Talk:City of God (2002 film)

Correction on names

The cast lists some literal translations on character's name, wich is good, since some names were freely adaptated. However, there are MANY errors in this. As a brazilian, let me point it out further explanations here as I rewrite it on the article:

- Zé Pequeno/Dadinho: Pequeno stands for "little", but why translate only part of it? Zé is nickname for José. José is Joseph, so, Zé would be Joe. Therefore, Little Joe. About Dadinho, I would like to know who did the english version. Dado can mean dice, ok. But not in this case. Dado is also a nickname for Eduardo. SInce Eduardo is Edward, it would be Ed. And "inho", a diminutive sufix, when used in names has more of an afectuous approach, since Dadinho would be more an Eddie than an Little Ed. I also noticed that since Zé Pequeno was a nickname chosen during a religious ceremnoy, it may not have anything with the drugdealer's Christian Name...

- Mané Galinha: Mané the Chicken? Who did that? He's not "Mané, O Galinha", but only "Mané Galinha". Mané is nick for Manuel, therefore "Chicken Manny". WHen a man is called chicken in Brazil it means he's surrounded by ladies...

- Cabeleira: it litteraly means a "long hair", not "hairy". "Hairy" would be "cabeludo".

- Barbantinho: barbante is really a string. One who translates it as "beardy" totally readed it wrong (beard=barba, not barbante).

- Marreco: Marreco means garganey. The word for duck would be pato. As in english, pato is a big family, includes marrecos, but the word marreco cannot be translated as duck for it.

- Bené, nick for Benedito (Benedict), matches with Benny. Cenoura, Alicate are also well translated. Some nicknames were not translated in the movie, but are nicks: Lampião and Touro are not given names. 187.124.141.139 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct way to translate Mané Galinha is somewhat more complex. The articke says chicken has pejorativ conotation in English, but that is also true in Portuguese. The word "frango" (young chicken) is used to mean coward in Portuguese too. I would traslate "Galinha" as "Hen", that is the most precise meaning of the word galinha, instead of chicken. 201.58.181.213 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Chicken" is also c'coward' in English so that seems a good translation. Rp (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for High Rating

This film is number 18 on imdb's top films of all time and was nominated for many academy awards..

Academy Award for Best Director

(from the village pump)

Can somebody explain to me why the movie City of God is credited with two directors, Kátia Lund and Fernando Meirelles, but only Meirelles has been nominated for the Academy Award? RickK 23:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Lund was brought on solely to work with the amateur kids and help them to understand how to act for the film--apparently she was credited as co-director, but that almost all of the "directorial activity" was performed by Meirelles. I do find it confusing also, but the official explanation is that the direction being recognized is Meirelles's. Jwrosenzweig 17:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia title

Is it correct to use the English title as the wikipedia title? I have seen other foreign movies (i.e. Der Untergang where the orginal title is used (with the international English title being mentioned in the first paragraph), and the IMDb also uses the original title. I'm aware that the movie has been distributed as "City of God" in many countries, but I believe that wikipedia with its cultural and language-wise diversity should use the original title (and of course a redirecting page on the "City of God (movie)" page. That's just my opinion. Anyone else who has an opinion about this?

Ummm... You have a point. Perhaps we could rename the article, but still have a redirect from 'City of God (film)' --Pinnecco 02:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the original title should be used as the wikipedia title. Is anyone going to rename the article? I could give it a try but being a new editor.. Maybe I should sit this one out? Lathrop1885 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change it, you can go ahead. Yeah I think it needs to be changed as its the title it goes by in Portugese. So no objections here. Lummie 02:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article cannot be moved by regular users since there is a talk page at Cidade de Deus (film), and you can't properly move an article to another name that already has a talk page. I requested for an administrator to move the article to the correct name. - AKeen 02:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct place to request the move would be at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, articles should have the English language titles, unless the film is known better by its original title in English-language context, and City of God isn't (based on googling "city of god"+film vs. "cidade de deus", and the former getting 3 times as many hits). If you want to reach a consensus about a move, you'll have to list it on WP:RM. - Bobet 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I thought the English title is much better known which is how article names are determined (usually). -- Stbalbach 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But by the idea that we can redirect pages to the right one makes me think that using its original title is more with the idea of keeping the facts right. Yes its more known to the film world as City of God but like Der Untergang, many english fans will know it as Downfall yet is listed under its German name. I guess by the fact that IMDB uses its foreign title, then Wikipedia should too. Lummie 06:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is some other rule I don't know about, it goes against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you still want to pursue it, you can try to establish consensus to move it. One way is to vote, but thats not always the best, your choice. Personally I think it should be it's most commonly known name in en, per the naming conventions-- Stbalbach 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Info on City of God

Error below: This was actually contributed by User:JodiBeth.--Srleffler 08:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This was incorrectly written on City of God by User:143.109.58.84. I am writing it here to preserve a good faith edit, and to see if there is something that can be merged into the article.

City of God or Cidade de Deus is an epic film that takes place in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from the 1960s through the 80s. Rocket, the narrator, expresses what it was like to grow up in the poverty stricken and gang infested ghetto ironically called City of God. Rocket guides viewers through many tragic events in his life while taking occasional pit stops to illustrate background information about every important character involved. As the stories reveal more about each character, the audience forms a deeper understanding of what living in the slums of Rio was really like and can appreciate the strength it took for Rocket to resist being sucked into the gangs’ vicious killing cycle.

Although Rocket is the official narrator, it isn’t explicitly obvious. All the main events are played out rather than just summarized by the narrator. The reenactment allows the audience to make their own judgments without a narrator’s bias.

The power of money and the desire for power are two other recognizable themes in the movie. Drug lords were money hungry and killed to be able to reign over more territory (be more powerful). Murder seemed to become such a big part of the gangs’ daily routine that the members would search for or try to create reasons to kill people.

JoaoRicardo^talk 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rockets Camera

What kind of camera does rocket use in the film?

He is shown with three cameras. Chronologically in the film:

1) The one used a the beach. I have no idea.

2) The one given to Benny as payment for drugs and ultimately given to Rocket to take photos of Li'l Ze and his gang. Again, I have no idea.

3) The one given to him by the newspaper. This is is clearly a Nikon F, though it was intentionally disguised (with what appears to be electrical tape on the prism).

True Story

At the end of the film, it shows evidence that this movie was possibly based on a true story, or at least true events. I recall it stating (and showing a picture of) Li'l Ze being an actual criminal in the favela, along with Knockout Ned and possibly others. BishopTutu 07:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, as the credits roll there's what appears to be an authentic interview very closely resembling the one in the movie ("If someone happens to know me ... that's enough to get shot.") - in the movie this is said by Knockout Ned. It also implies that the photographer/Rocket is a real person. I actually came here to see whether that's true and haven't looked anywhere else yet. If it turns out to be true, that should be part of the article. 84.44.185.172 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have more information? The article states "... the characters are not fictitious and the plot is based upon real events." But it's not clear from the context whether it's talking about the characters in the book, or those in the film. "Based upon" is a glittering generality. Is the story as depicted in the film true? If not, which significant parts were fiction? 24.57.210.141 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Precursors

Not wholly unlike Luis Bunuel's Los Olvidados.

Is Cidade do Deus a Favela?

The City of God is not a favela, actually quite the opposite. Favela is descriptive of a suburb or quarter developed without planning in some available free space. CdD was planned and built by the government "out there" to accommodate the underclass, then mainly composed by the refugees from the NE of Brazil which then suffered a drought spanning several years impoverishing many.

CdD may have been well intentioned, consisting of many single family dwellings, albeit of low quality. The major problem of CdD however remained the infrastructure, transport to jobs, education facilities, etc.

Still today, CdD is the pits! It is located in the west of Rio, The Formula 1 race course in Jacarepagua is not too far away.

Has God, if it exists, ever been to this City of God? Probably not.

Oalexander-En 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CdD is a favela. Nothing can contest that. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User Klptyzm: Please feel free to enrich your opinion with some facts. Else, it matters not. Oalexander-En 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not go look it up; the article stub itself says its a favela, part of the movie was filmed in CdD, in which 90% of the film involves the setting of a shantytown, so, at some point, some of those shanties had to be from CdD. Also, how about go and checking the favela article for a little extra reading? I really don't have to say a whole lot; you just have to go look it up. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And in the Favela article it states, that a favela is not planned, not settled with authorization, etc. Cidade de Deus has been explicitely planned and erected by the state government of then Guanabara to replace favelas. The article stub may still say, that it is a favela, because it is still a stub, for one, and secondly in some of the next days I will rise it from stub status and shall correct existing errors. Oalexander-En 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That same article says that CdD doesn't meet the strict definition of a favela, but, at the same time, does have favela characteristics, such as low economic quality, among others. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, some call every sh*hole, not only in Brazil but meanwhile the whole of S. America a favela. Even the term "my rolling favela" for a "bomb" (barely useable car) has been heard. Fact remains what I have stated before. Oalexander-En 12:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even then, the movie refers to it as a favela, and, in essence, it can still be considered a favela; I'll meet you halfway, however, and ask if it can be noted somehow in one of the articles how it doesn't have a favela-like origin, but is in a favela-like state. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the decrepit stae of this bairro (suburb, neighbourhood), this government installed breeding ground of misery, has to find suitable reflection. After all, without this precondition the story were not to happen. Oalexander-En 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alal.jpg

Image:Alal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

News from a private war

Why is there no mention of this special feature found on the DVD? It's almost more significant than the film!

Why it's not mentioned that this film is forbitten in Belarus.

Fair use rationale for Image:CidadedeDeus.jpg

Image:CidadedeDeus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:City of god.jpg

Image:City of god.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"However, there has been some criticism from the left"

This has one citation and there is no real way of saying wether something is left wing or right wing, so could this be edited out someway? 211.30.131.4 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

English language poster

Can someone find and substitute the poster that was used in the English-speaking world (the one on the beach)? I believe the one sheet that was predominate in the language of the wiki being used is the proper one for the article. Any others can be used, but further down for example only.24.24.211.239 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Li'l Zé and Knockout Ned

Can I request that someone with enough time go to both Li'l Zé and Knockout Ned's respective pages and make changes to the phrasing, at the moment its states that they are both fictional characters, were as I have understood the characters in the film to been real life peopleFSAB (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

JaN12*01+2528Hk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.104.118 (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Names of Characters

This page is in English, so why are the names of the Characters still in Portugeuse? In the English Subbed version of the movie, "Buscapé" is called "Rocket", "Ze Pequeno" is called "Lil Ze". The article is in English, why aren't the names, since they are translated into English in the English release of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.200.55 (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll go change it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Website components

http://cidadededeus.globo.com/english/FLASHES/dir01.swf http://cidadededeus.globo.com/english/intro.swf http://cidadededeus.globo.com/english/sinopse_01.htm http://cidadededeus.globo.com/english/sinopse_02.htm http://cidadededeus.globo.com/english/sinopse_04.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) http://cityofgod.asmik-ace.co.jp/top.html http://cityofgod.asmik-ace.co.jp/index.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

City of God (2002 film) → City of God (film) — It should be moved, considering the 2002 film to be the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Disambiguation is from a little known film which is likely to be be forgotten by everyone after its release. Traffic status shows that this page is visited many times more, that too when the other film is heading for a release.

Article traffic statistics:

• City_of_God_(2002_film)
• City_of_God_(2011_film)

-- Arfaz (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - the 2002 film is the primary topic, the other film gets the disambiguated article title. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with move. There really is no reason to split them up - not every article that shares its name is disambiguated. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment WP:NCF states otherwise. I guess it's which policy tops the other one. It might be a mute point, as I don't think the 2011 film is actually notable. I've linked this discussion at the film project page. Lugnuts (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no such thing as a half-way primary topic. The primary topic is City of God, which is a disambiguation page linking to City of God (book), Cidade de Deus (Rio de Janeiro) and other pages. If there are two notable films with the title and none is the primary topic of the term, they need to be fully disambiguated. Smetanahue (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the move proposal and agree with Smetanhue. "(film)" is a disambiguation term no differently than "(2002 film)" is. The primary topic, should one exist, would contain no disambiguation term and the article would be titled simply City of God. I think that using City of God as a disambiguation page is the most appropriate option at the moment and each film should be fully disambiguated per WP:NCF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NCF, "If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, compare all topics and determine which one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first public release (excluding film festival screenings)." The 2002 film is the primary topic under the article title City of God (film). No need for further disambiguation. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • ..."without any means of disambiguation". Adding "(film)" or "(2002 film)" qualifies as a means of disambiguation. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Guidelines are policies are flexible. The obvious intent of this is to give preference to the primary source - in this situation, the 2002 film - and changing the disambiguation to (film) accomplishes just that. -The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't necessarily have a problem with the film being designated a primary topic but there seems to be misunderstanding on what a primary topic means. A title can either be disambiguated or a primary topic, it can never be both. If it contains a disambiguation term such as "(film)", it is disambiguated and not a primary topic. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Fair point, though I think that it can be described as the primary topic in its medium, film. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
            • See Avatar (2009 film) and the other two Avatars - Avatar (2004 film) and Avatar (1916 film), for example. Lugnuts (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
              • An example of the alternative, but I'd dispute that the recent Avatar film should gain preference over the others. One is a little-known foreign film, the other is a little-known short film; as is, they have no assertion of notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Then you may want to read this discussion. Some of the arguments apply here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment or question to the nominator: Without challenging the issues of article traffic or topic popularity, what would be the exact benefit of such a move? I sincerely doubt that many readers are intuitive enough to type "City of God (film)" in the search box but they would rather type "City of God" and be taken to the current disambiguation page. Once at the disambiguation page, they have to click exactly one link to get to the film article regardless of whether the link is to "City of God (film)" or "City of God (2002 film)". If it doesn't avoid the disambiguation page anyways, what is the benefit to the reader of removing the year from the disambiguation term? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose false interpretation of the primary-topic guideline. There is no actual primary topic at City of God, and if one of the items were to be considered one, it would never be the film. So all film articles should be disambiguated from each other, especially. The term "City of God (film)" is inherently ambiguous and should not be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Additionally, the link City of God (film) should redirect to the disambiguation page City of God. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there are two film articles, both being disambiguated, then they both need to be fully disambiguated and by year works the best here. BOVINEBOY2008 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor text edits

Removed some contractions, changed some tenses. Googlypoo (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

10 years on

Interesting article on the BBC site about what's happened to some of the actors since the film was released. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Awards

I converted the awards section to use a table. It's not the prettiest thing I've ever seen, but it'll do. Due to my ignorance of Brazilian newspapers, I was unable to find a third party reliable source for the Grande Prêmio do Cinema Brasileiro awards. I guess we could just use the awards site itself, but I'm hoping someone else will have better luck with Google News than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous work sourcing everything, NinjaRobotPirate! I can look for sources and add GP later as Portuguese is my first language. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That's great! Thank you. If you can't find a third-party source, then we can just use the awards site itself. I would hate to not include this award, as it seems like a glaring omission. There was a discussion on a MOS talk page recently that we should use third-party sources to show that the individual awards in the listings are noteworthy. I don't think MOS:FILM was ever updated to reflect that consensus, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, it's strange how media chose to don't give a full list of nominees between 2002 and 2004 for the award... (Check) Then, I only could find the awards it won (Best Film, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound) on Folha de S. Paulo: here, and on O Estado de S. Paulo that was it nominated for Best Actor and Best Actress. The official site have the others. What should we do in this case, NinjaRobotPirate? Include only the third-party sourced or both the third-party source and the primary sourced? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think any data that we can't get from third party sources can be supplemented with primary sources. Maybe it would be easier to just use the primary source for all nominations. I don't think anyone would actually complain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I add it or should you? I mean, if both of us try to add it we'll probably have an edict conflict. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be better if you did it, since I can't read Portuguese. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do it only tommorow, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Queen Mary Educational Project

We're currently editing this page for a university project. Contact us if you have any questions Jamesml17153, ChetFU99, azizcoolkid, Tfb9877, insaini_217 Jamesml17153 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm curious what sources you'll find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am also a part of the group Louish2911 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian Reception

I'm currently working on an edit that adds to the reception section of the page. Seeing as the information regarding how the film was critically received as of right now is mostly European and North American I think it would serve well to add some information as to how the film was received in Brazil. Ivana Bentes is a Brazilian film critic who criticised the film for what she sees as a glorification of violence and poverty.

I may also add a subsection to the Reception section of the page with information regarding Brazilian rapper MV Bill's response to the film, himself being a resident of Cidade de Deus. He criticised the film for the negative light it cast on the favela and others like it. Jamesml17153 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this mv bill section here? Surely this does not meet notability standards. TheLawMan85 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Buscape Sequel Short Film.

How to add the following information correctly?

In 2022, Vivo and Motorola produced a sequel short film focusing on Buscape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIp0J3eD37c Buscape 2600:1700:3870:B400:5956:6196:BF01:E01A (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)