Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers

Why this matters (policy-based rationale)

• Wikipedia’s sourcing standard (WP:RS) is that "each source must be credible for the specific claim it supports" and that "context matters". If a commonly used source (e.g., CTBUH) is incomplete for certain regions, editors (and readers) need other reliable options for verifiable coverage.
• Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) requires representing knowledge "fairly and without editorial bias". Over-reliance on a single dataset that systematically underrepresents some regions risks structural bias in what we choose to document and maintain.

CTBUH is highly reliable, but not exhaustive

CTBUH / Skyscraper Center is widely regarded as a definitive reference for tall building criteria and rankings, with formal standards for defining and measuring tall buildings.

However, no single database – CTBUH included – can practically claim comprehensive, up-to-date coverage for every high-rise building across every city worldwide at all times. This is particularly noticeable when working on regions where fewer buildings are included or maintained in any one global dataset.

What I’m asking the community

Would the community consider adding one or more additional databases/forums as acceptable supplementary sources (in addition to CTBUH) for skyscraper facts, provided they meet WP:RS expectations for "editorial oversight" and transparency?

Below are candidates. For each, I’m including a short summary of its reliability + coverage, and asking whether editors would consider it a Reliable Source for basic building statistics (height/floors/year), especially where CTBUH is missing entries.

Supplementary source candidates (for evaluation)

1. SKYDB – The World of Tall Buildings (https://www.skydb.net/about-skydb/) An editorial/community-managed global database claiming 200,000+ tall buildings across 10,000+ cities, designed for structured technical data. Reliable measurements but drastically poor global coverage.

2. SkyscraperPage (database + diagrams) (https://skyscraperpage.com/) A long-running community-curated buildings database with explicit database statistics and strong cross-checking via its diagram/database culture, with the best global coverage among these options (significantly greater coverage than CTBUH). SkyscraperPage is already used as a RS citation and an alternative to CTBUH across many high-quality pages such as List of Tallest Buildings in New York City. Moreover, SkyscraperPage is also listed as one of the resources in WP:SKY.

3. SkyscraperCity (forum) (link blocked) A peer-vetted forum with volunteer moderation and extensive on-the-ground construction updates worldwide. However, since it is a forum (and not a database), it may be best treated as context/supporting evidence unless corroborated by more formal publications such as CTBUH or SkyscraperPage.

4. ScraperBase (https://www.scraperbase.com/) A niche database with reliable measurements but poor global coverage.

If desired, additional candidates can be proposed, but I’m intentionally keeping this list small and focused.

Suggested guardrails (to remain compliant with WP:RS)

If any of the above are accepted, a conservative approach could be:

• Use CTBUH / Skyscraper Center as the preferred source where available (given its standards/criteria).
• Allow supplementary database(s) only for non-controversial, routine facts (height/floors/completion) and only when the database has clear consistency and/or editorial controls (WP:RS).
• Avoid using forum posts as the sole citation for key facts unless they point to strong primary documents or reputable secondary reporting (WP:RS context matters).
• Where sources conflict, attribute and/or prioritize the most authoritative standard-setting body, while documenting regional coverage limitations neutrally (WP:NPOV / due weight).

Questions for the community

1. Which (if any) of the above would you consider a Reliable Source for basic skyscraper stats on Wikipedia, and particularly for the List of cities with the most skyscrapers?
2. Are there other sources with demonstrably strong editorial oversight that we should evaluate at WP:RSN?

My goal is not to “replace CTBUH,” but to ensure Wikipedia remains globally fair, verifiable, and representative when CTBUH coverage is incomplete. Thank you for your time reading this proposal. Sawarijoshi (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagging @A455bcd9, @Ahahahaa, @LivinAWestLife, @Joy goel for attention to this discussion to share their views, especially since they have been involved with similar discussions on other pages or closely work with underrepresented regions. Please feel free to invite other relevant contributors to this discussion. Sawarijoshi (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Forums and other user-generated sources cannot be used per WP:SELFPUB.

2. For a ranking such as List of cities with the most skyscrapers you cannot use a patchwork of different RS, that would be OR.

3. In any case, you cannot use another article as a source. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, @A455bcd9.

1. Fair point. I agree with you. In the spirit of full disclosure, I did explicitly label forums in the list of alternatives above. Still chose to include them to hear more holistic arguments from others, like the one you just made.

2. Could you please share the specific policy which states that referencing multiple reliable sources within a single article/list is considered OR? I see plenty of reputed articles doing so with varying methodologies. Here are a few examples:

List of countries and dependencies by population – there’s even a separate “method” section which explains why it’s necessary to use multiple sources. “…because the compiled figures are not collected at the same time in every country, or at the same level of accuracy.” This reasoning applies perfectly to the cities with skyscrapers as well. There is no single source which accurately complies figures for every country at the same level of accuracy.

List of languages by total number of speakers – publishes two separate lists based of two different reliable sources.

List of cities by number of billionaires – Publishes two separate lists based on two different reliable sources.

List of largest cities – uses a different source for nearly every single entry in the list. By your logic, this would be the epitome of OR.

List of the verified oldest people – references an established authority on this subject for most entries but also uses alternative reliable source as supplementary references in scenarios where data is missing in the established authority. Sounds exactly like what I have proposed above, i.e., use CTBUH as the default source but supplement it with alternative reliable sources for cities where CTBUH data is severely outdated.

These are just a few examples I found in a couple of minutes without even looking too hard. I am sure there are thousands of such (high-quality) lists which do use multiple sources. Therefore, I do not believe this is OR.

3. Irrelevant to the discussion. Request you to please stay on topic. I have not made any such mention above of using another article as a source. It’s a very slippery slope. This discussion can turn unproductive very quickly – would hate to see that happen. Sawarijoshi (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

2. OK to publish different lists from different sources (e.g. languages or billionaires). Not OK to mix sources in a single list when there isn't a source of truth (as for population). Oldest people effectively uses GRG as a single source: https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/supercentenarians/

3. Relevant given that it is the cause of the current discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Exactly my point, Antoine @A455bcd9. For List of cities with the most skyscrapers, there is no single universal “source of truth”, just like how you agree that there isn’t a “source of truth” for List of countries by population. It’s the same for List of largest cities – multiple sources. And no, List of oldest people does not use GRG in isolation – it clearly mentions the use of “press coverage as a supplementary source”. Sawarijoshi (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A. You didn't understand: there is a single source of truth for the population of a city, and that's why sources can be mixed. Also, the number of cities or countries is fixed and you can go through and check their population and recreate the list yourself (WP:V). You cannot do that for skyscrapers in a city (would be WP:OR).

B. Old people: Check in practice they use GRG. The link I sent has them all. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, I don’t understand why you keep stating falsehoods to deflect the conversation.

1. Firstly, the number of cities listed in List of largest cities is not fixed. The criteria for inclusion in the list is “5 million population or higher”. In just the past few months, two new cities have been added to the list. In comparison, the List of cities with the most skyscrapers is much more dynamic and new cities will be added way more frequently, given the pace of construction. So, not only is the premise of your argument (that the cities are fixed) factually incorrect, it isn’t even supportive of your stance! In both the cases (population and skyscraper count), there is no single reliable source and, therefore, they use multiple sources!
2. Secondly, “go through and check the population and recreate the list yourself” sounds a lot like what you were labelling OR earlier (quote: “cannot use a patchwork of different RS, that would be OR”). So, when the use of multiple sources is done in the List of largest cities, it is WP:V. But when the same thing (multiple sources) is proposed for the List of cities with the most skyscrapers, it is WP:OR all of a sudden? Please make up your mind because it can’t be both. Let’s please apply the same standards consistently.
3. Lastly, contrary to your claim that “in practice they use GRG”, the List of oldest people does indeed use supplementary sources. Within the top 30 men itself, there are at least 6 people with citations of LongeviQuest, Guinness World Records, etc. and no citation of GRG. And there are many more which use news citations as supplementary references in addition to GRG. This is just from the top 30 I checked. I’m sure you’ll find plenty more if you read through the rest of the list.

The fact remains that the use of multiple reliable sources is common practice (and a necessary one) across Wikipedia and, in my view, does not constitute OR.

To anchor this conversation back to the original discussion, I will reiterate the crux of my argument – there is no single source which accurately compiles skyscraper data for every country at the same level of accuracy. And in the absence of such a singular source, it is imperative that we use supplementary (reliable) sources to provide an unbiased and complete list to our readers – just like all of the above reputed pages do.

Side note: What can we do to get more participation in this discussion? I really want to hear from more people. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I meant the number of cities in the world is fixed 🤦‍♂️

2. It's not the same thing. If each city in the world had an official page "How many skyscrapers we have" using the same definition then yes that would solve the problem.

3. Please read again what I wrote: the names on that page are also on GRG.

To get more participation you have to do what I've already told you: start an WP:RFC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just like the List of cities with most skyscrapers, the List of largest cities also has a very clear inclusion criteria. So I don’t see how the total # of cities in the world is relevant here. And no, even that number isn’t fixed! New cities are built all the time.

Anyway, can we please go back to the original discussion now? There is no single reliable source of skyscraper data for all regions of the world.

CTBUH is a reliable source for regions like North America but is not a reliable source for regions like India. Using CTBUH as the single source of data for the entire world in List of cities with the most skyscrapers is a clear violation of WP:RSCONTEXT. For cities like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Baghdad, etc., where the CTBUH database is outdated by several years, this is also a violation of WP:AGE MATTERS. Sawarijoshi (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

SKYDB? Wobbanight (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as a drive-by comment, have we considered making a master list of reliable sources specific to skyscrapers? We could discuss reliable sources here and create subsections to discuss individual sources (e.g. CTBUH, SKYDB), similar to this discussion for the amusement parks wikiproject a few years ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Love it. Thank you for the suggestion. I’ll wait to hear from a few more people and then perhaps start a similar discussion for a master list of reliable sources for skyscrapers here. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Btw stop using CTBUH as it's now called CVU. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Doesn’t make it any more universally reliable though. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Sawarijoshi (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

No but it makes you appear less reliable if you cannot use the correct name. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

def Wobbanight (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, why not actually address the arguments above rather than taking potshots at individuals? Nobody here is confused between CTBUH and CVU. Sawarijoshi (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You write too much (cf. WP:TEXTWALL). Which arguments have I not answered already? The main point is WP:SELFPUB. According to you: SKYDB is "editorial/community-managed" (their website says "SKYDB is made possible by a thriving community of experts, a few hundred individuals of which some have been collecting and publishing information about tall buildings on the Internet since decades."), SkyscraperPage is "community-curated" (their website says "SkyscraperPage is a member of the Council on Vertical Urbanism (former Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat)."), and SkyscraperCity is "peer-vetted forum with volunteer moderation" (and blocked here!). ScraperBase just seems to be a personal project of Mathias Beinling. So unless proven otherwise, they're all non-RS per WP:SELFPUB. Ciao. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Response to "SKYDB is made possible by a thriving community of experts a few hundred individuals of which some have been collecting and publishing information about tall buildings on the Internet since decades.".

Well, the CTBUH ("CVU") database is managed by a community of less than 5 people. So I don't see how your point is relevant. Sawarijoshi (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

We look at how other RS judge one source: Council on Vertical Urbanism says the CVU "is widely considered to be an authority on the official height of tall buildings". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't know why people think it's the "best" source, it lacks info on so many cities, and gets a bunch of heights wrong as well. Wobbanight (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"best" does not mean "good". Which other comprehensive global source is better than CVU? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, there is no better overall compilation than CVU – I have been repeatedly saying this all along (including in my original post)! Nobody here is trying to replace CVU with a “better” source. But you need to acknowledge that CVU has huge gaps. The goal here is to provide our readers with an unbiased and complete picture, and the only way to do that is to refer to multiple reliable sources. Sawarijoshi (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Response to "SkyscraperPage is "community-curated" (their website says "SkyscraperPage is a member of the Council on Vertical Urbanism (former Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat).")"

^ So? What's your point?

Depending on how you scope the definition of "self", literally everything could be labelled WP:SELFPUB. As I already mentioned earlier, there are several dozen buildings in the CVU database which were nominated by me (and verified and approved by a person within CVU with whom I've been working for the past 2 years). Therefore, by your logic, CVU is also SELFPUB and, therefore, should not be RS. In case you're unaware, CVU does not proactively update its database for many regions outside North America and Europe. These underrepresented regions are outdated by several years and nearly all the recent buildings additions to CVU in these regions are PEER-NOMINATED.

The exact same process (nominated by someone and reviewed by an expert) is followed by both SkyscraperPage and CVU. You cannot call one SELFPUB and not the other. You cannot call one RS and not the other. Either both are RS or neither is. So please make up your mind and apply the same standards consistently. Sawarijoshi (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

If there's an editorial process it's usually not WP:SELFPUB. Unless the editors themselves are just community members. Who are the editors on SkyscraperPage? Eventually what matters is how RS describe the source. If SkyscraperPage is just "a website for skyscraper hobbyists and enthusiasts" that's unlikely to be RS. But it's cited as a source of reference by RS that might be good. Their about page mentions National Geographic.

Also: does SkyscraperPage have a ranking of cities by number of skyscrapers? If that's the case (and if it is determined to be RS) then the SkyscraperPage ranking could be added to Wikipedia. As you said this would be similar to List of languages by total number of speakers. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Another point that matters for Wikipedia: the quality of the underlying institution. SkyscraperPage seems to have been created by "Dylan Leblanc" who seems to be (based on a quick Google search) a skyscraper enthusiast otherwise unknown. The CVU was founded by Lynn S. Beedle ("The New York Times has called him "an expert on tall buildings".") at Lehigh University and is now part of the Illinois Institute of Technology. So it's an academic source recognized by other RS as RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 The educational background of the founders is irrelevant. As per WP:RS, the reliability of a source depends on the processes that CVU and SkyscraperPage follow to validate the entries for their database. And the process is identical for them both, viz., peer-nominations reviewed by experts, along with some data proactively updated by experts themselves.

Across many articles of WP:SKY, both SkyscraperPage and CVU are cited together. For example, in the List of tallest buildings in New York City, a majority of buildings have two citations – one from CVU and one from SkyscraperPage. There are even several buildings on this page which have only a SkyscraperPage citation and no CVU citation. This is a common pattern across all such high-quality WP:SKY pages.

It is beyond doubt that SkyscraperPage is RS. However, neither SkyscraperPage nor CVU exhaustively cover the entire world alone. This is why it’s critical to use multiple reliable sources together. Sawarijoshi (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"peer-nominations reviewed by experts, along with some data proactively updated by experts themselves": is there a page describing the process for SkyscraperPage? Who are those experts? Are there other RS describing SkyscraperPage as RS?

"Across many articles of WP:SKY, both SkyscraperPage and CVU are cited together": this is irrelevant.

"It is beyond doubt that SkyscraperPage is RS.": prove it then! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Response to "Which arguments have I not answered already?"

Several. Sharing a couple of the big ones below; starting with only two because I hope that will help us stay on topic and have a productive discussion. The questions are very precise - so I would request you to address only these questions, please.

1. CVU severely underrepresents certain large regions of the world which have booming skyscraper activity (e.g., India). Do you agree? (Yes/No)
2. If no above, please justify. If yes, then using CVU as the sole RS for skyscraper data is a blatant violation of WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:AGE MATTERS. Do you agree? (Yes/No)

Sawarijoshi (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I have no idea (as I don't have another RS to double check the numbers) and I don't care as it's not really a question for Wikipedia. Other RS say that CVU is RS so I trust it. Is it outdated? Probably. But it's fine. Do we have something better? I don't know and that's the ongoing debate.

2. No it's not a violation of those at all. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is mostly about "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source". Unrelated to our discussion. WP:AGE MATTERS might be relevant but for that you first have to prove with another RS that CVU is outdated, which brings us back to the core of this debate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall, rather than trying to discredit the CVU what you need to do is find other RS with a ranking of "Number of skyscrapers by city" or where you can easily find "Number of skyscrapers in city X". One we have that we can add that source as an alternative ranking to CVU. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

1. @A455bcd9, if you agree that CVU is outdated, then why did you revert the recent Edit on List of cities with the most skyscrapers? If you’re looking for a RS which proves just how outdated CVU is, here is one example – https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=2154 . SkyscraperPage lists nearly a hundred skyscrapers of Hyderabad (completed + u/c), whereas CVU barely has 20. That’s because CVU has proactively added ZERO buildings from Hyderabad to their database since 2022. I know this for a fact because every single recent addition on CVU was nominated by me. “Is it outdated? Probably. But it's fine. Do we have something better? I don't know…” —> Before finding a solution, can we at least acknowledge that there’s a problem? And, Antoine, that starts with acknowledging the fact that CVU is outdated.
2. An excerpt from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS – “For example, a publisher's website is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work”. Just because a source is reliable for one context, it does not necessitate that it is reliable for another context – this is the crux of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Just because CVU is reliable for New York, it does not necessitate that CVU is reliable for Hyderabad. And especially when there is sufficient evidence (given above) to prove that it is indeed severely unreliable for many cities.

Sawarijoshi (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I reverted because it's just your assessment. Is there an RS that says CVU is outdated? Everything on Wikipedia should be backed by RS.

2. Let's assume that SkyscraperPage (SP) is RS (which you haven't proved yet). SP has 57 "highrise buildings" marked as "built" in Hyderabad . For most of them, only the number of floors is provided and we don't know their height. List of cities with the most skyscrapers says "defines a skyscraper as a continuously habitable high-rise building that is taller than 150 metres (492 ft)". Most of the buildings listed by SP are below that threshold: Hotel Taj Krishna (131 ft, with source "Unconfirmed"), Babukhan Estate (194 ft, with "Wikipedia" as source => cannot be used per WP:CIRCULAR), Telangana Secretariat (265 ft, again "Wikipedia" as source = LOL), Golf Edge 1 (354 ft, "Unconfirmed"), etc. The Lanco Hills towers also seem to be below 150m. So based on the floor number (assuming it is correct) and some quick research, only 11 of that list are >150m. However, most among those might be architecturally topped out but not completed yet. For instance, CVU marks SAS Crown Tower 3 as "architecturally topped out". CVU is correct: SAS Crown's website lists the project as "under construction" with possession expected in 2027. SAS iTower is also under construction as of March 2026 (Official video). Regarding the five Candeur Crescent Towers, a Dec 2025 TOI article says: "Fire broke out in the construction workers' quarters at the under-construction Candeur Crescent condominium". So that leaves us with two truly completed >150m towers: Lodha Bellezza 3 and Lodha Bellezza 4. Which is exactly what the CVU says! Conclusion: I hereby proved that SkyscraperPage was not a reliable source (as it often cites Wikipedia) and that CVU was correct. End of the debate.

3. Wrong. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, I have to call out the blatant cherry-picking of data you are engaging in here. Of the dozens of Hyderabad buildings listed on SkyscraperPage, you have bypassed every significant high-rise to focus on the shortest and oldest structures available, such as Taj Krishna and Babukhan Estate.

These are not skyscrapers, and no one is arguing for their inclusion in any list here. By using these outliers as "examples”, you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts to create a false narrative.

Let’s be clear about the data you are ignoring:

• The List Hierarchy: SkyscraperPage is sorted by height. To find your examples, you had to intentionally scroll past dozens of modern skyscrapers backed by precise architectural elevation drawings and official building permits.

• Intentional Omission: You didn't "miss" the actual skyscrapers; you actively chose to ignore them because they contradict the point you are trying to make.

I’m sorry but I can no longer assume good faith (WP:AGF) on your part in this discussion. You have repeatedly misrepresented facts throughout our conversation, despite being called out multiple times to stop doing so. Sawarijoshi (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's the link, prove me wrong: https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=2154&statusID=1 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

“Is it outdated? Probably. But it's fine.” —> No, it’s not fine. For such a time-sensitive topic, it is a clear violation of WP:AGE MATTERS.

“Do we have something better? I don't know and that's the ongoing debate.” —> Wrong. @A455bcd9, the discussion is not about discrediting or replacing CVU. The discussion is about finding supplementary reliable sources which can be used in conjunction with CVU to provide our readers with a complete and unbiased picture (WP:NPOV). Sawarijoshi (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the discussion above me has gotten quite long.

The CVU is a reliable source when it comes to the height of individual buildings. It has not been determined to be a reliable source, and its own Q&A website itself maintains that it is unreliable, when it comes to providing an accurate count of the number of tall buildings in the city.

This is easily proven by finding a high-rise documented in RS that is not in its database. LivinAWestLife (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The implied consensus for members of this WikiProject has never claimed otherwise, and as far as I can tell only one editor has taken offense to this interpretation. LivinAWestLife (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, CVU is RS. Their Q&A doesn't say it is unreliable.

2. The discussion is about providing other RS. None of those listed above as alternative are WP:RS per WP:SELFPUB and WP:CIRCULAR.

End of the discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Their Q&A explicitly states they do not have comprehensive information on all buildings taller than 150 metres in the world. They guarantee it only for 200 metres.

You are a person who has shown zero interest in skyscrapers and the accuracy of their information in the past and are now trying to bludgeon your uninformed interpretation of Wikipedia's rules on a WikiProject that you have not been engaged in.

End of discussion. There is a strong project-wide consensus on this topic. LivinAWestLife (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

What matters: what is WP:RS. If you cannot find RS and prefer personal attacks then you are WP:NOTHERE. If you disagree, feel free to start an WP:RFC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)