This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Barrier Reef article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Great Barrier Reef 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.
Great Barrier Reef is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
Put more information on the actual geography (different areas etc.).
Mention research into biological compounds found on the reef eg. sunscreen. [4] - research organisations that study the GBR.
The link for Reference 21 ("How the Great Barrier Reef was formed") is broken. I think it needs updating to: [5]
This page is confusing, in one paragraph you briefly talk about runoff, climate change, coral bleaching, and population outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish, but don't actually explain what each of those problems are, and the affects they are having on the reef. Then a paragraph later you go back to talking about coral bleaching which feels choppy, all of that information should be in the same place so it has a better flow (Juliebarber18 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC))
Great Barrier Reef
I was reading the article about the Great Barrier Reef and found that someone added a swear word(f.u.)to the article. I'm just 11 years old and I would like to do my school reports without having to worry about immature people editing the content of the articles in such a way.
I hope you will do something about it,
Sincerely,
Concered User
I agree with this! I'm 12 years old and while doing a report for Great Barrier Reef, I found many words that weren't appropriate. Please stop doing this!
Gallery
I'm just putting the gallery pictures and information here for now - the clownfish and the giant clam photo can probably be used if we expand the Species section. All of these pictures are on the wikicommons anyway, so they won't evaporate if we don't use them right this minute. - Malkinann08:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clownfish on the Great Barrier Reef
Satellite image of the northernmost part of the Great Barrier Reef
Giant Clam on the Great Barrier Reef
Species
I thought I heard on a documentary that the GBR has the highest concentration of species per square kilometre, or the highest number of different species per square kilometre (or something) of any place in the world. If it can be verified, I think it'd go well in the introduction.
I'm proposing this split because I think the article is getting too long (37KBish) and the Environmental threats section is the longest. This would give room in the main GBR article for more stuff on the geology/geography and ecology/ecosystems/species stuff, which has a wider appeal. Thoughts? -Malkinann11:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think it is too long at this point, but it might make sense to split that section into its own article "Threats to the Great Barrier Reef". The existing text would just need to be synthesized into a few coherent paragraphs that remain in the main article. --MattWright (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should be split. This would allow for further expanding of the section without worrying about changing the context of the article in general. That way anyone just wanting info on the barrier reef can find it, while people wanting to know specifics about threats to it can find that in a separate article linked to this one in a brief section. G8summit20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I have heard on the Discovery channel and seen all over the internet--The Great Barrier Reef is an organism (and the world's largest).--This is NOT CORRECT! The reef chain itself is not a organism, but a collection of rock and dead coral over millions of years. The Great Barrier Reef is rather an environment that has the biggest "population density" of life per any unit of measurement. All of the life that covers the whole reef chain is entirely separate from the reef chain itself. Another thing: the reason why I said reef chain frequently is because the Great Barrier Reef is not a single reef, but a chain of thousands of reefs situated off of Australia's coast. Therefore, two things make the "fact" that the Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest organism contrary to true fact. JustN5:1202:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your enthusiasm on the Great Barrier Reef, but I feel I should remind you that Talk pages are for talking about the article itself, not the subject of the article. It's sometimes a difficult distinction to make. We don't say on the article that the GBR is a single organism. We say that sometimes it's called the world's largest organism, but we then go on to explain that really it's not the world's largest organism. We talk about the geological formation of the GBR in the Geology and geography section. If you can cite the source that the GBR has the largest population density of life, that would be very much appreciated. We have some information on the life that exists in the environment of the GBR, but not lots - this is because I'm having trouble in incorporating it. If you'd like to help with that, it would be very much appreciated. We do say in the lead that the GBR is a reef system of about 3000 separate reefs.-Malkinann07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GBR does not have the largest population density by far. In fact some scientists compare tropical waters to deserts as far as life. Usually life is measured in Primary_production which is the grams of carbon produced per cubic metre. Since there is no plankton in this water (billions of organisms per cubic metre of water), we can safely say the reef is far behind. I think the largest population density is actually located off South America in upwelling regions (as far as oceanic life). Erick880 (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That map is good. It should have some labels and a scale though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asphere (talk • contribs).
No information describing the reef
The article talks a lot about the coral origins of the reef, its biological and ecologic significance, but nothing about what it is. What would I see if I came up to the Great Barrier Reef? How big are these reef islands? Is there animal or plant life on the above-ocean reef? Are there human structures on any of them? What is the range of width dimensions of the Great Barrier Reef? Is it passable by boats? There is not even a picture of the reef except from at least a few kilometers away, and it's an actual built-up island. -Rolypolyman02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your questions... the article says "The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is the world's largest coral reef system, composed of roughly 3,000 individual reefs and 900 islands..." What else would be useful to know about what the GBR system is? If you were to come to the GBR, you would see something that looked sort of like this. We decided not to use this picture as the lead picture as the map is of the whole GBR, and we liked the satellite image.Coral cay island sizes vary, and their sizes aren't really something I've come across in my reading. (perhaps investigate the Category:Islands on the Great Barrier Reef, or the Australian govt's website?). There isn't really such a thing as an above-ocean reef - reefs can't grow above sea level, although I suppose at low tide they could be exposed for a short time - not long enough to have non-oceanic wildlife. Birds nest on a lot of the coral cay islands, turtles nest on some others, and I believe there is some plant life. here is some information about some wildlife in the GBR system that isn't fully in the wikipedia article. Some coral cay islands have monitoring stations or are basically left alone, and some others have been made into coastal resorts. "What is the range of width dimensions of the Great Barrier Reef?" - are you asking how wide the GBR system is? Judging by this map, (which we can't use on Wikipedia, as it's copyright to the Australian Government), I'd say it's about 300 or so kms wide at its widest point? The GBR is widely used by ships, although it is quite a dangerous route - Captain Cook famously discovered it when he ran aground on Endeavour Reef. More information about shipping in the GBR is available at Environmental_threats_to_the_Great_Barrier_Reef#Shipping. Free images that we could use of the GBR are available here, if you think there's any better feel free to swap them. If this hasn't answered your questions, I'd suggest going to the GBRMPA website to have a look around - maybe you'll find something and be able to include it in the article. :) -Malkinann00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been commented out in the main article for some time now, I thought I'd put it here to save on space there. Any current references would be appreciated. -Malkinann (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The oldest dated coral on the reef now is a species of Porites known as boulder coral, which is only about 1,000 years old (it grows about 1 centimetre or 3/8 inch per year)." Note--this used to be in the Reef Facts for Tour Guides reference until they updated it in 2006. It should not appear in this wiki article until it can be confirmed from a scientific publication.[reply]
I'm using a map of one to a trillion scale, I can measure around sub atomic particles, and I get a outside arc of 3 billion billion kilometers... Well its normal to use a handfull of straight lines or arcs to measure the length .. 60.242.147.167 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was speedy close. This article is not about great barrier reefs in general. It's about one specific reef, whose name is the Great Barrier Reef. As a proper noun, the name should remain capitalized. Wikipedia uses the most common name of the subject of the article as the article title, and in this case the most common name is unambiguously the current title. Jafeluv (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great Barrier Reef → Great barrier reef — I propose a move to eliminate the large B and R so as to show that it is a barrier reef from Australia, and not a given name to a regular reef. Actually I'd even name it Australia barrier reef, but I guess that would be a stretch too far for most Wikipedians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.64.171 07:00, August 11, 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
What can we do to hurt the reef?
We can stop the reed from dying by cutting down the use of petrol cars and not littering near the water. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is an authority that is protecting the reef. They say we can help at home by recycling, wash your car on the lawn, use environmentally friendly cleaners and open windows to catch the breeze instead of the air conditioner. You are also not allowed to fish on the reef. ==
kill it!
red sea coral
does anyone know if thrs much research yet comparing red sea corals that thrive in warmer waters, to australian corals, in terms of adapting & engineering australian corals to warmer temps??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreyasCrystalizedAngels (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never even heard of this spelling before. Can we try to keep a consistent nomenclature here on Wikipedia? It's "Cenozoic" in every textbook I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathUDX (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Management' section contains the phrase "...The updated version states that to date, none of the efforts undertaken to improve the quality of water entering the reef has been unsuccessful.". It then goes on with several statements implying that none of the efforts have been successful, not unsuccessful. Which is correct?
Bcb9153 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioning of Yellow-band disease in the articles 'Tourism' section is a red link that does not lead to an existing page. However this is because it is typed as "yellow band disease". The actual page is called Yellow-band disease, it should be changed to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibzy (talk • contribs) 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[vhttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/01/australia-approves-barrier-reef-dumping-plan-201413152726546347.html >> Australia agrees dumping near Barrier Reef](Lihaas (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
Recently an external link was added to the page, in addition to the several already there. I removed it, saying in my edit summary "already too many ELs and doesn't add anything special - also not clear whose site it is or why should be included". The original editor reverted my removal, saying "This site is better than most external links already there. So do your research". The site in question is here. My view is that there is no shortage of reputable ELs in the article, such as from the Australian government's environment department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia's top national research body on the reef (the CRC) as well as Australia's peak tourism body. In contrast, the site that was added is authored by one individual (though which one is actually a tricky subject: see my observations here). In any case, there is no evidence that the site is peer reviewed, written by anyone with any expertise, and it is over fifteen years old. The page contains grammatical and formatting errors, also indicative of a poor quality source. My views are (1) this should not be in the external links section as it doesn't meet the cut for being important enough given the much more reliable sources available and (2) the site probably doesn't meet our criteria for being a reliable source at all, and should not be used for that reason. Can I get other editor views please? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the external link article is a very good one - and it is definitely more informative about the Great Barrier Reef than many of the other external links on the page. I think that the site is a very important one and deserves its place among the external links for the article and should remain. Figaro (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please comment on whether it meets reliability criteria? Incidentially, I agree regardingt the Tourism Australia link - which I am removing. Also, I don't think ELs are supposed to be summary informatino of the kind that the WP article itself actually delivers. They are meant to performa function different to the function of the article itself. Sites of regulators etc do this. My view is that this site does not. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Threatened species known to occur in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 15 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Since this is outside my area of knowledge I'm not attempting to add this in any way. However, social media has been buzzing with declarations of the reef being officially "dead". Now, that's just social media, and the links I've seen don't appear to be the best, POV-wise. Is there any basis to this? (And I'm hoping not for obvious reasons). Have actual reputable sources covered this at all, and if so, is it worth mentioning? It's recentism, but I did come to the article to see if there was any non-hyperbolic info on this, other than the sections on pollution and bleaching. freshacconci talk to me16:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found my own answer, of sorts. Apparently, scientists are taking note of the social media reports and are not happy about the claims. Should this be included, somehow? It may be moving towards the point where it is part of the Reef's narrative. freshacconci talk to me16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this around as well - this page is locked to all but autoconfirmed, but I suggest adding the current-related tag since this has popped up throughout social media today. I added it in without much of a rationale (my bad), but I'll add it back in since this covers my concerns (the current related tag lets viewers know this information is changing and not necessarily reputable). Garchy (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral reef system[1][2] composed of over 2,900 individual reefs[3] and 900 islands stretching for over 2,300 kilometres (1,400 mi) over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres (133,000 sq mi).[4][5] The reef is located in the Coral Sea, off the coast of Queensland, Australia.
The Great Barrier Reef can be seen from outer space and is the world's biggest single structure made by living organisms.[6] This reef structure is composed of and built by billions of tiny organisms, known as coral polyps.[7] It supports a wide diversity of life and was selected as a World Heritage Site in 1981.[1][2] CNN labelled it one of the seven natural wonders of the world.[8] The Queensland National Trust named it a state icon of Queensland.[9]
A large part of the reef is protected by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which helps to limit the impact of human use, such as fishing and tourism. Other environmental pressures on the reef and its ecosystem include runoff, climate change accompanied by mass coral bleaching, and cyclic population outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish. According to a study published in October 2012 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the reef has lost more than half its coral cover since 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:3040:680:4430:CE5C:55EC:3CCD (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There has been a request on WP:GAR to reassess this article since 2015. Looks like adding some references is the biggest thing that needs to occur; I will identify everything during the reassessment, which will be occurring over the next week. Kees08 (Talk)19:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar
Rephrase:
"an event that the authors put down to the effects of global climate change."
Images
[[File:Part of Great Barrier Reef from Helecopter.JPG]]
I requested a move, so none of you have to deal with that (helicopter is spelled wrong)
[[File:GreatBarrierReef-EO.JPG]]
Please replace with an extracted image from [[File:GreatBarrierReef-PIA03401.jpg]]. The current image says the image is 'probably' this image, but it would be better to properly extract from the source image.
[[File:Great Barrier Reef (aerial view).JPG]]
Can we get this transferred to Commons? Not required for GA, this is just extra credit
The rest of the images seem to be fine (captions etc)
Citations
Does not matter for GA, but if the statements are not controversial (like the size of the reef), the citations can just be in the article instead of the intro.
The management section needs additional citations, I can provide specifics if need be
Address the citation needed and unreliable source tags
Expand citations to include at least publisher and access date
I have just modified one external link on Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Missing information that contradicts global warming threat
The reef moves every year and where it is now used to be above ground.
The reef can recover quite easily from change. However there doesn't appear to be a contrary side of the article than of that to climate change.
There is even a separate article for climate change on the reef.
These are common to the reasons I don't use Wikipedia.
[1]
We'll miss you then. But you are omitting the fact that the same article says the reef may not recover from this. --Dmol (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Potential contradiction regarding effects of temperature.
There are many places in this article where there is discussion of the dire effects of increasing water temperatures on the Reef, and how the reef itself is in danger from them. That would appear to be totally at odds with this statement:
"In addition, approximately 400,000 years ago there was a particularly warm interglacial period with higher sea levels and a 4 °C (7 °F) water temperature change." So, the reef survived a 4°C increase then, but is in danger from a current change of less than half of that now?? Can someone explain this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.164.198 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
Clownfish on the Great Barrier Reef
Satellite image of the northernmost part of the Great Barrier Reef
Giant Clam on the Great Barrier Reef
Done --Majora (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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. Sakura CarteletTalk 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)