Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Texas was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 28, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed October 31, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 21, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 23, 2021 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 30, 2004, December 29, 2008, and December 29, 2009. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Texas Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Top-importance). Mexico High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Section sizes Section size for Texas (51 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 12,979 12,979 518 518 Etymology 3,855 3,855 166 166 History 12 55,086 0 3,543 Precontact era 7,734 7,734 733 733 Colonization 12,729 12,729 738 738 Republic 6,319 6,319 473 473 Statehood 4,402 4,402 363 363 Civil War to late 19th century 8,538 8,538 520 520 Early to mid-20th century 7,048 7,048 413 413 Mid-20th to early 21st century 8,304 8,304 303 303 Geography 5,577 36,765 444 1,920 Geology 4,117 4,117 297 297 Wildlife 2,635 2,635 106 106 Climate 4,491 10,152 204 523 Storms 5,661 5,661 319 319 Greenhouse gases 1,682 1,682 72 72 Administrative divisions 12,602 12,602 478 478 Demographics 7,086 33,535 391 1,854 Race and ethnicity 9,429 9,429 335 335 Languages 4,864 4,864 269 269 Religion 12,156 12,156 859 859 Economy 5,020 40,529 243 2,016 Taxation 3,132 3,132 161 161 Agriculture and mining 3,625 3,625 216 216 Energy 7,379 7,379 396 396 Technology 5,269 5,269 146 146 Commerce 1,843 1,843 106 106 Transportation 2,450 14,261 108 748 Highways 1,966 1,966 88 88 Airports 2,424 2,424 108 108 Ports 2,031 2,031 85 85 Railroads 5,390 5,390 359 359 Culture 2,901 18,970 175 1,116 Texas self-perception 2,503 2,503 85 85 Arts 5,241 5,241 357 357 Sports 8,325 8,325 499 499 Education 5,570 17,775 276 768 Higher education 12,205 12,205 492 492 Healthcare 5,558 11,644 336 528 Medical research 6,086 6,086 192 192 Government and politics 711 19,985 37 1,262 State government 5,881 5,881 455 455 Politics 11,621 11,621 676 676 Criminal law 1,772 1,772 94 94 See also 191 191 0 0 Notes 47 47 0 0 References 28 28 0 0 Bibliography 5,233 5,233 0 0 External links 1,665 3,858 0 42 State government 278 278 0 0 Federal government 1,915 1,915 42 42 Total 260,480 260,480 13,733 13,733

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I'm going close this discussion as delist. The issues that I pointed out still exist, and would most certainly result in an automatic fail if an article like this were nominated for GA. Aside from the obvious, I would recommend condensing the lead to four paragraphs, and condensing the history section (especially the Pre-European era and Colonization subsections) the Demographics section, and the politics sections, as well as minor condenses throughout the entire article where necessary. This does not, however, mean that a large amount of information needs to be cut. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is the article's length. It is currently 15,630 words, and the recommended length is no more than 10,000 words. In addition, there is some content that is missing citations, and information that needs to be updated. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The length here is not inherently a problem; huge sweeping topics often permit larger articles. Having said that, this article passed GAN in 2008 at less than half its current length, meaning most of the text is unassessed. This is a good example of the need for GA sweeps -- there are more than a few articles in this position. It might require delisting, but could also just require a simple tune-up to see what of the added text is useful and polish it up. I've no sufficient grasp of the subject matter to lead such a job. Vami IV? Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to lead a reassessment either; however if this no longer meets GA, I don't think its far from it. I do agree that extensive topics such as this can exceed 10,000 words and still pass GA; some other users would disagree with me on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I do happen to live in Texas. I'll have a look at this later in the week, ping me if need be. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for adding a huge amount of information. It's entirely my fault. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over this article soon. Stedil (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the third paragraph of the Taxation section reads:"Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state got back about $0.94 in benefits." This line is both perplexing and its citation does not provide this information. Reference 260 redirects to a page which links to many posts but contains no information on the page itself. I propose this line should be removed if another reference cannot be found and–if another reference is found–the sentence should be clarified. Venusasaguy (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the last sentence of paragraph one of the demographic section from

Texas is the second-most populous state in the United States after California.

to

Texas is the second-most populous state in the United States after California and the only other U.S. state to surpass a total estimated population of 30 million people as of July 2, 2022.^[1][2] Deepthinker73 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also change the demographic chart on the right side of the page showing "est." 2021 population to the newly released 2022 estimated population of 30,029,572.

 Done RealAspects (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RealAspects, but I added one more thing to the request, that I guess didn't make it before the approval. Please see the last bit "Please also change the demographic chart on the right side of the page showing "est." 2021 population to the newly released 2022 estimated population of 30,029,572 which is a 3.03% increase over 2020." or do I need to submit a new Edit Request for that section/chart on the page? Deepthinker73 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually able to make the change, but thanks! Deepthinker73 (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

texas needs to be 2 times as big Evan1328 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is bigger in Texas but like Sirdog said, you gotta have proof Cleter (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech University is now a 'Teir 1' research university (as of 2021). It is currently listed as a 'Teir 2' university.

https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2021/12/Stories/Carnegie-Classification-Reaffirms-Texas-Tech-as-Tier-One-Research-University 2603:8080:2900:BD95:0:0:0:18C9 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is mentioning abortion in state's articles actually WP: Undue? Heck, the Texas Heartbeat Act was partially responsible for Dobbs. That seems to warrant mention to me. There's a lot of other things mentioned in the article with much less apparent importance.

It seems indisputable to me that circumstance has changed the subject's notoriety dramatically before and after. KlayCax (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion is already extensively covered in the healthcare section. Add material there if you think it's needed, but reference in the lead will require a broader consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by User:Nikkimaria adds a length template to this article. I don't understand the justification for the edit, which Nikkimaria does not elaborate in edit history. In order to improve the article, I'm asking for some guidance about what specifically needs to be improved. A number of editors have put effort into reducing unnecessary or lengthy information. However, reading the article now, many statements are not excessively long. Therefore, I'm at a loss as to why the length template would apply here, or what would need to be changed to justify removing it. Clarification would be appreciated, and absent any clarification I will WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Cleter (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fix would be to move some of the details to the appropriate subarticles - see WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which details and subarticles are we talking about here? Many editors have taken action to improve Texas's length, with your length template being present for approximately 7 months. If there are any specific sections that need shortening, please include that. Thank you. Cleter (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sections in needs of shortening are all the ones between the lead and Government and politics, inclusive, plus External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to this matter and see to it that it is resolved. I would appreciate it if other editors would focus their attention on this as well, so that the template may be removed and all may be well. Cleter (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read that thoroughly, you want the entire article to be shortened except for criminal law? You are being broad, please be specific. Cleter (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, including criminal law. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, but how should the template be removed? Cleter (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: [1], [2]. The study was funded by conservatives. How should this be represented in the article? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like:

Personal Freedom in Texas

According to a study by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank [1][2], Texas ranks last in personal freedom among the states. The study assesses various factors contributing to personal freedom, including incarceration rates, cannabis laws, civil asset forfeiture policies, educational freedom, gambling laws, marriage freedom, and travel freedom.

Despite Texas's sixth-place ranking in overall economic freedom, its last-place ranking in personal freedom highlights a potential disparity in the state's approach to economic and personal liberties [1][2]. This disparity has sparked discussions among Texas leaders and policymakers, with some expressing skepticism about the study's findings and others acknowledging the need for further examination of the state's policies in relation to personal freedom.

The study's assessment of Texas's personal freedom ranking provides valuable insights into the state's policies and their impact on individual liberties [1][2]. The contrast between Texas's ranking in personal freedom and its overall economic freedom underscores the complexity of balancing economic and personal liberties in the state. Cleter (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the state of Texas does not need a section dedicated to corporal punishment [as opposed to] User:Carlstak. While corporal punishment might be important for Texas's legal system or educational policies, it does not appear to be a defining characteristic or a major focus of the state. The article already covers various aspects of Texas, including its history, geography, economy, culture, and politics. These are broader topics that provide a comprehensive overview of the state, and adding a specific section on corporal punishment may not be necessary for understanding Texas as a whole. Thanks Cleter (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current write up (it does not have it's own section like you say, just one paragraph), is 57 words, and seems WP:DUE in the summary of education, due to it's unusual prevalence and acceptance. I have added some additional sources to back up it's inclusion as necessary. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I suppose it would be necessary in education. Thank you for including sources, this talk may now come to a conclusion. Cleter (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The backbone of this sentence is: "The name Texas … was applied … by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves …", with four qualifying phrases inserted at three points. Rather tedious to follow and might be broken into two sentences: one saying that it is Caddo, and another saying how the Spanish used it. 2601:642:4600:BE10:A943:306E:D4C8:85A4 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should highlight somehow, that Texan city doesn’t have a 4 seasons Humid subtropical climate like Atlanta or Charlotte but has a very short winter, And most days throughout February and March has a daytime temperature above 22.

kind of bordering a tropical climate. דולב חולב (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must clarify the city fellow. Amarillo is definitely not tropical-like as McAllen is.

And you know the rules for tropical classification, all months should have daily mean above 18(or 64 in F?)

I'm gonna make sure that your contributions page is in my watchlist.PAper GOL (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the idea of the last sentence?

it’s a compliment or a threat? 🤔 דולב חולב (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly cpompliment, but I cannot do it since I have no idea how watchlists work=)))

Need to take a look at Help:Watchlist page. PAper GOL (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha cool דולב חולב (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas state dog is the blue lacy 2603:8080:2300:16AA:C46B:647:5A08:35B8 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources 2603:8080:D03:89D4:A12C:2B12:91E3:7B (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria it's an improvement HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, this is the diff being discussed). No, it's not - it's ungrammatical, repetitive, and introduces stylistic problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how it's ungrammatical. Just about every Wikipedia page about a u.s. state is written like how I did my edit. Example on the page about California: "California is a state in the Western United States". Why shouldn't the first sentence on this page say "Texas is a state in the South Central region of the United States". And if it's repetitive because I mentioned South Central region two times, we can shorten it the second time by just saying "the most populous state in the region" for short instead of "the most populous state in the South Central region". And the part where I said Texas was an independent country instead of independent Republic, both are true so I don't see how that part is ungrammatical HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you wrote: "It the most populous state". That is not a grammatically correct statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I said "it the most" instead of "it is the most". You could've just added the word "is" if I accidentally skip over a word and make a grammar error HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the only issue, I would have. But on the whole, restoring the previous correct version was the better option. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tell me everything wrong with my edit, and in my next edit I'll fix all the problems HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the unproblematic change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want a picture of me in this a small one I’m from Texas and I support and love my lone star state. 2603:800C:3FF0:19C0:9499:4BC8:FC02:E09A (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: LizardJr8 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"When Europeans arrived in the Texas region, the language families present in the state were Caddoan, Atakapan, Athabaskan, Coahuiltecan, and Uto-Aztecan, [...]"

Atakapan and Coahuiltecan are given as Wikipedia links.

The other language families mentioned (Caddoan, Athabaskan, Uto-Aztecan) all have Wikipedia pages, and should be given as links too. Salmon9 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Texas, no one calls them “Breakfast Burritos.” They are called “Breakfast Tacos.” Calling them burritos is more of a New Mexico thing. The part in the article that calls them breakfast burritos should be changed to better reflect Texas culture 2600:100C:B061:BD2F:71D4:D710:D576:5A24 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

+Average daily maximum and minimum temperatures for selected cities in Texas^[1] 2605:4A80:2002:2030:C1F9:5ED2:3E57:94DB (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In first paragraph:

Texas is nicknamed the Lone Star State for its former status as a independent country, the Republic of Texas.

Should be "an" not "a":

Texas is nicknamed the Lone Star State for its former status as an independent country, the Republic of Texas. Texasfixer2 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request change in the first paragraph to sentence starting "It borders Louisiana to the east,..." to be changed to "It is bordered by Lousiana to the east,..." to properly convey the geographical location of the state in relation to the following states and countries. 2601:2C3:CF01:2C70:AC4A:2B7F:428B:B889 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "It borders X" is perfectly correct usage. Day Creature (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Republic of Texas is mentioned in the second paragraph which documents the American state's history, why have it in the first. Taxes I mean Texas isn't a country its a state and it being a Republic for 9 years like hundreds of years ago isn't modern Texas. It wasn't called the Lone Star because it was a Republic but because of the flag it had as a Republic. The Source that's linked, it's not a reliable source per Wp: reliable sources @Meters FriendlyScott (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you completely removed it without any given reason, then you restored your removal, claiming that "I've read the source. It doesn't say it's called the Lone Star State because it was an independent republic. If you look it up it's actually called the Lone Star State because of it's past and current flag". I pointed out that the source does make the connection to the former republic. It says '"The Lone Star State" comes from the symbolism of the star on the 1836 flag of the republic, the "National Standard of Texas." The single golden star on a blue background signified Texas as an independent republic and was a reminder of the state's struggle for independence from Mexico.' I've already modified the claim to better follow the source, saying: "Texas is nicknamed the Lone Star State for the single star on its flag, symbolic of its former status as an independent country, the Republic of Texas."

Now you're complaining about this being mentioned in the first paragraph, that Texas isn't a country (we don't say it is one), that it was only a seperate state for a few years (so what?), and that was a long time ago (so what?), and that you don't think the source is reliable (interesting that it was acceptable to you when you claimed it supported your second removal).

So what is your goal here? Do you want it removed? Do you want the wording changed again? Do you want it moved elsewhere in the lead? Do you want a different source used? Shotgunning a bunch of different complaints is not helpful. Meters (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the claim about the symbolism of the lone star, cited to this same source, have been in the lead for years. Meters (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information because I hate Texas since it's a red state. You did fix the first paragraph to make it more historically accurate so I'll let it slide FriendlyScott (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this page's Politics section, a few lines struck me as giving off the vibe of having been written from a certain political perspective:

"The shift to the Republican Party is much-attributed to the fact the Democratic Party became increasingly liberal during the 20th century, and thus increasingly out-of-touch with the average Texas voter. As Texas was always a conservative state, voters switched to the Republicans, which now more closely reflected their beliefs." sounds as if it was written from a conservative Texan's perspective.

Meanwhile, "Texas voters lean toward fiscal conservatism, while enjoying the benefits of significant federal investment in the state in military and other facilities achieved by the power of the Solid South in the 20th century. They also tend to have socially conservative values." seems as if it's trying to say that Texans are wrong for holding conservative beliefs.

Should we take a look at potentially trying to fall more in line with WP:NPOV here? CadiaStands42 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it. The at one time were LOTS of conservative Southern Democratic party leaders. See John Nance Garner, Allan Shivers John Connally, and one remaining today is Henry Cuellar . As most conservative leaders shifted to the GOP, so too did conservative rank and file. See Dewey Grantham, The South and modern America (1994) pp. 130 to 138. 337 to 341. Also Numan Bartley, the New South 1945 to 1980 (1995). 407 to 410. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmondson (2000), p. 75 's citation is gone. It seems to reference https://archive.org/details/alamostoryfromea0000edmo/page/74/mode/2up -- it says (paraphrased) in 1820s Tejano population is around 3300 and doesn't explicitly say the Anglo and other population either. The article says 3,500. 76.143.181.203 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference back. I'm not sure why @Rjensen removed it. You are correct, the text did not match what was in the source, so I removed it for now. I couldn't figure out how to reword what was in the source to match the rest of the content of the page. Others are welcome to revise or update with a different source. Thank you! Stedil (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be worth mentioning that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is very prevalent in Texas, more so than other states. Texas has some of the best Brazilian jiu jitsu schools in the world, more specifically Austin. ~2025-38875-49 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sourcing to support that? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It’s gulf of America now legally so it should be changed instead of Gulf of Mexico to gulf of America Mushysandwich (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what 'legally' means. The common name suffices; you should use the talk page at Gulf of Mexico to gain a consensus. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]