Talk:Nazi Germany

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2026

The title should be "National-Socialist Germany" as this was the real denomination of the party-state. The official one being "Deutsches Reich", then "Großdeutsches Reich" since 1942. "Nazi" Germany was just a derogatory name that the Allied nations, especially the Anglo-Saxon / Western ones gave them. In the same way as calling National-Socialist Germany, "Nazi Germany", only gives the substantially Western Anglo-American ideal of the state, that did not represent the official reality, calling it "Fascist" Germany would be like doing the same thing, but with the Soviet perspective. (The Soviets usually referred to the German Reich as Фашистский Германия / Fashistiskiy Germaniya, Fascist Germany in essence).

I think that, at least in the titles, we should be using the real denomination, as it gives people more clarity of the historical reality. Then, obviously, it should be specified in the essential description, that the state is commonly referred to as "Nazi Germany". ~2026-30221-80 (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See talk page archive for every answer as to why not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Allied occupations in infobox

I don't believe it's accurate to list Allied-occupied Germany and that of Austria in the infobox as successors to Nazi Germany. The Allies asserted that Nazi Germany cease to exist and did not assume any of its obligations. I suggest both links be removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Remove. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I removed the fields: diff. There were notes in there about prior consensus which I was not aware of; if longer discussion is needed please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Discussion Are needed As Allied Occupied Germany and Austria Are Considered to Be The Successor States to the Land that Was Governed By the Nazi Regime, as all States Cease to Exist and By this Logic, therefore would Have No Legal Successors, In addition, User User:K.e.coffman Never Specified a Reason for the Removal of the Flag, and I request that these Changes Need to Be Undone. Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former country says to use these fields for "preceding entity" and "succeeding entity", respectively. Predecessor / successor states assume assets and obligations of the countries they preceed/follow; these are not merely territories that share the same landmass. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for weighing in here, but as someone who is simply a wiki reader, it is very odd that there is no "succeeded by" section in the infobox. I don't recall any other country wiki where the preceding/succeeding box contains anything more than territorial succession and precedent, and I think it is confusing for the readers not to include the occupied territories or a reference to them in the box as the successors. Noone would imply that the occupied zones were taking upon themselves the obligations of Nazi Germany or that they are to be seen as the heirs of Nazi Germany, it serves as a link to the next epoch in the territory which it occupied. And I think this is the general practice. ~2026-37570-55 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There here clearly shows Objections to this unnecessary change and This must be undone, as there was No Prior Consensuses before the Successor States were removed, and No one Stated their Support for the Decision, and here there is clearly Evidence to Suggest that the idea of Nazi Germany, the Legal State that Signed the Berlin Declaration that the Territory of Nazi Germany or the German Reich Referenced by the Allies, Not the Weimar Republic which was simply a definition of the Period of time Between the End of the German Empire and The Nazi Regime which was Extremely and Evidently Considered the Official Regime of the State During and After the Second World War, and the Allied Occupied State Should be Regarded as the Legal Successor in the Info box, and as Evidenced by the Sheer Amount of Criticism of the Decision to Remove the State from the Nazi Germany Infobox without discussion Exemplifies That the Decision Should be undone. Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Godzillasizedemu here, Wikipedia traditionally has “succeeded by” for states which were conquered, such as the Romans succeeding Ptolemaic Egypt, even though on paper Nazi germany was dissolved, it’s still the territory of Germany, and as is pretty much always the case on Wikipedia, it should say “succeeded by” allied occupied Germany, perhaps split into the Trizone and Soviet Occupied Germany, the two entities which replaced Nazi germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzillasizedemu (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe this section should be included as is. The Allies occupied certain areas of Germany and were the authority over Germany beginning in June 1945, but were not the formal government. Then in Sept. 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was established in West Germany and in October the GDR was established in East Germany, through the Soviet Union. They were the official successor governments of (then) divided Germany. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek, for the input. To expand on your point, there's actually been quite a bit of legal debate on the status of post-war Germany, which is covered in Legal status of Germany. In summary, Nazi Germany did not have a successor state because the German state never ceased to exist. As this source puts it:

After Germany’s reunification, the legal status of Germany was clarified. ... The Federal Republic of Germany is identical with the German Reich, yet not within the borders of 31 December 1937, but covering only the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, and the whole of Berlin.

"Germany, Legal Status after World War II", Oxford Public International Law

So, with that in mind, I suggest removing Weimar Republic and Austria from the infobox as well. And perhaps adding a paragraph into the Legacy section to clarify the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Concur with K.e.coffman, and would press the point made by Kierzek, if I understand correctly. In this case, succession presupposes that one entity had ceased to exist and another had taken up its rights and obligations—which did not happen in 1945. The Berlin Declaration of 5 June, assuming supreme authority, stated that it "does not effect the annexation of Germany"; the wording was deliberate, drafted to forestall a finding of debellatio. The Allies took pains to avoid the establishment of a successor state. The Bundesverfassungsgericht settled the rest in BVerfGE 36, 1 (1973): the Reich survived the collapse and did not perish, and the Federal Republic is not its heir but identical with it. The Ptolemaic analogy thus fails here—Rome absorbed a state that ceased to be, whereas 1945 destroyed a regime, an army, and a government within a statehood that no belligerent chose to terminate. The same reasoning removes Weimar, since the Machtergreifung was effected from within a constitutional order that was never repealed, only hollowed out—successive periods of one state, not two states in sequence. Along the same lines of thought shared by K.e.coffman, perhaps we should drop the succession parameters altogether rather than trying to populate them correctly, adding a short Legacy paragraph keyed to Legal status of Germany and the Oxford Public International Law entry, and leaving a hidden comment noting talk-page consensus. Obenritter (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Obenritter that the succession parameters should be removed from the infobox. We are not going to come up with content for these parameters that agrees with the complexity of real-life events. I don't think we need to offer an explanation for their absence though; we already have a map in the infobox that shows the various countries and territories that were part of the Reich. See the infobox at British Empire which is an example of doing it this way. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand Your Perspective, However, I Still Think the Allied occupied Austria, and Germany Should be labeled As Successor States In order to Show the Chronical Timeline of the Sate of Germany and to Exemplify what Came After the Nazi Germany Period for Germany and Austria. In addition to the Fact that the legal Status of the Berlin Declaration Referred to the Allied Occupation Zones Of The Annexation OF NNazi Germany Not the Weimar Republic, As stated

"The Allies therefore invoked the principle of debellatio, the end of a war by the complete destruction of an enemy government; inasmuch as the High Command was the last functional part of the German government, its capitulation served, pars pro toto, as the surrender of all of Germany."

The Berlin Declaration announced that "[t]he unconditional surrender of Germany has thereby been effected...". Subsequent historians have treated 8 May 1945 as the date on which Nazi Germany ceased to exist.

• The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 1945), pp. 171-178
• Shirer, William L, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, 1960, p1140

This Refers to the Surrender that Nazi Germany, the Effective German State Ceased to Exist, Not the Weimar Republic, as that Is an Agreed Consensus that the Weimar Republic ceased to Exist after the Enabling Act of 1933, and if this Opinion that Allied Occupied Germany is the Successor to the Weimar Republic, then this logic argues that Nazi Germany Should be Treated as an Historical Period of the German State after 1918, Not its own State. In addition, I understand your Point, Diannaa, However, the Definition, and Purpose of incorporating the Preceded, and Succeeded by is Not going to Have An Perfectly Legally Exact Definition of all the Successor states in the Land, However, this Parameter is deigned for the understanding and Convenience, and Legibility of the Wikipedia User, and not Incorporating this Aspect, is Deemed insufficient, and incomplete, as Evidenced by The Comment of the Wikipedia user ~2026-37570-55 stating, "as someone who is simply a wiki reader, it is very odd that there is no "succeeded by" section in the infobox." , Therefore Exemplifying the Confusion, and Destruction to the Pages this Causes the Readers of Wikipedia, and I think that this Ideation of Removing the Standard practice on Wikipedia of including a Chorological Timeline of the Succeeded and preceded Sections of A State being removed Should Reach an Appropriate Consensus from the Wikipedia Moderations And Users Before Being Placed Into Effect. Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s general policy is “whichever political entity, existing on the same soil, came immediately after that state, is the successor” see for example the Byzantine Empire, the ottomans weren’t the legal successors, they just conquered Constantinople, but Wikipedia places them as “succeeded by” Godzillasizedemu (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The Byzantine analogy fails on precisely the ground it is offered to establish. Mehmed II did not merely take Constantinople—instead, he took the imperial title with it, claimed the succession and absorbed the Roman polity into the Ottoman state—which is to say that one sovereign entity was extinguished and another, distinct in dynasty, law, and religion, stood in its place. Nothing of the kind occurred in 1945. The four occupying powers took supreme authority explicitly and in writing while disclaiming annexation, and they did so on advice that a finding of debellatio would have carried consequences—for the law of occupation, for the disposition of territory, for the obligations owed to the population—that none of them wished to assume. To cite the Berlin Declaration for the proposition that Germany was extinguished is thus to cite the document against its own operative clause; the surrender of 8 May terminated the Wehrmacht, not the German state, and Shirer, whatever his merits as a narrative historian, is not authority on a question of public international law that the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the settled scholarship have since resolved otherwise.

There is a further difficulty, and it is not merely doctrinal. The parameter asks us to name the entity that succeeded the German state, and the only candidate on offer is—the German state, under military government, within borders drawn by the occupiers rather than by any act of succession. Germany cannot be succeeded by Germany. What changed in 1945 was regime, government, and army; what did not change was the legal person, which is why the Federal Republic could be held to Reich-era debts (Schuldenbereinigung for instance), why the 1990 settlement had to speak of identity rather than inheritance, and why the whole matter requires a paragraph in prose rather than an arrow in a box.

On the argument from reader convenience I would only observe that convenience purchased at the cost of accuracy is not a service to the reader; a chronological arrow that quietly asserts a legal proposition the sources reject teaches something false with the authority of the infobox and without the qualification that prose would supply. I therefore continue to favor dropping the succession parameters altogether—as at British Empire, per Diannaa—and treating the question where it can be treated honestly: a short Legacy paragraph keyed to Legal status of Germany, with a hidden comment recording the consensus reached here.--Obenritter (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, Byzantium was a bad example. But, for example, they do list the Byzantine empire as a predeseccor to the ottomans, alongside all the stuff the ottomans conquered. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is also shown with the various states conquered in Africanus’s, which are succeeded by European colonies, themselves succeeded by modern nations. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, Germany cannot be succeeded by Germany.--Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Look at the Mexican history articles. Restored mexican republic is succeeded by the Porfiriato, the United Mexican states succeed the Centralist republic. Etc. etc. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The Mexican sequence proves the opposite of what it is offered to prove. Each of those cited Mexican transitions rests upon a distinct constitutional act—the Siete Leyes of 1836, the restored Constitution of 1857, the Constitution of 1917—so that the label attaches to a fresh legal order and not merely to a fresh set of officeholders. The Porfiriato is the exception that makes the point plainest, since it is a periodization of the same republic under the same constitution and belongs in an infobox only by editorial convention, not by any principle of state succession. Nazi Germany answers to neither description. The Weimar constitution was never repealed since the Enabling Act operated within it, and the Machtergreifung was a seizure of the state's machinery that continued, in law, to be the very same state it had been since 1871.

So the objection stands where I left it. Every example adduced involves either a new constitutional order or a new sovereign imposed by annexation, and 1945 produced neither—only a military government exercising authority over a state that survived it, and that in 1990 was declared identical with, not heir to, the Reich. Germany cannot be succeeded by Germany.--Obenritter (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In this Example Germany Is Not Succeeded By Germany, Nazi Germany Is Succeeded By the Allied Occupied military Administration As Referenced Here:

The Berlin Declaration announced that "[t]he unconditional surrender of Germany has thereby been effected...". Subsequent historians have treated 8 May 1945 as the date on which Nazi Germany ceased to exist.

• The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 1945), pp. 171-178
• Shirer, William L, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, 1960, p1140

Therefore This Exemplifies the Point that Nazi Germany was Succeed by The Allied occupation Zones, Not the Weimar Republic, and Consequently, the Infobox for Nazi Germany Should Reflect As Such. Thank You. If you have Any Objections, please refer to my Comment here:

Nazi Germany Should Have Succesor States in it's Infobox

Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

References

• I removed the parameters per consensus in this discussion: diff. Per WP:V, the page cannot state the the allied occupations succeeded Nazi Germany when sources state that this was not the case. The 1945 and 1960 sources are not suitable, considering that the 1990 unification clarified the matter per the 2013 source that I presented. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright how about we compromise. We put the old succession-predecessor back, while we also put a little (a) which serves as a footnote explaining all the complications of succession, etc, etc. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But, just to state my case: see Ptolemaic Egypt being succeeded by Roman Egypt, Roman Egypt being succeeded by the Rashiduns, etc, etc. despite a lack of legal continuity, Wikipedia counts the territory as what matters. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus here for the proposed approach. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So we’re at an impasse then? Godzillasizedemu (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we Need to Establish An consensus Amongst A Separate group of Administrators, and Wikipedia Readers in order to reach An Appropriate, and Accurate Consensus 11a1Wiki (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The Nazi Germany Page with the Standard Wikipeida Pracitce As Regarding the Territory Governed On the Same Soil, was not Considered An Isuue until Very Recently and its Removal has Very Linited Support Against other Wikipeida Moderators/Readers As Stated Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_Germany#c-~2026-37570-55-20260630125100-K.e.coffman-20260619120600

The Successor and Predecessor States is the Standard Approach to the majority of Wikipedia Articles, and the Same Consensus should be Established Here. Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur with 11a1 Godzillasizedemu (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I have opened a Request for comment (RFC) on this issue. See the new section below. Please do not make edits to the wording of the question asked in the Request for Comment, and do not make related changes to the article itself at this time. Determination of the consensus will be made by an uninvolved person after 30 days have passed. If you have never participated in an RFC before, please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment for details of how the process works.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nazi Germany Flag Removal

There Never was An Specified Reason for the Removal of the Flag, In the Latest Edit. The German Records and The holocaust Memorial Clearly State That Germany Had the Flag Of the German Empire form 1933-1935, and the Flag of the Nazi party from 1935-1945, and there was No Confusion on this issue and No Reason that was Discussed on the Talk Page Before Their Removal, and I request that these Changes Need to Be Undone. Thank You. 11a1Wiki (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @11a1Wiki: I restored the flag -- I removed it by mistake thinking it was the Austrian flag during the annexation period. It's back now; here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks,

I understand Your Perspective, However, I Still Think the Allied occupied Austria, and Germany Should be labeled As Successor States In order to Show the Chronical Timeline of the Sate of Germany and to Exemplify what Came After the Nazi Germany Period for Germany and Austria. Thank You for Reading this message. 11a1Wiki (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2026

Change materiel to material to correct spelling mistake. Ng565 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's correct. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2026

I have a reference that may be of use for the government type in the infobox. I was skimming through James Pollock's book that he wrote back in 1940 and he describes the form og government in a section titled, "THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST STATE".

THYUIOP (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So what do you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on inclusion of fields for "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" in the infobox

Should the infobox contain fields for "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by"? If the consensus is for inclusion of these fields, a separate RFC can be held to determine what the fields should contain. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Commenting participants should consider reading the section Talk:Nazi Germany#Allied occupations in infobox above.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude: The succession parameters should be omitted from the infobox. Nazi Germany ceased to exist at the end of the war, and had no successor states. Therefore in my opinion are not going to come up with content for these parameters that agrees with real-life events. We are under no obligation to enter content in these fields and there is no policy or guideline requiring us to do so. We especially should not enter misleading or incorrect information just for the sake of having something in these fields. For examples of articles not using these fiels fields see British Empire, Dutch colonial empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire. British Empire is a particularly good example, because it has a map illustrating former territories that were part of the empire, which is something that is already present in our infobox.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seems to be that is a tad disingenuous, as the British Empire ruled over India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Sudan, Canada, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, and the original 13 American colonies before 1776, Australia and New Zealand, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Iraq, and Jordan. And this would overburden any infobox. I don't think the same can be said for Nazi Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• I see no reason not to have one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The article should have "preceded by" and "succeeded by" fields just like every other article. Walteronthehill (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude: here's been quite a bit of legal debate on the status of post-war Germany, which is covered in Legal status of Germany. In summary, Nazi Germany did not have a successor state because the German state never ceased to exist. As this 2013 source puts it:

After Germany’s reunification, the legal status of Germany was clarified. ... The Federal Republic of Germany is identical with the German Reich, yet not within the borders of 31 December 1937, but covering only the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, and the whole of Berlin.

"Germany, Legal Status after World War II", Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

Inclusions of entities not supported by sources, such as Allied occupations, would be original research contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Omit. Template:Infobox country doesn't have "predecessor" and "successor" parameters, and I haven't seen them used in other countries' infoboxes. There is no parameter "succession in international treaties or identity of a state" like there is in the German Wikipedia, and the German article's infobox shows "Vorgängergebilde" (predecessor state) with the two countries Weimar Republic and Austrian "Ständestaat" (corporate state, or s.th.) For the status between 1945 and 1949, it doesn't use the "Nachfolge" template (or any other template) but merely says "Abgelöst von" (Replaced by), followed by the wikilinks to the articles on Germany and Austria under post-war occupation. I overlooked template "Infobox former country". Template s[n] doesn't apply, and the matter is too complex for the infobox. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Exclude: Successors are not clear - issue is too nuanced for the simple answer which is required for an infobox.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Exclude: My points have already been made to this end, bit to reiterate: every example offered to retain involved either a new legal constitutional order or an entirely new sovereign state imposed by annexation; 1945 produced neither—only military government over a state the Allies expressly declined to extinguish, and which in 1990 was declared identical with the Reich rather than its heir. This matter is too complex for the typical Wiki-reader to understand and since no entry in these fields can be made accurate without a paragraph of qualification the infobox is not designed to carry, the parameters should be dropped entirely and the matter treated in prose, keyed to Legal status of Germany.--Obenritter (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Exclude: Per, roughly everyone here, the successor state question is too nuanced to be reported this way.JerryGraf (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude per Diannaa. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Include I don't dispute the facts that the other respondents have brought forth, but I think everyone is far, far too fixated on legal statuses, i.e. whether in international law it can be said that one or more "successor state(s)" existed. There seems to be consensus that none did, but I will point out the infobox parameter doesn't say "Successor State" but "Succeeded By"; while the scope of the latter certainly includes that of the former, I say "Succeeded By" is broader and should include whatever comes after (I would say include Ally-Occupied Germany, East & West Germany, and reunified Germany).

The problem with exclusion is this: Nazi Germany doesn't exist anymore. It's all well and good to say that legally Germany is the same entity, but this article is about Nazi Germany, and the common understanding that Nazi Germany only existed until 1945 is held by just about everyone on the planet, including, I assume, everyone in this thread. It is useful to show to readers in infoboxes "what came before" and "what came after", and whether or not those are technically different legal entities under international law, I don't think matters to 99.99% of readers. It's still useful to them regardless. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur! Godzillasizedemu (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Include I feel it’s standard Wikipedia protocol. Godzillasizedemu (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Exclude per nom, but this should be a larger RfC that will determine a precedent on how predecessor and successor is used for all transclusions of Template:Infobox country, rather than making a single exception for this article. I would recommend making a notice of this RfC on Template:Infobox country for broad consensus. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Include. This parameter does not imply that a given state was, in the full legal sense, the continuation of a particular political entity. Rather, it indicates that subsequent states succeeded it. It is not a legal category but a historical and political one. If we were to adopt a strictly legalistic approach, then this article should not exist at all, because "Nazi Germany" was not a separate legal entity. Legally speaking, just like the Weimar Republic and the German Empire, it remained the German Reich. Marcelus (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Exclude: pursuant to my reasons stated in earlier section above on the matter and pursuant to Diannaa, K.e.coffman and Obenritter. No reason to rehash herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)