Wikiwand AI

Talk:Tropical Storm Nadine (2024)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Impact

I believe that we should start on the impact section once publishers state what happened as it already made landfall. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That will undoubtedly happen (Sunday morning) once wind and rain impact reports are published by the media. Drdpw (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I mean... Do you want to start on it? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing to start yet; be patient. Drdpw (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a tendency to rush things as I get overexcited. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Under review!

I think that it’s sufficient enough to be an article right now. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty; I have to concur with @LemonJuiceIsSour. This certainly seems to be notable enough in my opinion; although whether or not it gets accepted by AfC I don’t know; there might still need to be some cleanup. But five people died; it made landfall with likely at least some damage. It would be notable enough by my books. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
yay you agreed with me :)
Yes, it’s true that it needs some cleanup, but, overall, I think it’s good enough to be an article currently. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Which; that said @LemonJuiceIsSour, I’m not an AFC reviewer; so I of course can’t accept it, and I can’t say for sure that it’ll be accepted. I am going to ping @Hurricanehink into this conversation though. Just to get a second opinion on whether or not it is notable enough. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Well… the second opinion is kinda a moot point now. The AFC was accepted. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I took too long! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Update – Sir MemeGod declined the draft on Kristy. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
but he told me advice. I have one more try, until it’s over. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge Kristy and Nadine

Consensus is to keep Nadine and Kristy separate. (non-admin closure) INeedSupport :3 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kristy and Nadine are closely related tropical cyclones and neither would have an article too large as Kristy is a fish storm while Nadine was a weak tropical storm. However, they do bring their own information to the table: Nadine gives Kristy a history while Kristy would expand meteorological history. (Pinging @Drdpw, @Jasper Deng, and @JayTee32 due to involvement on discussion at the wikiproject) ✶Quxyz✶ 01:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would still prefer that Kristy gets its own article as readers are unlikely to be interested in both at once.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support, as you can't tell the story of either storm without the other. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes you can, there are plenty of systems like Kristy and Nadine that don't share the same article even when one's remnants led to the formation of the other, and that's the only connection they share with each other unlike systems like Amanda and Cristobal, for example, that shared other aspects as well like region impacted and damages caused. ABC paulista (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Slight Oppose, I'd prefer that each system to be contained in their own spaces, but I don't mind much about the merging as long as we make it clear that they aren't officially considered to be the same system. ABC paulista (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, Kristy is not going to have an impact on land so it’s unnecessary to include it with Nadine even if they have a shared meteorological history. I think we just need to leave Nadine and Kristy separately.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - MarioProtIV lays it out perfectly, these are 2 separate storms so there should be 2 separate articles. If the system was considered the same storm the NHC would've continued to call it Nadine. 2600:1702:3EA0:D570:5073:CDBF:AB09:2CFE (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - While Kristy did form mainly from the remnants of Nadine, they are both completely different when you exclude the fact the Kristy formed off the remnants of Nadine. Take Hurricane Jova (2023) as an example. while It did almost no damage, it was a category 5 and that’s why it has a page. A category 5 like Kristy should have its own article. A short lived Atlantic tropical storm that impacted Belize should not be merged with the safe article as an eastern pacific category 5. Kristy and Nadine should be 2 different articles, however, another option is to have 2 separate articles for the storms, but have a third article which talks about both storms. JAFactsDude (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding this on the project page: WT:WPTC#Does being a Category 5 Pacific hurricane establish notability?. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral - These are two different types of storms, even though Nadine became Kristy - Nadine affected Central America and Belize as a weak tropical storm, but Kristy has peaked as a Category 5 and is not expected to affect any land.

However, they are the same storm technically… AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to Support after reading the discussion desc — merging the two in one could make the article bigger and more interesting.
AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
They aren't considered the same system since by NHC since they stated that Nadine's LLC dissipated over land prior to its crossing, and on a later outlook the stated that the low that became Kristy is partially related to Nadine's remnants. Both indicate indirect connections, not direct ones. ABC paulista (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
This point exactly. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – Numerous media reports directly connect the remnants of Nadine with the formation of Kristy; official season summaries and TCRs likely will as well, I'm sure. A combined Nadine–Kristy article would have notability, and a depth that the Nadine article lacks due to its small-scale infrastructure impact, and a separate Kristy article would lack due to it being a Category 5 fish storm without any records or land affects. Drdpw (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    I seriously doubt it. They don't consider official crossovers in systems which the low-level circulation dissipated during the crossing, and since they stated that Nadine's dissipated before redeveloping into Kristy, unless they state that the surface circulation actually survived crossing into the Pacific, they'll most likely be treated as distinct systems and their BT points will be disconnected from each other, like the disconnection that happened between Amanda and Cristobal's lives during operational and best track datas. ABC paulista (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – This is a vastly different situation then Amanda/Cristobal. Each are notable to their own and do not need to be mindlessly combined into one article. Amanda/Cristobal was because land impacts were too close together to distinctly seperate them enough. Here, Nadine and Kristy are two different sides of the same coin. If this thought process is what is being used, then we should merge every Atlantic to Pacific regeneration storm because of this. Cat 5 fishspinners particularly in the EPac can have all their content fit nicely within the season page itself. Also, as a note, the NHC did not even mention Nadine in their first advisory for Kristy, and even k the days leading up it was said a TC could form in parts due to Nadine’s remnants, not directly from the MLC. The BT have 2 TD points at the start is likely not correct either and someone probably left it in. Either way, from what we can gather, the explicit connection between the two has not been made official yet by a NHC TCR. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If the TCR mentioned the connection, would you change to support? ✶Quxyz✶ 12:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as per MarioProtIV's reasons. Unless the TCR explicitly makes the connection between the two, they should be considered as two separate systems. If we use the original argument, wouldn't that also make the case for 11E and Milton to be merged (albeit a weak one), as 11E also gave it some history? Regards, 👦 06:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, two different tropical cyclones even if they are connected, and because I think Kristy shouldn't have its own article - at least while its notability remains indeterminate. JavaHurricane 07:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support they are the same system. 66.206.125.66 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your words, They are not the same system. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Creator of both articles (whatever) I think that they should be merged overall - --LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Put Support then if you agree with the idea. Insendieum ✉️ 13:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Support, I agree with Hurricanehink here 🍋 🍋(talk!) 13:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@LemonJuiceIsSour, for future reference, you are only supposed to !vote once. If you change your !vote, strikethrough earlier !vote(s). Drdpw (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
oop then I won’t vote then until I figure this out so 🍋 🍋(talk!) 15:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@LemonJuiceIsSour: to strike out: do <s>text that you want crossed out goes here</s>. Simple? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
ok thx so much :) 🍋 🍋(talk!) 17:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose in absence of reliable sources explicitly confirming Kristy was a direct regeneration of Nadine. As pointed out above, NHC explicitly said Nadine's low-level circulation center dissipated over land (when the requirement for an Atl/EPac crossover is the LLCC surviving), and they indicated the low-pressure area that became Kristy was only partially related to Nadine's remnants. In NHC's last discussion on Nadine, they said they expected pre-Kristy to be a "new low pressure system" formed from "the combination of the remnants of Nadine and influences from a Gulf of Tehuantepec gap wind event"; there was also no mention of Nadine in NHC's first discussion on Kristy. This is enough evidence that NHC considers Kristy and Nadine to be separate systems, and on this encyclopedia we defer to what our reliable sources say. A sentence in this article like "Nadine's remnants later contributed to the formation of Category 5 Hurricane Kristy in the Northeastern Pacific" would suffice (no matter whether Kristy has its own article or not). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Neutral – They have had two separate names and are considered two separate storms, so I ain’t going to explicitly support this. But; I’ll go along if everyone else really wants it merged. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above. It seems that the NHC has said that Kristy is only partially related to Nadine's remnants, and Kristy isn't going to affect land anyway. Shmego (talk) (contribs)
  • Oppose – In addition to what has been mentioned above, from the perspective of a disinterested general reader only interested in Tropical Storm Nadine's impacts, there would be a lot of extra prose not directly relevant to the subject matter. Furthermore, combining the storms into one article may give the impression that Nadine became a Category 5 hurricane, when this was only the case with Hurricane Kristy. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We already have precedent for this (albeit in reverse): Tropical Storm Jova helped form Hurricane Franklin. The latter has an article, the former just a section in the overall season article. At most, I'd potentially support a hatnote in the relevant section on Hurricane Kristy estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Just for the record, wasn't that the other way around though? Like Nadine this year (before Kristy), it was Franklin that formed first before Jova? Vida0007 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yeah no, this is not necessary at all. Nadine is the only storm here that needs an article to be honest, and adding Kristy to that would just make the page longer for no reason. If you want to merge these too, merge Grace and Marty 2021, Nana and Julio 2020. Sria-72 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    that’s an OSE argument, I think. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    “If that is happening, then do that to these as well” kind of thing. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ABC paulista et al. Two different systems. Merging would be unnecessary and slightly misleading for readers. CycloneYoris talk! 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 25 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus on merge discussion is to keep Nadine and Kristy separate. Should another discussion about it arise and consensus is to merge them, then option 2 will be selected. (non-admin closure) INeedSupport :3 17:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nadine (2024) → ? – See the talk page for the context of this request and rationale. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What should the title of the merged article be called?

  1. Hurricane Kristy and Tropical Storm Nadine
  2. Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy
  3. Hurricane Nadine-Kristy
  4. Tropical Cyclones Nadine and Kristy

✶Quxyz✶ 01:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Option 2 - "Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Also Option 2 Drdpw (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 as names like these should always go in chronological order. Option 1 doesn't follow the rule, Option 3 only applies to crossovers that were renamed when they entered a different basin (e.g. Hurricane Joan–Miriam), and Option 4 is only used for tropical cyclones that did not originate from the same system (e.g. Cyclones Judy and Kevin). ZZZ'S 03:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, per above. ABC paulista (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 just like above as Nadine formed before Kristy Crominance (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 – This makes more sense generally and there's 100% consensus on the 2nd option. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, per above Shmego2 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 if the 2 articles become merged TyphoonSeason2024 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Second option — Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy (like with Amanda and Cristobal)

AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Second option looks to be the best, as it was Nadine that formed first. Vida0007 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Second option as I really want to avoid another Amanda/Cristobal type of debate JayTee⛈️ 04:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If it is merged; option 2 – per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 – per WP:CRITERIA and especially WP:CONSISTENT (cf. Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal). Option 1 would break the consistency with the cited article title. Option 3 fails WP:PRECISION because it does not unambiguously define Nadine and Kristy to be two separate systems. Finally, Option 4 fails WP:NATURALNESS because tropical cyclones like Nadine and Kristy are more frequently called tropical storms or hurricanes. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
(Procedurally) oppose any move - I think it's very bad practice to open an RM on the condition of a certain result from a separate discussion, especially when that discussion seems to be leaning away from the certain result the RM is conditional on. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Amanda and Cristobal of 2020 have their own page, so I don't see why Nadine and Kristy couldn't as well Accordthemusician (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Query regarding title renaming

If a consensus emerges to merge Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy's articles, should a move request be opened to further determine an appropriate article title? If so, I would be happy to initiate one. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I belove the above discussion functions as a move request. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I have opened a formal move request. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Most of the people oppose the merging of articles in the discussion above (which I agree with), I don't think a move request is necessary. 2001:480:200:3:65A3:E1B3:ED0E:5B8B (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator: FrizzB (talk · contribs) 15:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Nadine (2024)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)


Since I have a GAN of my own, I figured I should review.

Lead
  • "The fourteenth named storm of the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season" - source? I suggest adding a source in the met history, something like, "making it the 14th named storm of the season".
  • "Nadine originated from a non-tropical disturbance over the western Caribbean Sea" - source? The met history just says it formed from a low pressure area, not that it was non-tropical.
  • "and underwent tropical cyclogenesis on the same day. " - you never said what day this was.
  • "After developing a closed circulation, the system was named Nadine by the National Hurricane Center on October 19. " - that's not quite what the TCR says, which says that it became a tropical storm after "increased signs of organization, and satellite-derived wind data that evening revealed that a well-defined area of low pressure had formed with 30–35-kt winds to the north of the center."
  • You have three sentences in a row starting with "After". Could you change one?
  • The impact portion of the lead is pretty short. Could you expand it any further?
Met history
  • "The system remained broad and weak while producing disorganized showers and thunderstorms over the next couple of days as it moved slowly northwestward, passing offshore of the east coast of Nicaragua. " - this is a long sentence that could be written better.
  • "Consequently, the system was designated Potential Tropical Cyclone Fifteen on that afternoon.[2] This marked the formation of Tropical Storm Nadine by 00:00 UTC on October 19, about 185 mi (295 km) east of Belize City, Belize." - this part is unclear. It was designated PTC 15, but that marked the formation of a tropical storm?
  • "Nadine moved westward while being steered by a low pressure area and by a ridge over the eastern United States" - where does it mention the "steered by a low pressure area" part in the source?
  • The minimum pressure should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
  • - this discussion mentions Nadine developing rainbands. You're short on met details, so stuff like this is helpful.
  • "After landfall, Nadine moved westward across northern portions of Belize and Guatemala and weakened to a tropical depression by 00:00 UTC on October 20, when it was located about 30 mi (45 km) north-northwest of Flores, Guatemala." - another long sentence that could be rewritten.
  • "As a result, Nadine degenerated to a remnant low and dissipated over southern Mexico later that day. However, remnant moisture from Nadine moved into the eastern Pacific basin later that day" - avoid the two "later that day" instances.
Preps/Impact
  • "On the afternoon of October 18, tropical storm watches were issued from Belize City north to the Belize–Mexico border and was upgraded to a tropical storm warning the next day." - grammar. "watches were issued... was upgraded"
  • "After making landfall near Belize City, Nadine produced rainfall totals of up to 8 in (200 mm) in some areas." - this contradicts the table on the right, which says 9.47 inches of rain fell in Belize.
    • You changed the number but didn't fix the ref. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "In Corozal District, the Hondo River was expected to flood several areas after its water levels also rose, in which a flood warning was in effect for multiple towns along it." - the "was expected" part isn't useful more than a year after the storm. Did the water levels rise here?
    • The grammar is worse here now, can you go back and check this part again? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "Despite flooding, no significant damage was reported in Belize." - you shouldn't indicate when things don't happen. Focus instead on what the storm actually did. And in this instance, I feel like the Belize damage is on the short side. You're missing info from the TCR.
    • You added - " total of Mex$11 million (US$546,000) was spent to repair the damage caused by the storm." - but where does the TCR say this? By the missing info from the TCR, I was referring to the erosion. Also, the San Ignacio bridge wasn't just impassable, it was destroyed. Were you able to find any more Belize info? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Why do you start the Mexican impact section with Veracruz, when Quintana Roo was the first area affected? Here's more Belize info.
  • You should probably mention earlier in Mexico's impact section about Nadine's interaction with the front, so it isn't so much of an afterthought.
    • The cold front is still mentioned as an afterthought. Maybe mention it in the met history, or earlier in the impact section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "The town of Zongolica was hit with major flooding, with filters having reached 90% of their capacity as the storm passed over." - filters?
  • "Overall, 32 communities were impacted" - what does it mean for a community to be impacted? And similar for - "livestock and oil refineries were among the most affected in those areas"
  • "There were also two fatalities" - in Veracruz? The TCR has more than two.
    • Can you have a Mexico summary paragraph? Right now, the deaths feel like an afterthought, appearing at the end of both paragraphs. The infobox is the only place that says there were 13 deaths, and nowhere in the article does it say they were all in Mexico. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The third Mexico impact paragraph is messy, going back and forth between different states.
  • "In Quintana Roo, about 260.8 mm (10.27 in) of rain was recorded" - where?
    • You changed it to "up to 260.8 mm (10.27 in) of rainfall was recorded" - this is worse because it doesn't even definitely say that 260.8 mm of rainfall was recorded, just "up to". And you still didn't say where it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "Heavy rains and a stream's overflow damaged 15 houses and caused flooding and landslides in Tacotalpa, Tabasco." - clunky wording
    • "landslides hat damaged 15 houses" - you added a new typo here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "In Barrio Bravo, a home was damaged due to a falling tree, with authorities determining that there were only minor injuries." - why is the "authorities determining" relevant here? Either there were injuries or not.
  • "Up to 19.7 inches (500 mm) of rain were reported in some areas" - up to? Or was 19.7 inches of rainfall reported?
    • Again, this hasn't been addressed. Saying "up to" means that it could've been lower than the total. It's different than saying "19.7 in of rain was reported." I also noticed that it has inches first, but other parts of the article have metric units first. Make sure you're consistent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Not done (regarding the metric units). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • " Three deaths were reported in Chiapas as a result of the storm. " - again, TCR says four
    • You could mention the fourth death from the TCR, it lists it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • "Northern Honduras" - why is "northern" capitalized?

The article has some issues. So let me know if you have any questions, GiftedIceCream (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@HurricanehinkDone all GiftedIceCream 14:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
@GiftedIceCream: still a few problems left. I left follow-up comments that still need fixing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink Done these GiftedIceCream 19:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
@GiftedIceCream: you didn't fix the unit issues. Sorry to be picky, but that's an accessibility requirement, making sure all units are consistent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink done. GiftedIceCream 19:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Passing, looks good! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks