please add pagetype and small parameter to it. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 18:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: per moratorium proposed at Category_talk:Wikipedia_requested_images_by_subject. Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2017
A new task force has been created, the Soviet aviation task force. Please change the template so that adding the parameter Soviet=y would add the page to the category Category:Soviet aviation task force articles, and would have the (example using C-class) Category:C-class Soviet aviation articles. Thank you for helping start the Soviet aviation task force. I've sent talkpage messages and there are several people who will join the task force once its finished starting. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Also, please indicate where this has been discussed and consensus reached. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Users Petebutt, Jetstreamer, TheMightyGeneral (replied on my user page) all agreed to join the project (I sent invites before project page was published, so they haven't added their usernames to the list yet). Sent out many other invites, no negative replies, but not expecting replies from some yet b/c pretty sure some are in different time zone.  Anyway, until the Soviet parameter is added to the template the assessment statistics will remain a redlink, but I'm hoping to get the project up and running soon.  Also worth noting that there's a virtual "Iron curtain" on Wikipedia in terms of coverage of Soviet Aviation vs Western aviation.  So far no requests for deletion or anything like that at the talkpage, and I made the sandbox edits but for some reason they would not show up.  This project is necessary; I've written 17 soviet aviation articles and still have much more to write with hundreds to improve, and Wikipedia has a community of volunteers ready to join the project.  Remember that Soviet aviation was much unlike the rest of aviation today; (hardly any international flights, all domestically produced aircraft, censorship of accidents...)that resulted in a lack of information until recently about it, hence this task force is needed.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you didn't test it. If you had, you would have noticed immediately that the new code was completely ignored; the subtemplates, and  do not recognise more than ten taskforces. To use more, you need to start fresh sets.
 * Why are five different variations on parameter names necessary? Can these be reduced to just one or perhaps two? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I clicked "show preview" and saw nothing changed. I didn't know how to fix it, thanks for fixing it in the sandbox.  As for the five variations, it's to avoid issues and guessing, and other projects had more than two variations.  I couldn't figure out why it wasn't showing, thanks for fixing it.  Can the current sandbox version be incorporated into the template, or are there any other steps I need to take?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To test a WikiProject banner's sandbox, go to any talk page that uses that banner, edit it, add  to the template name, plus whatever parameters are needed for the test, and click.
 * In this case, you might go to Talk:Tupolev Tu-144, where you would find  Alter the first line to read   and preview it. You should see something like this:   This will have a "[show]" link; try it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Can the template be synced with the sandbox version to incorporate the Soviet Aviation task force?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Not yet. Are WT:WikiProject Aviation aware of this request, and have they agreed to an extra row in their banner? Also, are you sure that five different parameter names are desirable? Can you not pick one out of those five? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are now aware and wish to see it added to the template, see WikiProject Aviation talk--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation is ready to kick off the Soviet aviation project

WikiProject Aviation (talk) gave the greenlight to adding the Soviet aviation parameter, see the link. :)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please choose one parameter name. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Now you can make edits . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect ratings if b tests are used.
See WikiProject Aviation/class

If the template is called with an explicit class of "start", but there are also some b class tests set, then the article gets bumped up to C class. This is wrong. We don't rate articles on getting some things right, such as syntax and spelling, we also need coverage across the board and in particular coverage in an article has to be adequate, or else we still just have a beautifully formatted stub. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed; this WikiProject banner is unusual in that respect. The normal behaviour (typified by Template:Class mask as used by ) is that the B-class tests are only evaluated when b is also set: in such a case, all of the tests must succeed if the B-class is to be upheld, otherwise it is downgraded to C-class. For any other value of class, including c and start, the B-class tests are ignored and the rating is unchanged. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose removal of portal category
This template places pages in Category:Aviation articles used on portals, but the pages (currently) in that category don't correspond to the pages used in the portal (e.g. as listed at Portal:Aviation/Selected article). Incorrect information is worse than no information so I propose the template be edited to avoid it populating the category. (The category could then be deleted as empty) DexDor(talk) 20:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The documentation says:
 * Portals:
 * Looking at the code, both yes and yes do the same thing (and it actually displays "This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.", which is slightly different from the doc). So, if article talk pages are in but should not be, simply remove the parameter (whichever of the two is present) from the WikiProject Aviation banner on the talk page concerned. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Redrose64, It would probably be easier to change the template (and to delete the category) than to change the tags to make the category correct. And, more importantly, it would avoid the category becoming incorrect again (or an ongoing maintenance task of keeping the category up to date). The category is probably unnecessary (most portals do not have a category like this). DexDor(talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove the categorisation only, or remove the whole "This article has been selected ..." note as well? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove the categorisation only, or remove the whole "This article has been selected ..." note as well? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Differentiating main line and regional airlines
Why are airports pages' airline listings combining main line and regional airlines? Did I miss a decision? This seems to be a little dishonest as many of the main line airlines would like you to believe you bought a ticket on their flight but you find out that they have a separate express, connection, eagle brand etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackrules90 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Aerotagm" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Aerotagm. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2020
replace: |TF_9_IMAGE          = ArmyAvnBadge.gif with |TF_9_IMAGE          = ArmyAvnBadge.png to avoid redirect at Commons and showing the correct file type. (files: and ) Christian75 (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

/Any, /Checklist categories, /Task force categories, /Timestamp, /WikiProject categories, /sandbox/class are up for deletion
FYI, WikiProject Aviation/Any, WikiProject Aviation/Checklist categories, WikiProject Aviation/Task force categories, WikiProject Aviation/Timestamp, WikiProject Aviation/WikiProject categories, WikiProject Aviation/sandbox/class, have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Should this template be added to Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale?
What the title asks. Pinging, as you re-added the B-class checklist and took part in a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. It was my (implicit) understanding that - if a WikiProject used the B-class checklist - it would implicitly have opted out of PIQA, though I accept this may be incorrect. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 22:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * They have opted to continue to use the B-class checklist but it is not actually having any effect on the class rating, so sort of advisory only. Therefore they can stay in PIQA without any issue. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. Thank you for explaining &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)