Talk:I/O (album)

Singles being listed in infobox?

Considering all of the tracks on this album will be released on their own one-by-one until the complete album has been released, is it really necessary to include them all in the singles list for the album infobox? Especially considering the fact that the list will just end up being repeated in the track listing section, it’ll just result in a redundant and overly large infobox when the purpose of an infobox is to give succinct, concise information on an album. The only info that would be missing might be the release dates for each separate single, and if that is really important information then it could just be integrated using the extra column in the track list. Thoughts? Elephantranges (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

'Road to Joy' Announcement from Official Peter Gabriel Newsletter

I made the following change.[1] The reason why is that I checked and this was announced in Peter Gabriel's official newsletter. I'm not sure how to cite a newsletter sent out via e-mail. But it should be reliable as a primary source. IP 109.250.135.44 made the original edit[2] and cited [3]. This source is the official web service used by Gabriel's newsletter. I verified this by clicking on the "View this email in your browser" link in the email and it takes you to the cited page. Also, I think that songs on the album would be basic information that should be on an article about an album. That said, I don't want to edit war over this but this is my reasoning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Tracklist revealed

Looks like we get a tracklist, though it could obviously still change.

1. Panopticom

2. Playing For Time

3. The Court

4. Four Kinds Of Horses

5. I/O

6. Love Can Heal

7. Road To Joy

8. So Much

9. Olive Tree

10. This Is Home

11. And Still

12. Live And Let Live

This is from the WOMAD festival. Jules TH 16 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that this is the tracklist from the listening session of the full album? Sebastián Arena... 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This turned out to be the vinyl tracklist only. The CDs follow the original release dates! https://www.bravado.de/p51-i0884108013595/peter-gabriel/i-o/index.html

https://www.bravado.de/p51-i0884108013588/peter-gabriel/i-o/index.html

Album name is i/o, not I/O

I don't know why some editors on Wikipedia think they know names better than the people who created them. The album name is not I/O. It is i/o, and Wikipedia just looks stupid and disrespectful to insist otherwise. See, for example:

https://petergabriel.com/news/this-is-home-released/

Per WP:PRIMARY(3), "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.". Surely the name of the album itself can be considered a "statement of fact", and Peter Gabriel himself is not only reliable but unimpeachable with respect to the name of his own album. Consistent with WP:PRIMARY, no interpretation, analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis is being done here.

Additionally, see:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/peter-gabriel-playing-for-time-north-american-tour-1234691907/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ent-peter-gabriel-chicago-review-20231001-nbk4qtrezvcnbeb6tfsqd3pada-story.html

The phrasing "stylized as" is appropriate in some contexts, like for the symbol Prince used, or a name that is stylized in a logo with a non-standard symbol. For example, Apple stylized the iPhone 6s as iPhone 6🅂 but used the un-stylized 6s in regular text. Similarly, Science magazine has always been named Science, but it used to be stylized as Scıence (with a dotless i) in their logo, on their covers, etc. Those are proper uses of "stylized as". This isn't.

Does anybody get it wrong? Yes, of course. That happens with any unusually-cased name. It happened with the iMac, at the beginning. And dBase before that. And lots of products with uppercase letters in the middle. But the actually name is clear.

Yes, Wikipedia can't have a page name that begins with a lowercase letter, so the page name must be I/o or I/O. But page names are page names, not actual names. We can't allow Wikipedia's technical restrictions to make us pretend that a name isn't what it actually is. On this page, i/o or I/O appears 41 times. 27 of those are i/o and only 14 are I/O. This is an indication that most editors agree that the page should use the correct name. On the Peter Gabriel page, there are 8 references to i/o, all correctly in lowercase.

If anybody thinks the actual name of the album is I/O, not i/o, please provide a source for that, and by this I mean a source that says the name is uppercase, not just a page that accidentally uses the uppercase name. Otherwise, the page should change to reflect the album name which has been clearly given to it by Peter Gabriel. (Sorry this is a bit long, trying to head off typical counter-arguments in advance.) RoyLeban (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [added to 06:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)]

I went ahead and made this change. I did not change the page name which is currently '''I/O (Peter Gabriel Album)''' and I now realize it is impossible — both the I and O are required to be uppercase because of a flaw in Wikipedia. "I" is actually a directory name, which must start with an uppercase letter and the page name is actually "O (Peter Gabriel Album)" and it also must start with an uppercase letter. I don't know how to change the heading at the top which defaults to the page name. RoyLeban (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I did figure out how to add the display title but it doesn't work and complains that i/o… isn't ''equivalent'' to I/O… (it complains the name isn't equivalent, presumably confused by the I directory). I left it in because it doesn't hurt anything and hopefully somebody else can fix it. Note: the italic_title=no suppresses the automatic DISPLAYTITLE from the infobox. When this is figured out, the I/O (song) page also needs to get fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the title should be simplified to just "i/o (album)"; as I've seen on the I/O (disambiguation) page, there aren't any other albums with this name. Atleast those that have a created page, though... okkkk|=aka Quwoting2 ∆ 05:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the page name change. It makes sense and would be consistent with other albums. For the most part, the artist name is only used when there are multiple albums with the same name, and then not for the most prominent album with the same title. See, for example Thriller. RoyLeban (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a reason not to change the name, I support the name change per okkkk and RoyLeban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Because we standardise stylisations on Wikipedia per WP:TMRULES and MOS:CAPS. There are plenty of instances where artists have rendered the titles of their works in all-lowercase and all caps and we have disregarded it (Lady Gaga with Artpop, Pet Shop Boys with their sentence case song titles, etc). Until the article title has been formally moved with a consensus to i/o, then the article text should reflect and be consistent with the article title. I do not support changing the article text, including that of the title track "I/O", to "i/o" unless a page move has been lodged and consensus is in favour of changing the name. Short of that, the prose should reflect the current title. I don't see why users wouldn't agree this is a case in which the title, an acronym for "Input/Output", should be capitalised just because Gabriel typesets it that way. I have added a note about the way the title is rendered in the lead until then. Ss112 23:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The page cannot be '''moved''' from I/O to i/o, due to a technical limitation in Wikipedia. The URL of the page is irrelevant and a distraction. The question is what is the name of the album.

The argument that other errors may exist on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, and does not change the actual name of the album. Peter Gabriel himself (plus the album's art and all publicity on official web sites) is a much better source then you are. Peter Gabriel is a primary source, which acceptable for statements of fact such as the name of this album and song. In contrast, your opinion is just that — your opinion — and Original Research. My opinion is irrelevant too. If you believe the album title is really I/O, not i/o, please provide a reliable source that states that. I've looked and there are none (though, yes, there are sources that accidentally present the title incorrectly).

The other issue which you may have been conflated is that the page name should have merely (album) in it, not (Peter Gabriel album) to match standard usage on Wikipedia. If you think that change is wrong, please provide justification.

Please revert your change. Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The other issue which you may have been conflated is that the page name should have merely (album) in it, not (Peter Gabriel album) to match standard usage on Wikipedia Are you confused with what I said? I didn't "conflate" anything. I don't think "Peter Gabriel" should be in the article title—and you said above you don't either—because per WP:NCMDAB, as there is no other album article on Wikipedia with the title I/O, there is no need for "Peter Gabriel" to be in the title as it is unnecessary disambiguation. Update: The page has been moved to "I/O (album)" per a request I made.

a much better source then you are??? I'm not trying to be a "source", and you keep saying "your opinion, your opinion". It's not my "opinion". I'm telling you about precedence and our guidelines on the matter, WP:TMRULES and MOS:CAPS. Our guidelines and how we capitalise things on Wikipedia per those guidelines outweigh the "disrespect" you think we're showing Gabriel's "artistry" by not abiding by his apparent wishes in rendering the title of his works how he wants them.

The page absolutely could be moved to I/o (album), which is a currently a redirect here. It wouldn't be a technical limitation for it to be located there if consensus deemed it so, and that title seems closer to what you're trying to get at. File a page move to move it there or stop trying to change the article text to something that doesn't match the article title, as any instances of the title in the prose should reflect how the title is rendered in the page name.

You keep claiming the sources that capitalise it as I/O when it's an acronym are merely "incorrect". How do you know they're not intentionally capitalising it and are apparently "mistakes"? Because they're not following Gabriel's capitalisation? Finally, I will not be reverting myself. You should file a page move to make the article title as consistent as to what you think it should be (i/o) and to formally get other editors' opinions on the matter. Until then, there is no formal consensus and you shouldn't be changing the article prose to be inconsistent with the article title. Ss112 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought you conflated the move request because the only move request suggested and possible was to remove "Peter Gabriel", which has been done. The page cannot be named I/o… (lower case o) because I is a directory, and the actual page name inside that directory is O…. So we are stuck with uppercase I/O for the page name. There is no move request here and there cannot be a move request. This is is only about the name and title within the page.

There are two issues:

1) The name in the article should be the correct name. You are misreading WP:TMRULES — in fact, that section makes it pretty clear that the actual name should be used. In particular, see this " Using all-lowercase letters may likewise be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with the webcomic xkcd." See also MOS:TMLOWER, though the idea that only a single letter can be lowercase is not only dumb but not what is done on Wikipedia (see, for example macOS, which starts with three lowercase letters and is properly represented on Wikipedai).

2) How the name i/o is capitalized is a simple fact. It's a fact whether the correct name is i/o or I/O. Wikipedia is clear that primary sources are acceptable for statements of fact, and there is no better source than Peter Gabriel himself. He is not wrong, by definition, just as Apple is not wrong that iPhone starts with an i and macOS isn't MacOS or Macos or any of the other variants somebody might suggest.

WRT requesting a source that actually says it is uppercase I/O, as opposed to one that capitalizes it that way, here's the situation. Peter Gabriel and all official sources capitalize it as i/o. If that isn't correct, then surely you can find one source which actually says that. But it doesn't exist. In fact, you have added an unsourced statement that it is "typeset as i/o" — this is your opinion or OR. If you think the fact that pages exist that use uppercase I/O means that's correct, then you should note that there are more pages that use lowercase i/o.

Finally, this is misleading at best: "as any instances of the title in the prose should reflect how the title is rendered in the page name." If you mean the URL, it is irrelevant (see the macOS page, for example, where the URL is MacOS). If you mean the page title, what you say is normally true, but there is a bug in Wikipedia which is preventing the page title from being correct. That bug should not prevent the rest of the article from being correct, and I'd love it if somebody could provide a workaround for that bug.

@Ss112, absent a RS that says the proper name is I/O and that is merely "typeset as i/o" or "stylized as i/o", I would prefer it if you would revert your changes and restore the proper name. But, if you don't, I will. RoyLeban (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The page is considered a directory regardless of whether it is located at I/O (album) or I/o (album) because of the presence of the slash in the title. As I said, I/o (album) is the closest Wikipedia can get to what you have stated you want the article to show, as we can't have lower-case first letters. As it seems like that's what you want (a lower-case o to be closest to i/o), either file a move request to gauge what other Wikipedia editors think, or stop trying to make the article's text inconsistent with the way article is and has been rendered as (in capitals, as it's an acronym) since its creation.

WP:TMRULES says we should use it if sources universally use a certain stylisation. You admit there are sources that capitalise it as I/O, even though you've characterised those as a "mistake", despite having no proof other than your own opinion that those are in error, because you believe anything other than Peter Gabriel saying it's "i/o" is a mistake. So, the fact that there are other sources using I/O makes it, by definition, not universal.

No, my "typeset as i/o" wording was a compromise because I admit there are sources, including Gabriel himself, that stylise it as i/o. I consider it a stylisation; you don't. Hence I originally wrote it as "stylised as", then I changed it to "typeset as" as a way of avoiding the "stylisation" wording that you objected to above, even though until your edit two weeks ago, it said "stylised as".

You keep comparing this to macOS and other Apple products that start with a lower-case letter. An album that was only officially announced mere months ago is nowhere near on the same level of recognisibility as Apple's lower-case first letter trademarks. This is not a comparable example.

I would prefer it if you would revert your changes and restore the proper name. If you don't, I will I'd advise you to not do that as that would be edit warring, and if you do so, I will ask an administrator to step in and inform you of our policies around edit warring. You made your edit; I indirectly reverted it. We are in the Discuss part of the WP:BRD cycle and now you're saying you want to disregard that. That's not how Wikipedia works when there is disagreement. That would be changing the page to be inconsistent with the article title again, but more importantly, with no formal consensus for it (as there was never consensus to have it as i/o while it's been located since creation at a capitalised namespace). I merely made the page's text consistent with its title again (as it was prior to your edit on October 7) and per our guidelines on standardising capitalisation (MOS:CAPS). If you refuse to accept those and want to continue arguing against them with no consensus (as you refuse to get it via an RfC, a move request, etc, which I've told you is a way to get consensus), then that's your problem. Ss112 01:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you are wrong about the URL. The actual page name begins with the character after the I/ and that character cannot be a lowercase letter. So, to most people who do not know Wikipedia arcana, the URL will be ...I/O... — it cannot be i/o or I/o. But, as I have said, and should be obvious, the URL is irrelevant, so please don't bring it up again. This is about the name of the album, not the URL.

Similarly, the article title should properly be i/o ..., but a bug in Wikipedia is preventing that. We don't allow bugs in Wikipedia to mean that we provide incorrect information. That would be silly.

Again, you are misreading WP:TMRULES. You can absolutely find some sources that use IPhone and MacOS (the latter error is much more common now). Your misinterpretation, that the mere presence of some sources that use a a certain capitalization mean that Wikipedia should use that capitalization, would mean that Wikipedia should use those capitalizations and it does not. Why? Because the obvious truth — the fact for which we can use a primary source — is that Apple is the definitive source for that capitalization. In the exact same way, Peter Gabriel is the definitive source for the capitalization of his album title and song title.

You make it very clear that you are wrong when you write "I consider it a stylisation; you don't." What you consider is irrelevant. We have a primary source that unambiguously says the name is i/o. We have many, many secondary sources that use the name i/o. We have fewer sources that use the name I/O. And we have zero sources that actually state the name is I/O.

You say we're in the "discuss" part of BRD, but we're not. I've provided a primary source. I've asked you to provide a source that says I'm wrong. You don't have one. That means the discussion is over. If you want to provide such a source, then we could have a discussion.

You also don't know what edit warring is. From the page: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." (emphasis mine) I made a change which was supported by an allowed primary source. You then reverted my change (you overrode my change), citing no sources that say my change was wrong. I am politely asking you to revert your change and restore the correct name. If you don't, I will make the change again. If you revert me again, that would be repeatedly overriding me, and you will be the one edit warring. RoyLeban (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not wrong about the URL. I/o (album) literally exists as a redirect to this one. It could be located there, and I've already acknowledged we can't have a lower-case first letter, but the page absolutely could be located at I/o (album). I'm not going to keep arguing about your refusal to try to get consensus via a page move since you seem entirely opposed to that idea.

We have fewer sources that use the name I/O They exist. There is nothing other than your opinion that Peter Gabriel and only Peter Gabriel is correct to state that they are wrong. Per your words, what you consider is irrelevant. There are sources that use I/O. So per WP:TMRULES, i/o is not universally used. It's funny that you keep saying "I have a primary source, where's your primary source?" when Wikipedia acknowledges the need and preference for secondary news sources that report on information per WP:PST and WP:V.

I don't need to "cite a source" to "say that your change was wrong". It was how the article was before your edit. WP:BRD is not about needing sources or who is "right" and "wrong" in regards to sources. If you revert me, that would make you the one edit warring. You don't seem to understand that the one who disregards BRD is the one edit warring, which would be you. You made a bold edit; I reverted it; we are now discussing, regardless of what you think we are doing by typing on this talk page to each other. The one who disregards that discussion (where the one who was reverted now needs consensus, which you do not have) and reinstates their edit, per WP:BRD, is edit warring. That would be you. See WP:BRR: "Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." You also don't understand that you need consensus (which you aren't getting from me, so I don't need to keep engaging with you), and you refuse to accept what BRD is, so I have asked an administrator to explain it to you. Otherwise, this is going nowhere and I'm done discussing with you. You've been here for 16 years and refuse to accept the need for consensus when editors disagree with you, and can't even understand what BRD is. Talking to you is pointless. Ss112 15:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right on the page URL I/o. I'm surprised because some time back I had tried to create a page like that and it failed. It was long enough ago that I do not recall the details. But changing the page from I/O... to I/o... doesn't really fix the problem (though it might fix the issue with the page title override not working). The only reason that I could see that the page move would be more likely to get consensus for the proper name is that it would attract more aeditors.

I've actually been a Wikipedia editor for more than two decades. I understand the need for consensus. There are five editors here, including SMcCandlish, below, 3 support the name i/o and 2 support I/O. Consensus is certainly leaning away from your opinion.

I get very frustrated when editors refuse to cite sources, or claim that none are needed because a page happens to have certain text in at the moment. Yes, you do need to cite a source. Just because something is already in an article doesn't mean that no source is needed. Stuff gets put in articles all the time for which there is no source, some of that stuff lives for a long time, and it may be questioned at any time.

To be specific, I am questioning the text "I/O (typeset as i/o)" (or the former version which used the word "stylized"). I believe this statement is not correct and that there is no source that can be found that says that the actual name is I/O and it is merely stylized or typeset as i/o. To clarify, a page that merely uses the uppercase name or states the second half of the statement is not a source for the first half of the statement.

You stated that some sources use I/O uppercase. Yup. Some sources use Ebay or EBay or EBAY, rather than the correct eBay (here's the NY Times using EBay: [4]). Here, the majority of sources use i/o lowercase. If I believe your argument that only some sources are needed to make us disrespect the owner/creator of a name, the eBay page should be Ebay, and a single page that uses XKCD uppercase would require us to refer to the site as Xkcd. How about these: [5] [6] [7]? (Yeah, they're not RS but I found them in about 15 seconds.)

It's not my opinion that Peter Gabriel gets to decide the name of his own album and song. First, it is an obvious truth. Second, a title is a fact and Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY(3) says that a primary source (Gabriel) is acceptable for a statement of fact. By definition, there is no better source than Gabriel himself. In the same way, eBay's page has that name because eBay themselves (a primary source) uses that capitalization.

You say that I don't understand BRD, you summarily dismiss what I'm saying, and now you say "Talking to you is pointless." Who doesn't understand BRD here?

I am trying to make this about facts, not opinions. Can we do that? RoyLeban (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Since reliable sources do not consistently use the special styliztion "i/o", and regularly give it as "I/O" like any other treatment of this acronym for "input/output", our practice is to follow MOS:ABBR and present it as "I/O" and not use the special stylization "i/o". See also MOS:TM: the fact that a trademark holder might prefer a lower-case stylization (e.g. "macy's") is irrelevant to Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Macy's does not prefer "macy's". See, for example, https://customerservice-macys.com/?cm_sp=navigation-_-bottom_nav-_-faqs&lid=glbbtmnav_faqs-us — Macy's logo is, roughly, macy*s, and Macy's makes no claim that their name should be all lowercase. Logos are not names. For this album, most reliable sources do use i/o, not I/O. Your phrasing "...the fact that a trademark holder might prefer a lower-case stylization..." takes your belief and pretends it is a fact. Peter Gabriel gave his album a name. Absent any evidence, you and others are deciding that he didn't really give it the name he thought he did and that he is merely styling it that way. This is ridiculous. RoyLeban (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been asked for my two cents so here goes nothing. I was going to reply to Ss112's message on my talk page, but it would make more sense to post what I wrote here. I'm not going to edit it further because I'm allowing myself to be lazy, so it might not read entirely right for this discussion, but my point is still clear.

Personally, I suppose I'm neutral on the matter. If I remember right, I moved the page when the album had just been announced and it wasn't clear how music pubs would handle the capitalization, but now it seems they're fairly consistent about following the all lowercase style. My understanding, as we discussed above regarding 100 gecs, is that when the sources follow an artist's lead in stylization, our article should reflect that as well regardless of what our standards say otherwise. Unless there is some technical issue preventing it (I saw some ranting in there about such an issue, though I suspect that's just someone who doesn't know about {{lowercase title}}), then I don't see why not.

QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I do know about lowercase title, but it doesn't work, apparently because of the I/ directory. However, it might be that moving the page to I/o... from I/O... would allow it to work. It's not always clear how magic things like lowercase title work, and this is one of those cases.

And, yes, music publications and others are fairly consistent on using i/o instead of I/O, and 100% consistency in sources is not required. If it was, we would use Ebay, Xkcd, and MacOS (or Macos), not eBay, xkcd, and macOS (etc.). RoyLeban (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Lowercase title just modifies page display so that pages which are internally stored with the standard initial capital letter will instead render with that letter lowercase. If the page is moved to "I/o" and that template is applied, readers will see "i/o". It does exactly what you want in this situation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this: There are many instances of albums and songs that use all types of stylisation tricks but we never act on them, no matter how many publications or articles refer to the work in its stylised manner. As someone who frequently faces stylisation issues with the creation of music releated articles, I for one suggest we stick to the current title per our common guidelines MOS:ABBR and MOS:CAPS. However, I'm not so much hung up on the topic that I would strongly oppose a change to the lowercase variant in any case because that is how most (not all) publications have been talking about the album thus far. As we are slowly closing in on the release date, we will find out what variant naturally circulates and prevails. However, sources that specifically use I/O should definitely be taken into thorough consideration. Lk95 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that most of the songs have already been released and Peter Gabriel is in the midst of the concert tour, I think we already know how the press will treat it. The majority use lowercase. I saw him in Seattle and even bought an overpriced shirt with "i/o" on the back, and that's how I ended up on this page and noticed the incorrect casing.

That said, I would be ok with waiting to change this until after the release of the album, say December 7-10. I don't expect either Gabriel or the press to suddenly switch to I/O, but it's possible we could all get surprised. If the decision is to wait until then, I suggest that we put a note at the top of this talk page to that effect. RoyLeban (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong linking in Wikidata

In Wikidata the redirect I/O (Peter Gabriel album) is linked to all other language versions of the article I/O (album). How can I change it? Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've merged both objects in Wikidata! Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bandcamp bonus mixes

I don't see any mention of the extra mixes given to subscribers of PG's Bandcamp page. Or is that not relevant information? 2601:246:5F81:8B60:9DF3:4E67:3562:A1E4 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Bandcamp album of the day

Nice review, could be quoted in the article. https://daily.bandcamp.com/album-of-the-day/peter-gabriel-i-o-review Jules TH 16 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)