Talk:Diaper

Ammonia

Can someone change the Ammonia section? It states that Ammonia is caused by the combination of fecal matter and urine, when it is just the urine that is resposible. This may cause some to belive that a diaper that has only been urinated in will not produce Ammonia. --User: tash 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well fecal matter contains urease which catalyses the conversion of urine to ammonia so it is technically correct but I agree it is slightly misleading, as it makes the diaper rash worse, it is not the sole cause.--Wherethere (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about what happens to urea outside of the human system to return it to the form ammonia - but it's my understanding that ammonia is formed as a biproduct of protein breakdown in the liver, and that the ammonia is quickly converted to urea - so, I imagine the urea must be reacting with something to return to the form of ammonia? Also, has this section been completely removed - I don't see it. Should this discussion also be removed? or has the ammonia section been included in another section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This article does not meet the Good article criteria at the present time. Although the lead section appears good, and it is well written, there is a serious lack of citations of key information later in the article (some entire sections are completed uncited, and other key info in other sections needs to be cited).

Inline citations also need more information included than just an external link; it should include full citation information -- author, title, publication, date of publication, date URL was retrieved. This is actually quite important -- if the link ever becomes inaccessible, the additional information can be used to help verify and track down the source offline, if needed.

The article needs to be checked thoroughly for NPOV issues. Sentences like, "Disposable diapers were introduced to the US in 1949 by Johnson & Johnson, and were considered by parents as a great invention." are going to be hard to verify with reliable sources (specifically, the part in bold text), and should be toned down.

Consider moving 'etymology' to immediately before the 'history' section. It's useful to discuss the origin of the name first. Also, the 'taming of the shrew' part could use a reference; while it's mentioned, yes, an inline citation containing a link to an online copy of Shakespeare's play would help readers verify this if they wished.

The entire 'types' section only has two inline citations and a 'citation needed' tag. The bullet points in the disposable subsection seem to written too much like an advertisement for disposable diapers, than an actual encyclopedia article. I would think that it could be rewritten to provide a better, more concise, description of this type of product, and try to write in prose, with citations, rather than listing with bullets.

I would also merge the 'controversy' section into the section on cloth diapers; the text itself could also be greatly reduced. I don't think that disposable diapers are really all that "controversial". Rather, there's certainly an issue with diapers filling up landfills, and several environmental groups do favor the cloth diapers, which is why it should be included in that section. As its own section like this, it's really a violation of WP:NPOV, and of WP:WIAGA.

I'm not sure that 'changing' and 'length of use' are quite as important as the amount of text leads the reader to believe. It seems to me to contain a lot of cruft, and could probably be reduced. Remember, wikipedia is not a 'how to' guide.

I would create a new main section entitled 'uses', with three major subsections: 'children', 'adults', and 'animals'. Some of the stuff under 'changing' and 'length of use' could go under 'uses: children'.

Hopefully, these suggestions will help editors to improve the article. I think once they are fixed, the article will be a lot closer to meeting the GA criteria. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work today to clarify the Types:Cloth section and added a section following it called "Care and Ecological Concerns" to separate the discussion of cloth diapers from the green debate over cloth v. disposable. I'm not averse to removing the brief "dry pail method" section in the first par. of the new section, as it now seems out of place and "how-to" to me, but I'd like a second opinion. I also updated links and added access date information to them for the references section. I'd welcome some reliable pro-disposable study references to balance the new section a bit. The studies that I've referenced are not available online for reading that I can find, but do fall within Verifiability requirements. The citation information that I've given should be plenty of information to find the studies in offline research, but please let me know if additional is needed or if there's a formatting change needed.

I've done some revision on the Types:Disposables section according to your recommendations and added citations to it.

I've also checked and/or updated citation links in these sections to include access date information. Only one revision of existing citation was required for a moved article. The information referenced has not changed, so I updated the citation URL and access date. Let me know if you're interested in other revisions to those sections.Heather (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pioneering days

This article contains a line about the situation "in the pioneering days". When on earth was that? Is this a reference to the United States? --KarlFrei (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the general timeline putting the Industrial Revolution after this bit, it most likely it is in reference to the American pioneers of the 19th century, but there's also not a citation for this bit, which makes me suspect lack of verifiability. Heather (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling

Unwilling to use a toilet? What the...?12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diapering in History

The reference to Elizabethans only changing soiled diapers every few days is based on a cited web article that lists absolutely no citations for their statements and is not even a historical costume site, but instead a disposable diaper industry page. A much more solid citation is needed for the pre-twentieth century section of the History section than the referenced website. Heather (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon discussion elseNet with others who've been searching for the same citation basis and after my own searching and review of my personal knowledge base of the subject, the referenced information about pre-nineteenth century diapering cannot qualify under the Wikipedia standards for verifiability. I have altered the History article to reflect this and removed the inappropriate citation(s) from References as well. In addition, I removed and replaced citations which did not have access dates and were no longer accessible. Heather (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand your issue with the former source. Why did it need to cite sources, it was the source and there doesn't seem to be any reason why it wouldn't be reliable. Yes, it's a diaper industry site, wouldn't that indicate they would have knowledge of diapers throughout history. It just seems like you've deleted a lot of good information from the article without much reason. Coop41 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the information presented is *not* good. I and other costume historians with interest in childhood have been looking since this was revised and have yet to find a single reliable back up or citation for this misinformation. Book research efforts seems to indicate that the information was from a (possibly privately published) manual about raising children, written by a later Victorian, Edwardian, or an American contemporary, and without any stated research or citation to back up the statement.

Scholarship in costuming indicates that the information given is incorrect, beyond being occasionally physically impossible. A child with four days of feces and urine pressed to the diaper area is a child who develops open and seeping/bleeding wounds. Keep doing it, and you don't just risk a screaming child, but a crippled and/or dead one. This aspect of human infant physiology has not changed in four hundred years, and the removed piece of misinformation blithely stated that Elizabethans changed infants' diapers only every four days. A newborn makes approximately 8-12 soiled diapers every 24 hours. Period lists in letters, pawnbrokers ledgers, and the like, of items made or needed for expected and existing infants include enough diapering material to change soiled diapers quite often for several days, in addition to swaddling linen and bands, linen caps and clothes, and blanketing/sheeting. These are sources ranging from nobility down to lower middle class. I'm trying to get to the library to ILL one such source (facsimile pawnbroker's ledger) to add here.

In short, the information presented on the website is not just outdated, but wrong. Heather (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you really believe the information was innaccurate I would rather it wasn't there, it just seemed like you deleted it because you didn't personally agree with it, rather than a genuine problem with the source. But you do seem to know more about this than I do so I suppose I'll just trust your judgement. :) Thank you for looking for a replacement source and I hope you find one because the history section is looking a little sparse now. Coop41 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Issues

The Adult section of this article, particularly the description of why diapers are used in bondage fetishism is TOO EXTENSIVE, in my opinion. Could someone with more knowledge of wikipidea's guidelines for what is and isn't necessary in an article give it a look-through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed a section from the "Child" portion of this article in which a ridiculous phrase implied that "Australia supported a mainstream view of Diaper wearing in school age children", which a (defunct) link to a news site that is known for its trash and tabloid journalism. Not only is it ridiculous to assume from a single news article, rather then a study or journal, that an entire country or state supported this phenomenon, but simply reading something in a news article and dumping it on wikipedia is grossly stupid. Can we try to keep information sources factual when it comes to this sort of information? 121.210.240.147 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed cats from the animal uses section because it stated that cats bleed during ovulation. This is erroneous because cats are induced ovulators; that is, they do not ovulate until they are bred. This is similar to rabbits. Also, cats do not bleed during ovulation, even after breeding. The information about dogs is correct, however. Also, cats, unlike dogs, are generally not amenable to wearing a diaper except in the most unusual circumstances. A diaper may be used on a very ill or seriously injured cat, but it would be highky unusual to encounter a mobile and active cat that would tolerate a diaper. 70.251.119.72 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

3.5 billion gallons of oil are used to produce the 18 million throwaway diapers that end up in landfills each year

Must obviously be wrong, otherwise how could anybody afford any? Togo (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that nobody caught that until now. I've traced the source of the claim to this edit from March 17, 2008. It was stated that way from the beginning and thus is not vandalism. I agree with you that it cannot possible be true; if the 'millions' and 'billions' were switched it would make more sense, but I can't just make a change like that without knowing what the actual data is. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

3.5 Billion Spread out to make 18 Million diapers means that it takes 194.4 gallons of oil to produce one diaper. This statement is clear wrong but has great emotional shock value for someone with an agenda. JTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.22 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are probably a lot more than 18 million diapers being used each year. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive removed the claim for now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nappy

Why not call the article "nappy" instead of "diaper"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.146.182 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR. We had a discussion about this a few years ago and Diaper won. Admittedly, though, it wasn't much of a discussion; see Talk:Diaper/Archive 1#Name. It's possible but highly unlikely that consensus could change to renaming it Nappy. —Soap— 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any real evidence diaper won. There was no real discussion, heck ENGVAR wasn't even mentioned, so no consensus was achieved (and the closest thing to consensus in that discussion was nappy anyway). However it is unlikely the article will be changed since wikipedia wide consensus per ENGVAR is when there is no reason to choose one over the other we follow the first contributor which was diaper in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nappy is ambiguous, diaper is not. That's why I haven't agitated for change. Josh Parris 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to ensure that it is changed to Nappy - I'm sorry but the Brits invented the language so I say they should be the ones who get say on this. 2A00:23C5:C887:8600:D8A9:F8F7:6752:1D1A (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's the English language, so the English should get final say on a topic like this (from Australia)

Toilet Training a choice

The way I understand it, infants are physically unable to control the movement of bowel or urination because the mylin sheathes surrounding the nerves used to sense and control the processes are not developed. I feel it is erroneous to say that toilet training is the 'choice' of either parent or child. It is a matter of whether or not the child's body have developed to the point where the process can be under voluntary control, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To say that infants are completely unable to control their bowel movements and urination is untrue. Elimination Communication is a method used by parents in order to avoid using diapers at all. While some of the success in this technique does come from the parents anticipating the child's need to void their bladder/bowels and offering the potty, as the child ages they start to "hold it" and wait for the parent to offer potty, in my experience this happens around 6 months old. It would be accurate, however, to say that newborns are unable to control their bodily excretions. And certainly, a 6 month old baby has a tiny bladder and cannot hold it for long, but an attentive parent can facilitate that baby in being toilet trained. Many children are fully and independently toilet trained by 12 months old, when they start to be able to walk and pull down their own pants. Toilet training becomes a choice when children refuse to use the toilet (this often happens) because they are afraid of it or for some other reason. It is also a choice when parents don't offer their children the opportunity to use the potty and don't teach them proper toileting habits. Some parents assume children cannot be potty trained until age 2 or 3 and so require children to wear a diaper until that time. Many parents who experience a 12 month old ripping of their diaper will try to find ways to keep the diaper on (by using "onesie" style shirts or overalls to prevent the child from accessing the diaper) instead of then teaching them to use the toilet.Ecwickoren (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Contents/ingredients.

I think it would benefit the article to have a section describing the contents of different diapers. However, this may be cumbersome, since there are so very many. Perhaps a general spiel about the contents of conventional disposables (ie huggies, pampers, earth’s best, etc), compostable disposables (broody chick), traditional cloth diapers (homemade, I imagine), and new kinds of cloth diapers (g diapers, etc.) would work? Although this information may not be easily accessible? A though, anyways.AnieHall (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference 4

The external link in reference #4 is a broken.72.12.107.91 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I lvoe the diapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythmonster (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130402230540/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063239?query_type=word&queryword=diaper&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=7XBH-TjGw7R-11027&hilite=50063239 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063239?query_type=word&queryword=diaper&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=7XBH-TjGw7R-11027&hilite=50063239
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130715210039/http://babydiapersize.com/ to http://www.babydiapersize.com

Diaper size chart When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Diaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512031036/https://www.paddi.org.uk:80/From-the-Bottom-Up.php to http://www.paddi.org.uk/From-the-Bottom-Up.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218211733/http://www.gladwell.com:80/2001/2001_11_26_a_diaper.htm to http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_11_26_a_diaper.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223104927/https://www.keepkidshealthy.com:80/parenting_tips/ep/diaper_changes.html to http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/parenting_tips/ep/diaper_changes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205232944/https://www.uspharmacist.com:80/oldformat.asp?url=newlook/files/cons/acf2ee8.htm to http://www.uspharmacist.com/oldformat.asp?url=newlook/files/cons/acf2ee8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929222350/https://www.bedwettingweb.com/bed-wetting/bed-wetting/the-bed-wetting-diaper.html to http://www.bedwettingweb.com/bed-wetting/bed-wetting/the-bed-wetting-diaper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717232103/https://www.drpaul.com:80/library/BEDWETDIAPERS.html to http://www.drpaul.com/library/BEDWETDIAPERS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028150823/https://www.mda.org/publications/Quest/q81gottago.html to http://www.mda.org/publications/Quest/q81gottago.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Diaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512011713/http://www.paddi.org.uk/ to http://www.paddi.org.uk/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_11_26_a_diaper.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404192409/http://www.paddi.org.uk/Paddi-History.php to http://www.paddi.org.uk/Paddi-History.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uspharmacist.com/oldformat.asp?url=newlook%2Ffiles%2Fcons%2Facf2ee8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013174219/http://www.cloth-diaper.org/cloth-vs-disposable-diapers.php to http://cloth-diaper.org/cloth-vs-disposable-diapers.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709162822/http://blogs.consumerreports.org/baby/2009/07/cloth-vs-disposable-diapers-getting-started.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/baby/2009/07/cloth-vs-disposable-diapers-getting-started.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick question about "nappy"

Is nappy the formal usage in the UK? As in, is it what is printed on the packaging? It's not some sort of slang or colloquialism for another term? Just wondering. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, nappy (plural nappies) is the formal use in the UK and is printed on the packaging. Unlike 'dummy' (colloquial) and 'soother' (formal), 'nappy' is always used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibsybrumas (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Necessity of diapers, non-Western worldview lacking in article

This article suffers from a strong western bias where it's just assumed babies will wear diapers. This a not a universally held viewpoint, especially in developing countries and traditional tribal/hunter-gatherer cultures where diapers wearing is much less common. Even in the West, practitioners of elimination communication don't use diapers either much or all the time and even then for a much shorter period of time then traditional Western parents. For some of them, diapers are only used as a backup in the early weeks or when going out but otherwise they don't use them at all around the house. I think in order to improve this article we could address the assumption in Western society that parents need to use diapers on their babies to deal with bodily waste and as well as the fact this is not a universal practice. We could also do a better job of discussing how certain developing countries have not adopted the diaper due to cost and what they do instead. Second, we need to do a better job of explaining how some Western parents do not use diapers much at all via practices like "elimination communication", though not EC'ers eschew diapers completely. Another alternative to the diaper, used still in China, is the Open-crotch pants, which also deserve mention in this article. What I would do is have a section titled "Alternatives to Diaper Use" and include mention of the assumptions made about diaper use in the West, then followed by a summery of alternatives such as EC, Open-crotch pants, etc. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Paddi picture for wiki high res.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional Picture

I placed a picture on this article I felt added value (use of ppe) and it was removed. Why is this?

Noclu244 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know but perhaps because it looks like an ad for Desitin? Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, that was not my intention whatsoever! Noclu244 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for why it was originally removed, but I removed them again because they are low quality images that don't help illustrate the article text in any meaningful way. I'm also not sure that these were added with an educational purpose in mind. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

They were added with an educational purpose in mind. I don't believe they are of any worse quality than any of the other pictures on the article.

Remove the sexual fetishism reference.

I think it’s highly unnecessary to include diaper fetishism within your common diaper usages. I think using a diaper as fire kindling is more likely than diaper fetishism. Honestly it should not be there. It makes sense for diaper fetishism to relate back to diapers however you can tell the whole story of the diaper without mentioning weird sexual fetishes that people have with diapers...

From: They are also used by adults with incontinence, in certain circumstances where access to a toilet is unavailable, or as part of a sexual fetish.

To: They are also used by adults with incontinence or in certain circumstances where access to a toilet is unavailable. 2600:8800:490F:4E00:90DA:FB61:911A:CBAA (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I removed it. Ferkjl (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Article name change to nappy?

Why is this article called diaper when British English should be the one we use? Can we change it to nappy? Thanks. RyanPLB (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Daipers

Diapers are a type of underwear that contain or absorb human worn by both infents and children who experience bed wetting. 2600:1700:CB50:D070:D0F8:C726:E00A:5A0F (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an error in the etomology.

The article implies that or modern use of the word has been in circulation since the 1590s, however, the linked etymology clearly says the word had a different meaning in the 1590s from our modern reading. It referred to the pattern visible in linen fabric. The modern use of the word diaper arose in the 19th century.

This is a simple error, but the article is protected so I cannot edit it. 2603:9001:4505:5500:5075:E265:26B8:63F2 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

The article implies that or modern use of the word has been in circulation since the 1590s, however, the linked etymology clearly says the word had a different meaning in the 1590s from our modern reading. It referred to the pattern visible in linen fabric. The modern use of the word diaper arose in the 19th century.

This is a simple error, but the article is protected so I cannot edit it.

SPECIFIC EDIT:

Original: This type of pattern was called diapering and eventually gave its name to the cloth used to make diapers and then to the diaper itself, which was traced back to 1590s England.[3]

Change to: The pattern visible in linen and other types of woven fabric was called "diaper". This meaning of the word has been in use since the 1590s in England. By the 19th century, baby diapers were being sewn from linen, giving us the modern-day reading of the word "diaper". [3] 2603:9001:4505:5500:5075:E265:26B8:63F2 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)