Talk:The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasmineibarra. Peer reviewers: Jasmineibarra.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

why does it say the boy in the striped pajamas and then in parenthesis the exact same thing with same spelling? someone fix that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.193 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here. Did anyone else notice that whoever wrote this said that Bruno was 8 years old. It says, like, seven times in the book that he's nine. Get it right, people. 66.42.133.84 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the film; anything in the book is irrelevant MapReader (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Difference between book and film

In the plot description, there is no difference made between the book and the film; a lot of references (Bruno's thoughts on exploration, the confusion of the name Auswitz for example) are mentioned in the book, but not in the film. I suggest we rewrite the plot and focus more on the story the film and not the book. Justexp (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The part about the scholarly reception also seems to be mostly about research about the book rather than the movie. Geertrinkel (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Spoiler Alerts

It would be nice if wikipedia would have some kind of Spoiler Alert tags or warnings for films. Halfabeet (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

- Spoiler warnings were abolished a long time ago. You don't want to know the ending? Don't read the section labeled "plot". FreemDeem (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Plot Section is all wrong...

It seems like the person who wrote the plot summary section had read the book AND seen the film and has got them both confused... a lot the stuff from the book was cut out of the film yet it is still in the plot section. Out-with is never mentioned as in the book, and in both book and film it is only implied that the camp is Auschwitz. The whole section is just.... wrong. Needs fixing and I have a headache so.... anyone? FreemDeem (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That frequently happens here at Wikipedia. I'm in the middle of watching the film on video right now, so maybe I can catch some small errors like this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not Pyjamas, its PAJAMAS.

The official name is PAJAMAS not Pyjamas. How do you get something like that fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.167.37 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Official UK site: pyjamas. Official US site: pajamas. Both names are correct, depending on country. Loganberry (Talk) 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both are correct. This was an English movie, and I believe that it was released as "Pyjamas", however it is "Pajamas" in America. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Headlines

• Exclusive: Herman & Heyman on Boy in the Striped Pajamas, November 4, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive URL for the above interview

• Production notes (Archive)
• Interview with producer David Heyman about The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas (Archive)
• Guardian Audio Interview with David Thewlis about his role in the film (Archive)
• Interview with Asa Butterfield, the young star of The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas
• BBC article on the film's suitability for children (Archive)

- kollision (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

IMDB claim that the film should be called 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' because it was filmed by a Briton, the cast were British, and the author is Irish (so British English). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/faq#.2.1.9

So why is this page named in the American style? Surely it should be in British English? KillerKat (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that John Boyne was born in Dublin, making him - to borrow your term - Irish-Irish, not British-Irish. 86.164.124.220 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Al

Nobody said the book or author was British and, yes, we use British English in Ireland. Blaise Joshua (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party I know, but in Ireland we actually use Hiberno-English. Aerach (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there is Wikipedia policy called “Hiberno English” Jabberwoch (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Children

One of points of criticism is that there were no children in concentration camps (they were killed), but that doesn't seem to be true. On photos children are sometimes seen - at least I have in my memory one photo from Buchenwald with imprisoned people - among them chldren.--Alexmagnus2 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In Auschiwitz there are several pictures of children in a special exhibition. Wilkomor5ski wrote (fictiously) about being a child in Auschwitz and yet he was (originally) lauded and praised for his work. Also, Mengele was often reported as being surrounded by Gypsy children. I wonder if some people want to make the Holocaust even worse than it was for some reason. (88.96.98.17 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I saw another Holocaust-era film which showed a child in a camp: "Life Is Beautiful". Was it also wrong (according to critics) about the presence of children in the camps? --

As of July 2011, the article provides two conflicting statements about the presence of 8-year-olds, followed by the following (which I have temporarily lifted since its meaning is thus unclear):

Such alleged falsification of history has important consequences, say critics, for the way that the victims of the Holocaust might be remembered and commemorated, and the Holocaust itself historicised, thus reviving arguments that were previously aired about Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List and the manner in which that film too was seen to sanitize and falsify aspects of life in the concentration camp.[ref]Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler's List, edited by Y. Loshitzky, Indiana University Press, 1997[/ref]

Unless this is referring to Rabbi Blech's unsubstantiated version of history, it seems to be either unjustified or off-topic. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The camps had facilities SPECIFICALLY dedicated to children. It's also on records, testimony, etc. --197.228.12.65 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy in film and book

Can we coordinate (or even consolidate) rabbinical criticism of the movie that is repeated in the article about the book it's based on? Here, the "distortion" of a young boy's supposedly impossible presence is countered with a statistic. There, it stands unchallenged.

There's also the question of whether the book or movie has anything to teach, which can redeem it from the supposed "trivialization". For example, as an educator, I would assume that before showing this film parents or teachers would ensure that young viewers already knew the history of World War II and the scapegoating of Jews - along with the terrible Holocaust itself. Would it be wise to make this film a child's first introduction to the Nazi horrors?

I'm reading a study guide on the WingClips website. It challenges readers to answer moral questions of the sort which the critical rabbi might want to have addressed. I wonder if he was aware of the contents of that study guide when he issued his denunciation of the film as trivial and inaccurate.

It is, of course, far-fetched that an 8 or 9 year old son of a Nazi leader would be so ignorant, but perhaps there is something worse than hatred: indifference. (I am of course referring to Elie Weisel's quote - cited both by the rabbinical critic and by the PhD study guide author.) Suppose the Nazi father was so indifferent to the plight of the Jews that he never had bothered to teach his son anything about them, let alone to hate them.

Anyway, it's not my place to praise the film. I think we should remain neutral about it, and simply report the reasons the rabbi disliked it as well as the reasons the WingClips study guide seems to find it useful. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Trim

Recently, there was an enormous trim of supposed "subplots." I felt that, in doing this, you were just cutting a significant portion of the movie away. Try and be careful about what exactly you trim. Grieferhate (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Grieferhate, I feel your pain (felt here). Writing a plot summary for C.R.A.Z.Y. (still at 1200 words) forced me to make sacrifices. Just now, I've made some -- and I hope you agree -- minor changes to the plot for the sake of trimming it down below 700 words. I even added a couple words here and there that I felt were important but as of yet unmentioned. For instance, it wasn't previously mentioned that the fence was electrified and that they were using crematoriums. Also, I haven't read into it too much, but you might want to consider writing a Themes section as a way to discuss missing pieces and/or differences between the book and film. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of view

This film attempts to show Nazi antisemitic cruelty through the eyes of a naive child, much as The Pianist (2002 film) shows similar cruelty as the Nazis invaded and occupied Poland - through the eyes of a talented musician. Both movies use an indirect point of view.

I daresay "Pyjamas" is not meant to humanize the inexcusable (nay, the demonic) hatred of Germans toward Jews. In the first 36 minutes of the movie, I saw nothing close to an attempt to justify Nazi attitudes. "They are not human", is what the father says, but this line is delivered in such a way that we the viewers do not sympathize with its point of view.

Indeed, the callous, demeaning way in which the old, pajama-wearing servant is treated by the father's aide - contrasted with the servant's kindness to Bruno - promptly and vividly puts the lie to that piece of propaganda.

So why the outrage? And why say they were no children, if there were?

We must recognize that a very common reaction to the Holocaust in the Jewish community after the war was (in addition to shock and sheer disbelief) an incredible outpouring of rage at the über-barbaric cruelty of the Nazis, equaled perhaps by rage at others who might have stepped in to stop the cruelty but did not.

Angry people aren't the best ones to keep track of small details, nor are they the best ones to put everything into perspective.

I hope we can write more about how critics have evaluated this movie, both from the favorable and critical points of view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think, Bruno, if you ever found a "nice" Jew, you would be the best explorer in the world.

This of course is the worst thing in the world for a indoctrinator to give a lonely, frustrated 8-year-old boy. Which I suppose was the point of having this line in the movie. For indeed Bruno has found such a Jew, after being told by his father that Jews are not people (which reminds one of Pocahontas (1995 film) singing "the only people who are people" in Colors of the Wind, in another cross-cultural film in which one outstanding individual realizes by personal experience that what he had been told about an entire race of people simply isn't true).

Perhaps, despite the controversy which takes up so much space in the current version of the movie article (and book article), the point is not whether the camps ever held children. It could be that it is up to each person to explore the real world and compare one's own experiences to the official teachings of the nation.

I daresay that is what the author and/or director intended, and that may define the book or movie's real educational value in an era when so much political and scientific propaganda tells us simply to accept the consensus of prominent experts. Which of course brings us back 25 centuries to Socrates and "The unexamined life is not worth living." --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some tone issues?

"Bruno is astonishingly naive about what the Nazis are up to. In fact, he never uses the word "Nazi" but simply calls his father a soldier, albeit an important one." - astonishingly naive? Says who? That's a strong interpretation and taken a bit from the viewpoint of someone who does know, and the idea that not calling a German soldier a Nazi is astonishingly naive seems a bit POV, considering the Nazi Party and the German Army are not the same thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish tragedy... only?

The article ends stating the last image remember us how many Jews were killed by Nazi regime.

I think we must consider that concentration camps killed not only Jews but, homosexuals, communist, Jews, and German political prisoners.

Being focused in just a part of the victims is unfair and biased, putting an incomplete picture about the facts. Last image must remember us about the cruelty of racial fanaticism and supremacist theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.75.106 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Although that may be true, the plot of "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" focuses primarily on the Jews.60.240.240.115 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a great idea, how about you go and make it true? Somebody please fix that end, because I'm not very good at editing Andrew Gunner (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary

In a summary already acknowledged too long I cut the final sentence, There is an eerie silence, implying that everyone in the chamber - including Bruno and Shmuel - are dead. Up to this point the summary has implied the deaths of the boys (Elsa and Gretel, realizing what has happened) but not gone beyond what the film shows to make a definite statement. While a silence might be eerie to one particular viewer, and while it might be obvious everyone inside the chamber is dead, it is not the job of a single editor to decide this. WP:PLOTSUM says, "commentary is better suited to a Themes or Reception section." The line has been replaced with the edit summary, Leave it , its a contreversial film and thats a good sentence to finish it on, and how is it not realible information? Have you even watched the film? Exok (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the other changes but not this one; And instead of whining on here you could of messaged me about it. Anyway, like i said its a controversial film/article and the plot summary was perfectly fine and grammatical- and if you'd watched the film then youd know. Theres no point cutting it short and saying it was left at the door; all the editor said that because of the silence and the transition of the final scene past the clothing and the screaming that turned to quiet , it quite evidently applies that they have been murdered and thats how he finsihed it off. If someone hadn't seen the film they may not know or understand what happened. Goldblooded (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the sentence is not grammatical and any controversy there may be does not remotely affect what I'm saying, which is that the sentence is not only unnecessary but involves a level of interpretation that is not appropriate. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) says, Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research. As I said above, the summary has already implied the children are dead, as the film implies it; there's no justification and no need to restate this. Exok (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with this? Honestly i believe you shouldnt change it and im sure a lot of people will agree with me but i dont really care since in not the one loosing out- its the people reading it who are. So im out. Goldblooded (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually there are very good reasons for leaving that stuff out; it's viewer interpretation and contrary to virtually every policy and guideline we have on writing about fiction. We don't do "implies" in plot summaries unless a character states that something implies something (and even then we usually don't do dialogue quotes). We report what the film actually tells us, nothing more or less. I suggest folks who think otherwise read WP:PLOTSUM, MOS:FILM, WP:FILMPLOT, and WP:MOSFICT for a start. And for the record, accusing another editor, (particularly one who politely explains how they edited according to policy) of whining smacks a little of glass houses. Millahnna (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really interested. But i agree ;Go ahead - do you what you want. See if i care. Goldblooded (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative title

The film was released first in the UK as The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and subsequently released in the US as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Most reviews and descriptions of the film used as references in this article use the US title. This article uses the UK title as that is the first country of release and the original title. Both titles are correct and are the only English language titles used. I included the alternate title in the lede per a similar issue at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) which seems to be acceptable there. The alternative title in the lede in this article seems contentious. I believe it adds to the article, explains quickly the situation for a casual reader and is appropriate as one of the first things a reader sees. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US, there is the genuine possibility of confusion if the alternative title is not included early in the article. "Pajamas" is a spelling variant determined by the demands of American English and there is no possibility of mistaking which film is being described. In fact adding such a trivial detail looks obsessive and is jarring to the eye of a reader since it requires them to notice a very small difference. Incidentally, the cycle is WP:BRD, not BRRD. You should have begun this discussion and allowed other editors to have input before restoring your preferred edit. Also, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. Exok (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an official and correct alternative title. For completeness this needs to be in the article and wasn't. People read the article and wish to "correct" (and some editors do just that) what they see as a misspelling. Having the alternative title listed with references indicates that this is not a mistake. I don't see this as a triviality and don't see the addition as obsessive and jarring to the reader - it flows fairly well as a comma delimited piece of additional relevant information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Award deleted

Seeing a (2011) 'unref' tag on the Accolades subsection, I looked for suitable citations. All checked out OK except "Audience Choice Award – (winner; tied with Slumdog Millionaire)". The Chicago International Film Festival official website gives Slumdog Millionaire as the sole winner so, sorry, I had to delete. Was this a well-intentioned error or a wishful-thinking fraud? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pavel

Is Pavel Jewish? His name doesn't look like it, but in the article it said he is:

"Bruno is confused about Nazi Propaganda, because the Jews Bruno has seen, in particular the family's JEWISH servant PAVEL".

His name looks rather slavic to me . Besides, jews were far not the only inmates of hitler camps. So, does anybody think there could be a JEW named PAVEL???

Andrew Gunner (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To my understanding, many Jewish people's identity was like a 'mix' between being Jewish and their country of residence. If you look at the names of Dutch Jews, they look very Dutch. A Slavic name sounds absolutely convincing to me for a Jewish person from Poland, or some other Slavic country.Geertrinkel (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Fiction

Please indicate clearly that the film (and the book) is pure fiction. --197.228.12.65 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016

Hi I'm Justin and i watched this movie yesterday. I know the title is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and then I noticed someone spelled pajamas wrong. Can you please fix that error. It has been bothering me for a while.

23.243.36.220 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The film title actually uses "Pyjamas" in some locations/territories, which is an alternate spelling, not "pajamas". — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal to criticism of historical accuracy

I added a paragraph to rebut the contention by Rabbi Blech that the film is inaccurate because "There were no 9-year-old Jewish boys in Auschwitz – the Nazis immediately gassed those not old enough to work." I wrote:

Blech's contention that all children were killed on arrival, while generally true, is not entirely accurate. Some children were kept alive within Auschwitz, though few survived to the end of the war. In addition, the Nazis maintained a section of Auschwitz-Birkenau known as the "family camp," beginning in September 1943, in which 17,500 people were temporarily kept alive, mostly whole families, including thousands of children. Historians believe this may have been done in case the Red Cross decided to visit the camp. In June 1944, the Red Cross did visit Theresienstadt concentration camp, from which all the prisoners in the "family camp" had been drawn. The following month, the "family camp" was liquidated and all the prisoners gassed.

This paragraph was removed by User:SummerPhDv2.0 on the grounds that "Sources do not discuss the film." However Rabbi Blech also does not discuss the film specifically, he's challenging its overall authenticity by making a general historical contention about the nature of Auschwitz and the Holocaust, and I'm providing historical evidence to rebut his claim. A condemnation of a film that is based on historically inaccurate information shouldn't stand without a proper rebuttal. jamesluckard (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph added here discusses the Holocaust. This article is about a film, based on a novel, set in the Holocaust. It is off-topic here.

Looking more closely at the paragraph, jamesluckard is correct. Both Blech and Hughes are discussing the novel. Ebert is discussing the film. I am removing the Blech and Hughes section as off-topic and relocating the remaining sentence from Ebert.

Why? For the long answer, see WP:SYN. Other than our policy, it would be easy to add material to virtually any article which does not discuss the subject of the article directly, but would serve to guide a reader to an unsourced opinion not discussed in any of the sources: Politician X is a liar/saint, a particular diet is unhealthy/optimal, a country is a festering pit/utopia, etc. When such opinions cite relevant sources (in-line, paying attention to WP:WEIGHT), we end up with astronauts and astrophysicists discussing the scientific accuracy of a science fiction film (see Gravity_(2013_film)#Scientific_accuracy). - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Blech's objection to the novel applies to the film, too. They both center on a small child living inside Auschwitz. Blech erroneously contends that this central plot element of the book and film was a historical impossibility, that it never once happened. His argument is just as historically inaccurate in both cases. The book and film were carefully researched, and people accusing them of historical inaccuracy need to be rebutted with the relevant facts. I suppose I'm fine with you removing my rebuttal as long as you also remove the entire portion about Blech's groundless complaints. However it might be more useful to leave both his complaint and my explanation about why he's incorrect, as many people seem to believe as Blech does. jamesluckard (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, if Blech's statement is going to stay, I want to add the single sentence "Blech's contention, however, goes against extensive historical evidence." and then include the links I cited as <ref> references at the end of that sentence. He is disputing and condemning the very premise of the film, calling it impossible, and there's voluminous evidence to prove he's mistaken. It's dangerous for incorrect history, particularly about the Holocaust, to be allowed to stand. jamesluckard (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like this slipped through my fingers. I thought I had already removed the off-topic novel material (note my comment: "I am removing the Blech and Hughes section as off-topic and relocating the remaining sentence from Ebert."). I have done that now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

lieutenant Kotler?

The Uniform shows a SS Officer with Rank Obersturmführer, ok which is equivalent to First lieutenant from the Wehrmacht. Even at german dubbing this guy is called Oberleutnant Kotler which is definitely wrong

References

The boy in the striped pyjamas: sad

This book is very sad 92.234.61.174 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, really? 66.42.133.84 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this article use British English or Hiberno-English?

• In my recent patrolling, I have stumbled upon the relatively frequent problems (in both this article and the sister article The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas) of the changing between national varieties of English, particularly in the spelling of the word "pyjamas/pajamas". British English and Hiberno-English are, as far as I know, the same in this regard. I have already taken the liberty of tagging the book's article as Hiberno-English, as I believe this to be indisputable. I would tag this article, but I was unsure as to whether to use British English or Hiberno-English. The book the film is based on is written by an Irish author. The film itself is produced primarily by BBC Films, utilizing a predominantly British cast and crew. I am under no impression that tagging the article either way will stop the (albeit mostly good-faith) edits changing between national varieties, but I believe it to be useful to have a template we can point to. The question is: Should this this article use British English or Hiberno-English? —Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Changing the variety of English would put the rest of the article at odds with the page name, so the two issues should not be considered independently of each other. The film is a joint British-American production so I don't see why we would switch over to Hiberno-English just because the original book was written by an Irish man; for example, the Lord of the Rings film articles use New Zealand English because this is the nationality of the films, even though Tolkien was English. Therefore the two legitimate language variants available here are British English and American English. The article has formally used British English since 2016, so per MOS:RETAIN there is no reason for indiscriminately altering the variant of English in the title. On the other hand, it were determined that the WP:COMMONNAME of the film is The Boy in the Striped PAjamas, then that would provide a strong argument for switching to American English. Betty Logan (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh my goodness, I really didn't see that the article was already tagged! That makes this pretty much moot, doesn't it? —Alpaca the Wizard (he/him) (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Question Regarding Distribution

Was the film really originally distributed through Miramax Films in the United States and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures internationally, just in the United Kingdom, or was it always just Miramax worldwide? It would help if someone can find the credits from other countries so this can finally be solved. SlySabre (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

change two eight-year-old boys to two nine-year-old boys 海阔天空718 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

I request for in the plot where it says Bruno notices a concentration camp to be changed to Bruno notices an extermination camp. 186.96.212.9 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)