Talk:Toyota 86

Subaru BRZ as primary article

The Toyota GT86 was developed and engineered by "Subaru" Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI), and is built in Subaru FHI's Gunma factory. The Toyota contribution is body styling and the direct injection system for the Subaru boxer engine, then Toyota marketing and sales volume. Subaru could easily have built the car without Toyota, but Toyota could never have built the car without Subaru. As the primary (90+%) development and all (100%) production is Subaru, the car should be noted as a Subaru, with "Toyota GT86" / "Toyota 86" redirecting to Subaru BRZ.

This is interesting, could you please provide sources? I'm asking this because several car reviewers stated almost the opposite, like Toyota developing the car and later asking Subaru to join in and bring a good engine. Pascalbrax (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article sources indicate that Toyota provided the bureaucratic "push" to proceed with the car -- but a substantial majority of the engineering work is clearly from Subaru, and all variants of the car are unquestionably built by Subaru. The Toyota and Scion variants of this vehicle are essentially rebadged variants of the Subaru, and I agree that the article title should be Subaru BRZ. Pitamakan (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And the Subaru is limited in production compared to the Toyota. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the Toyota 86 title is the name most commonly associated with the cars. Who built what is irrelevant. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's the defense that's going to be taken for this one, the article should probably be renamed Scion FR-S, since this is English-language Wikipedia and that's the name the greatest number of English-speakers will recognize. Pitamakan (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a defense, it is an explanation. There is no requirement for the commonality of the name to be English. Toyota 86 is the default used by media and owners to refer to the platform used by the car, it is the default used here.

I'm not seeing any evidence that this was true at the time this was written. The platform was and is developed jointly, and if you want to split hairs about it then there are far more references to the Subaru Global Platform in current media. 2601:401:101:36E0:20CE:C25E:6F76:972 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The 86/BRZ does not use the Global Platform, per Subaru. [1] The³5₉ (Talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's beside the point entirely. The Toyota 86 is not the default used by media and owners to refer to the platform used by the car and it should not be the sole title of this page. 2601:401:101:36E0:79CD:F457:9B3C:E524 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It would make a degree of sense to use both. There are several reasons for this:

1. Using services like Google Trends show parity in the use of both as search terms, although with "Subaru BRZ" often edging out "Toyota 86" and "Scion FR-S". this is true globally over all, and in the US and Canada, while there is a general parity in the UK. Of "major" English-language areas, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa are unique in the degree of dominance for 86 over BRZ.
2. The vehicle was a joint production, so neither manufacturer is the sole proprietor on the project, although a stronger argument exists for Subaru, as the engine architecture was theirs (per the article), and the majority of the mechanicals flowed from the engine design. The flip side to that is that significant concept work, including the re-engineering of a Subaru Legacy, was performed by Toyota engineers to convince the Subaru design team of the idea - although, it was a Subaru that was the platform for the proof of concept vehicle - and the transmissions are both derived from Toyota heritages. This means that there is materially important reason to treat the names with parity, as both manufacturers were required to realize the project, both contributed, and both market and sell the car independently. This is in contrast to the common trend of one manufacturer building a vehicle and another licensing it, or of an auto-group using the same vehicle across multiple brands. Additionally, on the balance of work front: Subaru vocally claimed responsibility for the engineering of the vehicle, which Toyota did not seem to deny at the time of the car's release, which was noted in a number of publications at the time.
3. The in-article reference to the BRZ as a badge-engineered variant is meaningfully incorrect and inaccurate, as would be the reverse (the 86 being the badge engineered car). If we go through the trouble of accurately explaining the car as a joint venture, than that makes the article title misleading.
4. I would contend that a "Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ" or "Toyota 86 and Subaru BRZ" would be mostly concise, more accurate, and better reflect that, since the cars have been on the market, both manufacturers have released tweaked models and limited editions, and both have presented concept vehicles based on the platform. It also more accurately reflect the history of the vehicles, and makes a more immediate distinction between the current 86, and the past AE86. This is also somewhat important as "86" is often used to refer to the older vehicle in isolation as well.
5. Not really an argument for a both approach, but if only one name is to be used, than "Subaru BRZ" makes more sense, as the company contributes more to the finished product (they build it), that name seems to garner more searches - suggesting a familiarity with that branding - and it is the more consistent name (compared to Toyota 86/GT86/FT86 and Scion FR-S). PiraticalGhost (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

This change should be made, the current title is misleading and skews the perspective. 2601:401:101:36E0:20CE:C25E:6F76:972 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it's made in a Subaru factory and uses a Subaru engine, having the primary name be Subaru would make the most sense. But having both in the title would work too2600:1700:A701:2000:247B:89CC:5F15:BCF4 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I second this, it's much more of a Subaru than it is a Toyota. This is like if the Holden Commodore (VF) page was called Chevrolet SS - it wouldn't make sense.

The original manufacturer's name should be the page's title in the case of "badge engineering," at least based on other Wikipedia pages. 2600:1700:A701:2000:11A4:3EB7:7936:21F9 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Our choices are:

1. Leave it as Toyota 86
2. Change it to Subaru BRZ
3. Have 2 separate articles - this would require duplicating the majority of the information, so I don't seriously consider this as an option.

Toyota instigated the project. They came up with the idea, made the FT-HS and FT-86 concept cars. They approached Subaru with the idea and Subaru rejected it. Only after more negotiation did Subaru come on board.

Subaru did provide the engine (with some Toyota mods) and the basic chassis but the basic idea was the same as the original idea spec'd out by Toyota.

Subaru provided the factory, but it's common for companies to provide facilities for other companies (Hino factories make a lot of Toyota and Lexus vehicles but the vehicles are not Hino vehicles). So the owner of the factory is not relevant.

From this, it is obvious to me that it was a Toyota led development. I see no claims for Subaru overriding this.  Stepho  talk  00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hino is owned by Toyota so the owner of the factory is very relevant in your example.

That said, this is a difficult call due to the unusual nature of the joint development process and the impact that has had on public perception, but whether or not Toyota had some slightly stronger role in the development of the product is not the most important factor in deciding the name of this article in the first place.

2601:401:101:36E0:43D:19F0:ACEA:4BC0 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Weight

There is no reference of the weight. According to http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_editorial.jsp?navRoot=toyota_1024_root&fullwidth=true&noLeftMenu=true&forceText=%3cnone%3e&edname=CC-FT86II-landing&zone=Zone+Cars&id=CC-FT86II-landing weight is going to be 1180 kgs. Blokatos (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Using other wikis as references.

There have been some attempts to use http://www.allcarwiki.com/wiki/Toyota_GT-86 as a reference. However, WP:LINKSTOAVOID (point 12) specifically says that open wikis (ie editable by the general public) are NOT allowed. The reason is that anybody can put wrong or misleading information onto that external wiki and then try to treat it as a source for here. For example, I could edit http://www.allcarwiki.com/wiki/Toyota_GT-86 to say that the engine will be a 2.3 litre V6, and then try to use it as a reference to put the same info on Wikipedia - not good! I'm as excited by this new car as anyone else but all information must be verifiable by reliable references such as articles by respected magazines/newspapers and manufacturer press releases (with due care to advertising hyperbole).  Stepho  talk  02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mega merge

Recently a lot of information was merged from the Subaru BRZ Concept STI and Scion FR-S and those pages were converted to links to this page. There is also a lot of information at Toyota FT-86, Toyota FT-86 G Sports and Toyota FT-86 II. This car started as a concept car (FT-86) that went through a number of revisions (FT-86 G Sports, FT-86 II), splits (FR-S concept, Subaru BRZ Concept) and finally production (86, Scion FR-S, Subaru BRZ). Does it make more sense to make one large article that also includes the various concept cars and alternative brand names or does it make more sense to leave the concept cars at Toyota concept vehicles, 2000-2009 and Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019?

Advantages of a merged article is that the information is all in one place and there is less duplication. There will still have to be entries at Toyota concept vehicles, 2000-2009 and Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019 but they will be much reduced and merely point to this article for further details. This article will of course have to list each variation but it would be in the form of how it differed from the other variations.

The advantages of each concept car having its full details at Toyota concept vehicles, 2000-2009 or Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019 is that it puts each concept car in its spot in history and avoids having lots of stub entries that say nothing more than 'follow this link for details'. The main 86 article would of course have a development section which would have very brief details and link to the various concept cars.

It can often be a coin toss whether concept cars that make it into production should have the concept cars details on the main concept pages or if the details should be on the production car page. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. If we say that the concept car details should always be with the production car then we are left with the concept vehicle pages having many gaps (ie only containing concept cars that did not make production). But having the concept car details with the production car details is very attractive when the reader is thinking of the development history of the production car. On the other hand, if we always put the concept car details on the concept vehicle pages then the history of the development of the production car is less obvious.

Any thoughts?  Stepho  talk  03:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the mega merge by Donnie Park (althout not mentionin the sources of the text in the edit description is a serious mistake). In general I prefer production-close concept cars (like here) to be described in the same article as the production model. --NaBUru38 (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone upload a picture for the Scion FR-S

Can somebody upload an image for the Scion FR-S concept ? Please get a picture from: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1058694_scion-fr-s-live-from-the-new-york-auto-show This is the email saying that we are allowed to use one of their pictures as long as a link is given:

"Hi *****, do you know this photo is of the FR-S concept? If that works in context, the usage is fine so long as there is a link back to the page where you saw it.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM, <*****************@gmail.com> wrote:

Name : ***************** E-mail : *****************@gmail.com Feedback : Hi, I was wondering if you will allow me to use one picture from "Scion FR-S: Live from the New York Auto Show, Gallery 1" to upload onto Wikipedia. Thanks, *****

---

This message was sent to you by *****************@gmail.com via The MotorAuthority ----- " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.27.103 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the text above could have been easily faked, so it is not authoritative. WP:Photos explains it.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Official sites listed by country

In the external links section we have a list of countries taking the reader to the official websites for each country. Should this list be:

1. Exhaustive. If Toyota maintains a website in that country then it gets listed. Might be long but the list is shown in compact form.
2. A handful of representative countries. Typically US, Canada, UK and Australia as major English speaking countries. Sure makes the rest of the world feel a bit second class.
3. US only - obviously the world's biggest car buying economy is more important than everyone else. Sarcasm by me but a view held by many Americans.
4. Deleted - let the reader find things by themselves.

The trigger for this discussion is over whether Jamaica should be in the list or not. Since this could affect many other automotive articles, I'll make a mention on the automobile project page as well so that others can comment for or against it.  Stepho  talk  06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Minimize the number of official links to one, possibly more than one in some exceptional cases. Further, we are not a buyers guide, we don't need links to every country out there. To simplify things, I think we really only need two website: Subaru Global's page on the BRZ, and Toyota Global's page on the 86. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the general thrust of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - why present multiple pages when one or two will do the same job. And that BRZ page certainly offers a lot of material. However, that Toyota page is just a gallery and offers almost no concrete information. I think that market specific pages are still preferable because each market has different specifications. What is offered in Australia can be quite different to what is offered in the US. These links used to take up a whole line each, but now that they are all compressed to a single line, they don't take up much room at all.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But we are not a shopping guide. Specific trim levels for every single country are not what we are here for. The variance between countries is, quite honestly, minimal. The space they take up has no bearing on the fact that it is overlinking. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Chassis code for article

I noticed while reading the article that the chassis code (ZN6) for the 86 isn't listed anywhere on here even though it used to be. Can anyone explain why or was there a reason for not including it? 98.198.212.110 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange, it used to be there. Feel free to add it back in.  Stepho  talk  00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic Transmission

The automatic transmission in the GT86 and all other variants is definitively not derived from the IS-F as the article currently states. The transmission is derived from the IS250. Both cars feature the A960E transmission, with the GT86 featuring updated components and programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereComesThePainTrain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sc10n

To shorten the little revert war currently going on, could somebody add some official Toyota references for "Sc10n" as an official designation. Preferably from Toyota Corp rather than some dealer. To claim that "Sc10n" is official is not good enough, we need solid references. Otherwise I can claim I'm the King of Australia :)  Stepho  talk  03:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[www.scion.com/Scion10Series‎] It is Scion 10 Series. They were also labeled as SC10N on the interior trim and numbered plaque. "Scion Series" makes no sense for a car called the Scion FR-S. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We have too many Kings of Australia in Canberra as is! Sorry about contributing to the Sc10n re-edits. Found this other one reference [2]. Seems like it was a marketing name for a limited edition, so it has purpose being mentioned in the article as such? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Limited Editions

Don't have time now plus it's just a suggestion, but what do others thing about moving content related to Limited Editions elsewhere into a table? It could be made up of the following columns: BRAND / MODEL / LIMITED EDITION / DETAILS (incl. COUNTRY) / PRICE. There is no doubt the 86 will be kept alive with these models, but continuing to add to the standard text will just dilute the main content. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive source or a buyers guide for cars. The price alone isn't worth mentioning as there is almost no mention or prices in the article. As for a table of special editions, I think I'd have to see how many special editions there are in existance so far. Also, what defines a special edition? Is a BRZ tS a special edition or merely a trim level? How about an 86 14R? They are limited in numbers but they are more performance oriented than something like a BRZ Series.Hyperblue or FR-S Release Series 2.0. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair point about what defines a limited edition; complicated by market too. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Toyota 86. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107200606/http://www.frs-scion.com:80/story/ to http://www.frs-scion.com/story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120104030626/http://www.insideline.com:80/toyota/ft-86-concept/toyota-ft-86-g-sports-concept-2010-tokyo-auto-salon.html to http://www.insideline.com/toyota/ft-86-concept/toyota-ft-86-g-sports-concept-2010-tokyo-auto-salon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New 2017 Model

What about the MY 2017 update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.72 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. If you have something to add (and references to back it up, preferably accessible by the web) then feel free to jump straight in. Don't worry about making mistakes, we can tidy-up any mistakes.  Stepho  talk  23:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

OP here; honestly, I'm too lazy to research new stuff. I'm kind of interested in buying one in the near future and I found quite a lot of information (like press launch stuff) about the refresh and the new stuff offered (like the performance package) but I don't have the discipline to get everything together (and organized) therefore I prefer not to do it than to try something that will make some one else work twice as hard to straighten ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.72 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Give it a go. You'd be surprised what can be accomplished.  Stepho  talk  20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Appearently there has been a facelift for the 86 car, but there is no section for it yet. Here it mentions the 2017 model: https://www.toyota.com/86/ --97.93.96.52 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The other day I had the chance to compare the 2016 and the 2017 Subaru BRZ: I would say changes in the outside appearance are not very dramatic. The rear spoiler became a little less fancy and more conservative in styling. The most important changes are probably in the interior, with the addition of a large display for navigation and multimedia at the top of the central console, and a nifty multifunctional display in place of the old fuel and temperature gauges. --BjKa (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Engine position

The article says something about "the engine to sit lower than the Nissan GTR and just 0.6 inches higher than the Lexus LFA."
Now firstly that should be "higher than the engine in the <whatever>". But linguistic nitpicking aside: The Nissan and the Lexus both have a large V engine, which naturally has to be (notice that I'm saying "be" and not "sit") higher than a mid sized flat engine. You're really comparing apples and oranges here. To make a valid point about inertial forces influencing road performance you'd have to compare where the center of gravity of the engine assembly (and possibly other parts) is in those three cars.
Now I'm not saying that the intended message is wrong, I guess in principle the flat motor concept can indeed give a better weight distribution, I'm saying that the data given and language used ("the engine to sit 0.6 inches higher") is imprecise and unscientific (i.e. worthless bullshit) as it stands now. (Aside from the fact that comparing any 2.0l 4-cylinder engine to any 4.8l 10-cylinder engine is nonsense in my opinion.) --BjKa (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the grammar and have no problem with you fixing it. For comparing heights, there are two possibilities. The first is the centre of gravity, as you pointed out. The second is the total height of the top of the engine allowing a lower bonnet line, which allows better aerodynamics.  Stepho  talk  13:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cylinder dimensions

Could it really be a coincidence that the Subaru FA engine used in the car has both a bore width and a stroke length of 86 mm? knoodelhed (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is coincidence. The current consensus among engine designers is that a square engine (equal bore and stroke) with cylinders of 500 cc each is the most efficient. This works out as 86 mm. Pure chance that this matches the name Toyota 86. The name is based on the AE86 Corolla/Sprinter.  Stepho  talk  11:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References for AE86 as inspiration?

In this article, and the AE86 article for that matter, it is stated without reference that the AE86 was an inspiration for this vehicle. While it is true that Toyota branded the care as the 86, the only references I can find to the AE86 with regard to the cars initial conception also refer to other cars, and to a more general type of car (For example, the AE86 and the Nissan Silvia are mentioned by a lead Toyota engineer Tetsuya Tada ) This seems like a commonly held belief without concrete sourcing from those involved. PiraticalGhost (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

New generation

A new generation was confirmed today by Subaru and Toyota. Reference here. 201.145.14.158 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Subaru BRZ as a separate article

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have started writing a draft of a main article on the Subaru BRZ as a separate article. See it here. Should I keep going with this or not? I feel like the GT86 and BRZ are really different so they should be separated. What do you think?Sagquattro2009 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They were designed as a single car to be sold by both companies. They share a common development history. They are built in the same factory. They share the same engines and most of the bodywork. They differ only in stuff that typically differs between trim levels of a single car. Splitting the article in 2 would result in a lot of duplication and a lot more work to maintain the articles. Keeping them together also allows us to highlight the (relatively minor) differences.  Stepho  talk  17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The BRZ is pretty different than the 86. Yes, there are some similarities, but the image, the targeted buying age, actually a lot of the design, and lots of other things are different. The BRZ is perceived as a more polished, premium vehicle, while the GT86 is marketed as a more laid-back, fun vehicle. The Subie is more expensive, the Toyota is cheaper. The Subie is the one that seems to be more recognized and loved by the automotive community, while the Toyota is just kind of there. I'm not going to list all the differences, but all in all, the Subie is different enough from the Toyota that it could have its own article. Sagquattro2009 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like your arguments are way too biased towards the BRZ. Unless I overlooked, I don't see any engine upgrades, or material quality upgrades, or anything to justify the BRZ as the "more polished, premium vehicle". In terms of positioning, it's true that one car might be positioned as a more fun vehicle over the other, but that's just marketing. Also, it's hard to prove the BRZ is "more recognized and loved by the automotive community", not to mention that doesn't really justify an article split. With all due respect, I think you ignored the fact that only the front bumper and the badges are different between these two cars. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I might have been a little biased, but I meant in the marketing of the Subie, it's portrayed like that. Even in reviews, that idea is generally accepted. Sagquattro2009 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against splitting them. If one were dominant over the other in news coverage, sales, or popularity, then I'd say leave it with that one, but I think both the Toyota and Subaru models each have significance, and their own unique marketing, motorsports, etc. Then there's the matter of the 2nd generation BRZ, when we have no info yet on the 2nd gen 86 -- and whether they'll be as similar as before, or not. It looks a little awkward putting a Subaru-only section on the Toyota page. --Vossanova ^o< 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And yeah, the 2nd gen BRZ was revealed but we don't know much about the Toyota variation, or if they're even going to make a Toyota version. Sagquattro2009 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The GT86 is coming, it's still the identical car, Toyota is just holding off on an announcement. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sagquattro2009: took it upon himself to split the articles anyway. From the above there was opposition to the split. The only support was a very mild "not against" that also included some arguments against it. I have undone the split (although I may have to get an administrator to restore the redirect talk page history properly).  Stepho  talk  22:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Cut/division GR86

GR86 is a different new car, with new engine, new trasmission, new suspension and new body in aluminium; and for this will be divide with new page. 5.91.145.18 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No. It's a new generation of the same car. Plenty of other car articles put multiple generations of the same car on the same page.  Stepho  talk  21:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

2024 Subaru BRZ tS

The new Subaru BRZ tS is now released, so should it be added to the page? I can also add it myself but it would take me quite a bit of time as it would be my first time editing in Wikipedia. It has upgraded suspension, brakes, etc. and is a mass production trim so it shouldn't be missed, in my opinion... Kupriyanovy (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)