Talk:PG Era
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2020. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Keep in Mind[edit]
Keep in mind this is about PG Era 2008-2013, not WWE's transition to PG covered in WWE article. It should be focused on storylines and stuffs from that era as with Attitude Era article. Also only Raw and Raw shows switched to PG in 2008, SmackDown was pg log before and WWE used to be PG before 1997. Just like Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Eras are separate eras both rated TV-14, PG Era (2008-2013) and The Reality Era (2014-2016) are separate times both rated TV-PG, and tv ratings do not determine eras. This poll is an accurate source [1] Anyway I believe this article should focus on storylines and events from the 2008-2013 period and this era is alternatively known as Universe Era as per WWE2k14 sources. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. We need to follow the sources and they describe WWE as being in the PG Era. We can add more details about storylines and such from this era, but we can't pretend that it isn't defined by the transition to TV-PG. WWE themselves make that clear in the books that we cite from them in this article.LM2000 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course we will follow sources, but this article isn't sley about WWE's transition to PG a single-day event in July 2008, pretty much overnight but the entire period 2008-2013, the transition to PG is more a company business matter which is described well in WWE article and can also have an elaborate article of its own titled "WWE's move to PG", but this article is about the overall events from 2008-2013 and the transition to PG was just a part of it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is about the PG Era. Sources are split on how long that period is but they all focus on the shoft towards kid-friendly content. That's why it's called the "PG Era". Even the WWE sources provided talk about the content changes and not much else. The kayfabe storyline stuff is largely not notable.LM2000 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- LM2000 Then I think the title of the page should be changed to "WWE's transition to PG" if thats what is about, rather than the coverage of the period 2008-2013. but if the name stays yes we should mention the family-friendly nature of the period just like Attitude Era mentions the adult-oriented nature between 1997-2002, however, that elaborately discusses popular storylines of that time like say Rock-Foley rivalry, so we can also mention popular stories of the PG Era like Cena-Punk rivalry. Anyway just saying, as you are more experienced editor you have more say, but I think that the article should focus on both storylines and the family-friendly nature of the period as its not an article on the transition to pG itself (which btw occured overnight in July 2008), but of the period 2008-2013, this article should be more similar to the Attitude Era article. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. The article is about the time of WWE during that era (08-13), not about the fictional storylines that took place in that period. As LM said, most of the sources only covers the changes. I would be like Golden Age of Hollywood just including movie synopsis, not talking about the era itself. In fact, I think the Attitude Era article needs some work, since most of them are the storylines. It's a must to talk about Austin, his feud with McMahon and his popularity, but not about the storylines he had during the attitude, using a tie or attacking McMahon at the hospital. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree Then that would be an exact copypaste of the WWE article which is about corporate and business affairs. The History of WWE and WWE article serves different purpose, one is about storylines and progress of events since inception and the other is about business and corporate strategies since inception. If both were about the same thing the business alone and no focus on storylines there would be no need for two different articles as they would be a copypaste of each other, so those articles serve different purposes and the Attitude Era, PG Era and New Era articles are an extension of the chronological chain of storyline events during the periods, with also focus on the storylines. I believe the PG Era should cover both the storyline side and business side. And I think Punk-Cena rivalry was one of the most important stories of that time and should have a seperate section. Anyway I wont make changes if you people disagree, so no worries, just stating some important points. If the focus is solely on the transition to PG and its business impact, title should be "WWE's Transition to PG and its impact" Dilbaggg (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't oppose adding some mention of storylines from this timeframe, but this should not be the primary purpose of this article. Of the additions you have made, you included some sources but none of them mention the "PG Era" at all. Any additions should use sources that reference things in the context of the era, otherwise this will be a WP:CRUFTY WP:COATRACK of kayfabe. This article goes greater into detail about corporate changes than the History of WWE or WWE articles do, which is good because those articles cover long stretches of time and including all of this there would be WP:UNDUE. The Attitude Era article is a mess, it has had cleanup tags on it for years, so please don't use that as a template for other articles. HHH Pedrigree's example of Golden Age of Hollywood is a better one.LM2000 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, two issues are fan point of view and, most dangerous, plot summaries instead real-life events. I understand storylines are a huge part of a wrestling promotion, but it's not an eciiclopdic article just include storylines from that period. Most admins would read the article and see "pro wrestling era, WWF, Undertaker killed his parents, the brother seeks for reveange, then stated a cult, OMG kayfabe again". As LM said, CRUFT and COATRACK, focus on real life events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't oppose adding some mention of storylines from this timeframe, but this should not be the primary purpose of this article. Of the additions you have made, you included some sources but none of them mention the "PG Era" at all. Any additions should use sources that reference things in the context of the era, otherwise this will be a WP:CRUFTY WP:COATRACK of kayfabe. This article goes greater into detail about corporate changes than the History of WWE or WWE articles do, which is good because those articles cover long stretches of time and including all of this there would be WP:UNDUE. The Attitude Era article is a mess, it has had cleanup tags on it for years, so please don't use that as a template for other articles. HHH Pedrigree's example of Golden Age of Hollywood is a better one.LM2000 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree Then that would be an exact copypaste of the WWE article which is about corporate and business affairs. The History of WWE and WWE article serves different purpose, one is about storylines and progress of events since inception and the other is about business and corporate strategies since inception. If both were about the same thing the business alone and no focus on storylines there would be no need for two different articles as they would be a copypaste of each other, so those articles serve different purposes and the Attitude Era, PG Era and New Era articles are an extension of the chronological chain of storyline events during the periods, with also focus on the storylines. I believe the PG Era should cover both the storyline side and business side. And I think Punk-Cena rivalry was one of the most important stories of that time and should have a seperate section. Anyway I wont make changes if you people disagree, so no worries, just stating some important points. If the focus is solely on the transition to PG and its business impact, title should be "WWE's Transition to PG and its impact" Dilbaggg (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. The article is about the time of WWE during that era (08-13), not about the fictional storylines that took place in that period. As LM said, most of the sources only covers the changes. I would be like Golden Age of Hollywood just including movie synopsis, not talking about the era itself. In fact, I think the Attitude Era article needs some work, since most of them are the storylines. It's a must to talk about Austin, his feud with McMahon and his popularity, but not about the storylines he had during the attitude, using a tie or attacking McMahon at the hospital. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- LM2000 Then I think the title of the page should be changed to "WWE's transition to PG" if thats what is about, rather than the coverage of the period 2008-2013. but if the name stays yes we should mention the family-friendly nature of the period just like Attitude Era mentions the adult-oriented nature between 1997-2002, however, that elaborately discusses popular storylines of that time like say Rock-Foley rivalry, so we can also mention popular stories of the PG Era like Cena-Punk rivalry. Anyway just saying, as you are more experienced editor you have more say, but I think that the article should focus on both storylines and the family-friendly nature of the period as its not an article on the transition to pG itself (which btw occured overnight in July 2008), but of the period 2008-2013, this article should be more similar to the Attitude Era article. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is about the PG Era. Sources are split on how long that period is but they all focus on the shoft towards kid-friendly content. That's why it's called the "PG Era". Even the WWE sources provided talk about the content changes and not much else. The kayfabe storyline stuff is largely not notable.LM2000 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course we will follow sources, but this article isn't sley about WWE's transition to PG a single-day event in July 2008, pretty much overnight but the entire period 2008-2013, the transition to PG is more a company business matter which is described well in WWE article and can also have an elaborate article of its own titled "WWE's move to PG", but this article is about the overall events from 2008-2013 and the transition to PG was just a part of it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Mark Henry's 2011 World Title Win[edit]
I think this was a very prominent story, the huge win for 15 years veteran at Night of Champions (2011), against Randy Orton. Henry was really dominant that year beating the likes of Big Show, Daniel Bryan and all, he did win the ECW title in 2008 but WWE didn't recognize that as a world title. Given Henry being celebrated and prolific, HHH Pedigree mentioned Kane in 2010, but Kane was already a WWF Champion in 1998, his second year as Kane, also Henry is more famous than Kane in the real sports world. onee of the most famous powerlifters even, his world title win, his biggest success in the WWE should be recognized and it was part of the PG Era (2008-2013/2014). I just mentioned my points, whatever the majority decides goes, but I think it is important should be added to the storyline section. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a source about Mark Henry as a notable point of the PG Era? Punk is sourced as one major point of the era, Henry not. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- My point is we need sources about his title victory as a major point of the era. If not, every one would include his personal preferences. Kane won his first world title since 1998 (1 day reign), Christian won his first World Heavyweight title too. But we need sources about his victory in the context of the era. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Extreme Rules 2012[edit]
Dilbaggg, please review WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and when to give warnings. While PWTorch and The Baltimore Sun count as WP:RS, About.com, pre-2013 Bleacher Report and The Internet Wrestling Database do not. Please see WP:PW/RS. The WWE.com link is dead so I don't even know what that says, but none of the sources say what you're using them for. The Bleacher Report one says: "With the incarnation of the PG era, going "extreme" now simply describes adding stipulations to matches". That doesn't mean the 2012 event was the only event to not be PG, it just means that this annual PPV added stipulations to matches. And why would we devote a whole paragraph to this show? Who cares if DVD Talk liked the DVD release for that show? What could that possibly have to do with the PG Era?LM2000 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LM2000 and LM2000: LM2000, I am kinda busy IRL at the moment to engage in edit dispute, but this was highly notable and circulated all over the internet back in 2012 which I vividly remember and can stil source back and has numerous WP:RS featuring its WP:Notability. Can you at least WP:RfC about its inclusion, as you yourself said the article will give more importance to the ratings change itself than the storylines, and Extreme Rules 2012 being the only non PG ppv, the only ppv to receive TV 14 ratings after 2008 is of extreme noteworthy prominence. Anyway decision to RfC is yours, let majority voting decide wheather this notable event stays or not, if you won't I won't bother talking about it further now but might bring up the issue later on. Take care and best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'll bypass the RfC and put the information in there myself if you can prove that Extreme Rules 2012 was the only TV-14 rated PPV since 2008! Until then there's nothing to discuss. The sources simply don't say what you said they do.LM2000 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with LM. Sources don't support ER as a PG 14 PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just a simple research. Wrestleview reports the DVD is PG-14. [ https://prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/WWE_News_Extreme_Rules_rated_TV-14_printer.shtml Prowrestling.net], the editors says the PG 14 rating, maybe, it's because the Lesnar vs Cena. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that HHH. Prowrestling.net says that it was rated TV-14 on iTunes but not on Amazon. It sounds like iTunes/Apple perhaps chose to rate it higher, probably because of the violence, but it's still rated TV-PG elsewhere. We could read into that a couple different ways, but I think it's worth mentioning on the Extremes Rules page rather than here. It sounds like this may have been a decision by Apple rather than a deliberate choice by WWE.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, if we include a part talking about Lesnar as a no-PG wrestler. Some sources pointed the no-PG personality of Lesnar. There’s no fitting a force of nature into a PG rating. Lesnar used very non-PG era elbows to scar up Roman Reigns’ face. Their rivalry-capping cage match featured plenty of the red stuff (at least enough to warrant a hard PG-13 by Hollywood’s standards) I am the advocate for the most non-PG ass kicker of the PG Era, Brock Lesnar! --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I added a few sentences about Brock and the end of the PG Era.LM2000 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is sufficient coverage of this crucial event. I must admit your editing style is far better than mine LM2000. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm glad we can work together :) BTW, have you changed your mind about deleting the article? If so, make sure you let them know at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PG Era.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is sufficient coverage of this crucial event. I must admit your editing style is far better than mine LM2000. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I added a few sentences about Brock and the end of the PG Era.LM2000 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, if we include a part talking about Lesnar as a no-PG wrestler. Some sources pointed the no-PG personality of Lesnar. There’s no fitting a force of nature into a PG rating. Lesnar used very non-PG era elbows to scar up Roman Reigns’ face. Their rivalry-capping cage match featured plenty of the red stuff (at least enough to warrant a hard PG-13 by Hollywood’s standards) I am the advocate for the most non-PG ass kicker of the PG Era, Brock Lesnar! --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that HHH. Prowrestling.net says that it was rated TV-14 on iTunes but not on Amazon. It sounds like iTunes/Apple perhaps chose to rate it higher, probably because of the violence, but it's still rated TV-PG elsewhere. We could read into that a couple different ways, but I think it's worth mentioning on the Extremes Rules page rather than here. It sounds like this may have been a decision by Apple rather than a deliberate choice by WWE.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just a simple research. Wrestleview reports the DVD is PG-14. [ https://prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/WWE_News_Extreme_Rules_rated_TV-14_printer.shtml Prowrestling.net], the editors says the PG 14 rating, maybe, it's because the Lesnar vs Cena. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with LM. Sources don't support ER as a PG 14 PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'll bypass the RfC and put the information in there myself if you can prove that Extreme Rules 2012 was the only TV-14 rated PPV since 2008! Until then there's nothing to discuss. The sources simply don't say what you said they do.LM2000 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"most of WWE's programming remains TV-PG"?[edit]
This is kind of a meaningless phrase. V-Chip ratings — the "TV-PG" rating in question — are not like MPAA ratings, which are determined by a governing body with specific guidelines. They're determined by the broadcast and cable networks[1]. WWE maintaining a PG rating in 2021 has nothing to do with the actual content of the show — it could just as easily be a deliberate effort by TV executives, who are famously nervous about wrestling,[2] to project a family-friendly image and positive branding. You could make the argument that WWE's current content meets the TV-PG standard of "infrequent coarse language, some sexual content, some suggestive dialogue, or moderate violence,"[3], but that seems pretty subjective to me. Is there even any value to including this kind of commentary from vague, anonymous "sources" in this article? Wrestling commentators can be wrong; they can have agendas and a poor understanding of how things in the television industry works. The claim here is basically "some fans think WWE TV content still feels family-friendly compared to what they grew up with, so they argue, contrary to mainstream commentators, official history, and the actual defining qualities of each era, that they are still in the PG Era." Maybe there's a discussion to be had there, but it seems pretty badly one-sided to me. 2601:643:8681:5440:68CD:4DC6:E11E:99FA (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- This article isn't just about the storylines and gimmicks that existed for a few years after 2008 (WWE doesn't really know when their vision of the PG Era ended either), although we do have a section on that. It boils down to what the sources say, and many have continued to describe the current product as being the "PG Era". It may be one-sided to give more weight to reliable sources, but that's what we're supposed to do (see WP:RS and WP:DUE). It's worth noting that even Vince McMahon talked about staying in the "PG environment" when asked about it in 2019, so it's not like we're pushing a WP:FRINGE position here.LM2000 (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
End date[edit]
Hi LM2000, I'm trying to find which sources say the PG Era is still ongoing but I'm having trouble, can you point me in the right direction? — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Source 24 says the PG Era ended in 2015, which is a year later than what's being disputed. Source 5 includes a 2015 quote from Vince McMahon that says "today's PG Era". Source 3, 19 and 25 (published 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively) refer to the PG Era as actively happening.LM2000 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 10:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- TV ratings do not determine eras, WWF was PG before 1997 and while Raw was TV-14 1997-2008, SmackDown has mostly been PG. And it is well acknowledged that Reality Era started on March 24 2014, So PG Era ended in 2014, even though most WWE shows are rated PG just like it was before 1997. PThe term PG era isn't used in any modern sources either. Calling WWE PG just because of ratings, we can also call the Golden Era 1980-1992 and New Generation Era 1993-1997 as PG eras. THe PG era was a fan mocking term originally that the WWE accepted 2008-2014 as official and then in 2014 the Reality Era began. Also the face of the PG Era John Cena is now gone, the face of the New Era (2016-Present) Roman reigns is now on top of WWE. So please fix this on PG Era. End date is March 24, 2014. I really don't feel like WP:DR, so lets go on with what WWE officially says here: [2]. This is what reliable WP:PW/RS says, so no need to use unreliable sources to bring false end dates, March 24, 2014 is the real end date. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- If the end date is really March 24, 2014, why would we use a source that says it ended in 2013? Why would we give the 2014 date (which I believe is when Triple H mentioned it in a kayfabe promo) more weight than a 2015 Vince McMahon quote where he stated the PG Era was actively ongoing? What about independent third-party sources that said the PG Era was current as recently as 2020? It's almost as if the end date is in dispute...LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the "most of WWE's programming remains TV-PG" line and expanded the lede generally. It's not about the TV-PG rating specifically... if you read the sources I provided above, they're talking more about the changes WWE made during this era that remain intact. That's stuff like lack of blading, no bra and panties matches, scripted promos and a more refined Wellness Policy. People (including reliable sources) associate those things with the PG Era and continue to say we're in that era because of them.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- LM2000 Stuff like blading, bra and panties matches were not so common before the attitude era either. Most cases wrestlers bled before that was done by the hard way with hard jabs to the head. We can name the whole period 1997-2008 "the TV-14 era". But thats ridiculous-sounding isn't it? WWF only went extreme (yes they copied many stuff from ECW) during the Attitude Era to compete with WCW, and stuck around till Linda's campaign. Then there was no purpose. PG Era was initially a mocking term by fans that WWE accepted 2008-2013, and in 2014 they opened the Reality era (even tho there are sources dating back to 2011 which states Reality Era began with Punk's Pipe bomb).The fact is WWE officially recognizes the PG Era 2008-2013 and shifted to Reality Era 2014 to 2016 and 2016 to present is the New Era. And it operates vastly different now than it did in say 2009, guys like HBK, HHH< Taker, Cena, Batista, etc are all gone, now its new guys like The Shield, Becky Lynch and all that are running the show, and the format, structure, fan base, etc are all different now. Even though its contents remained PG, it was also PG before 1997, so naming eras based on tv ratings was nothing but mockery and its what "official reliable sourcves" say that matters. WWE considers the PG Era's ending to be 2013 and Reality Era's beginning to be 2014 and we should go along it. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the "most of WWE's programming remains TV-PG" line and expanded the lede generally. It's not about the TV-PG rating specifically... if you read the sources I provided above, they're talking more about the changes WWE made during this era that remain intact. That's stuff like lack of blading, no bra and panties matches, scripted promos and a more refined Wellness Policy. People (including reliable sources) associate those things with the PG Era and continue to say we're in that era because of them.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- If the end date is really March 24, 2014, why would we use a source that says it ended in 2013? Why would we give the 2014 date (which I believe is when Triple H mentioned it in a kayfabe promo) more weight than a 2015 Vince McMahon quote where he stated the PG Era was actively ongoing? What about independent third-party sources that said the PG Era was current as recently as 2020? It's almost as if the end date is in dispute...LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- TV ratings do not determine eras, WWF was PG before 1997 and while Raw was TV-14 1997-2008, SmackDown has mostly been PG. And it is well acknowledged that Reality Era started on March 24 2014, So PG Era ended in 2014, even though most WWE shows are rated PG just like it was before 1997. PThe term PG era isn't used in any modern sources either. Calling WWE PG just because of ratings, we can also call the Golden Era 1980-1992 and New Generation Era 1993-1997 as PG eras. THe PG era was a fan mocking term originally that the WWE accepted 2008-2014 as official and then in 2014 the Reality Era began. Also the face of the PG Era John Cena is now gone, the face of the New Era (2016-Present) Roman reigns is now on top of WWE. So please fix this on PG Era. End date is March 24, 2014. I really don't feel like WP:DR, so lets go on with what WWE officially says here: [2]. This is what reliable WP:PW/RS says, so no need to use unreliable sources to bring false end dates, March 24, 2014 is the real end date. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 10:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Avoid Rumors[edit]
Please stop including the 2019 rumor WWE was gonna change ratings from TV PG to TV 14 for AEW fear, it didn't happen and was not even backed by WP:RS, pure WP:Fancruft, and in 2010 TNA competed with WWE with TV 14 ratings it made no difference, its like someone is promoting AEW here. Also this article is about the PG Era 2008-2013, not the tv pg ratings which WWF was before 1997, onpy 1997-2008 did WWF/E show TV 14 ratings, all this emphasis on tv ratings should stop, 2014 onwards all WP:RS acknowledge the Reality Era. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't a WWE fanpage for kayfabe fancruft. A long list of reliable sources were discussing the possibility of the PG Era ending last year. You don't WP:OWN the page, it's not up to you to dictate that all reliable sources are wrong just because they go against WWE press releases.LM2000 (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @LM2000 Remember WP:NPA and WP:Civil, I never claimed ownership, and you are pushing your own personal views here, nobody else agrees AEW and WWE are related and this article is about the 2008-2013 era not the tv ratings themselves, so the AEW statement should be removed, please read WP:Promo, this statememnt looks like as if it is promoting AEW which is not alllowed and is borderline WP:Fancruft and also remember WP:Rumor, it was just uselss internet rumor in 2019 unrelated to the business affairs of WWE and had 0 impact. Anyway please be civil and WP:AGF. I respect you as a senior and highly trained editor. Peace. Will leave this to WP:Third Opinion as I have a busy real life and am rarely active here. Peace and good day @LM2000 bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)