Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Arbitrary break in discussion

I am reposting my comment (with some edits) from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Worrying_trend_on_articles_about_Croatian_coastal_cities_that_were_under_occupation_by_Fascist_Italy| Template Talk: Infobox settlements].

On articles about Croatian, coastal cities that were occupied by fascist Italy after WWI and during WWII the infobox shows the Italian name for the city under the Croatian name for the city, see examples: Šibenik, Zadar, Split,_Croatia, Trogir, Pula, Opatija, Rovinj, and so on. Every Croatian city that used to be under Fascist Italy occupation has the Italian name right under the Croatian name.

Arguments against the use of Italian names as "other name":

• The addition of the Italian name is usually justified by a single, Italian-language source (most often a history book).
• According to the census in 2021 there are some ~13.000 Italians living in Croatia; they do not make up a significant minority and Italian is not an official language in Croatia.
• Croatian wikipedia does not have Italian names in the infobox.
• This is English wikipedia, the vast majority of readers won't know the city by the Italian name, but they will know it by the name that is used in English-language websites, travel guides, etc. and those sources always use the Croatian name.
• The infobox can actually do damage because it can make readers think that the Italian name is an acceptable other/alternative name for the city currently in use, when it absolutely is not.
• The historical name of the cities is always mentioned in the History section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should be a summary of the key facts. A historical name that isn't used in Croatia or the English-speaking world is hardly a key fact.

I was able to successfully argue for the removal of the name from Rijeka, but to do this for every single settlement/city where this is an issue would be too time consuming. I am hoping for a solution that would have all the Italian names removed at once, and then those who wish to add the name can argue for its addition on the article's talk page.

In addition to discussing the other name in the infobox, we can also discuss whether having the Italian name featured prominently in the lede is justified.

Pinging @LukeWiller and @Ponor as interested editors in the subject area. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have made edits to: Trogir, Opatija, Pula (also removed a redirect from Pola and its listing on the Pola disambiguation page as a historical province of Italy), Dubrovnik, Split, Rovinj, Zadar, Šibenik, Primošten (!!). Looks like every single settlement on the Croatian coast is going to have an Italian name, either simply there, or as an also known as, or as a historically known as. Then the "historically known" name is always going to be in bold, so it is as prominent in the lede as the current name.

:I also removed Pula from the "Pola" disambiguation page. I removed Šibenik from the Sebenico disambiguation page, and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sebenico&redirect=no| redirect from "Sebenico"]. Which made me realise, there's probably a redirect and a disambiguation page for nearly every coastal settlement...

:yup:

:Split, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spalato&redirect=no

:Opatija, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbazia&redirect=no

:Wtf is going on here? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Removing the Hungarian name of Pula (Póla) from the lead is understandable, although it would be more correct to retain it under a "Name/Etymology" section, and the redirect should be retained (in all cases). Please restore the Pola redirect and its place on the disambiguation page. The rest of your deletions will be reverted by other editors over time. Yes, Primošten has a Slavic etymology, but although few would protest its removal from the lead, Capocesto is very different from Primošten and should be retained in "Other" names in the infobox {{emphasis|until}} you create a separate "Name" section for the information together with a source to confirm. See Istanbul#Name for an example of a Name section that includes currently unofficial names; the main reason "Constantinople" is not in the lead in that case is because there is a separate article for Constantinople.

::If you want to get into policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines states, "{{tq|Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.}}" This means Pola and Rovigno are covered as "local official names" (see [https://doi.org/10.31724/rihjj.46.2.20 Službena dvojezičnost u Istarskoj županiji: stanje i perspektive]), while the rest are covered as "used by a group of people which {{emphasis|used}} to inhabit this geographical place". Even if they weren't, in current times the Italian name makes up well over 10% of sources in the English language (see Google Ngrams [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Trau%2CTrogir&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 for Trau,Trogir], [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Opatija%2CAbbazia&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 for Opatija,Abbazia], [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Dubrovnik%2CRagusa&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 for Dubrovnik,Ragusa] and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%C5%A0ibenik%2CSebenico&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 Šibenik,Sebenico]. The only exception is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Spalato%2CSplit&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 for Spalato,Split], where "Split" dominates by a much more significant margin. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Zara%2CZadar&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 Zara,Zadar] is obfuscated by Zara (retailer), but "Zara" made up more than 10% of all English mentions before the retailer was founded. Ragusa is also a city in Sicily, but even when restricting to Dubrovnik it seems to make up more than 10% of all English mentions. While

::Yes, "{{tq|all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves}}," but "{{tq|a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead, in the form "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".}}" In most of the examples you struck, that is exactly what had been done. Even Kyiv retains "Kiev" in the lead, after so much controversy there is a WP:KIEV policy! Ivan (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"Please restore the Pola redirect and its place on the disambiguation page."}}

:::I have done that, because it looks like Pola is an official name. That is my mistake.

:::{{tq|"The rest of your deletions will be reverted by other editors over time."}}

:::Why?

:::{{tq|"Capocesto is very different from Primošten and should be retained in "Other" names in the infobox"}}

:::Why?

:::{{tq|"while the rest are covered as "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"."}}

:::And when did Italians inhabit Trogir in large numbers?

::::They were once the {{emphasis|majority}}. See for example [https://hrcak.srce.hr/12136 O broju Talijana/talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. stoljeća]. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::18th century? That's your justification for having it as an other name in the infobox?

::::I also like the first sentence of that text: {{tq|"Dugo zatomljivana težnja talijanskog iredentizma spram posjedovanja odnosno svojatanja Dalmacije, napose Zadra, nedavno je, iako stidljivo, ponovo izašla na javu."}}

::::Ironic, don't you think? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::19th. XIX means 19th. For example, 62% were registered as Italian speakers in the 1880 census per Censimenti: della popolazione dell'Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune citta della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936. The majority of Italian names you erased existed long before il irredentismo, and even if they were invented during that period, those names would still deserve a redirect and a mention in the Names/Etymology section. Ivan (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, but Italian names are not currently used. They can be mentioned in the History/etymology section, but the names aren't a key fact that needs to be in the infobox or the lede. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::They are currently used in English literature, and quite frequently. Mostly by Italian authors, but even by non-Italians. Not all are in {{emphasis|official}} use, but if you want to use that as an excuse to exclude it from the lead, you need to create a Name/Etymology section immediately after the lead. Ivan (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|"They are currently used in English literature, and quite frequently."}}

::::::::But in what context? Are they English translations of Italian literature? Are they history books, are they fantasy books? How many of those instances refer to the city today in contemporary works by Croatian or English authors written for an English audience? All of the citations I removed were either Italian language works or pre-WWII works.

::::::::{{tq|"you need to create a Name/Etymology section immediately after the lead."}}

::::::::Alright. Here's a relevant example, Istanbul. "Constantinople" is neither in the lede nor infobox. But it does have an etymology section that goes through all the historical names for the city. I think that is a more elegant solution than just shoving a bunch of names in the lede. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Most of these cities could use an Etymology section. Most are very old and should be in [https://archive.org/details/PETARSKOKSLAVENSTVOIROMANSTVONAJADRANSKIMOTOCIMA Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima] and the other major sources. Ivan (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"in current times the Italian name makes up well over 10% of sources in the English language"}}

:::First of all, you set the dates all the way back to 1800. Second, without context how the words are used, the Ngram result is useless.

::::I made that clear. It should give you a good picture of the result of a more detailed investigation will be. You are welcome to contest, but it is likely to be a futile effort. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Why should the onus be on me for exclusion? What justification do you have for having an Italian name as the other name for these cities? The WP:RS provided for the ones I edited were poor. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::In your edit summary for Pula, you stated "{{tq|a book about Italian WWII refugees is not a good source to justify saying it is "aka Pola"}}". There {{emphasis|are}} better sources, but this book will do fine. If you want to replace it with a better one, go ahead. Ivan (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The source you linked above about bilingualism is better, because in it it names Pula and other cities that have an official Croatian and Italian name. Of course I'm OK with the Italian name being in the infobox in the case of those cities. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have replaced the previous source with Službena dvojezičnost u Istarskoj županiji: stanje i perspektive. Ivan (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks. I think this was a productive discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead, in the form"}}

:::Other than Pula-Pola and Rovinj-Rovigno, none of the cities that I edited have a "local official name different from a widely accepted English name".

::::You are correct {{emphasis|for cases with 3+ names}} ("{{tq|it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves}}"), but the burden is on you to {{emphasis|move}} the information from the lead to the "Name" section, instead of {{emphasis|deleting}} it from the lead. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead"}}

:::I did not remove any "Names" or "Etymology" sections, that is all listed there. But it isn't significant enough to have those names in the lead. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Similar discussions in related topic areas were recently had at Talk:Tito and Talk:Nikola Tesla. @TurboSuperA+, are you the same person as @Platipusica? --Joy (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"Similar discussions"}}

::Similar how?

::{{tq|"are you the same person as @Platipusica?"}}

::No. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I just looked at the discussion at Talk:Tito and if you want to know my opinion on it, I think Tito's article page should have his name in cyrillic in the infobox as he was president of Yugoslavia and cyrillic was official script in Yugoslavia.

:::No, the two discussions are not "similar" at all, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't cast WP:ASPERSIONS as your first ever reply to me.

:::And since your first reply to the topic is accusations of sockpuppetry, I'm going to assume that means you have no good counter-arguments to the OP. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::No aspersions were cast - I'm just asking, because the arguments are very similar - let's get rid of vaguely controversial information in a contentious topic area. The argument in OP is way too broad to be useful - the use of e.g. Fiume is well-attested in the sources, and your claims about it being irrelevant are patently false. On the other hand, the use of other Italian toponymy could well be too minor to note. My response is generally the same as in the previous discussions - if there's reason to believe an English reader could well encounter such names in sources about the same topic, there is no reason to censor them, we can only have a discussion about what's the reasonable place. Your edits at Sebenico I had to revert, and they do little to reassure us you're not here to just blindly censor stuff contrary to policy. --Joy (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Guess where my IP 172.20.10.5 is.

::It is not that hard. Platipusica (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is also the recent trend by LukeWiller to add: “historical known as (insert Italian version of name)” to all thebCroatian coastal town and city articles. For example “Split (/splɪt/, Croatian:[splît] ^ⓘ), historically known as Spalato” however historically it also had other names including Split. Otherwise it implies historically it only had Spalato as a name and Split was a recent invention. So I don’t see how it is a helpful addition. OyMosby (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In all this, do not forget that MOS:LEADCLUTTER needs to be avoided, like in Moscow or Gdansk, so different (non-English) names and spellings should be put in a note. I question the need for historical names in the lead, as in most cases the next (first) section will be about the historical names. The first sentence should be simple, and about what's now. Ponor (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is also the recent trend of adding “historical known as (insert Italian version of name)” to all the Croatian coastal town and city articles. For example “Split (/splɪt/, Croatian:[splît] ^ⓘ), historically known as Spalato” OyMosby (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It was added a day ago that Roger Joseph Boscovich as a "Serbian innovator" but has nothing to do with Serbia as far as I know.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Serbian_inventions_and_discoveries&action=history Please join in the editing. Thanks.78.1.100.76 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ruđer Bošković, whose father had spent his childhood in Rascia, and whose mother was an Italian, called his paternal tongue "Illyrian". In the 16th century, Mavro Vetranović stands alone among native Ragusan writers in calling his languge "Croatian". By the end of the 16th century, Dinko Zlatarić at least considered whatever he called his language to be synonymous enough with "Croatian" in his dedication to Juraj Zrinski, as a more conservative conclusion on the evidence presented most prominently by Viktor Matić, although the request by Juraj's son from Čikulin for more Zlatarić works written in "horvatska ali dalmatiska" reflects the knowledge that it was more common for literate Slavic speakers in Durovnik to refer to their language as "Dalmatian" at the time. The popularity of "Slavic", already common at least as an exonym, was ensured by its use in 1601 by the Ragusan writer Orbini. Already in 1604, Bartol Kašić decided on "Illyrian" for his grammar, but it was his 1640 work Rituale Romanum ... Illyrica lingua, used for centuries in every Catholic church of Dalmatia sensu lato, that caused "Illyrian" to overtake "Slavic" among even the lower elite, reinforced among the upper elite by historical works like Lucius' De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae. Very gradually, "Slavic" gave way to "Illyrian", but managed to persist, as did "Croatian", "Dalmatian", "Rascian", and yes, "Serbian", all in part thanks to the historians and in part thanks to a continuous stream of Slavic refugees and immigrants from each of those parts. Bošković belonged to the educated class, and so there is a chance that in addition to "Illyrian" and, obviously, "Ragusan", he considered himself a "Croat" or a "Serb", so it is not improper to feature him on both lists. The citations that have been added to the article go into greater depth (in some cases), and I find them sufficient. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree with you that he considered himself a "Serb". That is Greater Serbian propaganda that some foreign historians have unfortunately bought into.Here's what Bosković said.A number of sources state that he referred to his Croatian identity.{{cite book| last=Dadić | first= Žarko | url= http://dizbi.hazu.hr/?sitetext=107 | title= Ruder Bošković | language=hr, en| place= Zagreb | publisher= Školska Knjiga | year= 1987}} Bošković's published letters and correspondence can be found in the Work of Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences, number 185, year 1911 (of special interest are pages 345 and 377). In writings to his sister Anica (Anna), he told her he had not forgotten the Croatian language. In a letter to his brother from 1757, he describes the encounter with Croatian soldiers in Vienna and remarks at the end of the letter: "{{Lang|it|Eviva Haddick e i nostri Croati!}}" ("Long life to Hadik and to our Croats!").{{cite web| url= http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac386.nsf/AllWebDocs/Rugjer_Boskovic_je_nas_suvremenik_| title= Matica hrvatska – Vijenac 386 – Rugjer Bošković je naš suvremenik| via =matica.hr| access-date= 12 January 2015}} While living in Paris and attending to a military parade where he saw a Croatian unit from Ragusa, his words were: "there are my brave Croats".78.1.100.76 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I had not written that he considered himself a "Serb". Neither did I write that he did not consider himself a "Croat". But the evidence you have adduced is insufficient to demonstrate that he did {{emphasis|not}}, either. In the relevant letter, written in his mother tongue (Italian) in Vienna on the 24th of October, 1757, he informs her, "Sabbato partij appunto mentre arrivava il Corriere colla presa di Berlino, onde non lo seppi, che ieri in Neustat. Il fatto è certo, e abbiamo due corrieri uno dalla Lusazia, e l'altro del Princ: Carlo. Seguì la Domenica a 16, come si diceva: le particolarità, non le so con gran certezza. Sento, che anno battuti 2 bataglioni, fatti 14 prigionieri, essendu fuggito il resto del presidio, ed anno intimata una contribuzione di 500 m talari. Sabbato che auremo avuto il detaglio sentiremo il resto. Eviva Haddich e {{tooltip|n-ri|nostri}} Croati. Gran rossore, e rabbia, che ne aura il Re. Addio. Sabbato più a lungo. Il proselito parte dimani, e costì sarà dopo 25 giorni." By "our Croats", he refers to those serving in the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Emperor during the Seven Years' War. His use of "our" does not by any means extend only to the Croats, but to all the "Imperiali" collectively, as was the case in his letter about the Battle of Rossbach (p. 381). Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Don't mince words, be direct. You tell "he considered himself a "Croat" or a "Serb". That's your quote, not mine.78.1.100.76 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I gave you a few examples from some sources. And where Bošković's statements say something about Serbs, there is nothing. That is propaganda with the aim of taking Dubrovnik in earlier history.78.1.100.76 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Cherrypicking or EFL reading comprehension problems? My statatement, "{{tq|... and so there is a chance that in addition to "Illyrian" and, obviously, "Ragusan", he considered himself a "Croat" or a "Serb" ...}}" does not imply that "{{tq|he considered himself a "Serb"}}", as you put it. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 14:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Cherrypicking Then you agree with the user StephenMacky1 who removed the edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Serbian_inventions_and_discoveries&diff=prev&oldid=1290738995 He said the same thing as you and removed the content.78.1.100.76 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think the list of Serbian inventors is not limited to geographical Serbia but also inventors of Serb heritage, if I understand correctly. So an American inventor born and raised who has ethnic Serb heritage, would be on that list, for example. OyMosby (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It would probably simplify things if one just provides the sources where the subject referred to himself as a Croat or as a Serb. Did he ever explicitly describe himself as either? Do historians? OyMosby (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There are many foreign sources that say that Nikola Tesla is a Croatian inventor, here's what I found in a short time, at least 5 foreign sources from verified books, so I don't see him on the list there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Croatian_inventions_and_discoveries. Should I add it there, of course with sources, will you support me? Because this is already a double standard, here it is allowed, there it is not, with verified sources.78.1.100.76 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Look at how many foreign books say that Nikola Tesla was a Croatian inventor https://www.google.com/search?q=nikola+tesla+croatian+inventor&sca_esv=376a3409f9ec4160&udm=36&biw=2560&bih=1279&ei=LJ8oaIDlM6a69u8P1OzBqAI&ved=0ahUKEwiAq8i23aqNAxUmnf0HHVR2ECUQ4dUDCBA&oq=nikola+tesla+croatian+inventor&gs_lp=EhBnd3Mtd2l6LW1vZGVsZXNzIh5uaWtvbGEgdGVzbGEgY3JvYXRpYW4gaW52ZW50b3IyCBAAGBYYChgeMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyBRAAGO8FSMMsUI8HWPYbcAF4AJABAJgBW6ABqgOqAQE1uAEMyAEA-AEBmAIGoAK_A8ICCxAAGIAEGLADGKIEwgIIEAAYChgNGB6YAwCIBgGQBgKSBwE2oAe3ErIHATW4B7oD&sclient=gws-wiz-modeless, and he's not on the list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Croatian_inventions_and_discoveries.78.1.100.76 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Here you go, users, edit this page, you have so many foreign sources from verified books by verified historians. This page needs to be edited too.78.1.100.76 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hold on, the topic is about Boskovic. OyMosby (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Okay OyMosby, do you agree with this edit that Roger Joseph Boscovich he is a Serbian innovator then it could also be Nikola Tesla according to sources Croatian innovator? The only big difference is that neither was born in Serbia and lived there, and both claim them as their own.78.1.100.76 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The only thing I admit is that Tesla was a Serb born in the then Austria-Hungary, which included Croatia at the time, but he had no connection with the state of Serbia. I have said everything about Ruđer, I must also say about Ivan Gundulić that this is same Serbian propaganda directed for many years during communism era with the aim of occupying the Croatian Adriatic coast. It failed, but it still exists, unfortunately, in some Serbian circles.78.1.100.76 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Hinduism in Croatia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A7 (Croatia) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)