Talk:Ironclad warship

WHERE'S THE TURTLE SHIP??

Hello? the first ironclad warship (officially) is the Turtle ship by Yi Sun-sin, a Joseonese dude. the Ironclad warship only talks about the western hemisphere. DON'T YOU DARE LEAVE OUT THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE!!! They contribute a lot!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea2013 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three Things:
  • Please do not yell;
  • We need reliable sources to back up this claim;
  • There is nothing stopping you from adding this information. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's at turtle ship, not hard to find. If the reconstruction models are accurate, it's clear it doesn't fit the scope of this article. Perhaps some Korean authors see such a connection, but it seems tenuous and not made by any source I've read. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anon editors are again trying to insert claims related to the Korean turtle ship. They should state their case here before adding this content to the article. The article as written deals specifically with steam-propelled warships, a category which does not include the turtle ship. As the link at the top of the article makes clear, Pre-modern armored ships are covered in the Pre-industrial armoured ships article.Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above editor Korea2013 (talk is correct, the world's first ironclad armored ships were the Korean Turtle Ships, that is an indisputable fact. And the information about Turtle ships is placed in the "Pre-Ironclad" section of this article which is appropriate considering that it was the predecessors of the 19th century ironclads that came after it.

Agreed, I (Hushak) am doing a national history day project on the Monitor and Virginia and I went to the USS Monitor Center for it. It says there that these "Turtle ships were the first ironclades" ~~ Hushak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hushak (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

49.84.13.116 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't add copyvio links even on talk pages. The History Channel isn't automatically a reliable source in any case. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

History Channel documentaries are thoroughly researched and posting them here does not in anyway violate official Wikipedia policy. You are the one violating the rights of other editor's by deleting their edits, uncivilised conduct. 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But you aren't posting a History Channel link, you are posting link to an unofficial upload, thus a copyright violation. As for the History Channel, it simply depends on exactly what it is being used for. No matter how reliable, you can't remove another source just because one disagrees. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The removal of these Korean wooden ships was discussed and agreed upon many years ago (1). It was one of the steps necessary to get the article elevated to FA status in the first place. For these ships and others unrelated to the ironcald an article of its own was specifically created (Pre-industrial armoured ships). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Date

This was first made in the civil war. Get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.43.137 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Gloire the first?

The British-built Mexican steam frigate Guadaloupe (1841) was iron-hulled and arguably "armored" with wrought-iron reinforcing plates around her gunports and sidewheel housings. --Solicitr (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen anything refer to Guadaloupe as an ironclad, let alone the first. Gloire is universally cited by naval historians as the first true ironclad. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=11583

Here her (British) CO describes the experience of commanding an "iron steam frigate" to a wooden one. Guadeloupe and her half-sister Montezuma were certainly iron-hulled; it's less clear whether that counts as "armored." Also "The world's first significant iron warship was the steam frigate Guadeloupe, built by Laird for Mexico in 1842."(https://books.google.com/books?id=-5EeCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=mexican+steam+frigate+guadeloupe&source=bl&ots=iI4KXKNTRL&sig=Y2tuKmii9av0-mB4PBdHQB98lTk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPwrLF5KrKAhWDVyYKHZGkDbIQ6AEINTAI#v=onepage&q=mexican%20steam%20frigate%20guadeloupe&f=false). (The same source gives the East India Company's Nemesis of 1839 as the world's first iron-hulled warship, "significant" or not)

For the purposes of this article, I think that, while not claiming these as "ironclads," they should be mentioned as iron-hulled forerunners to the iron-armored warships of the 1850s. Solicitr (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a difference in terms of protective capabilities between the thin iron plates they'd have used on the hull with the 120mm and up armor plating used in Gloire and Warrior. Montezuma would have been little better protected than any other iron-hulled steamer.

It would be easy to add a reference to a few specific examples of iron-hulled ships in the second paragraph of the hulls subsection. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source citing the British as developing and building the first ironclad: https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-opium-wars-still-shape-chinas-view-of-the-west. Roland Of Yew (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Korean turtle ships since October 12

Someone changed the introduction of the article on October 12 to redefine "ironclad" to include the 16th century Korean "turtle ships", which are appropriately covered in the article Pre-industrial armoured ships. The word "ironclad" as used in English normally refers to the steam-powered ships of the 19th century. I propose restoring the introduction of the article to how it was before October 12 this year. This is a featured article, so this is particularly important. R3venans (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to wrong ship

the link to the Palestro in the Lissa section targets the wrong ship - it should be this one: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestro_%28cannoniera%29 --2001:A61:12C2:3D01:A04C:E5C4:F44:1BF7 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Turtle ship again

Anon IPs have recently been adding back in content describing Korean "turtle ships" as Ironclads. As has been discussed on this talk page in the past, these ships are appropriately covered in the article Pre-industrial armoured ships, and typically in English language sources Ironclad specifically refers to steam-propelled warships only, first used in the 19th century. While a few sources have been found which do describe the Korean ships as 'ironclad', this is not a mainstream view.Dialectric (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree, what you are proposing is disrespectful and degrading to the accomplishments and technological innovation of the Chinese and Korean engineers. This is nothing more than unacceptable academic discrimination. Wikipedia is not about mob consensus, it's about historical accuracy based on academic references. Even the early European ironclads had sails along with low powered steam engines. Please read up about the Western European French ironclad Gloire and the British HMS Warrior (1860) both of which operated on sail power simply because their steam engine did not produce enough power. Please take a close look at their pictures, both ironclad ships have large wind powered sails. Additionally many other European ironclads also had sails and hence qualify as "pre-industrial ships" by your subjective definition?? No hypocritical double standards please, just stick to the facts and the historical references.

Please read these historical academic sources, all of which state very clearly that Turtle Ships were the world's first ironclad ships:

1.) https://www.navyhistory.org.au/korean-turtle-ship/
2.) http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1540.htm
3.) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/research/turtle/
4.) http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Turtle_ship
5.) http://navy.memorieshop.com/Korea/

103.17.199.179 (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Either the modern definition requiring steam power is used or we would need to include the range of Pre-industrial armoured ships. A google search turns up multiple descriptions of Viking ships with iron reenforcement as 'ironclad', and use of metal plating dating back to ancient Greece and Rome.Dialectric (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not your decision, and your subjective "definition" of what constitutes an ironclad is just your personal beliefs. You have neither academic qualifications nor references to back up your outdated beliefs. History books change every year as new archaeological and historical documents are discovered, so even if 50 years ago people believed that ironclads were invented first in Europe, knowledge of history changes now that we know about the history of the turtle ships. Hence, based on sourced references, the mainstream view now from all reputable historical sources such the Naval Historical Society of Australia, the National Geographic Society, the University of Hawaii, the University of Houston, the history book Duel of the Ironclads: The Monitor Vs, the Virginia, by Patrick O'Brien as well as the vast majority of other mainstream reputable sources all state very clearly that the turtle ships were "the first ironclad ships in the world" and there is absolutely no way within academic honesty that you can dispute or deny the overwhelming evidence supporting this. Please put aside your pride and arrogance and show some respect for historical accuracy based on legit historical reputable sources and not personal beliefs. Additionally the Viking, ancient Greek and Roman ships that you mentioned were NEVER FULLY COVERED BY IRON OR STEEL so they do not even come close to qualifying as "ironclad" ships, but in contrast, all historical sources state that the Korean Turtle ship was COMPLETELY COVERED BY IRON ARMOR on all sides of the ship making it indisputably the world's first ironclad ship. Please go read Admiral Yi Sun-Sin's personal diary, the Nanjung Ilgi, in which he states very clearly that "all important parts of the hull were covered with protective iron" implying a battleship fully armored on all sides of the ship. aka. ironclad. Evidently, you have chosen to ignore the historical sources, so please read the following sources for your enjoyment:

1.) "The Korean Turtle Ship is considered to be the first ironclad warship in the world, shaped like a turtle, invented and built by Admiral Yi Soon in 1592" -- Naval Historical Society of Australia

2.) "The Turtle Boat was ironclad" -- University of Houston

3.) "This turtle ship, so named due to its shape, is considered to be the world's first ironclad battleship" -- University of Hawaii

4.) "It was not an entirely new idea. About 250 years earlier, the Koreans had built "turtle ships." An iron lid protected the warriors inside" -- Duel of the Ironclads: The Monitor Vs, the Virginia, by Patrick O'Brien

27.100.16.45 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that another editor lacks ‘academic qualifications’ and has ‘outdated beliefs’ is focusing on the editor not the content. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. What academic qualifications do you have that make you an expert in this area? Please post verifiable info if you choose to reveal your qualificaitons. Sources including Samuel Hawley’s “The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China” (2005) p.602 argue that the Turtle ships may not have used iron plates, just iron spikes protruding from their roofs. Your University of Hawaii source is an undergraduate term paper. Patrick O'Brien's book which you cite above is a 30 page children's book for 8-12 year olds and in any case does not use the term 'ironclad'. http://navy.memorieshop.com/Korea/ is certainly not a reliable source. Use of sources such as self-published web pages and children's books weakens your argument. If you are an academic, please use published works of history scholarship / peer-reviewed academic sources to support your position. Dialectric (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Patrick O'Brien's book makes it very clear that the turtle ships were ironclad. And for your information it is not a "children's book," where did you even get that kind of false information? Your subjective definition of what constitutes a "children's book" is absolute nonsense! Additionally the University of Hawaii paper is NOT some "undergraduate" paper, it's actually part of graduate thesis that has been thoroughly recognized and approved by the professors and dean within the Faculty of History at the University of Hawaii. Why didn't you try distorting and rewriting history by falsely claiming that the University of Houston paper is false??? Because you know you can't deny it, the University of Houston paper is reputable and legitimate, indisputable! And why didn't you try your lame attacks against the legit sources published by the Naval Historical Society of Australia? Again, because you know you can't! You cannot deny and dispute a legitimate reputable source such as the Naval Historical Society of Australia when they clearly state that "The Korean Turtle Ship is considered to be the first ironclad warship in the world, shaped like a turtle, invented and built by Admiral Yi Soon in 1592." It would seem that you are making a very weak case for yourself by making lame attacks against legitimate and reputable historical sources that you can't deny or refute academically. Additionally, your academic standing is further weakened considering that the source you provided by Samuel Hawley's "The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China" is OUTDATED and OLD INFORMATION that was last published in the year 2005 which means that information contained in the book must have been written from sometime before 2005, maybe in 2003 to 2004 prior to it's publishing in 2005. ????? It's the year 2017 now, an abundance of new archaeological and historical information has been discovered during the last 15 to 20 years. So rather than reciting and parroting back outdated and old information from 13 years ago on Wikipedia, you should know that knowledge of history or science is not static, but constantly changes as new information is discovered and added to our repository of information. It is certain that you are quite aware that the majority of all the latest sources of information all state that Korean turtle ships were the first ironclads in the world, indisputable. But of course, since you are currently experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance, it may take a little time for you to get used to it, but you will be okay! The information from University of Houston, University of Hawaii and the Naval Historical Society of Australia are all verifiable and undeniable. Please let go of your pride and arrogance and work towards making Wikipedia historically accurate instead of constantly posting up outdated and old information on Wikipedia, it's not helping! 27.100.17.113 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Duel of the Ironclads was published by the Walker Childrens imprint in 2003- even the publisher considers this a children's book. Shawn Ford's Undergraduate term paper for Hawaii dates from 1997. His CV shows he was an undergraduate at the time. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/cv/ Your statements about these sources are demonstrably false. None of the sources you cite make any claim to any archeological evidence existing for the turtle ship, and certainly not new evidence since 2005. I see no need to continue this further unless you have scholarly sources or another registered user wants to take this discussion in a more constructive direction.Dialectric (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Still trying to attack the sources just because they don't conform to your view of "how the history of the world SHOULD BE" instead of how real history actually is? The Naval Historical Society of Australia is a reputable source that states very clearly that the turtle ships were the world's first ironclads. Why don't you try attacking the legitimacy of the Naval Historical Society of Australia or the University of Houston paper??? You know very well that these are legit sources of information! Indeed, there is no need for you to continue your Eurocentric distortion of history, please put aside your pride and arrogant behavior and try to work towards historical accuracy. Wikipedia is no place for Eurocentric nationalism, please take that racist mentality and throw it in the trash because discrimination or antisemitism in any form is unacceptable. Because whether you like it or not, the true information about history will be known to the world. No one can cover up the historical fact that Turtle ships were the first ironclads in the world, regardless of whatever kind of semantic games you want to play with your subjective "definitions" of ironclad needing to be steam powered. Ridiculous, as the historical reality is that many of the early European ironclads were also powered by multiple sails to supplement the weak and underpowered early steam engines. Even you know this to be true. So please stop this academic discrimination and rewriting history with a Eurocentric twist and focus on real uncensored history. 27.100.17.113 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, either with respect to the proposed move, or with respect to the counter-proposal to move the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ironclad warship → Ironclad – I think warship is redundant here. I can't think of a really accurate metric for deciding which of "ironclad" and "ironclad warship" is more common, but out of six books used as sources in the article that contain the word, five use just "ironclad" and only one uses "ironclad warship". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as natural disambiguation, and instead move Ironclad (disambiguation) to primary. It seems based on the entries there and my understanding of the term, that the primary meaning of "ironclad" is as an adjective describing something either literally reinforced by armor or something that is generally resilient. The recent film and other media that use that term aren't doing so in reference to warships. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I tend to agree with User:Netoholic the da page should be moved to the primary location. The term "ironclad", while often used by knowledgeable parties as a noun, is more often used as an adjective (ex. ironclad contract). IMHO readers unfamiliar with the term might be confused if the pagespace title were less clearly referring to this specific usage of ironclad as a modifier for this particular noun. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per both above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are unimportant compared to titles. Adjectives don’t make for good titles. Abbreviated jargon terms don’t make for good titles, even if they get used in running speech afterwards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for clarity, but also oppose disambiguation; we generally don't give much consideration to adjectives when considering primary topic, especially not an adjective as uncommon as "ironclad", and all the other topics are not as important as the warship. A primary redirect (status quo) is the best solution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, "ironclad" unadorned does refer to the warship type in practice, and the adjective isn't a useful encyclopedic topic (for e.g. ironclad contracts), more of a dictionary topic, so it's moot. Failing that, at least keep the primary redirect; definitely opposed to moving the disambiguation page when this article on the warship is what is meant. SnowFire (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ironclad has also redirected here for the past decade+ for what it's worth. Calidum 06:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely inappropriate citing of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". No one here is advocating creation of a dictionary entry, but we also do not ignore that words actually do have alternate meanings, especially when many of them are represented on the DAB page. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. No real rationale for ending the primacy for the warship has been brought forth, and the proposed title is more natural, common, and precise. Red Slash 04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name and primary topic for Ironclad. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on the rename but oppose disambiguation. According to the backlinkscount.py tool, there are 1236 mainspace links to Ironclad warship and 807 links to Ironclad. But some of the former will be piped (browsing, I saw at least one example of [[Ironclad warship|ironclad]]), so I would guess the two terms are used roughly equally in articles. Based on my limited experience with this domain, it's not clear to me which of the two options best meet WP:CRITERIA. I oppose the disambiguation because, like Calidum, I find the adjective argument unsatisfying (per WP:NOTDICTIONARY), and I don't see any of the other entities listed at Ironclad (disambiguation) approaching the usage or long-term significance of Ironclad warship. Colin M (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's the clear common and precise name, and primary topic for Ironclad, which already redirects here, thus the natural disambiguation is unnecessary. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FA concerns

A lot of uncited text has crept into this older featured article - for the featured article criteria, it'll generally all need cited. I also have some other concerns, specifically about the American Civil War content. CSS Arkansas certainly warrants a mention. IMO the tinclad should be mentioned as a derivative form. I'm also a bit unsure about the ending part of "The Union ironclads played an important role in the Mississippi and tributaries by providing tremendous fire upon Confederate forts, installations and vessels with relative impunity to enemy fire.", as it almost suggests that the ironclads were little hurt by Confederate shore defenses, despite the Battle of St. Charles incident with Mound City, the butt-kicking suffered by the ironclads at the Battle of Fort Donelson, and a few other incidents. I think it would be worthwhile to tone down the strength of that statement a bit.

It's also problematic that the Lissa section mentions that the ACW helped establish that ironclads could be sunk by ramming, but this is never mentioned in the ACW section (examples to mention would be things like USS Indianola or the Battle of Plum Point Bend). This article certainly has good bones, but needs some work to get up to featured standard. Hog Farm _Talk 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ramming

Just looking at Brown's "Warrior to Dreadnought". To quote;

The introduction of the iron, armoured ship led to renewed interest in ramming, partly because the strength of the hull and the power of the engines appeared to make such attacks possible and partly because it appeared impossible to sink such ships by gunfire. The interest in sinking is a little strange since sailing battleships very rarely sank their opponents. Views on the value of ramming were reinforced by the sinking of the Cumberland by the Virginia (Merrimac) at Hampton Roads and even more by the confused battle of Lissa in which there were eight ramming contacts... Numerous accidental collisions with several ship sunk also seemed to show the power of the ram. It is now clear that these views were mistaken, but they were held strongly at the time and had a major influence on both tactical thinking and ship design..."

I would expect to find something similar in both Sondhaus and Beeler (though Sondhaus probably refers it back to Brown). The Land (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a good bit to improve on here. Thanks for digging into this! Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Repeatedly tried to ram one another"

As I noted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1, a skim of a modern work on Hampton Roads mentions only one intentional ramming attempt (by Virginia), with the other collisions being accidentally bumps from being too close. Monitor for one was not intended to ram at all. The current wording implies multiple intentional ramming attempts, with both ships participating. Is there a source that supports that implication? Hog Farm _Talk 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First Steampowered iron clad created in March 19th 1814

THE FIRST IRON-CLAD. Representation of the Armored Vessel, Patented by Thomas Gregg, of Pennsylvania, in 1814. During the war of 1812 . This is from a newspaper dated from 1862 taking about the invention of the iron clad Steampowered warships.

During the War of 1812, he offered the US government his weapon system consisting of an ironclad steamship that could spray “liquid fire”—his version of the ancient Greek fire—onto opposing vessels while remaining impervious to enemy ships.

In the book Villainous Compounds Chemical Weapons and the American Civil War By Guy R. Hasegawa · 2015

https://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/623611 2601:407:4180:8D80:B0B4:DDFE:C8CB:B8BD (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there proof he actually made this, not just conceptualised it? Otherwise it's no different from how we don't credit the Da Vinci as having created the first tank. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2C18:9C26:B60A:4C71 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

ACR review (2024)

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.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ironclad warship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Ironclad warship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose byDelist - Gog the Mild

• You are correct, way too much uncited text, so didn't need to look any further before opposing. I think this needs to be at PR, preferably after the uncited text has been either cited or removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: - just wanting to make sure you are aware this is one in a series of delisting nominations, not an actual a-class nomination to oppose. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, no, thanks; I missed the "reassessment". I shall have a more detailed look, but it is still up for delisting unless someone has access to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have read through it properly and could add quite a bit, but I see no need to - it is clearly a long way from A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - Pickersgill-Cunliffe

MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - HF

Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 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.