Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
[edit]| Which of the following should be Liam Payne's infobox photo? Please rank in order of preference: --- 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Encounters version A Encounters version B Expulsions version A Expulsions version B EA version A EA version B Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Universal basic income by country
| Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party.[1]" - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography
[edit]Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
| Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion
Should the following sentence be added to the lede?
04:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Should the text in bold below be kept in the introduction?
and
This has been discussed above at Talk:Modern Hebrew#WP:OR in lede. إيان (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the lead section of 1948 Arab-Israeli War mention the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world? Andre🚐 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
| Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge
| Should the content in this article [1] that details the murder of Giulio Regeni be truncated to a single sentence summary with a wikilink to the main article (Murder of Giulio Regeni)? Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? Herostratus (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Comments would be appreciated to achieve an accurate and supportable consensus regarding references to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut - an unincorporated village which is sometimes referred to as Storrs. The community is notably home to the main campus of the University of Connecticut, and, naturally reflects cultural differences both as a New England fixture but also due to some misplaced or incorrect historical usage.
The request would be to alter the lead section of the article to read as follows:
Several points of discussion, including the preference and differences between census-designated place boundaries and postal town boundaries are included on the article talk page. It is not appropriate to immediately dismiss the need for a new consensus, due to the substantial official and community usage of both names. Thank you, Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:
Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is) Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening) Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening) Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.) Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Should the text in bold below be kept in the introduction?
and
This has been discussed above at Talk:Modern Hebrew#WP:OR in lede. إيان (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following should be Liam Payne's infobox photo? Please rank in order of preference: --- 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Based on the discussion above, should the band be counted as 'active' in the infobox when the digital avatars begin performances, or should they not to avoid confusion with readers? HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
| In light of the recent rebranding, there’s been a lot of back and forth about whether X (social network) and Twitter are different media services. We’ve seen many discussions on this topic, but there’s still no clear consensus on how to move forward.
The closer of a recent RM noted this: |
| Should the article contain the flag-reenactment and Japanese reaction sections added in this and this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
| Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The Lede currently describes socdem as an ideology within socialism. 5 sources are cited for this sentence clause. Three book sources from 1999, 2005, and 2007 respectively, and two online sources from 2018 and 2019 respectively. Only 2 of them are accessible, the two online sources. Neither of the two online sources (this and this) make the claim that Social democracy is a movement within Socialism.
The question for the RFC is: should the lede describe the ideology as Socialist? There will be 6 options; please write the option you support along with your reasoning in the survey section, and then discuss in the discussion section. Also please write the extent to which you support the other proposals. Please don't reply to others in the survey section. Please don't just write an option without any reasoning for it. Option 1: It should should describe it as 'a Liberal poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 2: It should should omit the 'is a movement within' part in favour of the lede sentence, instead describing it as 'a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 3: It should describe it as a socialist political ideology, as it does now [status quo]. Option 4: It should should describe it as 'a democratic poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 5: It should should describe it as 'a capitalist poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 6: Other, it should [insert thing]. Option 7: Comment. |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Encounters version A Encounters version B Expulsions version A Expulsions version B EA version A EA version B Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The maps of time zones in Wikipedia (SVG, PNG) show the time actually observed in each area, de facto, regardless of legality. For example, the maps show certain parts of Australia, Canada and the United States in the time that they actually observe even though it's different from what the law specifies there. Similarly, the maps show the occupied regions of Ukraine and the separatist regions of Georgia in UTC+3, which is the time enforced by the Russian or separatist authorities there. Previous discussions about this topic resulted in keeping the map de facto, including the occupied or separatist regions in UTC+3, but many users continue to complain about it, so I'm restarting the discussion here. How should the maps show the time zones of the occupied regions of Ukraine and separatist regions of Georgia? You may answer differently for each region.
Please note that the maps still show these regions as part of Ukraine and Georgia, with the international borders as generally recognized. The question here is only regarding the time zones. For reference, the IANA time zone database includes Crimea in UTC+3, but it doesn't mention the other occupied regions of Ukraine or the separatist regions of Georgia. Heitordp (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Jordan a constitutional monarchy or semi-constitutional monarchy? See discussions above and in other sections. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the lead of the article, the infobox of the article, or both? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:
Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is) Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening) Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening) Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.) Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Universal basic income by country
| Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party.[1]" - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the party be described in the lead as centrist or conservative? JSwift49 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the subject in the article (the Islamic Action Front) be classified as Right-wing or Far-right? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Request for Comment: Does the section on Josephology give undue weight to this article?
I am seeking community input regarding the current description of the Josephology in this "Catholic theology" article. I believe that Josephology is central to Catholic theology as major doctrinal topics like Christology, Triadology, or Mariology, which are more widely recognized as pillars of Catholic theology. I propose that the description of Josephology should be there to ensure that the article maintains a balanced and proportionate representation of Catholic theology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Encounters version A Encounters version B Expulsions version A Expulsions version B EA version A EA version B Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada
| Should all team nicknames be listed, instead of just the most recent?
The article states "For brevity, only the most recent names for teams that have had multiple nicknames in their current media market are listed." While "New Jersey Nets" and "Washington Bullets" are listed, although they have stayed in the same media market respectively, "San Francisco Warriors" is not listed as a previous name for the Golden State Warriors, who have also stayed in the same media market. So, for the sake of completeness, should all of a team's previous names be listed? One drawback to this option would be the number of names that would have to be listed for some teams. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers had multiple names during their early years, including a couple during WWII when their players combined with another team's. Alielmi1207 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Hazaras people be included in this template, a navbox? This RfC was malformatted, so I'm assuming this is what @Joseph—the guy who opened this RfC—meant to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Encounters version A Encounters version B Expulsions version A Expulsions version B EA version A EA version B Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
| Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
There are two common ways to link to a place name with an "A, B, C" format where the article is titled [[A, B]]. Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to "link only the first unit".
Which style(s) is/are acceptable? If both, is one preferable to the other? Note: See previous discussion above and above. This is not a question about whether "New York" should be linked to New York (state) in this example; basically everyone agrees that it should not be. 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:
|
Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly
WP:PANDORA has become a hotpoint of contention in RfD. Should it be removed, or rewritten? If it should be rewritten, what changes should be made, and what can be salvaged?
|
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
| WP:TPO details several instances of comments that are appropriate to remove from talk pages, such as vandalism, spam, gibberish, and test edits. Does this apply to archived talk pages as well? I will post a more detailed statement and further context in the replies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?
Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [2] and [3]). Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject. Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. You may also propose your own amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Should the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Should the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?
Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [4] and [5]). Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject. Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. You may also propose your own amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
Unsorted
[edit]
User names
[edit]
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
[edit]Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
Willow and nacho
[edit]
- ^ a b "Policies - Sustainable Australia Party". sustainableaustralia.org.au. Sustainable Australia Party. Retrieved 23 March 2024.