Talk:List of tallest domes

Change headers

I think the current headers do not allow to sort the buildings based on the maximum internal height and the maximum external height without cross/mast/statue. If there are 23 (as it is now) it's not a problem, but when there are more than 100 it would be better to be able to do it.
Previously I copied the internal heights without lantern under the column of the maximum inner height (incl. lantern), because it was the "maximum"; looking at the first column it was easy to know what the data was referring to.
If you agree we can change the column headers like this for better precision:

• Dome height inner (without lantern)
• Max inner height
• Dome height outer (without lantern)
• Outer height (without cross/mast/statue)
• Max outer height (to the tip)

--Podz00 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I agree. Maybe your suggestion is suitable for the moment. After that we may make clarifications in the introduction (or in the table in some ways).

The table itself may be improved with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the page as agreed ;) --Podz00 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Minimum height requirements

Okay, I see that the list is getting long. Wouldn't it be appropriate to set a lower limit (as it is on the list of tallest churches, for example) in order not to make it become endless and incomplete? << here I'm thinking of Italy :)
A height of 45 meters (Pantheon ext. height) as a minimum requirement in "dome height inner" OR "dome height outer" (if known) might be a good idea.
What do you think? --Podz00 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that 45 m is too much for minimum. The Pantheon has one of the largest domes in the world and it is very large not only with its diameter but with its height as well. I think that there is nothing wrong if the list is very long. I even would say that this (many buildings and domes included and sorted) is advantage and makes the list valuable. However, I agree that maybe it is appropriate if there is some limit, minimum height. Actually, I was thinking about this. I would say that 20 (and not more than 25) meters is appropriate for minimum height for this list. My suggestion at the moment is 20 m as a minimum height required for this list.

I am almost sure that even without any minimum height as requirement this list would be shorter than the list of tallest churches for example. :)

If the list becomes too long we can change the required minimum height at any time. ;)

At the moment minimum of 20 m seems appropriate to me. Let's say 20 m for the inner height (if known) and 25 m for outer height (without lantern and cross), if known.

--Puldin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The Pantheon is large but is relatively modest in height compared to the number of taller domes in Italy, let alone the rest of the world.

With a minimum height of 20/25 meters, prepare to have a HUGE (and incomplete) list! I hope that the tables do not technically have a maximum number of rows, otherwise, setting the limit later or eliminating the last rows to make room, a lot of work (and time) of data entry would be lost.

--Podz00 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for your participation and work in improving the article.

About your concern. I don't think that there is maximum number of rows in the tables. For example, the list of the tallest churches is also huge and includes hundreds of churches. However. After few minutes I will make a test. I will insert as many rows as possible in the table (empty rows) and I will see if there is some technical limit of the tables.(I will delete the empty rows after the test.)

Also. I have other suggestions as well. For example: we may make several tables. For example: the first table (the present one) may include the top 100 tallest domes; second table (in the same article) may include the domes ranked from position 101 to 250; third table may include the domes ranked from position 251 to 500; fourth table may include domes ranked from position 501 to 1000; and fifth table (if needed) may include domes ranked on position 1000+. Just for example. Another option: first table for domes with minimum height of at least 40 m; second table for domes with minimum height of at least 30 m and so on.

There are many options.

However, I don't think that there would be so many domes as whole. :) Furthermore, at the moment only both of us (me and you) fill in the list. But even if there are so many domes, the options I mentioned above will work perfectly. ;)

What do you think about the options I mentioned above? Which one is more suitable according to you: one long table or several tables? Or something else? In any case, every list of such matter (tallest, longest, widest, largest) could not be complete. That's way this is а dynamic list. Well, in theory it could be complete but it is very difficult. We can try to make it as complete as possible. Puldin (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I just made a test. I included 500 rows in the table, I copied the longest note in 46 of the new rows, I also copied a picture in some (about 20) of the new rows. I published it and all appeared in the article. So now we are sure that the table could easily consist of at least 500 rows. :) Puldin (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to split the list.

Look for example at the recently added Hanover Town Hall: it has an external height among the first ones, but an internal height that places the dome in the lower part. If you manually order a hypothetical first list (let's say a top100) according to the external height, the Hanover dome would not be included, it would be in the 200-300 or 300-400 (because of its internal height). The same particular building should then be copied into multiple lists, but it would be too cumbersome and discourage updating.

I believe that the single list is the only solution.

Feel free to decide whether it is appropriate to put a limit; just consider that setting it to 25 meters in the future would easily exceed 500 entries. You can also leave everything unchanged, but I believe that sooner or later the topic will be re-proposed.

P.S. Thanks to you for creating the page! ;)

--Podz00 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The priority is given to the internal height. This is the actual height of the domes. The external height is just the height of the roof of the building. In fact, the external structures are not domes in the strict sense of the word, but roofs, covers of the actual domes. That's way priority is given to the internal height. For example, there are some skyscrapers on the top of which there are dome-shaped structures. We can call it outer dome but it is actually just dome-shaped roof structure.

So, if there is several tables in this article, the buildings should not be presented in more than one table. Furthermore, the tables are sortable and it is very easy to sort the domes by the different criteria. In your example, Hanover Town Hall should be presented only in the hypothetical second list (if there is 200-300 taller domes by internal height) because priority is given to the inner height. In this hypothetical second list every column will be sortable, so everyone could easily sort the domes by external height and will see the place (position) of Hanover Hall by this parameter. In this case the particular column in every table should be sorted but this is not a problem.

For the moment this is not an issue. The list is still very short. When (if) the list exceeds 200 or 300 domes, or when (if) it is close to 500 domes included, we could discuss the options again.

We can easily set a minimum height of 45 m as a requirement for the list from now on (it is the easiest option) but in this case many domes (some or many of which are interesting/valuable) would not be presented. Furthermore, in this case mainly the biggest countries of Europe (and partially US) would be presented (with big number of buildings of each one). In the same time, many smaller countries (on all continents) would not be presented at all. Also, some styles of architecture would not be represented.Puldin (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The priority is given to the internal height and I agree with it (never questioned) but I believe that external height is also important and representative, given that the external domes define the profile of the building and in some cases are supporting structures, as in many state capitols in the United States (Illinois, Colorado, etc ...) or in the recently added St. Stephen's Basilica in Budapest; reducing them to quasi-domes/roofs does not seem right to me ^^

For this reason I think it should be possible to order all the domes together according to the desired criteria, splitting the list would not make it possible anymore.

Regarding your last considerations, I believe that, since this is the list of the tallest domes, it is normal for the countries that have more (and higher) ones to appear more and that (maybe) other countries do not appear at all despite having examples no less historically or artistically relevant, otherwise the list would be called "domes of the world". However, I respect your opinion.

-----

Now I've tried to add 12000 rows with images, and there seems to be no errors. I would say the issue can be closed for now. --Podz00 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, Yamoussoukro

There are some numbers about some buildings that at first glance seem debatable.

Of course, the current leader on the list is noticed first. I'm not sure that the basilica in Yamoussoukro has an internal height of 111 meters. This does not seem very plausible.

I watched some videos about this basilica and these videos indicate numbers that lead to a different conclusion about the inner height of this church.

But first the outer height. The lantern of this church is 40 meters high. Therefore, the dome is about 118 meters high outside (from the ground). You can see this in this video (at 39:00 of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY24hmGi6Uo

And now the more important question - about the internal height. In this video, the girl indicates numbers about the height inside and outside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2PJNRMRp_Q

According to her, the total height to the level of the oculus is 82 meters (38 meters from the ground to the balcony; and another 44 meters - from the balcony to the oculus). This is from 3:34 to 4:00 in the video.

Up from the oculus, the dome continues as a metal and glass structure, which is also part of the dome and must be taken into account. We do not know the height of the glass part. But we can assume an approximate value. But this later.

Before that we must say that the level of the floor of the church is about 4 meters above the ground level. In the same video, the girl says that the balcony and the roof outside are 38 meters above the ground and 34 meters above the marble floor. (from 6:32 to 6:45 in the video).

Therefore, the floor is 4 meters above the ground. Therefore, the oculus is about 78 meters high from the floor inside (82 m - 4 m = 78 m).

Next we must say that inside the church, in the center under the dome, there is an altar. This altar rises above the floor. It is about 1.5 meters high. Therefore, the maximum internal height decreases by the same amount. Thus we get that from the level of the altar (this is the floor below the center of the dome from the inside) to the oculus the height is about 76.5 meters (78 m - 1.5 m = 76.5 m).

We can assume that the glass part of the dome (inside) is not more than 20 meters above the oculus (most likely less). Thus, the total height of the dome inside is at most about 96.5 meters (76.5 m + 20 m = 96.5 m). Even if we round the number, it is not more than 100 meters. Most likely it is less than 96 meters. I would assume it is somewhere around 90 meters.

So I'm curious how you calculated that the internal height is 111 meters.Puldin (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the external height is quite spot on (it could possibly be changed by 1 m in the table).

For the internal height it would be interesting to know the sources consulted by the girl (I don't know French), just to be sure that the data are official.

My estimates (for both heights) are simply based on an official drawing (section), perhaps not very accurate, but, looking at the photos of the constructive phases, the curvature of the internal dome seems quite coherent. I then calculated the internal height by making a proportion, with the maximum height of the building (excluding the basement) as the reference.

I would like to clarify that these are approximate estimates (in fact I've put the "~"!); however, I believe that (if the drawing is correct) they can hardly deviate more than 3-4 m from the real value.

--

Your consideration on the altar does not convince me at all. It would be preferable to take the level of the church floor as the reference, otherwise the calculation for many churches that have a little rise in the crossing would become rather complex and not really significant in my opinion. --Podz00 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. We can further discuss the issue of the basilica in Yamoussoukro. But so far there is little information about this building.

I don't know what the source of the information that the girl in the video used was. Since the girl shows a video inside the church itself, I guess the information was given on the spot. Probably a church official gave this information. Because there is no information on the Internet about the internal dimensions of this church. It seems that information can only be obtained on the spot in the church itself.

About the church plan. I looked at it in detail. As a proportion it corresponds relatively accurately (or even very accurately). However, I am not sure that this plan is correct. I'm not sure that this plan accurately reflects the interior as it is built in practice. I'm not sure this is the final plan the builders used. I assume that this plan is intended for tourists and its purpose is to give only a general idea of ​​the scale of the church, but not completely accurate numbers (or maybe not even close, talking of the interior).

I found several publications on the Internet stating that Pope John Paul II had explicitly required that the dome of the church in Yamoussoukro be lower than the dome of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Otherwise, the Pope would refuse to consecrate this church.

If the plan shown is correct, it means that the Pope's requirement has not been fulfilled. But we know that the Pope consecrated this church. Therefore, his requirement is met. Since the church in Yamoussoukro has a greater total height, a higher cross, a higher lantern and a higher dome on the outside, it remains only that the inner dome is lower than that of of St. Peter's Basilica.

As we do not have official information on the matter, we can leave the approximate value of 111 meters for now. Maybe after a while we will find official data or more sources of information.

For now, however, we need to adjust the external height of the dome - 118 meters instead of 119 meters, because we have official information.

Puldin (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The drawing is certainly intended for tourists, but looking at it closely it seems to be traced from a real architectural section, not drawn "freely".

I too have read about the pope's request, but always in articles where it is vaguely mentioned.

In my opinion it is very likely that the pope meant the maximum internal height: paying attention to what is depicted under the small dome of St. Peter's lantern, one would think that behind this request there would have been a symbolic reason (it would make even more sense).

(just opinions, there is nothing certain about it)

--

Yes, the external height of the dome can definitely be adjusted reporting the source.

--Podz00 (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Saint Joseph's Oratory, Montreal

On the next place. The other church I have a question about is the Basilica in Montreal, Canada. I'm not sure the outside height is 129 meters. I guess that includes the height of the lower church. But only the height of the main church (upper church) should be counted. I saw a source which says that the height from the floor to the top of the cross is 97 meters. Therefore, the total height of the upper church is about 100 meters (adding the staircase at ground level of the upper church).

I have one more question. I'm curious how you know which buildings I want to include in the list. Several times in a row I look at information about certain churches and shortly after that I see that you have included exactly these churches in the list. I thought it was just a coincidence. But today I was surprised when I saw that you added the church of St. Nicholas in Potsdam. Just yesterday I was looking at information about the same church and I would add it to the list today. This church is not very famous and it would be a great coincidence if at one and the same time we have been consider adding it to the list. I'm just curious how you know which buildings I'm looking at. :) Puldin (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with this, and I was tempted to correct it. I superficially copied the data from the Wikipedia page and some other website that reported 129 m (from this I obtained the other two external heights using Google Earth).

I think the error depends on where the ground level is positioned. In my opinion the height of 129 m is calculated considering the ground level more or less at the bottom of the image -> section which is obviously wrong, your estimate certainly makes more sense.

Measuring with Google Earth I see that the parking lot at the base of the church and to the side of the right transept is about 157 m above sea level, the top of the cross 259 m, so the overall height is around 102 m (photogrammetric 3D data are quite accurate).

If you agree, we can adjust the heights and keep them until we have sources with more detailed information.

About your last question: pure coincidence :) The church in Potsdam just appeared to me by chance during a search.

The same thing happened to me when I was about to add the Oudenbosch Basilica, only to realize that you just did it 2 seconds before! Lol, maybe telepathy.

--Podz00 (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say here. ;)

I saw information (perhaps on the website of the basilica) that the height is 97 m from floor to the top cross. I will look for it later.

You may use this value (97 m) + a few more meters (the stairs) or put the number (102 m) you suggested.

It seems almost certain that the total external height is somewhere around 100-102 m.Puldin (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I adjusted the heights considering the ground level at the base of the right transept. Here: Google Street View

The floor of the church is about 5 meters above, where the lesenes start (level of the main front entrance at the top of the staircase).

 Done --Podz00 (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (12).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Basilica of Our Lady of Peace Yamoussoukro.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Basilica of Our Lady of Peace Yamoussoukro.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Barack Obama and Michelle Obama at the Istiqlal Mosque, Jakarta, Indonesia, Nov. 10, 2010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Cathedral (Siena) - Dome interior.jpg
• San Gennaro's chapel - Dome (Naples).jpg
• San Lorenzo (Turin) - Dome interior.jpg
• Sant'Andrea (Mantua) - Dome.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Inflated height of People's salvation cathedral

The inner height of the dome is -6,8 m which is the floor level below the dome. The inner dome level is at app. 106 m, the inner height is thus below 100 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5AE:8700:B849:9663:F75C:5A33 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the cross section blueprint on the cathedral's Wikipedia page it would seem that you are right, however some sources report conflicting data. I think we will know precisely once construction is completed. @Puldin Podz00 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

edit: Looking better at the cross section I see that the 106 meters are calculated starting from the floor level (not the ground), so if anything the internal height should be higher. --Podz00 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As much of the numbers that should highlight the dimensions of the cathedral, none of the resources is in form relevant (i.e., reviewed scientific) literature. Not that the numbers are not impressive, they are mostly unnecessary inflated or interpreted from non-official plans. There should be made a much better choice of how to cite numbers. For the People's Salvation Cathedral the main information about its various sizes is from third rate information sites. This would not pass any serious review, However, why does it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5B4:7800:991E:DC4A:D79E:F13D (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I did not add those data and source about the church.

However, perhaps the most relevant source so far is Vanel Exim, the company that designed the cathedral, which published the vertical section of the project (mentioned in my previous post). There you can clearly see from the elevation marks that the internal height from the floor to the intrados of the dome is 106.25 meters. The list could be updated reporting the official source. Podz00 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not an architects' original map, AS it us the reszkt if the merger of two different and urelated source maps. The annotations' origin comes also from a wikipedia user. Which renders it unrelyable. Also the meager production of such content violates copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5BA:700:B5CE:4A41:198A:904A (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@MIHAIL Ok, but the two maps are original as are the elevation marks (not the overlayed ones), and the reference level is clearly the podium. Furthermore, the height is also mentioned on the official page. Podz00 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not clear, as the smaller original values are hardly visible in the lower portion. Also it could be that they took the base at ground level of the exteriro, which is logical. The base level inside and outside are different and in the linked map no baseline is indicated. So 106,25 - 6,8 m is still a very probable suggestion, as base level is could be at surface level not the interior baseline at 6,8m. As the map is not readable throughout, the interior height is verifyable from this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A590:A700:4D4D:5D9D:C810:7F37 (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

But the other elevation marks are readable and from those you can get the scale of the map. By opening the image with CAD software (or even Photoshop) you can easily verify the coincidence of the zero level with the internal floor.

Also, in this photo where the sections are displayed, the zero plane is clearly visible (red arrows). Podz00 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but they have been added by a user. It is not clear if he made a mistake. The marks are original work of the wikipedia uploader, not from the architects involved. I suggest to be cautious until there is verifyable data available. There could be a mistake of 7 m, which in a structured list is a big mistake. Also in many other lists concerning the size of the People's Salavation Cathedral numbers are unnecessary blown up. For instance in the list of the largest church structures the surface area. There's no need to ovesiz this church as it is big, but relate to reliable and consistent measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.249.21 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The marks I was referring to are not added by the user, as you can see from the last linked photo. I highly doubt there could be an error greater than 2 meters. Podz00 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a complete different plan which is to its most part screened by a bystanding person. We can not take one mark from another planfor the annotated plan uploaded here. I don't doubt that the plans in the exhibition would show the actual sizes, but they are not visible and the dome and height of the church is completely obscured. All conclusions from such data collection are by default erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A590:A700:1412:DA11:F9AA:AFBB (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It is normal for the vertical sections to all have the same zero plane (visible), and those posted by the user are the overlap of those on the right in the exhibition photo, both indicating the same elevation mark (114 m) for the external dome (the one below is also readable). Seeing that the height at the base of the dome is 97 meters, I have no reason to believe that the internal height differs much from 106 m. Podz00 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There is also incosistency to the outer height. Why wasn't this data from the official site of the Cathedral used, which gives a maximal height of 120 m : https://catedrala-nationala.ro/conceptul-catedralei/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A590:A700:1412:DA11:F9AA:AFBB (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Because that height refers to the current one from the internal walking surface. I am 100% sure of this because Google photogrammetric 3D data detects exactly 127 meters in its current state. Podz00 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't use this as refernce as you don't know the tolerance of data values. Google images are not LIDAR or stereoscopic measurement with defined tolerances. It's also not clear why you refer to your own measurements as it is not a reviewed journal to consider data from users. References are based on published values or official data. Official data is i.e., national cadastre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5A7:8B00:64EA:2166:B62B:513C (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Google photogrammetry is quite accurate, you can easily check for buildings whose height is known. I don't use my measurements as a reference, I simply interpreted the source you cited whose data is not described in detail. I find the project maps more reliable, even if they are not easy to read. Podz00 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

edit: To be precise, the source you cited also specifies that the height is not measured from the ground. Translation:

"120.00 meters high up to the base of the cross on the main spire"

"The height of the main tower of 120 m is determined from the elevation +/- 0.00 m, which is 5.00 m above the natural ground level and in relation to the total length (126.10 m), to suggest the shape of the large cross-masted ship"

So 125 meters to the base of the cross. Podz00 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the problem, it is the origin of the data done by yourself. You can't reference something by yourself without having a proper publication to site from The statemant from the official site might confirm that base level is 5m above ground level. This could than be included in the spread sheat with missing information to verifyable interior height, as it is taken from an annotated map that was interpreted by a user (maybe erroneously) and not scientific literature. As such it is personal opinion which is not qualifyable to cite from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5A7:8B00:97C:4F21:CF55:D2A7 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again: I hadn't previously read the entire source page, as you probably haven't done either. Since there was only the vague indication "maximum height" I used the Google model to describe THAT measurement specifically just to understand what it was about (and I was quite right), not to invalidate it.

However, now we can say that:

- the base level (+/- 0.00 m) in the maps coincides with the internal walking surface

- the base level (+/- 0.00 m) is 5.00 m above the natural ground level

Regarding the internal height I never took into consideration the user's modifications to the maps, but the original ones exposed, even if partially visible. For now we could keep the current source (104 m) with the interview with Nicolae Cringasu, the construction coordinator, seems quite reliable to me. Podz00 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The map in question is by no way an original documente as it has been reworked by a user (mergeing of differnt maps, annotation). Any argument based on the assumptions is not valid as it is unreliable. A base for putting an argument is a reliable source. This is missing, and therefore the information in the spread sheat is personal. Which is good for an privat note but not for a public text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:A5A7:8B00:ACCE:C8E6:A8E4:8B5 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is now well established. Podz00 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)