Check for proper usage of "equinox" vs. "epoch" when discussing the coordinates of astronomical objects. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, KS = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in
Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "KS" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in
Reduced mass and
Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the
first draft of the article added by
Wwheaton, but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! --
Beland (
talk)
03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I found a source
[1] for the Ks value. According to this
[2] article, Ks seems to be a line or band in the near-infrared. I'm not sure what μ is supposed to be; I assumed it was a different unit for magnitude but this pdf
[3] uses the symbol for
proper motion. Since it's a binary companion, that seems to be what the symbol stands for, but I can't be certain.
ArkHyena (
talk)
04:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Aha! That means the "μ" is for
micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the
K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a
magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! --
Beland (
talk)
07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article.
ArkHyena (
talk)
08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I already changed it to "μm" because that's what
MOS:UNITSYMBOLS requires. Across thousands of articles I've fixed recently, I've seen a few instances of just "μ" that I also changed. As
micrometre says, that was the official symbol until 1967. --
Beland (
talk)
18:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've just uploaded an image of a vial of presolar grains, and while I've added it to Orgueil, I don't want to overwrite the image of
Stardust since that's both a great image and more dramatic. It doesn't actually show any presolar grains, however, so I thought I could help remedy that. It also may be pertinent for
AGB stars. I don't want to start slapping one of my own images all over a whole host of related articles, so any input on where this may fit best would be appreciated.
Time is a pretty important issue in cosmology, but I have not found a good article. I did some work on
cosmic time but the reference point issue is not well referenced.
Some articles use the term "lookback time", but
lookback time was a redirect to
Before Present, an article about radiocarbon dating. I repointed it to
cosmic time, but this is not sufficient. I am unsure if "lookback time" is really related to the more technical cosmic time. Please review.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Proposed change to minor planet / dwarf planet naming convention
It is currently occuring, but will take some years to update all articles. Many articles still use astrometric data (parallax, proper motion) from Hipparcos as well.
InTheAstronomy32 (
talk)
16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User
Mvargic has been adding a lot of exoplanet art to Wikipedia, each image comparing the sizes of exoplanets to Solar System planets. However many of these exoplanets don't have known sizes - only their (usually
minimum) mass is known - and the images depict them with sizes "assuming Earth-like composition". This is misleading and I think these images should be removed. Any size comparison image for an exoplanet with an unknown size should be like
Exoplanet Comparison Gliese 581 c.png, showing a range of possible sizes for different compositions.
At least two of these images,
G 9-40 b.jpg &
GJ 9827 System.jpg, are also in blatant contradiction of known features (cf.
WP:ASTROART). The sizes of these planets are known so these have some informational value, but G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are depicted as rocky planets which is known to not be the case (their densities are too low).
SevenSpheres (
talk)
21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Some pictures (like those used in articles created by me,
HD 63433/
d and
GJ 3929/
b) decipts known features and seem to be true. I am not sure about other planets, most of these other planets have virtually nothing known about them except minimum mass and basic orbital parameters.
21 Andromedae (
talk)
21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Those are planets with known sizes (except GJ 3929 c) so those images do have some informational value. They don't "depict known features" beyond size but at least don't contradict known features.
SevenSpheres (
talk)
22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in removing most, if not all of them; these seem to clearly fall under
WP:FRINGE and/or
WP:SYNTH. These images serve little, if any, educational purpose, and only serve to confuse and give the false impression that we know more about these planets than we actually do.
ArkHyena (
talk)
15:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are not depicted as rocky but volatile-rich mini-neptunes with cloud decks and hazes of sulfur compounds
Mvargic (
talk)
16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Help needed to define "mean radius" and "mean diameter"
I am expressing concern about the list of brown dwarfs. This article is in a deplorable state, entire sections are almost unreferenced, objects refuted years ago are still in the list, many brown dwarfs are missing, tags like "more citations needed" have been in the list for over 8 years... In my opinion, this article should be rewritten from scratch.
21 Andromedae (
talk)
23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This may be of interest to this Wikiproject and I doubt either of the talk pages on those articles get too much traffic, but I've requested
Lunar soil and
Martian soil be moved to
Lunar regolith and
Martian regolith. I could be a little biased here as a regolith specialist, but I've basically never encountered consistent use of "soil" here outside of either much older papers or some more general public conversations, where regolith is still more common (and this seems to be backed up by google trends), and both articles accidentally distinguish the Lunar and Martian surfaces from the main
regolith article. I would have just done it but there was a recent rename discussion on
Lunar soil after someone renamed it
Lunar dirt, so I didn't want to just plow ahead.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for informing us of the move discussions. I don't know the literature well enough to make a call one way or another, so I'll leave that for more editors more experienced in the field. I added some comments regarding
WP:CANVAS, because you go into detail on your argument here. I don't think that's a problem at all, I purely did this for transparency and clarity. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that's perfectly fair, I've added in the text from here into both of the requested moves so there's not extra information visible here that isn't visible to anyone coming to this wikiproject.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Are these "dishes" tasty (or should i keep them away from English-wiki)
At another English version of Wikipedia, there are a bunch of new articles of stars. Link, simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50 . Please say if I should not bring those over to English-wiki.--One of the sources used, is "Facts for Kids|url=... kids.kiddle.co/List_of_largest_known_stars|": would that be a source that one should steer clear of? Thanks,
2001:2020:301:A9E4:CD87:5740:719B:B2A7 (
talk)
19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Many of those stars probably aren't notable, and the sources used seem pretty random - some are reliable sources, some not. The "Facts for Kids" site you mention is clearly a Wikipedia mirror, so not a reliable source.
SevenSpheres (
talk)
22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This will be a review of this supposed structure. The only extant papers mentioning this are by R. Brent Tully dating back to 1986 and 1987. The conclusions of his papers have been challenged in recent years, for instance
this 1989 as well as
another 1992 paper by Postman et al. suggesting that there is no statistical significance of the supposed complexes from clumps in random simulations. After that there doesn't seem to be any explicit papers supporting its existence, and Tully just ended up in 2014 by having Laniakea.
We should review once more if this warrants an article on its own, or even at least be updated to conform to newer papers. It might as well just be a memoriam article of a pseudo-supercluster complex that was subsequently dismissed.
SkyFlubbler (
talk)
22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well these folks seem to disagree:
Scott C. Porter, Somak Raychaudhury, The Pisces-Cetus supercluster: a remarkable filament of galaxies in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift and Sloan Digital Sky surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 364, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 1387–1396,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09688.x
And this review mentions Portman's work as not definitive I would say:
Stefano Borgani, "Scaling in the Universe," Physics Reports, Volume 251, Issues 1–2, 1995, Pages 1-152,
The paper by Porter and Raychaudhury refers to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, which is different from the much larger supercluster complex. The supercluster complex consists of this Pisces–Cetus Supercluster + Perseus-Pegasus and Pegasus-Pisces Chains + Sculptor Wall + Aquarius-Capricornus + the Virgo–Hydra–Centaurus region, and extends for about a billion light-years. There is only a brief mention of Tully's 1987 paper on the introduction and noted it as "speculated."
I can't seem to access the Borgani paper due to a paywall, but looking on what is available information he did not seem to cite Postman's (not Portman, btw) two papers. Regardless if even Borgani dismissed Postman or not, Tully himself in a
1992 paper did show some ample evidence but then retracted his claims a little bit and said that the present evidence for the Pisces-Cetus SCC (or any structure within the supergalactic plane on the scale of 300 h/Mpc) is "far from conclusive", with further statements on the summary stating that it was "unsatisfactory" with "predictions which must be tested by more rigorously defined samples", which never fully materialized.
This is evidenced by the fact that Tully
no longer cited any of the aforementioned papers mentioning the Pisces-Cetus SCC in any of the 26 references of the 2014 paper on Laniakea, further strengthening the conclusion that he may have given up in supporting the existence of the Pisces-Cetus SCC.
SkyFlubbler (
talk)
14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable. (However the lack of citation is not a verifiable source as this may be for many reasons).
The Borgani review is available via the Wikipedia library > Science Direct (Elsevier) > Advanced search > Show all fields > Title.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I tried to go for the Wikipedia library version of the article, but I cannot view it due to software limitations, and any attempts to download it also failed (I am using a mobile phone). But I did see the three papers by Postman in the references, so I will nonetheless give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it did cite the works by Postman as not definitive.
It still doesn't invalidate the claims from Tully himself that the evidence present did not constitute firm evidence for the existence of the Pisces–Cetus SCC.
"Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable."'
I think you missed my emphasis that the only existing literature mentioning this structure came from the late 80s and early 90s, and even so that calls its existence into question. With no subsequent mentions in the literature, and the subsuming of a new definition of a supercluster in 2014, the Pisces-Cetus SCC fails to meet
WP:NASTRO. I suggest instead to have it relegated as a section in the
Galaxy filament article, as the current article is too short, anyway, coupled with information from the papers that question its existence.
SkyFlubbler (
talk)
16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Deleted articles resurface
The following articles went through AfD with the result being deletion. They have since been restored with the comment, "I brought back this page for consistency. This was the only eclipse from ####-#### to not have its own page. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it should not have":
A quite different approach is used in
astronomy where the term
metallicity is used for all elements heavier than helium, so the only nonmetals are hydrogen and helium.
After the second paragraph, which starts, "About 45 years later, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen noticed that several Fraunhofer lines...", there used to be a third paragraph, as added by me:
"The astrophysicst
Carlos Jaschek, and the stellar astronomer and spectroscopist Mercedes Jaschek, in their book The Classification of Stars, observed that:
'Metals' (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant."
See: Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 22,
ISBN978-0-521-26773-1.
Ldm1954, who will no doubt speak for himself, has removed the paragraph on the grounds that, in his view, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty" and that, "It adds nothing".
This seems like a case of unjustified censorship to me, even if done with good intent. Editorialising is a WP concept, referring to editorializing by WP editors. It does not apply to reliable sources. In this context, asserting that J & J are editorialising "which is definite [and] not appropriate", is meaningless.
J & J are matter-of-factly laying out the situation when it comes to the conception of what a metal is in their respective fields. The knock-on consequences are which elements are regarded as nonmetals in astronomy, as per the first sentence at the start of the
Nonmetals in astronomy section of
Nonmetallic material.
The J & J extract adds useful information by nuancing the understanding of metals in astronomy and related fields
The main paragraph without the first and last sentence was added by @
Sandbh on June 27 in
this edit
@
Sandbh added the first and last sentences in
this edit
@
Headbomb reverted this addition as editorialized
here
There was then an edit skirmish with @
Sandbh reverting @
Headbomb, and my reverting in turn.
There followed a brief discussion in
talk where @Ldm1954 and @
Headbomb commented that this paragraph added little, and I also mentioned that J & J were editorializing.
@
Ldm1954: I apologise for my error of fact concerning item 1, and appreciate your setting the record straight, as to the sequence of events. —
Sandbh (
talk)
05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that paragraph does provide some interesting historical perspective. It doesn't feel like editorializing to me: Jaschek is saying how the various fields used the term differently. Could those claiming it's editorializing say more about why they think that? I think in modern astronomy, that distinction has mostly melted away (spectroscopists have shifted to the astronomy "metals as all Z>2 elements), but that last sentence is a good reminder that terms are different in different fields. I feel like the paragraph is slightly more appropriate for Metallicity, but a random reader would probably end up at Nonmetalic Materials first, I'd expect? -
Parejkoj (
talk)
16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't speak for @
Headbomb. My reservation is that the lede to
Nonmetallic materials already has as it's second sentence Depending upon context it is used in slightly different ways, so the whole page is an attempt at a
WP:NPOV presentation about the assorted science uses (with hopefully none missed). If card carrying astronomers are happy to vouch that J & J are not going too far with their statements about "the field", I am OK with it. Statements here can be used if it is challenged.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a discussion at
Talk:Sirius to split the page into a new page called Sirius B. This discussion might be relevant for some people of this wikiproject, so help to gather consensus for split or not split this article!
21 Andromedae (
talk)
21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Use of ScienceDaily as a source
@
Warrenmck and
XOR'easter: Due to the recently closed Drbogdan discussion on ANI which centered around, in part, using press releases as sources, I am posting this query here about the use of
ScienceDaily press releases in our articles to establish best practices. Recently,
User:Galilean-moons added ScienceDaily to the article Syntrichia caninervis regarding its potential use for establishing life on Mars (assuming some form of it doesn't already exist).
[4] Because this use of press releases was recently discouraged, I am wondering how these recent edits fit into the larger discussion about this kind of reporting. The Guardian has also reported on the subject.
[5] Moving forward, is this an acceptable use of ScienceDaily? Should The Guardian be used instead? Or are there other guidelines that you recommend for editing this page? Thank you.
Viriditas (
talk)
01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think of ScienceDaily as press releases in the sense of an organization public relations output. Rather these are uncritical summaries of primary publications for the purpose of generating ad revenue. The primary publications may or may not have been peer reviewed and almost certainly are not cited. The only sense in which ScienceDaily is a secondary source is that they filter for interest. (Our page on
ScienceDaily says they are primarily press releases).
I think these cases need to evaluate the primary reference and not the ScienceDaily summary per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:PSTS Almost always the primary ref will be
WP:TOONEW and have no citations. Similarly for the Guardian. In this case it's not clear the paper was peer reviewed.
Depends upon the content being referenced, see
WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And so on. It is this kind of extrapolation that the page
WP:PRIMARY is trying to avoid. To put it another way, the content if correct, could easily be refed correctly.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing.
User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful.
Viriditas (
talk)
22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I just answered my own question. The primary author did not paraphrase and quote correctly, and much of the article is written far too close to the sources. It needs to be rewritten.
Viriditas (
talk)
22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey guys. I wish to work on
Orion Belt, but I'm not sure what is needed to be on the page, nor do I know of adequate reference pages to expand the article. For now, a chunk of it is dedicated to cultural depictions.--
ZKang123 (
talk)
04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
ZKang123, glad to hear you're looking to improve the page. Unfortunately, the primary steps for improving a page are a) determining what needs to be added, and b) finding references that will allow you to add that content. Once you figure that out, it's just a matter of editing the page and adding the content.
Primefac (
talk)
19:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're right that it's appallingly written in places. I have made a start at improvement but please carry on if you wish.
Skeptic2 (
talk)
09:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyway, the question was whether the new guidelines for astronomy articles should discourage multiple conversions of the same quantity into two different metric expressions. For example, the equatorial rotation velocity of
Mars is given as both 241 m/s and 870 km/h. If I had to pick one, people are familiar with km/h speeds from driving, so that seems like a good choice of units for this field across all planetary infoboxes. If someone needs m/s it's easy to get that without having to look up any conversion factors. But regardless of which is preferred, having both seems like overkill in an already-number-heavy infobox.
I think astronomy articles should present unit scales that most readers will be familiar with; hence km, kg, cm, and so forth. It should also preferentially use units that astronomers conventionally use in their peer-reviewed papers; thus AU, pc, kpc, Mpc, Myr, and so forth. Adding less familiar units as additional conversions just generally increases clutter. In the case of widely popular Astronomy topics such as the planet articles, old English unit conversions may make some sense, but otherwise the
MOS:CONVERSIONS guideline usually applies: "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so".
Praemonitus (
talk)
12:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify: if, for example, km and cm are both familiar to readers because they are part of the metric system, are you in favor of only converting a given quantity into one of those? --
Beland (
talk)
17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What's the benefit of expressing a quantity in both km and cm when everyone can easily convert between them just by moving the decimal place? --
Beland (
talk)
19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I read your above reply "nope" to mean no, you would not support only converting into one of km or cm, but that you would want the quantity converted into both. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you clarify your position on multiple metric conversions? For example, converting into both m/s and km/h instead of just one or the other. --
Beland (
talk)
06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My position is that I prefer less of the data clutter that distracts from the information being presented. In most cases a single conversion should suffice. It would be even cleaner if there were none, but I know that's rarely possible. We have many data "wonks" here that like a lot of numbers, and I understand that, but that isn't necessarily the case for the target audience. Just present enough information for the reader to get a picture of what's going on, then leave it at that. They don't, for example, need a distance in km, miles, AU, and light seconds, as I've seen in some cases. (Or a temperature in Centigrade, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin.) Just use the unit that's most widely recognized and appropriate for the scale.
Praemonitus (
talk)
14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Anybody looking up rotation velocity, escape speed, etc., is interested in doing calculations with them. m/s is the useful one. km/h is neither SI not useful for anything. I don't think familiarity with driving helps here, because the numbers are almost never in the same order of magnitude as car speeds.
Tercer (
talk)
18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Praemonitus,
Tercer, and
Mfb:, you all expressed support above for using m/s for speed in astronomical contexts (outside of direct comparison to driving speeds). Looking at
orbital speed, all the orbital velocities there are in km/s. (Pinging
JohnOwnes as top authors of that article.) To clarify, are m/s preferred over km/s, or are they both equally OK and should be used according to the magnitude of the speed? --
Beland (
talk)
18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see m/s and km/s as equivalent, use whatever is appropriate for the size of the number. 0.01 km/s is silly, 100,000 m/s is not ideal either. Orbital velocities are usually several kilometers per second so km/s makes sense there. --
mfb (
talk)
19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, km/s (or m/s) is suitable for astronomy. Radial velocities are typically given in km/s, for example. Use of km/h would require an extra conversion step when calculating with SI, so it doesn't seem of much use in astronomy/physics.
Praemonitus (
talk)
23:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Venus article includes the sentence, "Strong 300 km/h (185 mph) winds at the cloud tops go around Venus about every four to five Earth days." I think that is a case where using "km/h" makes sense. Atmospheric motion should be an exception to the criteria.
Praemonitus (
talk)
19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems generally agreed upon that atmospheric motion should be in km/h; this is standard for most weather articles from what I've seen. Could be worth an MOS mention.
ArkHyena (
talk)
19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
km/s is generally the relevant unit for speed in astronomy; I sometimes see others in use but they're either straightforward SI multiples (e.g. cm/s) or should give a conversion to km/s. The recession of distant galaxies should be expressed as redshift, which is directly related to speed but is not technically a unit. Wind speeds within the atmosphere of a planet is meteorology, not astronomy, so should follow those guidelines instead.
Modest Geniustalk15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Arp 83 & 84 aren't ambiguous; they each refer to a pair of interacting galaxies. In both cases each of those galaxies has its own article, so these pages help navigation, but I'm not sure it's correct to treat them as disambiguation pages?
SevenSpheres (
talk)
15:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now that I think of it, I only mean for {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., to replace {{NGC objects:1-499}}+{{NGC objects:500-999}}, etc., on the NGC list articles. {{NGC objects:1-499}}, etc., can/will still be used elsewhere, like on individual NGC object pages (
NGC 1). With that limited scope, I don't think there'd be much objection.
Larger templates will mean longer load times on portable devices and/or remote locations. I don't see a benefit to combining them. It's not like they need a lot of maintenance.
Praemonitus (
talk)
15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Naming convention for Sharpless objects
Newly created article
Sh 2-185 is
being discussed for a move to
Sh2-185, with the argument that would provide, "consistency with other articles on Sharpless objects". However,
IAU naming convention uses the format: Acronym ^ Sequence ^ (Specifier). If you look at the scientific publications for Sharpless objects, they have the form: Sh^[1-2]-NNN. I.e. with a space after the 'Sh'. For some reason on Wikipedia they are all named Sh[1-2]-NNN. I.e. no space. Do we just stay lazy and keep the current names, or move them to the IAU version per
MOS:ASTRO. Yes, I know it's a nit.
Praemonitus (
talk)
15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply