Talk:Car Wars

Links

I understand that Wikipedia is not a "collection of links" but I think links to active clubs should be appropriate. Is this against the policy? Is there an appropriate way to do this? Jimmylogan0916 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can link to specific clubs - just make sure they still exist and aren't selling anything. What is against policy is linking to unofficial sites as a reference to text in the article, or linking to a site selling something unofficially related to the article being discussed, like a 3rd party company selling Car Wars games. To make a link type single brackets with [URLspaceNAMEOFCLUB] and it creates a URL link, or hit the globe button above (between the Ab and A buttons) and fill in the info. Be sure to add http:// at the begining of the link or it won't work. Cyberia23 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, active clubs fall under the "fan site" umbrella and are discouraged under this guideline. Sorry, but if we allowed links to fan clubs, Wikipedia would end up just mainly being a collection of links. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The name...

Most of my fairly old '80s Car Wars gaming materials say that "Car Wars" is a trademark of Texas Instruments, used with permission (TI had an arcade game called Car Wars). Anyone have any sources on how/when SJ got that idea for the name, and how these trademark issues got resolved? -- Kaszeta 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The game was originally named "Autoduel." Steve came up with the name partway through the development (this was 1980/81, so Star Wars was still pretty big), and found out later (before release, but after marketing and such) that Texas Instruments had the trademark for the name on a computer game (for the TI-99/4A, if I remember correctly). At that point, it was lawyer-negotiating time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.190.10 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Car Wars

We down to kill for them automobiles. --NEMT 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The original inspiration for Car Wars was an old lady in a white Cadillac.

Seriously.

I was riding my motorcycle to a playtest session at Steve Jackson's place in Austin, TX (for the old Space Gamer magazine), when a little old lady in a huge white Caddy pulled out in front of me. For a moment, I wished I had machine guns hooked to my starter and horn buttons on the bike. The two thoughts (gaming and highway homicide) merged, and I had the idea for the game.

I went on to Steve's, told him the idea, and he said to write it up and he'd see.

Two or three hours later, I had the first (basically unplayable, but what the heck) version of the game.

A day or two later, he gave me his first set of notes (including the "history" of the game world).

It took about a year to finish the game, but that's how it started.

Oh, yeah - the name was supposed to be "Autoduel," but Steve came up with Car Wars (partly as a pun on Star Wars, I think). No, I didn't like the name. The Texas Instruments game beat us to market, and he had to work out licensing for the name - the TI computer game failed fairly rapidly, so it wasn't that tough.

Chad Irby co-author of Car Wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.178.115 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be verified and included in the main article. That's a great bit of gaming history that I've never heard before. As someone who worked at the fringes of the Steve Jackson world for years, I can tell you it sure sounds accurate. Also, Chassis and Crossbow debuted in one of the first issues of ADQ. They might have been optional rules, but even when Dueltrack got its own box, I believe it remained optional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdrail1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia

I don't know if the GURPS Autoduel books or the Steve Jackson games Autoduel books are considered "Car Wars" canon, but book 4 of the seven-book series that plots out "future history" shows Australia's rise as a world superpower based on not having been afflicted with the grain blight. A few words regarding the "cobalt curtain" and so on might be worthwhile here. :) --24.84.67.227 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody recorded any objections I've added the part about Australia myself. --24.84.67.227 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted it - I followed the Car Wars game pretty closely, and never heard of that Australian situation and it probably isn't canon. Besides you dropped that paragraph in between two paragraphs that weren't steering in that direction of world history and it read completely out of place. If you want to add a "rest of the world" section with whatever histories are there for other parts of the world then it could probably go there. I'd indicate your source though. Cyberia23 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the set of seven books produced by the AADA (The "Road Atlases" - see for example this link: http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/AADAAustralia/ ). Good enough for you? --24.80.120.179 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They would be considered cannon but i'm not sure if a full description of the world of car wars is appropriate in a article about the game. harlock_jds (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A description of conjugating Amy’s invented language , which only appears in one episode, is considered notes able for the Big Bang Theory, so why not? Jabberwoch (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Car Wars is disputed

I note that Craw-daddy has removed the notability cleanup template from this article on the grounds that the "Charles S. Roberts award demonstrates the game's notability". I dispute this POV, on the grounds that:

Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources"

Note that the "Charles S. Roberts award" is made by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design, a trade association which the publisher is a member. At best, a trade award is a Questionable source; it must be viewed as part of the promotional efforts of the publisher to obtain wider recognition for its products amoungst retailers and distributors, and is not necessarily evidence of notability outside of the trade or industry which it serves. More specifically, this particular award provides only trivial treatment, since there is only a mere mention of the book, its author, publisher and other non-substantive detail treatment, and therefor fails the requirements WP:BK because it fails to provide sufficient content, analysis or critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple description of its content.

I therefore request that the notability cleanup template be restored until this issue is addressed such that additional content supported by reliable secondary sources has been added. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you make a RfC, as you have done many times in the past. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to ask first, why do you think the award demonstrates notability, given my comments above? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will glady reiterate my views that I (and other editors) have expressed to you in the past (and you have chosen to ignore) provided you can substantiate your own claim that "...it must be viewed as part of the promotional efforts of the publisher to obtain wider recognition for its products amoungst retailers and distributors, and is not necessarily evidence of notability outside of the trade or industry which it serves" with reliable references. Otherwise you're just pushing your own POV here as you accuse me of doing so. Note that I wasn't the first one to remove the notability tag. Another editor (with whom I think I've never crossed paths with before on any article) did that, but I did agree with him/her. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question: why do you think the award demonstrates notability, given my comments above?--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability tag should *not* be restored. The game is notable, notability is asserted in the article, and plenty of references are included. Being deliberately obtuse is trolling. Trolls should be ignored. Rray (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in resonse to Gavin (sorry Rray), apparently other people think it denotes some sort of notability, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in news articles, would it? [1] [2] (Ignore the last one on this list as it's clearly not about this award.) In other words, I think it demonstrates notability because other reliable sources (as you're fond of looking for) apparently think it does too. I'm still waiting for some reliable source that characterizes the award as being used for the "promotional efforts of the publisher to obtain wider recognition for its products amoungst retailers and distributors". This is all getting very tiresome... --Craw-daddy | T | 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to ignore Gavin. His is pushing a personal agenda on the verge of being a Jihad. The tag was removed in good faith because you felt the article demonstrated notability. Fine, you can do that. Web Warlock (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You know already that Ghits are not necessarily evidence of notability, and even if they were, the notabilty of the "Charles S. Roberts" award cannot be inherited by the game. The point I am making is that this source is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate notability; the citation must be backed up by some sort of content. Your argument essentially boils down to "this game is notable because it won an award" whic is just not enough, because the award tells us nothing about the game. The game is notable because the award is notable is, on its own, a circular agrument that does not stand up to scrutiniy. You can't just remove the tag because you feel it is a good idea; you have to provide sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I don't understand what your beef is... there are a bunch of references for this article. Is it that you may have never played Car Wars or heard of it outside Wikipedia that you either don't believe it ever existed or is it because you don't think it's "popular" enough to include here on Wikipedia? Cyberia23 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I'm interpreting his remarks to mean that, for example, having won seven Oscars, this confers no notability upon Schindler's List. Or have I misinterpreted your statement again? "This [film] is notable because it won an award." (Yes, obviously it's notable in other ways, but apparently the winning of these awards does nothing to establish its notability as it just says "Best Director", etc.) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not saying that having won 7 oscars that Schindler's List isn't notable... yes, you completely misinterpreted me. I don't care about the awards won by Car Wars - I just asked Gavin what his deal was, since I saw several sources added to the article and there is still bitching going on. I didn't realize those sources were added an hour ago. But still, more sources the better. My interpretation was that Gavin may have never heard of Car Wars and thus believes it justifies it for deletion under the Notability Policy. If that is the case, someone really needs schooled in correct use of the policy because the "Well I never heard of it, so it must be bullshit and should be deleted" argument is not grounds for adding the Notability tag to an article. So, I'm asking for the reason the notability tag has been placed here as Car Wars is a legitamtely published game that had it's 15 minutes of fame back in the day, but is pretty obscure today. But because it's a rare game today, doesn't mean it shouldn't have it's place here on Wikipedia. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My "have I misinterpreted your statement?" comment was directed at Gavin. Never mind... --Craw-daddy | T | 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even the correct use of the template. The notability template is used when the subject's notability is in question. It's not supposed to be used when the article lacks sources; that's what the unreferenced tag is for. For example, if I write an article about Abraham Lincoln and don't include references, the subject is still clearly notable even though the article is unreferenced. Read the template description for how to use it. Nowhere does it say that notability templates should be added to articles lacking references. It says that the template is to be used when the subject of an article might not be notable. Rray (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think the lack of sources is a problem. Not it's notability. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Cyberia23, there were only 2 sources cited in this article when the template was added. The remainder have been added in the last hour. I feel fully vindiated for putting the template there in the first place. Nowhere does it say that notability templates should be added to articles lacking references, but it can be added if there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Truthfully, I never had a problem with the template in the first place. I did and still do have an issue with your "cease and desist" posts on other editor's talk pages demanding that they revert to your last edit. It is dissruptive, it is bullying and it is uncalled far. Web Warlock (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I use this strong language because I am not prepared to enter into an edit war, but at the same time I am not prempared to stand by when someone asserts an article's notability based purely on their POV. In this situation, I am being forced to play the role of victim, unless I stand my ground. If a cleanup template is to be removed, then these issues have to be addressed first. Removing a cleanup template without addressing the issue is just plain out of order. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, I thought my previous post was my last one... apparently not. You fail to acknowledge that I removed the notability template and inserted a {{refimprove}} one as notability wasn't the issue but the lack of references. *That* would be a correct usage of templates, wouldn't you think? And I also asked Rray and Web Warlock for their input as I know they have access to sources that I don't. Isn't that a useful thing to do as well? Bilby could have been watching this page (I don't know) or somehow noticed that the page needed more references and found some to insert. <sarcasm> What a useful idea!! Find references and insert them! </sarcasm> I think I should be the one to feel vindicated here as I used a proper template, and tried to contribute to the article instead of tagging and leaving. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And I'm still waiting for some reliable source to support your assertion that "it must be viewed as part of the promotional efforts of the publisher to obtain wider recognition for its products amoungst retailers and distributors" as this is a POV statement here. Or should I add a {{who}} tag to that statement? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When this award was made, the Charles S. Roberts Awards and the Origins Awards were one and the same. Note that Origins is run by The Game Manufacturers Association (GAMA) as a show for the gaming industry. QED --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me... And how is this different from the Oscars, "presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to recognize excellence of professionals in the film industry, including directors, actors and writers."? So that's just a trade award too then. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, check out their press release[3] which state "Origins Awards: Academy strives to create national recognition and prestige for these awards, and reward innovation and achievement in our industry." Don't get me wrong, thre is nothing wrong with getting a "Charlie", but it not enough evidence on its own to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And again I ask, "how is this different from the Oscars?" (note, in particular, the part that says "the Oscar represents the best achievements of the year in the opinion of those who themselves reside at the top of their craft.") So as I've said before, it's nothing but a glorified trade award, given to people in the industry by other people in the same industry. But again, I find myself tiredly repeating myself and grow weary of this pointless exchange, especially since it's quickly growing larger than the article itself... --Craw-daddy | T | 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the point that I was making. However, in response to you, the main difference between a Charlie winning RPG and an Oscar winning film is the depth and breadth of coverage in newpapers, books and journals which films receive, and it is this coverage you will find cited in most movie articles, whereas the coverage for this game is, at the time of wrtiting, rather thin to say the least. Since there are now citiations from the magazines Dragon and White Dwarf have been incorporated into the article, at least you cannot say that the game is entirely non-notable. However, to go back to my original point, a trade award on its own is not evidence of notability, as promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. To quote WP:BK, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." From what I have read, this is not the case here yet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sutability for Wikipedia

Well as a contributor to this article and a supporter of the game I say that I feel that Car Wars is a notable enough game to bear an article here on Wikipedia. I think the use of the Notability Tag is being misused in this case as notability protects Wikipedia from obvious illegitimate content and original research like "Billy Bingo's Banjo Band" (that only played a high school prom at Arlington High in 1962), or an entire made up article to give a backstory to Ensign McRedshirt from episode 6 second season of Star Trek who was killed 2 seconds after beaming down to a planet, or an article about where the best places to buy crack in Philadelpha at 1AM. Those are the bullshit articles that lack notability. Not a legitimately published game that may have only had 15 minutes of fame at the cons when it was introduced, but is still being played be people to this day. It might be niche information, but it's interesting to say the least and it's verifiable info, and deserves a place here on Wikipedia. I'm getting really sick of the abuse of the Notability Policy as a tool for deletionists who feel niche info isn't warranted enough to be here. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this article should go on a gaming wiki where it would be more relevant, and would not be the subject of challenges to the article's notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

or it belongs here. Since we've established secondary sources that covered the game what exactly is the notability issue? 11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)

Which secondary sources assert notability? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, White Dwarf, The Austin Chronicle, The Escapist... Pretty much any review of a game involving auto combat mentions car wars harlock_jds (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• None of these sources qualify under WP:BK. For instance the White Dwarf citations says "Other expansions such as.... mini-scenarios.... published in game magazines expanded the game even further". This is not non-trivial treatment and is effectively a mere mention of the book, or other nonsubstantive detail treatment. The other two (The Austin Chronicle, and The Escapist) are interviews with the publisher, and do not qualify because publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book are excluded. I suggest you read WP:BK to find out what are reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BK is for the notability of book articles and games can't meet those criteria (how does a game win a major literary award for example?). harlock_jds (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is unlikely that it would win the Booker prize, but it might win an Origins or Charles S. Roberts award, which are the corresponding awards. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are to force this Game into WP:BK it would meet 3 of the notability criteria. 1) it has won a major reward; THe Origin award for games is the equivalent of the newbery award for childrens books and the national book awards for lit (and the equivalent of a Grammy for a musician and a Oscar for a film). Just because the Game industry isn't as 'big as the film industry or the literature industry doesn't mean it's top award is non noteable. This is the highest award any game can win and is not simply a 'promotional award'. The fact it won this in 1981 doesn't diminish the notability of the award. 2) Steve Jackson (the createor of the game) is historically significant enough (in game design) that any of his works should be considered notable. 3 we have multiple, non-trivial published works totally independent of the game itself (or it's parent company SJ Games). White Dwarf published material for the game and reviews, Dragon magazine published an expansion to the game, both of magazines are run by competitors to Steve Jackson Games so clearly they aren't doing this strictly out of promotion for the game.

We could use a section of the influence the game had going forward but lack of said section doesn't mean the article doesn't meet notability standards as it meets 3 of them. harlock_jds (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a small correction, Car Wars is a game system. A particular module/expansion pack may constitute a book, depending on how you look at it, but WP:BK is unsuitable for the system as a whole. I guess WP:Role-playing games/Notability is the best alternative, in which case Car Wars is looking comfortable, as it meets three of the four criteria, even before you take into account the specific references. (Major award, significant milestone, and historically significant designer). Bilby (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Car Wars is still disputed

Despite the addtion of addtional citations, this article still does not provide reliable secondary sources to demonstrate evidence of notability. I would like the Notability cleanup template to be restored until this issue can be addressed. I have already placed the template on once, but my edits are being reverted with justifcation. I beleive that the addtion of the template will encourage more editors to come forward with reliable secodnary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

would links to recent news articles referring to this board game as The root of the vehicular combat genre be considered a reliable secondary sources? http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/vigilante-8-arcade/852260p1.html harlock_jds (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that gamespy can't be classed as a reliable secondary source, because anyone can have an article published there, and so is a form of self publication. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

the article was written by Gerald Villoria who is a professional reviewer/editor at gamespy... it's 'not just anyone' and sure isn't 'self publication'. Also of note is this IGN interview with the developers of Auto Assault that mentions Car wars as an influence repeatedly http://pc.ign.com/articles/590/590566p1.htmlharlock_jds (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he is a professional writer at gamespy, in fact there is no evidence that they employ any professional RPG writers. Anyone can submit an article to Gamespy, its just not a reliable source.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See [4]. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point i'm not worried about it.. It meets notability requirements due to the notable designer criteria and major award criteria which were always a part of the article. The fact that secondary sources have been added that detail independent coverage of the game and expansion of the game is just icing . Gavin's argument has moved beyond being reasonable. As for the gamespy no they don't employ 'professional RPG writers" they employ video game writers who talk about the board game Car Wars (note it's not really a RPG) being an influence on a whole genre of video games... which says quite a bit about it's notability. At some point (once i get a few more references ) I'll write up a section on this influence but such a section is not required for notability of this article... it already meets the notability requirements (even if you want to force a board game into the book requirements which is silly...) harlock_jds (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if it's worth anything, Wil Wheaton plays Car Wars - or so he says in his blog: [5]. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OFFS Jabberwoch (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Five-Phase Movement Introduced When?

I'm trying to sort out some differences between editions. I have three books in front of me to compare:

• Car Wars Deluxe Edition, with 10-phase movement, and the numbers in the Control Table for 100mph are safe-3-4-5-6-XX.
• Car Wars Compendium (edition slightly unclear), with 5-phase movement, and the numbers in the Control Table for 100mph are safe-3-4-5-5-6-XX.
• Car Wars, published 2015, labeled 4th edition, with 5-phase movement, and the numbers in the Control Table for 100mph are safe-2-4-5-6-6-XX.

The Compendium I have is, according to the current article, either 3rd or 4th edition, but it clearly doesn't match the 2015 4th edition book in rules. The Compendium was apparently published with two covers, one blue-and-red, and a second one green-and-black, clearly labeled as the 2nd edition of the Compendium (and thus the 3rd edition of the game overall). So, the copy I have must be a third edition book with 5-phase movement. Ergo, I think the article is currently wrong when it says 5-phase movement was first introduced in fourth edition. I'm going to correct it. 96.230.190.92 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Car Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/1981/list-of-winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314052711/http://www.greatscourge.co.uk:80/ to http://www.greatscourge.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nitros Injectors. Typical?

Nitro is a minor item for gas powered engines which were introduced to CW later as part of an addon that is itself obscure with CW. Gas engines themselves are rare and expensive within CW. So nitro is hardly typical equipment. A targeting computer or a fire extinguisher would be typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.59 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Errm... Is it a video game?!

~~ MarioFyreFlower (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The video game Autoduel was released on the Apple in 1985. Though not named "Car Wars", its essentially the same thing. I had it on my Apple 2+ and it was pretty killer. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

However, this article is not about a video game. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good, we the article literally just says Game. MarioFyreFlower (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the extra we... Blame the autocorrect for that one. 🙄 MarioFyreFlower (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)