Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Wilberforce/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

William Wilberforce

 * Notified:, May 2022

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns I raised a year ago about the sourcing and comprehensiveness, which have yet to be addressed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Working. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to Buidhe's comments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Buidhe there is an over reliance on one text and this does mean that perhaps all the relevant literature has not been explored. Bayne, Belmonte, Carey, Furneux, Hennell, Pura, Reed, Rodriquez, Vaughan texts appear in the sources list but have not been cited within the article. Article does appear salvageable with some work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A cold-hearted and selfish thought has occurred to me: if User:Slp1 declines to help, then I should just let it be delisted. Then I can fix everything at my leisure (it's gonna take time!) and renominate. So that's what I'll do. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely revamped the referencing system. Not saying it's perfect; just saying it is now much, much, much easier to work with. Replacing all the Hague stuff becomes easier (but still not easy), forex. More later. Hoping others will pitch in too. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's my plan: First I have to finish a Talk:Logic/GA1. After that, I'm gonna turn to Wilberforce (unless someone comments on my poor, unloved FAC). For Wilberforce, I'm gonna use my sandbox extensively. Others will be free to use it too, if anyone so desires. There I'll make a bullet-point list of all the Hague 2007 cited text such as "which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11]" When I find it in a better source, I'll strike through that item in my sandbox and change the cite in article text... FAR is supposed to take 2 weeks? It is very possible I will not finish before then. Cheers. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It can take as long as needed if work is still ongoing and doesn't stall for an inordinate amount of time. Hog Farm Talk 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oopsie, there are 95 (see User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox). That's a task.... &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This FAR was launched on 8 May; Slp1 has not posted since 7 May, so we can guess they haven't yet seen the FAR (someone might consider emailing). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see an email address on her user page. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Email this user" is in the standard toolbox on the left-hand side of the page at User:Slp1. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas, NO, it seems it's under TOOLS in the skin I use. I did CTRL-F and did not see it... because it is under TOOLS... but thank you for telling me... and now I will look under TOOLS for email address... will email her... tks. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Warning that posting on someone's talk page already sends an email to the address on record (there is no way to disable this as far as I know). However, it's always possible that she might respond to a second email. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if you have your Preferences --> Notifications set that way (I don't, for example). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * very brief email sent. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 02:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. By the way, a less "cold-hearted" possibility is to rework the article at FAR, where you will get ample attention without having to wait months for FAC reviewers to weigh in (see WP:FASA). There is no time pressure at FAR, as long as the article is proceeding in the right direction; see Featured article review/Lung cancer/archive1 as an example. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself?  However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.
 * The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews ;. It has been widely cited according to google scholar .  Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte,  Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old.  The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.
 * There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV  in the facts cited from Hague.  Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.
 * The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":
 * -Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
 * Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
 * The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
 * This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
 * William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.
 * The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources.  None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this  which is rather old  (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control.  Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest)  but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.
 * That's all I have time for now. Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC.  But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again,  but would welcome other eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done.  The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the source RS, or not? You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something.  It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article  Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence (talk • contribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

is this ready for a new look yet? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Life is busy. Trying to finish it off soon. Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Slp1 made some edits the past few days, so work seems to be starting up again. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I am pretty much done. Sorry that it has taken so long but I have many things going on in my life at present.  A quick report:
 * In general, it was good to go over the text. Some errors and some unnecessary digressions had been introduced, so a freshen up was needed.
 * After considerable searching, I did find enough reliable sources about Wilberforce's name being used by conservative Christian groups in N. America, so I added a couple of sentences to the Legacy section.
 * My memory was failing me when I said that the capital punishment issue was missing from the article. I It was already there, but I have expanded a bit based on the Devereaux article.
 * The main remaining issue is referencing. I would like to know what the rules are about this. When the article passed FA in 2008 we used Harvard for books (to give page numbers) and citation templates for other sources .  I guess the rules have changed since then?   Lingzi very kindly changed everything to Harvard but I find this very difficult to work with. You have to add and delete references in two places.  It is a buggy.  I don't think it is ideal for readers as they have to look in two places to see a reference.   It also increases the maintenance issues as people tend to use citation templates when they add material which somebody who knows how Harvard works (ie not me!) then has to convert to the Harvard system.  Anyway, I gather people have strong feelings about this, but for what it is worth my preference would be either to have the old mixed system or to convert to the citation templates totally.   I will do it, although I will be very sorry about Lingzhi's work going to waste.  However, I think it will be easier to keep up to snuff. Please advise Slp1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "rules" have not changed; an overall change to sfn was not indicated, a mixed system is still accepted, and you can change it back to what it was, as long as it is consistent. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to see if other had comments on this, but it seems not. Okay, I will start the process of restoring the former mixed system. I continued to be very pressed for time due to family issues, but will make a start on a draft page today or tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Slp1, how's it going? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have pretty much done. It is here .  I cannot figure out how to make note b have a reference. If anybody can help that would be wonderful.  I am also not sure about the names and order of the sections of references so welcome comments and suggestions about that too.. as well as about anything else of course.Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it help to look at the notes at J. K. Rowling? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great idea!! Sorry should have thought of something similar myself!!  I don't have time now, but maybe later. Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have finished my labours, for now at least. It is ready for others to take a look.Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been cleaned up a ton for which I thank slp1 and other editors who helped. Reading through the changes made since the FAR nomination, it's clear that most of the sources added are improvements. However, I did notice one source—Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce—that I just can't agree is a high quality RS. The author is not a historian, rather an evangelist and theologian, and I cannot find any independent sources attesting to the accuracy of the book. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. That source was in the article at the original FA and I agree it is not the best. It was supported in its entirety by Pollock, so was not actually needed. I have replaced it with Tomkins.  --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All right, I have no objection to keeping at this point. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how summarizes the content of this section. First, it reads as if conservatism = politically repressive legislation, which doesn't follow. Second, the section reads as if the issues were that a) he opposed unions, and b) he wasn't as active in advancing legislation on national relative to international issues, and c) he had (then) traditionally conservative religious views on women, but offsetting that we have the whole paragraph beginning with "More progressively, ... " which includes multiple issues as well as his philanthropy and seems overlooked in the lead summary. I'm concerned that the lead gives more weight to certain criticisms than to certain beliefs and achievements. Do the sources support the wording more progressively? Those words seem to indicate that those achievements were somehow at odds with his conservatism.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation ...


 * I don't think that your assumptions hold. In this case he supported legislation that was politically and socially repressive of unions, Catholics, and people trying to organize "seditiously". The supporters of the legislation were largely British conservatives. It does not require any assumption about different varieties of conservatism over time and in different countries. That said, if you have an idea of better phrasing you could propose it here. I deleted the phrase "more progressively" as I don't think it's necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if there is a difference in what 'conservative/conservatism' means in different countries that is causing difficulties, but multiple reliable sources confirm that Wilberforce was (small c) conservative (in the sense that he did not believe in significant changes to society), and that as a result he often supported repressive legislation and did not support progressive reforms. A wide range sources mention this from (big C) Conservatives (William Hague) to religious historians (Andrew Walls to the more left wing American journalist/historian Adam Hochschild.
 * Hague in the bio: "Such views were pure Wilberforce: for although he spearheaded the abolitionist campaign and led so many other endeavours on the basis of justice, fairness, and concern for the poor or destitute, he was no political radical. He was utterly conservative when it came to the defence of the constitution or the existing political order, seeing revolution or anything approaching it as hostile both to religion and to wise and considered leadership" p.255; "It is largely because of Wilberforce’s attitude towards domestic discontent after the war that he has sometimes been seen as having a narrow and unbending view of British society, confirming the impression made to history by his support for the Combination Act in the 1790s that he was the enemy of many progressive political causes."p.444 "The seeming contradictions of Wilherforce’s life have always made him difficult to unravel and understand: a man of conservative disposition who devoted much of his life to one of the great progressive causes of his time";p 505 . Note in particular how the word conservative and progressive are used by a Conservative.
 * Walls 2023 "Although Wilberforce and his colleagues were vigorous campaigners on such issues, they were often conservative on domestic social issues. A Baptist like Carey might welcome the French Revolution, at least in its early stages; Wilberforce trembled at it and supported all the British goverment's repressive legislation in the wake of it. The political reflexes of Wilberforce were invariably conservative. He had no vision of a new society . He thought, indeed, that the British constitution already embodied all the excellencies….. This is no social revolutionary.  He acknowledges inequality, even that inequality produces evils, but does not expect to these to change, does not seem to think of them within the sphere or public policy." p 70 pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover
 * Hochschild "Within a few years of Bennet Langton’s dinner party, West Indian planters would be burning Wilberforce in effigy; later, it was reported, runaway slaves in the Jamaican backcountry would be praying to Saint Wilberforce. It was a most unlikely fate for a gentle, impractical man who, on almost every other major issue, was profoundly conservative. He was against increasing the tiny number of Britons with the right to vote, fearful of any attempt to mobilize public opinion, and dismayed by members of the lower classes or women who questioned their assigned places in the social order.” p 124 Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delist no recent major edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what specific concerns have not been addressed? I have worked hard on this article over the years and I don’t see any that I or others haven’t addressed. Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't respond before. I based my conclusion on the article history, which seemed to show a stalled nomination. Have buidhe's concerns about the overreliance on Hague been addressed? Has a search for more sources been conducted? Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I said above that I don't object to keeping at this point. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the issues were responded to/addressed, as Buidhe says. It is pretty demoralizing that people vote to delist without actually reading even the discussion. It seems that this part of Wikipedia is under-resourced, as reviewers are needed who take the time to review the article and the discussion and either come up with additional issues or vote to keep. --Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Z1720? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response everyone: it has been hard to find time to sit down and do a review. Here are some comments:

I am pausing at "Early parliamentary action" because I have to go, but I will try to continue at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the images, I added alt text and changed px to upright.
 * I wish the lede mentioned something about his legacy after he died.
 * I started reading through the article. I've done some copyedits, but also removed information that concerned the abolitionist movement, but did not directly relate to Wilberforce's biography. I suggest that this information be moved to other articles so that this biography can remain focused on Wilberforce. Feel free to revert if anyone thinks the information should be in the article, but please note below why you think this is important information for this specific article.

I'm finished reviewing the article. I think it's in good shape now, though I did remove a lot of information that I thought was off-topic for this article and not necessary to understand Wilberforce's biography. Although I'm not happy with the inconsistent citation styles throughout (some book sources get a Harv template, others get a ref tag) this is something that could be resolved later. For now, I can declare a keep opinion, pending comments about the information I removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and for your edits to the images. I will work on something about his legacy for the lede.   Regarding the citation styles, I specifically asked the question above and was told that this was okay. While I understand your desire to keep this focussed directly on Wilberforce, and I agree with some of the deletions, I don't agree with others, as I think it is important to contextualize his live and achievements, as the bios and other summary articles do.  I will go through them one by one in the next couple of days and give more detailed reasoning for each one I restore.  Slp1 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is on my list to review with an eye towards getting this closed but it'll probably be several days before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Things eased up quicker than I expected, so here we go!
 * The [further expansion needed] tag in the lead should be assessed for validity and then either removed or resolved as determined best
 * Link William Pitt in the early life section
 * "Wilberforce worked with the members of the African Institution to ensure the enforcement of abolition and to promote abolitionist negotiations with other countries" - this seems to be referring to the abolition of the slave trade, but the phrasing used would imply that Wilbeforce was promoting the abolition of slavery at this time, which he wasn't.
 * "Clarkson, Thomas (1839). The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade. London: John w. Parker. p. 157." - surely the W. in John W. Parker should be capitalized, right?
 * "Maddux, Kristy (2010), The Faithful Citizen: Popular Christian Media and Gendered Civic Identities, Baylor University Press, ISBN 978-1-60258-253-8" - is it possible to get a page number for this?

I'm not familiar enough with Wilberforce to do a particularly deep review, but this seems to be in pretty good shape to me. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
 * 1. Expansion tag. I have removed it.  The expansion is in the text, per lede, and as noted in a hidden note that the editor apparently did not see.
 * 2. He is already linked in the Lede, and I believe we are only supposed to link once, no?
 * 3. Good point. Changed
 * 4. Yes, for sure.  Changed.
 * 5. Page numbers now added. Thank you for spotting that. Slp1 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Links can be repeated in both the lead and the main article body, and I think that would be useful to link the second time here, especially since weren't there two William Pitts that were major British politicians? Hog Farm Talk 13:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the info about the linking, I will add it. Slp1 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is good enough to keep as well. Hog Farm Talk 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.