Talk:Stolperstein

[Untitled]

Stolpersteine is plural, the singular is Stolperstein.

The name of the artists project is: "Stolpersteine" (see [1]), i.e. the name of the article.--GerardusS (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the use of the word "Stolperstein" isn't too much of a problem for the artist, otherwise, he'd have insisted its use for the title of the documentary about him. See Stolperstein listing at moviemaze.de

Stolpersteine would be consistent with what I've seen in Germany for such usage, but in English, such things are rendered in the singular. For example, "chocolate chip ice cream" is an American favorite, but when this flavor is sold in Germany using English words and trying to portray itself as American, it's called "chocolate chips". Similarly, Mövenpick sells a flavor called "Maple Walnuts" but in America, it's called "maple walnut". Marrante (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In German, a brick (singular) is a Backstein (singular) and that is the name of the article on de.wiki. Not Backsteine (plural). So the title of the article Stolpersteine is imo named after the project. I, we, can't possibly know the reason why Gunter Demnig saw no problem with the title of the documentary.--GerardusS (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Installations in the U.S; legal liability relating to responsibility for injured pedestrians

Have stolpersteins in the U.S. ever been installed.

Has legal liability (of people getting injured when tripping over stolpersteins) been a notable issue regarding installation of stolpersteins in the U.S? (Are there any links?) --85.165.229.54 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite the name, it seems that they actually lie flush with the surrounding surface and do not present any trip hazard; see in particular the video of one being installed. — 94.173.131.163 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Norway

This claim is not sourced and therefore removed from body of article: ".. installations that have raised criticism of why victims of racist killings in Norway (of non-Jews and non-ethnic Norwegians) have not been commemorated with plaques at the site where they were killed." Erik den yngre (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Stolperstein have now been installed in Stavanger. I don't want to edit the page. Could someone update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.76.210 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TEDxKOELN

What is "TEDxKOELN"? --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Relation with List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine

The article repeats to a certain extent the List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine. Can the list be removed or summarized here? Kattiel (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kattiel that the list here should be removed or summarized. I started the List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine because the list in this article was incomplete, was not organized and did not present an accurate picture of the vast scope of the stolperstein project. I thought then that the list section in this article should be summarized in one or two sentences and direct the reader to the list page for a fuller sense of the number of cities and countries where stolperstene can be found. Marrante (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Taxation issue missing here

German Wikipedia article mentions taxation issues by German Tax Office of Cologne. If the reduced 7% is applicable (as an installation of art) or 19 % (as a mass product) and the decision by Finance Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia to apply the 7% tax rate. 87.78.72.16 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What objections have been raised Munich's Jewish Community ?

"Munich has rejected stolpersteine, following objections raised by Munich's Jewish Community and particularly its chairwoman, Charlotte Knobloch, then also President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. "

could someone please clarify, thank you 11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)109.192.144.20 (talk)

Ms Knobloch finds it unbearable to read the names of murdered Jews in stones inserted in the pavement, that people will step on with their feet. (See the Suddeutsche Zeitung.) Kattiel (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Translations from de:WP

Rather than just translating from de:Stolperstein, I've chosen to expand major parts of the English text by adding, as appropriate, information which was already available on the German page. The German text was, however, not just translated. New information and references were included.

The new sections on "Locations" and "Stolperschwellen" were directly translated from de:Stolperstein. As this work comprised, altogether, a day's work, I hope it'll be okay if I dedicate my edits to the person whose name is written on the stolperstein next to my home. One name – of so many – which will never be forgotten; one neighbor – of so many – whose rights have been restored, if only symbolically, to live in the last place which they had chosen when they were free. --HajjiBaba (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello- While I'm sure Wikipedia appreciates your desire to expand this article, your contributions introduce translation and style issues that call for review by native speakers of English. It might be better if you asked for help from native English speakers before you add large amounts of text to articles here. Eric ^talk 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry about that - any corrections by native speakers would be highly welcome. --HajjiBaba (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm having another go at improving the translation, style, and content of the article. Thanks again for making me aware of the issue. Any further corrections are highly welcome. There will be one exception, though, as far as my edits are concerned: The English translation (in the notes) of the Auschwitz decree, as inscribed on the first stolperstein, intentionally aims at reproducing the Nazi German language. With regard to an English-speaking audience, I hope the translation provides an example of the language of bureaucratically organized inhumanity. In the special context of this article, I suppose this makes sense.--HajjiBaba (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct plural

Is there a reason this article uses "Stolpersteins" instead of "Stolpersteine", which is what's used in sources and what is correct (in non-genitive forms)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's much easier on the eye to use the English plural once we've introduced the term. Using the German plural would be awkward, and might be less clear to those not familiar with German. Eric ^talk 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We could solve this problem by following the model of other articles (such as Judenrat, matzo, mitzvah, giallo, libretto, etc.) in introducing the plural in the first line. "Stolpersteins" is ungrammatical and non-standard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "ungrammatical". This is the English Wikipedia, and English tends to pluralize with an "s", including foreign terms. All anglophone readers here will immediately understand stolpersteins; many will pause at Stolpersteine. Using the native language's plural form comes across as an affectation to me, except in a few long-adopted Latin terms. I'm fluent in French and German, and have some clue about Latin, but you won't catch me writing in an English encyclopedia: Several of Europe's châteaux have Stolpersteine at the entrances of their aquaria. Eric ^talk 03:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, some words have been adopted into English using an anglicized plural. Stolperstein is not one of them. English Wikipedia follows trends; it does not set them. Again, this is very easily proven; Google hits for "Stolpersteins" are almost entirely German-language genitives and low-quality user- or auto-generated English sources (many or all obviously derivative of Wikipedia itself), while "Stolpersteine" commonly appears in quality English sources as well as German, including the official English-language website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that as the word becomes more commonly known in English, it will tend to be pluralized with "s". And I'd guess that literary and journalistic style guides would call for an anglicized plural over the native one. I haven't looked, but Wikipedia may have a guideline for this. Eric ^talk 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Let's change it now to the form used in reliable sources, and if in ten years people are calling them "Stolpersteins", someone will change it back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how your CRYSTAL ref applies. I am not proposing that WP use my instincts as a style guide; I'm quite sure that most writers would use an "s" to pluralize the word after introducing it, but I can't prove that. I searched on wp:foreign plural and saw some relevant reference desk and other discussions. Also found some guidance at English_plurals#Irregular_plurals_from_other_languages and MOS:PLURALS, but nothing hard and fast. As I mentioned above, I find that foreign plurals can come across as an affectation style-wise, and I would always err on the side of using English rules in an English-language reference work. I think that most readers who don't know German would be less likely to stumble on the "s" than the "e" (sorry, couldn't resist the cross-language pun), but again, I can't prove that. I'm putting a link to this discussion on the MOS talk page. Eric ^talk 18:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

We have to follow the sources; anything else is WP:SYNTH or WP:CRYSTAL. I agree that adding "s" might be less confusing to some, but we don't know for sure; it might even be more confusing. If we can't avoid the non-English plural in the article, then we must explain it before we use it, likely in the opening sentence. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The German plural will always be a correct option for a German word used in English, when it is explicitly being used as a German word (e.g. retaining the capitalization of all German nouns, as Festschrift, Weltanschauung, Sturm und Drang, etc., usually do, and often italicized, unlike with gestalt and angst, which have become more deeply assimilated into our language). If RS indicate that it's been adopted into (specialized) English deeply enough to start taking an English -s plural then that is also correct in English, but it should not be capitalized in that form; that would be mix-and-matching – it's either parsed as English with an English plural and lower-case, or as German with a German plural and uppercase.

In this particular case, I would suggest the following, if there are RS for the -s spelling:
     A '''stolperstein''' (plural '''stolpersteins'''; from [[German language|German]] '''''{{lang|de|Stolperstein}}''''', {{IPA-de|ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪn}}, literally 'stumbling stone'; plural: '''''{{lang|de|Stolpersteine}}''''', [{{IPA|ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪnə}}]) is ...
Renders as:
     A stolperstein (plural stolpersteins; from German Stolperstein, German pronunciation: [ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪn], literally 'stumbling stone'; plural: Stolpersteine, [ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪnə]) is ...
and thereafter use lower-case, the -s plural, and no italics.

If there are not such RS, use the following:
     '''''{{lang|de|Stolperstein}}''''' (from [[German language|German]], literally 'stumbling stone', {{IPA-de|ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪn}}; plural: '''''{{lang|de|Stolpersteine}}''''', [{{IPA|ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪnə}}]; often not capitalized in English-language sources) refers to ...
Renders as:
     Stolperstein (from German, literally 'stumbling stone', German pronunciation: [ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪn]; plural: Stolpersteine, [ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪnə]; often not capitalized in English-language sources) refers to ...
and thereafter preserve the italics and capitalization, and use the -e plural and do not mention the made-up -s version.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks A D and S McC for your input. What is "RS"? Eric ^talk 23:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

RS is Reliable Sources. Here's my contribution: to my surprise, this Google Ngram shows "Stolpersteine" as having a presence and "Stolpersteins" not -- even though it's limited to English-language books. I personally still prefer Stolpersteins, but in this case the data seems to be with "Stolpersteine". Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the thing - if "stolpersteins" were common English usage, then as an acknowledged pedant I'd probably still be a bit huffy about its usage but wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. (Don't ask me about "panini.") But it's not used. The search results for "-s" are German-language sources where it's being used in the genitive, and user-generated or otherwise low-quality English content that may even derive directly or indirectly from Wikipedia itself. As such, I'd support SM's second proposal over the first one, although I am not actually sure that the assertion that it's commonly decapitalized in English is correct (cf. [2], [3], [4], [5]) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Came here following a notification on WT:MOS. Any plural is acceptable, as long as it appears in a large number of English-language reliable sources. Wikipedia should not generally be using foreign-language terms that are obscure in English, so there should be enough reliable sources. That said, if English-language reliable sources have an overwhelming preference for a "foreign-style" plural and the "English-style" plural is itself obscure (even if some people have used it), we should prefer the "foreign-style" plural. This has come up in the past in articles on Chinese, Japanese and Korean topics; we don't say "samurais" or "haikus", even though some otherwise reliable sources have used these. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think almost any foreign word used in an English sentence should be pluralized with "s", and I don't feel like this is a radical view. Neither do I think we should be relying strictly on sources to support grammar choices. Modern sources based on the current, deplorable state of English in my country would have us using panini as a singular (Roscelese, you started with the foul language), literally to mean figuratively (I literally blew a gasket when I heard the yuppie order "a panini"), and incredibly to mean very. And though I understand that samurai and haiku are not inflected in Japanese plurals, if I'm speaking English, I ain't gonna say "Today I read three haiku." I would expect people to roll their eyes at that. Eric ^talk 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Saying what English "should" do says that there is a fixed destiny of English. If that destiny had been fixed a thousand years ago, I suppose this discussion would be in the Saxon Wikipedia, on how to best preserve that dead language. Things change, regardless of what we know is right. Wikipedia can't stop this, and is bound by its principles not to try. If the sources use "Stolpersteins", then we use it; if not, we cannot. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the linguistic history lesson, A D! ;) I'm merely offering my opinion, not a pronouncement; hence the intro I think. It's my take on my native language, informed somewhat by decades of studying languages, one that's certainly fallible and maybe more subjective than I want to believe. Yes, things change. For example, if Stolperstein comes into common use in English, it will surely lose its italics and capitalization, and take an "s" in the plural. We don't encounter Kindergärten or Bratwürste in English sentences. That said, I doubt Stolperstein will become as common as those words. I would simply err on the side of inflecting it under standard English rules when it appears in an English sentence, especially in an article that introduces the word and repeats it many times.

Now, I don't mean to come across as campaigning or debating earnestly for one view; I'm kicking this around with you all here (a pub or Bierstub would be preferable). I guess we have to decide if we're treating the term as what it currently is—strictly a foreign word—or as a potential adoptee (wait, Stein is a boy, so...adopté?). Eric ^talk 16:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't use its potential, per WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. We can only go by what it is, per sources. Yes, it's fun to speculate, but we're not supposed to use WP as a chat room, per WP:FORUM, even though it does happen quite a bit. I like pie. --A D Monroe III (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Chat room?? Eric ^talk 14:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. It wasn't an accusation or anything; if it were, it would apply equally to me, since you can't have a chat of one. WP:FORUM says we're supposed to talk about improving the article, only, not other things, like pie. Did I need an emoticon? Sorry if it seemed less than a light attempt at humor. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No prob, I'm often not that swift. Pie is good. Eric ^talk 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've implemented this consensus in the lede and body, as well as by moving the associated list article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

Someone should change "black" in para. 3 to "Black," as that use has been growing and is now the consensus usage in English (at least in the U.S.).

p.s. I agree with folks that say the title should be plural, and left in German--"Stolpersteine." Search engines would still turn it up when people searched in the singular, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLohe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Being German myself, the plural with "s" sounds horrible to my ears (and I can live with "kindergartens"!), but let that be for the English speakers to decide. However, there is one thing that really will not work. The lede currently says:

A stolperstein (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtɔlpəʁˌʃtaɪn] from German, literally "stumbling stone", metaphorically a "stumbling block" or a stone to "stumble upon", plural stolpersteine)

Absolutely not. As long as you are not anglifying the word but explicitly referring to the German word, the plural of Stolperstein is Stolpersteine. Calling stolpersteine the German plural is just plain wrong.

The discussion about upper or lower case might also take into account that even the English language could easily consider the term for this art project a proper name, and capitalize all the way through. After all, these memorial stones are not in a literal sense "Stolpersteine" but in fact the proper name of this art project.

Not sure if I used the Ngram Viewer correctly, but a case-sensitive search for English came up with no results for the lower case spelling. Maybe someone can check. --87.150.11.36 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Even more German spelling?

Even with the plural decided above, or perhaps even as a consequence, there's still more to consider. Should it be capitalized? Should it be italic?

In WP, we tend to follow foreign spelling for foreign words. In German, nouns are capitalized. If "Stolperstein" is a German word, as we seem to be favoring, then we should capitalize all uses of "Stolperstein" and "Stolpersteine"?

Though a little less common in WP, foreign words and phrases are usually given in italics. Should we be using Stolperstein throughout?

I'm not sure myself. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not once the term is introduced, and certainly not in an article about the term. But such thinking applies only in the entire rest of the reference publishing and journalistic universe, not here on Wikipedia. We go by the consensus of whatever handful of people happen to have stumbled upon a given article. You must restrain yourself from such logical analysis. Remember Francs-tireurs? Eric ^talk 04:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Logic -- taking hold -- Argh! No! I am not a number! I am a free man!

Okay. I just wanted to have some discussion on record. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well done! You've been on here longer than I have--your spirit should be broken by now! Are you not of the Body? You may have to be brought before Landru for re-education. Eric ^talk 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Biblical connection?

Isn't this word essentially the same as "stumbling block/stone", derived from the Old and New Testament words (NT Greek, skandalon)? The section on the background of the German word and its links to both pre-Nazi antisemitism (stumbling on a spot where "a Jew must be buried") and the notion of half-hidden traces inviting recovery seems to put it very close to the multiple senses of stumbling stone, an irksome fact or memory that hints at a buried truth or a buried problem, or something that was supposed to be troubling but should not be so. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Final decision on how to format the word

Okay, what is the prevailing consensus as to how to format this word? Is it capitalized or not? Is it italicized or not? Every combination of using capitalization and italicization occurs in this article. I was going to harmonize them, but was unsure which way to go. I did not see any "s" plurals, so that question seems to have been settled (though contrary to my personal preferences, I will respect that consensus and make sure all the plural usages are with "e"). --Khajidha (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Use for new purposes?

What is the point of mentioning some photoshoped right wing propaganda in this article? And the New Yorker is severely misinformed to say that this was in any way viral or relevant... If you want to pick that topic up mention it under a section with other vandalism and abuse of this object of holocaust remembrance by right wing and facist groups - for this you can refer to the german Stolpersteine article. 93.236.71.126 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Belgium is not in Germany

"Public discussion in Germany
[...]
Starting in 2009, 23 Stolpersteine for the Belgian city Antwerp have been produced but could not be placed due to local resistance against the project. They have been stored in Brussels where they are regularly exhibited.[50]"

The title of the section "Public discussion in Germany" could be changed to just "Public discussion". --2003:F6:2714:AC00:EC10:6ED7:3459:4AEF (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Munich: Accepts or does NOT accept?

Early in the article, under the first subsection, "Origin of the name", it flatly states that Munich has banned the commemorative placings. In later sections of the article, there are statements that seem to indicate otherwise. Seems incongruent. Shouldn't the 'Munich has banned' statement be edited/corrected/deleted?

The statement: "Some German cities like Munich still do not accept the setting of Stolpersteine, and look for alternative ways of commemoration instead.[9]"

68.111.65.18 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The confusion stems from the fact that the city doesn't have jurisdiction to stop people installing whatever they want on private property. It was mentioned in passing but easy to overlook, so I've added a sentence making it explicit. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ireland

Six placed in June 2022, per RTÉ: https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2022/0601/1302393-stumbling-stones/ Perhaps this could be reflected under 3.5 Other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin789 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

He or she

Please change "freely chosen by the person before he or she fell victim." to "freely chosen by the person before they fell victim." 38.34.85.84 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)eric

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Stolperstein = "potential problem"?

As a semi-fluent (but non-native) German speaker, I wonder about the sentence that says that one meaning of Stolperstein is "a potential problem". The footnote to Duden does not support this assertion. The meaning of Stolperstein in normal German conversation (aside from the special meaning of this project) -- as far as I know and can tell -- is exactly equivalent to the English "stumbling block"; "potential problem" is something distinctly different. Can a native German reader please enlighten us? If the sentence is incorrect it should be changed or deleted. The article should state clearly that a Stolperstein in German is a stumbling block in English.Ajrocke (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

On May 26, 2023, Demnig laid the 100,000th Stolperstein in Nuremberg. source: https://www.nn.de/nuernberg/in-nurnberg-liegt-jetzt-europas-100-000-stolperstein-1.13285583?referrer=https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg Qwertzu111111 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

'Transgender women'should be added as a category of person for whom stolperstein have been placed, as recently the first stolperstein (under the person's real name, anyway) has been placed. https://chrissie.berlin/place/stolperstein_kate_rogalli.html 104.222.113.110 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Category:Transgender women is for people rather than things related to transgender women. Other transgender-related categories exist, but the article currently doesn't mention anything about transgender. You could create Draft:Käte Rogalli, which would go into that category. A sentence about her could also be added to this article, with reliable sources. That source you've added above is a blog, but I can see WP:Reliable sources about her: [6], [7], [8], etc. If you do decide to create the draft, please feel free to ping me when you think it's ready, if you'd like me to review it. Wikishovel (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Please, add the hyperlink to Ukraine on the list of countries where the stones are present. It has hyperlinks to all the other countries but Ukraine is written in plain text. Thanks. 140.180.240.71 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wording around Location

The location of each Stolperstein is currently described as at exactly the last place of residency – or, sometimes, work – which was freely chosen by the person and always installed at the last place of residency – or, sometimes, work – that the person had chosen freely. However, this wording does not completely agree with the steps for laying a Stolperstein, which besides dwelling includes places of education, working, practicing and living, and is open to exceptions in individual cases (although these need to be discussed and considered with the project). That is, there is more flexibility than currently stated. It also doesn’t seem to be true for (at least some of) the six Stolpersteine in Dublin, Ireland for example. Upon her marriage, Ettie Steinberg moved to Antwerp for a year, presumably of free will, and her son Leon was born in Paris in 1939. (I must stress that I am questioning the current wording in the article only.)

As a suggestion to initiate discussion, should the phrasing be reworded to ... aims to commemorate individuals at their last dwelling – or residence, or place of education or vocation, but with exceptions possible on a case-by-case basis – that was chosen freely by the person ...? Betterkeks (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Betterkeks (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but I'd rearrange the sentence to avoid the long parenthesis in the middle, e.g., "aims to commemorate individuals at the last place that they freely chose to reside, work, or study (with exceptions possible on a case-by-case basis)." Furius (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Done (with two very minor changes). Betterkeks (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)