Talk:Nijisanji

There at bare minimum needs to be a section for the controversy and allegations

Even if it has to be talked about simply as public controversy and allegations and we pretend their are no reputable sources (which there are several artists who have previously worked for the company as well as the creators now know as Dokibird, MatraKan and have talked about it and just because they can’t officially say who they used to be doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t know) the public outrage on twitter must be at least mentioned as a thing that happened. 99.24.220.57 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Twitter itself is not a reliable source except for non exceptional claims not involving third parties, and linking (for example) Doki to Selen without an official source constitutes Original Research and will likely fall afoul of the BLP policy as well. I agree that the Twitter backlash after their most recent announcement, as well as former creators cutting ties with Niji over this should be mentioned, plus the hits to their stock prices, but we unfortunately can’t until an actual RS covers this. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is literally a primary source in the modern day how is “(person) tweeted (content)” not allowed! Are you not allowed to quote speeches? Can you not for example quote deSantos president candidaty announcement because it was on twitter live? Can you only requote from news articles about it? 2600:1700:2210:6A40:DCA8:5241:953:F8E7 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:TWITTER about sourcing from there. Non exceptional claims not involving third parties can be sourced to Twitter, but this situation is all but non exceptional. But yes, generally we need a third party RS news outlet to report on something before it can be cited in an article. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a terrible policy. Those new site are going to be citing the exact same tweets so why do they have to be copy and pasted to a news site before they can be copy and pasted again to Wikipedia! The things I’m talking about citing are “(persona) tweeted (content)” that is an objective statement why does a new site have to say it first. Especially on niche but important topics major EN news is not going to even of the terminations themselves are being announced on twitter. Doki bird isn’t going on TV to be interviewed she’s talking about it live on YouTube. YouTube news channels are successful because they can afford to report on niche topics. If you invalidate those as primary sources you make it impossible to write articles on anything that major news channels don’t report on. 2600:1700:2210:6A40:6C4B:94B4:6624:67FD (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Because WP:V is a core policy. You’re not going to be able to get around that. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP Policies, especially regarding sourcing, before attempting to wade in to edit articles like this. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I know it policy and I’m not going to be able to change it. That doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to give my opinion (ie. “Wade in”) on it 2600:1700:2210:6A40:6C4B:94B4:6624:67FD (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

By wade in, I meant editing this article when it comes off of semi-protection, not expressing your opinion here on the talk page, and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

GhostStalker isn't quoting the policy correctly.

In the cases of some people's claims, Twitter is viable as a first party source.

It works for the NDA claims and the like. Those are the artists personal accounts.

They're just the same as someone making public statements on the news or on Facebook. Those types of quotes are used elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I could probably get someone to make a short story on the tweets, which are first party sources.

Technically, thats not required.

Reading that rule, twitter is viable as a source - but not for rumors, propaganda or he said / she said sort of baseless things.

Some fellows, can be quoted from these websites.

It just seems that some people misread the rule.

I spoke with a fellow. Asked some stuff.

Another fellow already did some recent stuff here, so its their turf, according to them.

I dont know much about Wikipedia's internal rules.

But, I reached out to someone, because it seemed like people were applying that rule, incorrectly.

It seems like if things arent being shown, and favortism is being shown / important events and controversies aren't shown, that there would be a little group chat or discussion.

But yeah, if the twitter messages and things were made by those affiliated with the company, and its known that they are, its a fine source and can be used here.

Primary sources are allowed, especially confirmed primary sources.

It's an editors responsibility, to find out if the quoted source is valid or not.

People dont need to post actual articles. They are more ideal, especially since they would act as archives.

If these don't exist, twitter can be used.

Once a better source comes up, that old one should be removed. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would this suffice as a reliable source? 99.248.79.175 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

For Dexerto, per WP:RSPSS, "Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well as of current that’s the only website I can find that’s covering it so either that, twitter and YouTube are allowed as sources or Wikipedia is unable to even mention the massive controversy and backlash that is going on. 2600:1700:2210:6A40:386B:69FF:FB0:A4D4 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the previously linked Anime News Network article is a Reliable Source. However, it unfortunately doesn’t cover much of the controversy and elides most of the information surrounding Selen’s termination. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I said as of yet no source that Wikipedia deems “reputable” as of yet has talk about this and thus it is impossible to write about on Wikipedia 2600:1700:2210:6A40:386B:69FF:FB0:A4D4 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Found an article that shows the official Twitter/X account for the Indonesian Wikipedia appearing to reference the controversy/incident in a post on 5 February, in addition to another post the following day. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If this source is deemed valid, it also has both community notes (with the supporting evidence for said notes), references the connection between Selen and Doki, the Niji IR message, Lilypichu's tweet, and the Anycolor stock price drop. Rockman1159 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m unsure if animecorner.me would count as an RS, because I do see that they have an About Us page referencing some kind of editorial control, but their writers seem to just be fans of some sort. I don’t see it listed on WP:ANIME’s Reliable Sources list (WP:A&M/RS), so probably best to ask around there or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ((WP:RSN). GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 12:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I found 51 articles that already cite animecorner.me as a source, including this one. Rockman1159 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I would still run it by RSN or WP:ANIME just in case. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Polygon just released an article that covers much of the controversy, as well as linking Doki and Selen, and they’re an RS:

https://www.polygon.com/24065311/vtuber-selen-tatsuki-nijisanji-termination-dokibird GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is polygon on the WP:ANIME approval list? I couldn’t find it there Businessential (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s listed in WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, so Polygon is good. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

do we have to maintain the vtuber “kayfabe” on this article? Businessential (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove controversies?

It’s clearly related to the brigading that’s been happening the past few days and contains information that is not that relevant to the company overall and cites subpar sources. Businessential (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No. It it very relevant to the company overall and the source is Polygon. Wikipedia is not entitled to host only the information that you find agreeable. Rockman1159 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. Boyohboy231 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like this comment to serve as evidence that further attempts to remove content from the article by this user are done in bad faith. Rockman1159 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The presence of controversy being put up is bad faith Businessential (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it is up shows bias as there are no other controversies that can be found related to vtubers on this site. Having a bias is poor for the integrity of this site. Businessential (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is bringing up jokes posted by the Indonesian Wikipedia Twitter as relevant information, where do we place the line for relevant information? Should we also quote the anti-Selen comments from Yahoo Japan? Businessential (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If they’re sourced and relevant and meet WP:DUE considerations, why not?

Sure, the current controversy might be very much influenced by WP:RECENT, and probably could afford to be cut down a little bit, but the entire section shouldn’t be removed. Should probably revisit this in a month or so when things have blown over a bit to reevaluate what is necessary to be mentioned here. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is completely affected by recentism. There is more details describing this event than years of the companies history. It’s the only in depth portion on the whole page and it involves random users cited from Japanese message boards and Twitter. I do not see how this does not constitute as brigading as it’s the only company in the vtubing hemisphere that has a controversy page, let along the manga and anime sphere. The same issue is also happening with the vandalism occurring on the black company(Japan) page. Businessential (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What other agencies have had controversies prominent enough to have been covered by enough sources to qualify for inclusion in their wiki page? Rockman1159 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In vtubing only, or the anime manga sphere? Businessential (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I just want to adhere to [Wikipedia:NPOV]], which this is not. Businessential (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

My stance is that while the content of the section definitely needs work, the existence of a controversy section is needed.

I think the page should be left as is until all information that will come out about the situation has come out. Then do a full edit pass over the section. Rockman1159 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I semi agree with that stance, nijisanji is by no means a perfect company, however having a significant portion of this article over one controversy and then allowing the controversy section on this page is a slippery slope for what then can be added. The controversy is the most in depth thing related to anything relating to vtubing on this whole site. In my opinion it should at most be a paragraph that goes under 2024 for the history of the company. I do not see how anything more will adhere to wikipedias standards. Businessential (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Imo, that speaks more towards a need to expand other vtuber related pages than a need to reduce this one. I do agree that some of the information in the Controversy section is superfluous. The posts from Indonesian Wikipedia, while incredibly funny, aren't really relevant to the overall controversy. Rockman1159 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A majority of the information is superfluous. Why do we need a third party’s document related to the companies stock. The Hololive Taiwan incident which shut down a whole branch is less than half of this incident. I don’t even watch this corporation but if you look at the article as a whole in context it qualifies as undue weight. Businessential (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Hololive Taiwan incident is not relevant in any way to the Nijisanji wikipedia page. Whataboutism is not a valid argument. If you feel that the The Hololive Taiwan incident should be included in the Hololive page, then make your argument there. Rockman1159 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Taiwan incident is cover on the Hololive page and it is shorter than the controversy section on this article. Personma (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re the one who asked about other controversies before did you not? You can’t ask for an example and then claim whataboutism. I’m just bringing up the point of how this qualifies as undue weight in the grand scheme of things. There is no reason why it should be this long.

I’m just trying to apply what this “Wikipedia:Reliable sources” is to here Businessential (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm no seasoned editor, but I did a little trimming, including removing the bit about HYTE and the investor statement (since I think the stock drop covers the same ground). How's it look? Aeroblastt (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add controversies to Hololive, Phase Connect or other pages.

I agree that they should have a similar tab.

This one should have one as well. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Full agreement from me. Rockman1159 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This section is all undue weight in comparison to everything else in the vtubing sphere. Businessential (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This article has clearly been taken hostage by opinion, I’m even accused of doing pr now. This does not fit what Wikipedia should be. We are literally making the controversy area the most documented case in vtubing on this site. Articles that reference tweets are being used. This would never happen in sports, anime, or other sectors of entertainment. Businessential (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The irony of claiming brigading when you've done nothing contstructive to the page but remove relavent information 78.16.85.7 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This should absolutely be brought back to be honest, it more than meets Wikipedia standard criteria. Gundo Mirei should be included too, I believe there are Japanese-language news sources on her termination, after a comment she made about baseball provoked a viral and incendiary response in Japan. Beansy (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Will add that a controversy section does not create "Undue Weight" in the Manual of Style on Article Structure when Nijisanji has had so much controversy surrounding it among the English-language fans, and this is the English Wikipedia. It's quite vital as encyclopedic information. Beansy (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I know my opinion as an anonymous IP won't be considered too much, but can the user Businessential be investigated? The account was created specifically to revert edits made to this page only and another immediately related one (which, while I approve the removal of the original vandalism, became an edit war), with no other notable contributions. 2001:1388:A45:ED6C:D4D:3AD4:DBD4:FD1 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Without the WP:CHECK bit, there is nothing to pin on the user at the moment yet. The user has yet to revert any content on the article, and thus far has contributed constructively on the talk page. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was speaking to a user called Adalax on another site.

There obviously appears to be brigading going on. The initial bad eggs were on one side - in favor of edits.

They made a few bad edits.

Some sources being used, are viable.

Those complaining, should help to create edits for the other Vtuber pages. I agree that they need pages as well.

Hololive's CN branch had an entire controversy. Kiryu Coco showed up in newspapers and was pressed as anti-china in some places.

Making edits here, before other places isn't bad. But, others should be making edits elsewhere.

Other places not having a controversy topic, doesn't mean that this one shouldn't have one.

Not having one is biased.

I can try and talk to others who can do stuff here, but once an admin is involved - its usually up to that admin's discretion unless a noticeable issue or bias is shown.

So, just save the logs of changes, so that you can improve them once better sources are out. Give it like a week.

Make sure they're your own changes.

Some controversies are semi new.

I was trying to ask someone who I know elsewhere, about the rules and things here.

Brigading in either direction isn't allowed.

If relevant information was added and was removed, someone broke the rules.

I haven't fully checked the twitter stuff, but some sources are primary ones.

I saw a claim about football coverage and things.

Vtuber things, don't get as much coverage as football or some other things.

Some sources may not be as good as others due to that.

But yeah. Whatever the admin right now is saying, just go with that.

I would try again in a week. Things could die down by then. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 (2)

In the Controversy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph has a citation needed request. The sentence is: "The last statements posted on her page on Twitter stated that she had been hospitalized at the end of December 2023." The Twitter post in question is currently unavailable due to the company locking her twitter account. However the Twitter post was archived at the following link: https://archive.ph/ZXmCv Gotyourcitationbro (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rockman1159 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A seperate page for a comprehensive list of controversies.

I have a genius idea, make an entirely seperate page for the controversies, as they would take up a lot of space on this page. Note: keep the Selen stuff on this page, as it made them lose a lot of money and reputation making it is very relevant, but include the redirect at the top of the controversies sections. 2600:1700:41C0:1E20:E47D:6386:500C:DFA3 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Segregating negative points of view into a single article or section is a poor idea; please see WP:NPOVFACT and the rest of the neutral point of view policy. A separate issue is finding reliable sources to back up the article content that aren't just gossip rags or twitter posts. Inclusion on Wikipedia generally requires reliable sources, doubly so for biographies of living people. If you can find sources for the information you want included, you are welcome to post them here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For sure. The company article should not fully omit and segregate all controversies or negative events surrounding a company, as that would be a biased presentation to have no mention in the article. However, most controversies are not so significant or important that pages and pages of detailed coverage in the main article will be appropriate. Very possibly some of the recent controversies are Notable subjects within themself and merit their own additional article with the detailed coverage, And the article about the company only discuss the controversy briefly - within the appropriate weight regarding the company as a whole, then hyperlink to the article about the Notable event or controversy for the more detailed coverage. --Mysidia (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Addition of video released by ANYCOLOR

On 12 February, Riku Tazumi, the CEO of ANYCOLOR, addressed the current situation in a video on the official Nijisanji EN YouTube channel. It may be beneficial to include the existence of this video and perhaps a summary of the content. I believe it would be valid to cite this video as it is from the official channel and is being used as a primary source. The video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7zaTpwP8DQ . Sophon96 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also the issue that much of the information relayed in the video comes from what is alleged to be a confidential legal document that was never supposed to be shared outside relevant lawyers. Rockman1159 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be confusing this video with the pre-recorded video broadcasted on Elira Pendora's (one of their streamers) channel. This video is more of an official statement from ANYCOLOR on the situation at hand.

That other video didn't either. Both dokibird (Selen's new online identity) and Nijisanji affirmed that nothing confidential had been incorrectly released. Sophon96 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph for the Elira video, since it's a pretty big contributor to things blowing up further, but someone should still do a write-up for this one. Aeroblastt (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add that. I think more should be included from the livestream itself compared to comments from the Siliconera post, and I'll try expanding on it once this page gets unprotected or I'll post an edit request. Sophon96 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it's still protected? It seems to just be semi-protected now, so you should be able to edit it if you're autoconfirmed. Aeroblastt (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

In this citation, replace archive-url=https://archive.ph/ZXmCv with the longer format archive-url=https://archive.today/20231228014324/https://twitter.com/Selen_Tatsuki/status/1740185617198424407 as mentioned in WP:ARCHIVETODAY#Use within Wikipedia. 91.129.100.162 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Shadow311 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing former Livers

Nijisanji purportedly requires their Livers to sign an NDA which disallows them from referencing their identity at the agency after they retire. This means that they will intrinsically be unable to connect their identities. Of course, this is problematic for us, particularly for the situation at hand, as half the statements are made by someone who we can't prove is themselves (i.e. Dokibird cannot state she is Selen; thus, we have no proof). This issue was brought up previously, but a consensus was not reached. The current revision cites one of Dokibird's tweets as Selen. How should we cite statements made by former Livers, or should we cite them at all? Sophon96 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As the situation continues to develop, I don't think it's feasible to entirely omit all statements made from Dokibird's Twitter, since they're such an important part of the public conversation. The closest things to evidence I can think of are the "A Message From NIJISANJI EN" video airing five minutes into a Dokibird stream and Doki herself retweeting this post that mentions "Dragoons", the name for Selen's fans. Are either of these worth noting on the page? Failing that, "the account Dokibird, widely believed to be Selen's prior identity" could work. Aeroblastt (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ended up going with the latter, citing this Siliconera article. Anyone more familiar with Wikipedia or VTuber drama than I am can feel free to mess with it, but I think this'll suffice as a stopgap measure. Aeroblastt (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There’s this Japan Times article that links Doki as an “alternate account” of the “creator behind Tatsuki”, which might fit as a source:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/02/16/digital/vtuber-nijisanji-selen-tatsuki/ GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice find! I searched RSN for Japan Times, and it looks like it's considered to be pretty reputable, though noted for having occasional factual errors. Given that we "know" this is true, it would probably be good to add this. Sophon96 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I already added it as a citation in the article, yeah. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Nijisanji or NIJISANJI?

Should the name of the company be written in all caps in the article? Most official sources do it and I see instances of both in the article. Rockman1159 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ALLCAPS: Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps. Link20XX (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Rockman1159 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Change § 2024, second paragraph, last sentence.

−

The song's original author, LilyPichu, stated that she gave approval for the song to be covered in August of 2022.

+

It was later revealed that the video portion had not yet been approved due to the inclusion of former NIJISANJI Livers.

• Why it should be changed:

The current last sentence is not relevant. Though it was initially suspected by many (including the author of the Polygon article, I guess), that music was lacking permissions, Nijisanji later revealed in a livestream that it was the video portion that was the issue. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65VwnQvWW4&t=280s

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Livestream is already cited.

Sophon96 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sophon96 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Nijisanji contract leaks

The following text and citations were added and then deleted.

A Nijisanji EN unsigned contract leaked on the 5th of March 2024 and was reviewed by a US lawyer who commented on his YouTube channel about how it contained many provisions that were unenforceable and highly illegal under US law. Afterwards, another unsigned Nijisanji contract, leaked by a former liver, was reviewed; this time a "Silencing Contract".

The youtube links are only supporting sources, the main source is the Japanese news article, this should not have been deleted. 75.80.49.225 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should include the scilencing contract. As we know that Sayu was Zaion without a doubt. And why would she send a fake contract to an actual lawyer? Thats not a wise thing to do. 2600:1700:41C0:1E20:88A2:6B38:CBDA:65D2 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Condensing section about Selen's termination

Currently, the section of the article discussing Selen's termination and the ensuing events occupies a large amount of space. Most of the section was added as events developed, and much of that information is not of particular significance anymore (i.e. WP:RECENT). Perhaps it would be beneficial to clean up the section?

This was also mentioned previously by GhostStalker. Sophon96 (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that was a BIG event that caused a LOT to happen. Seriously so much happened that it deserves to be big. 2600:1700:41C0:1E20:6B52:6F0B:D52E:5A8 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Revamping the article?

There is abundance of paragraph breaks for minor and trivial events that makes the article cluttered and difficult to read instead of having a general consensus and description of the subject.

I feel the history and livers should be condensed or put into another article altogether. The current article makes it difficult to get an understanding out of the information. Dumbestofthedebaters (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. The history section of recent years is just a list of sparse events. Sophon96 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)