Talk:Metre (music)

Spelling

Isn't "meter" the common spelling of this term?

It is in the United States. "Metre" is the correct British spelling. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. —Caesura^(t) 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Metre" is also the term used in Australia. Watto the jazzman 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was originally written using the UK spelling (metre). In Jan 2007 is was arbitrarily changed over to the US spelling, apparently for no reason. This violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, which states that the article should retain its original spelling. Unless someone can provide some evidence that the US spelling has some special status, I propose that we revert to the article's original form. 213.152.38.2 11:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For consistency, wouldn't this require also changing the allied Meter (poetry), Hymn meter (a subsection link to Hymn), Compound meter, etc. to "Metre (poetry)", "Hymn metre", "Compound metre", etc.? There are also a number of articles such as 10 meters, 6 meters, 2 meters, etc., about amateur-radio frequency bands, the spellings of which are in conflict with the article about the measure of length (to which they directly refer), which is Metre (redirect from "Meter"). Similar articles exist for common racing distances, such as 5000 meters, and there is at least one subsection link to 20-meter circle. For complete consistency of all of these articles, should not a single spelling prevail?

The history (since you bring this up as an issue of precedent and Wikipedia style policy) is more complicated than you make it out to be. The present article, as you state, originally used the UK spelling, when it was split off from Metre on 11 September 2002. However, Meter (poetry) (obviously a closely allied topic) had the American spelling from the time of its creation almost a year earlier, on 16 September 2001. This, incidentally, was more than a month before the article Metre was created, on 31 October 2001, and doubtless is the reason the present article's spelling was changed. Strictly speaking, therefore, if we are to apply Wikipedia policy to the global spelling question, it would appear the American spelling got there first.--Jerome Kohl 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I take the policy to apply on an article by article basis, rather than globally. So, no I don't think that other articles' spellings are relevant. This article was re-spelled for purely parochial reasons. That a) offends me slightly, and b) is manifestly against the site's policy, so I think we should change it back. If there's a good reason why the spelling "meter" is better than "metre", then fine. Until someone comes up with one, I think a revert is in order. AlexTingle 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn of the evidence you have that parochialism was the sole reason for changing the spelling of "metre" to "meter". (I have only suggested a possible logic for the change that was made--I had nothing at all to do with the change, and so cannot know what the reasoning might have been.) However, that said, I notice that the linked subsidiary articles include "Simple metre", "Triple metre", "Duple" (only once internally using the spelling "meter"), and "Compound meter (music)" with a disambiguation page for "Compound meter". (Parenthetically, I notice that this "Compound meter (music)" article internally shows signs of having originally preferred UK forms such as quaver and crotchet, and until March 2006 consistently used "metre" internally, which is not surprising given that it was spun off from the main "Metre (music)" article in 2003. The note-value names have in some cases been awkwardly substituted with the Americanly incorrect "1/8 note" instead of "eighth note".) As such, it would be simpler to achieve consistency within this group of most-closely related items by reverting to the spelling "metre" for the main article, for which reason I endorse the proposal to revert.--Jerome Kohl 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there is a bias towards spelling it metre? What makes it any more "correct" than meter. If we are going by population, then there are many more people in the US than in the UK

I live in Australia and I can't recall seeing this term spelt as 'metre'. I've always had the impression that 'metre' is the distance and 'meter' is the spelling for everything else. I think a source is needed to justify the 'metre' spelling offered in the opening sentence.

Under metre/meter n.¹ (the poetical or musical sense meant here), the OED has: Forms: OE- meter (now chiefly U.S.), ME metir, ME metire, ME metur, ME metyre, ME myture, ME-15 metyr, ME-15 mytar, ME-16 meetre, ME-17 meeter, ME- metre, 15 myter, 15 mytre, 15-16 miter, 16 metar, 17 meteer; Sc. pre-17 meater, pre-17 meeter, pre-17 meetre, pre-17 meetter, pre-17 meiter, pre-17 meitir, pre-17 meitter, pre-17 meter, pre-17 metere, pre-17 meteyr, pre-17 metire, pre-17 metter, pre-17 mettere, pre-17 metyr, pre-17 metyre, pre-17 miter, pre-17 mitre, pre-17 17- pre-17 metre, 19- metir.

So, there is no shortage of choices for spelling variations, and the "meter" option is only chiefly US, not exclusively so. The OED also has four senses for "meter" (without the "metre" spelling variant), none of which have anything to do with musical or poetic metrics, and two of which are marked "obsolete".

The Australian Oxford Dictionary offers six entries, three for the "meter" spelling, one for "-meter" as a suffix, and two senses for the "metre" spelling. The first "meter" sense is defined as "US var. of metre 2", and "metre 2" is the usual poetic/musical sense.

Now, all that said, the OED is regarded by many in the UK as out-of-date (by others as upholding tradition against the encroachments of undesired change), and this may also be true of the Australian Oxford Dictionary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To sum up this meter vs metre issue: Contributors to the article come from both sides of the big pond, hence I think the variegated spelling should remain. If one side thinks it should be on or the other in every instance, the article will be subject to an endless (and quite worthless) edit war. Other articles have been there. An article about music as the universal language shouldn't need such. Mathi80 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I live in Australia. I and every musician I know here spells it metre (in answer to the Aussie who hasn't seen it spelt the Aussie way). Topologyrob (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

time signature

why is there two articles on teh exact same subject, time signature and this one?· Lygophile has spoken 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dog of an opening clause

"The metre (Am. meter) of music is its rhythmic structure"

Metre and rhythm are obviously different. It's basic, and the article misleads readers from the word go.

Tony (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct: It stinks. With what should it be replaced?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could go with London's (2012) proposition distinguishing them. A page range is possible, but I don't think he point-blank defines their difference in one statement. I'll check it out. Tony (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jerome Kohl:—Here's something from London (Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter (2012:5): Musical metre ("meter" in AmEng) "involves a our initial perception as well as subsequent anticipation of a series of beats that we abstract from the rhythmic surface of the music as it unolds in time." Too technical or unexplained for the opening? But somehow extraction from the surface and subsequent entrainment seems to be central to metre. What do you think? I wonder what Grove Dictionary says. Tony (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The New Grove article is also written by Justin London, so it is not too surprising to find it generally conforms to the quotation from his later book. However, it is perhaps a tad less obscure, defining metre as, "the temporal hierarchy of subdivisions, beats and bars that is maintained by performers and inferred by listeners which functions as a dynamic temporal framework for the production and comprehension of musical durations. In this sense, metre is more an aspect of the behaviour of performers and listeners than an aspect of the music itself." I think this may still be enough to make the newcomer faint dead away, but perhaps we can pare it down.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, it's more suitable than the 2012 version, isn't it. London is a leading figure: there's a lot to like about his work. But it's a pity "temporal" appears twice, and the sentence-final "durations" conveys that anyway. "Maintained" isn't ideal. I think the "In this sense" proposition might be removed at this early point as insufficiently clear. I'm not sure what it really means in isolation, and why composers are left out of the equation (perhaps London intends to embrace improvisation too—but improvisors are simply spontaneous composers, aren't they? Seems like hair-splitting for an uncluttered opening).

What he really seems to be saying here is that meter is embedded in composed and performed musical content, as well as internally generated by listeners after they have initially established the tempo and the lengths of beats and bars. I'm taking this from my pretty good knowledge of London's overall thesis in his 2004/2012 book (I haven't read his Grove entry). In his book, London heavily cites Jones's three pieces from the 1980s that develop an extraction–generation model for "entrainment" to regular musical oscillations. It's astounding that Jones isn't mentioned anywhere in WP's article—and she's MR Jones, not the Catherine-Schmidt Jones cited (usefully) in the external links here. I want to hear your thoughts on this before struggling to develop a paraphrased text that might be best attributed thus: "in the view of metric scholars such as London 2012/2004". But we'd need to think carefully about this attribution. Tony (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed a delicate matter when Wikipedia editors start relying on their own judgment to claim what a source really means, as opposed to what it actually says. On the other hand, I wince together with you at Justin's repetition of "temporal" in the same sentence, along with the other weaknesses of language. I am regretfully not myself familiar with his book (in either edition), for which I must rely on your expertise. In any case, the real challenge here is clearly to somehow reduce the academic jargon (however precise it may be in its own terms) to language comprehensible by your average human being, without at the same time misrepresenting what is being said in the source(s).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"It is indeed a delicate matter when Wikipedia editors start relying on their own judgment to claim what a source really means, as opposed to what it actually says."—That is the essence of paraphrasing, and WP does indeed paraphrase, often. We can't directly quote it, since the actual text is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. And if we can't agree on what the intended meaning was, it's not a reasonable basis for use in the article. I wouldn't be opposed to citing Jones in the lead, either with or without London; that would cover the "inferred by listeners" bit, and her model, which is largely the basis of London's, involves extraction from the surface features at the opening of a movement—it's well-accepted in the field; she was a pioneer in this respect. The problem London faced, which I think a WP also faces, is to use knowledge in RSs to initially define a phenomenon that is complex and multifaceted without turning off non-experts. General relativity manages. Tony (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [And Jerome, if you could avoid accusations, that would be good. Tony (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) }

I'm sorry, I'm sure! What accusations did I make, and about whom?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"It is indeed a delicate matter when Wikipedia editors start relying on their own judgment to claim what a source really means, as opposed to what it actually says."—apparently accusing me. Please don't lecture on basic WP protocols. We should be ideal collaborators on this difficult task. Tony (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not my intention to accuse anyone of doing anything. As you yourself observed, "I'm not sure what it really means in isolation, and why composers are left out of the equation." This points to the very heart of the problem: The easiest course is to simply restate what a cited source says, and easiest of all in a direct quotation. In a case like this, it does the reader little service to quote a source that is not itself clear to the average reader, but we must always be sure we are reading that source correctly. I have myself been accused (outside of Wikipedia) of erring too much in this direction, by quoting sources literally, instead of paraphrasing, while my intention was to avoid imposing my own interpretation on the material. Please do not mistake my personal (cautious) position as a criticism of anything you may or may not have done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Methinks you might sometimes be too cautious; after all, absolute balance and negation of personal input are ideals that editors can but approach as nearly as we can. The act of choosing references is itself a bias. All we can do is to be as careful as possible to do service to the reliable sources (ahem, the ones we focus on) and to make some kind of amalgum of what they say that conveys something the readers will understand—occasionally, as here, those aims seem to be partly in conflict.

I've just read the first third of London's gigantic entry in Grove on "Rhythm". It may be more helpful in providing statements—by him and by others—that could be variously conflated, paraphrased, and quoted. Particularly, his text on the differences between rhythm and metre might be useful. What say we gather some of those statements here on the talkpage and mull over how to present a definition with minimal clutter at the top, to be enlarged further down in the article? I don't think either of us wants to spend dozens of hours on this, but it would be good to fix up the lead, at least. Tony (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Do keep in mind, though, that the lede is meant to summarize the article content (which should obviate the several inline citations currently found in the lede), so any changes made there will need to be checked to make sure it conforms to the (presumably well-sourced) statements in the main body. This of course can be dealt with here on the talk page as work progresses.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out at the top that there's no strong consensus on how "metre" should be defined, and how it differs from rhythm? I'm jotting down a few word strings as I come across them, that might be useful (I can retrieve full citations where necessary): "Metre is a form of perceptual organization based on temporal regularity (underlying beat or pulse)." Carolyn Drake and Richard Parncutt, Grove on the perception of rhythm. And in the same section this paraphrased proposition: "A metrical structure consists of hierarchical levels of pulsation or rhtyhmic strata." (Yeston 1976). Ouch. And: "The perception of rhythm involves the perceptual and cognitive organization of events in time, ...". But others define metre like that. Difficult. More when I have time. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Are there really sources that define "metre" so generally that it might have no periodic component at all? Of course, saying "involves" leaves a lot of room for other things, like saying swimming is something that involves being in the water. Perhaps very deep water.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are. The field must think it's a moot point—though regularity is often a primary part of a definition. You see what we're up against ... Tony (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were joking, but I do now see what we are up against. A short search turned up this article, which used to begin with exactly the definition in question. Of course, it was unsourced, and the link to this "Meter (music)" article directly contradicted the claim, so I fixed it to define meterless music as "anti-metre". I sincerely hope you are still wrong about reliable sources defining things this way, or we may all find ourselves floating away from the surface of the earth under the influence of gravity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that regularity is a bug-bear for scholars, to start with. Define it as regular and what do you do about hemiola on the measure level? Leave "regular" out of the definition and how is it different from rhythm? Perhaps this conundrum should be noted if suitable sources can be found. Hypermeasures are not always regular—that's widely written about in the lit.; but London then says they're essentially the same kind of metre as the quicker levels (an opinion that is widely quoted in other scholarly texts, including PhD theses). I don't have time right now, but I think the lead might allude to the differences in descriptions, and that there's a lack of consensus about x, y, and z. Tony (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

One possible tack would be to stay away from academic hair-splitting at first. If we start from some basic dictionary definitions, the discussions that require PhDs in six different disciplines to understand can safely be postponed until later in the article. The Harvard Dictionary of Music definition might be a place to start, with comparison to two or three others. That definition begins, "The pattern in which a steady succession of rhythmic pulses is organized".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. But Harvard is being weird. That definition is self-contradictory, apart from mixing up the metre–rhythm distinction; that's the problem with the current opening. I don't know of many RSs that would agree with it; London et al. would groan at it. Taking "rhythmic" out would be less problematic; but we'd need to be sure that it accords with enough sources, and that none really disagrees. "A steady succession of pulses against which rhythmic patterns are organized" would be better, but one would need to check through the sources to test that. Also, "pulses" may not describe the beat subdivisions, which are mentioned a few times as metrical in Grove. This is hard. London says that subdivisions "behave by different rules" ... but then doesn't really go into how. In a whole book. :-) Tony (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, how about, "Metre is, like, man, you know: everybody knows what metre is!"—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hehe. Or no one knows what it is, which probably includes us. But we do owe the readers some kind of nugget at the opening, I suppose. What about: "Metre generally refers to a succession of regular pulses in music, typically at a number of simultaneous levels, including beat subdivision, beat, and bar (US "measure")." The first bit attempts safety in a looser proposition ("generally"), to accommodate scholars who would point to exceptions such as haemiola. The second bit is pure London Grove (he names those three levels, which I'd word "simultaneous scales" if it weren't for the unfortunate confusion with pitch scales in this context). Do you think that navigates the lit. well enough, and prepares the way for more detailed refs, quotes, paraphrasings further down? I have no short-term intention of working more on the article than just fixing the howler at the start. Maybe we could tinker with it gradually in the medium term? Tony (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is inevitably the case whenever a writer assumes "everyone knows" something. When a graybeard authority says something like this it takes a lot of courage to raise your hand and say, "I don't. Please explain it to me." As for your suggestion, it starts out well enough, but it begs the question of whether "beat" and "pulse" are the same or different, and what a "bar/measure" might be (oh, right, sorry, everybody knows what these are, don't they?). Harvard at least vaguely mentions "patterns" of "a steady succession pulses", though I could imagine this to mean open-ended patterns such as, e.g., pulses grouped as 2 + 3 + 5 + 8 +13 + 21 + 34 etc., or 3 + 9 + 81 + 243 etc., and it doesn't say what it is that contributes to making such patterns (my guess would be alternations of stressed and unstressed beats, but it could be direction of projected sound, or visual markers—say, red, white, and green). Still, it's a good start.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "pulse" is problematic. I can't help feeling that entrainment is the critical factor; it's widely reported in the lit. This pre-pub is interesting. May I draw your attention to a few snippets that might be worth quoting in the body of the article? S. 1, para 1: "The dynamic systems approach describes musical rhythmic entrainment as an active, self-sustained, periodic oscillation at multiple time scales, enabling the listener to use predictive timing to maintain a stable multi-periodicity pattern and synchronize movements at the tactus or other metrical levels (Large, 2000)." And para. 5: "Rhythmic musical behavior is based upon the ability to process and respond to a regular pulse (Arom, 1991; Fraise, 1982)." Sooner or later, the article will need to bite the bullet that entrainment is critical to the apprehension of metre. Our own entry on entrainment (biomusicology) is all too short. Tony (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Entrainment is a critical factor, but this opens another chasm that the beginner will not appreciate having to deal with in the opening paragraph: the question of whether metre is an objective musical thing, or a psychologically induced perception. You and I are well aware that almost everything to do with music has to do with perception, but this is not the way most people think about it—at least, not at first. I don't believe for a moment that you are advocating this discussion for the lede, but I agree it is essential to keep in mind while formulating suitable introductory remarks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Query proposition

"Western music inherited the concept of metre from poetry (Scholes 1977; Latham 2002b) where it denotes: the number of lines in a verse; the number of syllables in each line; and the arrangement of those syllables as long or short, accented or unaccented (Scholes 1977; Latham 2002b)."

It's a pretty blunt and sweeping proposition, and Scholes and Latham are both from a tertiary source. I don't know Hoppin's 1978 book (reffed for the subsequent sentence)—perhaps Scholes and Latham got it from Hoppin. At issue is whether the concept of metre (as a phenomenon, we presume) or just a few terms, were inherited from the Latin/Greek classics. Metre was in music long before the Romans and Greeks. Tony (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? Could you expand on that statement, please? As far as I am aware, the only surviving notated music earlier than the Greeks is the largely fragmentary collection of Hurrian songs. I have never seen any claim that these clay tablets include metrical notation, separate from what may be gleaned from the text. Is there some other evidence of musical meter in pre-Greek music, independent of accompanying poetic text?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that music had to be notated. Hunter-gatherers typically have metrical music. Also, there's an assumption that a correlation is causal. Tony (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Music does not have to be notated, of course. Neither does it have to be recorded. Nevertheless, with neither notation nor recordings, it is fairly difficult to establish anything about rhythmic patterns, metrical or otherwise, in music of the distant past. I presume when you mention hunter-gatherers, you have particular groups and particular eras in mind. Just because the (presumably strictly instrumental) music of hunter-gathers today, in some Western countries, have metrical patterns does not mean that there were any such patterns in pre-Ancient Greek times. It may be a plausible speculation, but nothing more than that. There are of course no provable causes-and-effects, only correlations—unless of course your philosophical beliefs say otherwise. Still, in the present case you may be right, that these particular sources are confusing correlation with cause-and-effect. On the other hand, the concept of metre, as found in Western music (theory), is quite a different thing from the presence of metric (or metric-like) patterns observed in music generally. This reminds me that Kofi Agawu, in Representing African Music: Postcolonial Notes, Queries, Positions (2003), as well as in several articles, has made the point that several African cultures have no word corresponding to the English "rhythm", even though this is supposedly the most salient feature of their music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Just because the (presumably strictly instrumental) music of hunter-gathers today, in some Western countries, have metrical patterns does not mean that there were any such patterns in pre-Ancient Greek times." I think hunter-gatherer music is very often vocal, too. My problem is that the hypothesis doesn't mean that there were not such patterns in pre-classical times. The whole thing is too speculative. And I don't trust the sources. It's a wild claim that metre is rooted (entirely) in the patterns of classical language. At the very least, significantly more supporting detail is needed. Tony (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I can agree with you there. But if hunter-gatherer music of prehistoric times was primarily vocal, then the issue of linguistic influence on musical rhythms remains. What Percy Scholes and Alison Latham assert, however, has to do specifically with concepts of meter in "Western music". What is Western music, then? The music of hunter-gatherers in, say, Lapland in the early years of the first millennium? I don't think that is what they mean at all. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that the off-handed treatment of this proposition, high up in this article, is unwise? Tony (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how "off-hand" it is. The paragraph preceding it describes metrical patterns in Indian music. Still, I see your point. It is a bit detailed for the article lead. Perhaps both of those paragraphs could be moved to new sections in the body of the article (leaving behind simply "A variety of systems exist throughout the world for organising and playing metrical music"), with headings such as "Metre in South Asian music", "Metre in Western music", and other sections could also be added for types of music not at present mentioned at all (Australian aboriginal music, Native-American music, African music, Middle-Eastern music, Chinese music, Indonesian music, etc.). The article as it stands is a bit Euro-centric, isn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. If music theory were more robust on en.WP, we'd be looking at separate articles for metre in those genres (if supported by the literature ... my ethnomusicology is pretty thin). Tony (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I hate to raise yet another problem here, but there is a serious question of whether such concepts as "tala" technically qualify as "metre", since they are actually rhythmic cycles, rather than abstract time patterns of equal beats grouped by accents.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Have you seen this recent article? Seven-beat cycles on the drum (repeated, which helps recognition) look metric to me. (Great video examples, BTW—they superimpose visuals of the beat/bar numbers of each cycle on the video.) Tony (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that article, but it looks very interesting. Thank you. From a preliminary glance, it seems to confirm my doubts about confusing tala with metre, since the stable non-isochronic pattern is one of three units, with an underlying seven-beat pulse, "even at a slow tempo". Similar considerations apply to the aksak rhythms found in Turkish and Balkan music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Metrical vs Measured vs Additive

The section on "Metric structure" treats "Measured rhythm" as an exclusively-exact synonym for "Additive rhythm". To me this doesn't make sense; if it did, one of the two terms should be eliminated from the vocabulary.

Isn't it actually the case that "Metrical rhythm" and "Additive rhythm" are each subsets of "Measured rhythm", and isn't it actually the case that a good definition of "Measured rhythm" will omit any mention of accents, or will perhaps say "... whether accented or not"?

I propose modifying the definition of "Measured rhythm" to omit mention of accents, and adding a separate definition for "Additive rhythm". TooManyFingers (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)