Talk:United Airlines fleet: Difference between revisions

Line 181: Line 181:

I have received resources from Gemini that UA has 48 777-200er plane still in service and ua had 13 777-200(non er planes) planes still in service as of 2026 Feb. I want to do a edit for UA 777-200/200er fleet. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-65223-8|~2026-65223-8]] ([[User talk:~2026-65223-8|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:What is Gemini? Is it Google Gemini? In which case it’s not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. You’ll need reliable sources for such an edit. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style=”color: Blue;”>Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style=”color: Blue;”>talk</i>]] 21:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

::https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZlYgN_IZmd6CSx_nXnuP0L0PiodapDRx3RmNkIpxXAo/htmlview#gid=12. Here is some new resources for new edits for ua 777-200/200er fleet. 5 ua 777-200 planes are stored so ua still has 14 777-200 planes still in active service.

::ua had 2 domestic 777-200er planes still in active service as 2 domestic ua 777-200er planes are stored. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-65223-8|~2026-65223-8]] ([[User talk:~2026-65223-8|talk]]) 05:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United Airlines fleet‘s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can’t determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named “ReferenceA”:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can’t determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still definite the 747-400 is going to leave the fleet – it’s just that the A350-900 isn’t replacing it. Instead, another VLA (that isn’t the A380) is.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_29_2012_p01-01-472305.xml

Therefore, removing that the A359 is “replacing” the 744 isn’t vandalism, and there’s a source to prove that the A359 is no longer the replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.201.81 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template:help
I tried to add the flight 93 crash to the 757-200 part, but i caused a serious issue that i cant fix. I’m very sorry, but can you help me?

Answers below please—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— — Preceding unsigned comment added by R32 nissan skyline (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crashes should go on the Accidents and Incidents section, never in the fleet table. SurferSquall (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkas123: Hello, according to united website they only have the 777-200 not the 777-200er.
https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/united-airlines-fleet.html Realbruno (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United does have the 777-200ER. The website just groups them together. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/United%20Airlines-active-b777-0-typeasc.htm 172.113.30.201 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the soft order for Heart Aerospace ES-19 aircraft should be listed in United’s Fleet section. If delivered, these aircraft would not be operated by United but rather a regional subsidiary (Mesa, etc). Typically such regional aircraft are listed on the fleet tables for those companies and not the mainline. It might be better suited as a text entry but not in the fleet table.

I agree. United already owns other types of regional aircraft and signs contracts with other carriers to operate. The E175s come to mind. The Heart order is a very similar arrangement. There’s no reason why non-mainline aircraft should be listed on this page. 2601:644:400:81:FDB3:98F0:1D82:8AE7 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to have a gallery of images on this page. Stop removing it. I’m sure most people would like to see the planes. SurferSquall (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that’s more of a violation of WP:NOTGALLERY (i don’t make the rules), but if you still think that it should be included, i’m happy to negotiate with something that you and I will accept. RedLambda (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These galleries have existed on these pages for years; why remove them now? Clearly nobody else has had an issue with them. Wikipedia themselves acknowledge their rules aren’t perfect and don’t always need to be followed to the letter. SurferSquall (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be images of the planes. Might make more sense to put the images in the table of plane types though. It’s what you see on train fleet related wikipedia articles. Piemadd (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be in the tables. I’m not aware of how to do this, please make that change if you know how. SurferSquall (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll go ahead and put the images you’ve added in the table when I have some time. Piemadd (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you. that is the best way to have the images presented. SurferSquall (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t though? If you actually read WP:NOTGALLERY you’d realize its talking about entire articles just being galleries. It doesn’t bar having a gallery section on a page. Stop power tripping over rules you didn’t even read. Piemadd (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Nobody minds that there are galleries. It is also a useful visual aid for readers who don’t know what the planes look like. SurferSquall (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in here to say before anyone goes and adds gallery images, I would post a talk discussion about this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. You’ll get a lot more traction and a lot more editors that normally edit these pages to pop in and offer their opinion. Again, WP:NOTGALLERY should be taken into account and not just ignored and you should try to reach a consensus first, hence why I think opening a discussion about this over at the Wiki Project is probably the best idea. (See WP:CON). I also would not put the images into the tables themselves if the consensus is reached that the galleries are ok. Would mess with a bunch of the uniformity between articles. Separate gallery section should be suffice (again, given that it’s agreed upon to include the galleries in the first place). VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be nice to have a consensus, the way the article is now isn’t a violation of NOTGALLERY. That rule bars entire articles being galleries, or most of articles. SurferSquall (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s why I recommended making a talk page over at the WikiProject. I may end up just making one to see what most editors think. Stops any back and forth editing and reverting which I think most of us would like.

Update, I have opened a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, feel free to add your thoughts and we’ll see what others think. VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this website because I found some issues in it and I want to add information including the United Airlines flight 35 where the wheel fell off after takeoff in San Francisco where diverted to Los Angeles RyanFordham (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently can’t because it won’t let me RyanFordham (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the Boeing 787 Dreamliner 125.160.112.170 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ORD is not United’s biggest hub by any measure. This sentence must be updated. 144.160.112.214 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I can’t find any mention of O’Hare International Airport in this article. You’re probably on the wrong talk page. Liu1126 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenFlyer98 Can you please explain why you think it’s important to list options? No US airline lists options. Options are nothing more than a promise by a manufacturer to extended fixed prices. Airlines don’t have to purchase and they can always renegotiate. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: It’s just sourced information in the notes column. If they are renegotiated, then the information can be edited. Nothing at WP:ALFC states options shouldn’t be included. If there ever was a consensus discussion where it was decided to not include options, then by all means please provide the link where this was discussed. It’s sourced information in the notes column, it shouldn’t be an issue. You seem to be one of the few editors that remove options information, usually stating “we don’t include options for US carriers” but again, where is the consensus for this? Thanks. VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t address my main question… why is it important to list options?

WP:ALFC doesn’t state that options should be included. It states that “Other material should be limited to seating, aircraft on order and route information.” So it says nothing about options at all.

The consensus for not including the information is on the pages. Look at the Wikipedia pages for all of the US mainline carriers, none list options. You’re correct that the information is properly sourced, it’s just unencyclopedic at this point. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning, that in the past, including an Options column has been discussed (including here and here) but ultimately wasn’t included. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: I think it’s important to put it in the notes column because it’s a part of an order. That’s all. Other mainline carriers don’t list it because someone will eventually remove them (such as yourself) while never providing a good reason outside of something like “we don’t include options.” Ok, but why? Just because something is done at 1 page doesn’t mean the same goes for other pages. Additionally, the 2 conversations you linked are 1. Both over 10 years old and 2. Ended with no consensus and just died out. You can’t say it “ultimately wasn’t included” and link those when they clearly had no effect on the decisions to remove options information. VenFlyer98 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have the WikiProject Aviation for concerns like this: issues that effect all aviation related pages. If you feel strongly that options should be listed, may I suggest you start a discussion there or even a more formal request for comment.

As to the “why”: because options aren’t orders. Neither party has any financial skin in the game, simply a promise of future pricing. It’s no more newsworthy than getting a quoted price. It’s not “part of an order” — it’s part of a press release. — RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: Of course, I am always open to conversations at the main project. The other thing I don’t get is when you remove option information, you’ve only been doing it from US carrier’s pages. Why should they be an exception? It should be an all or nothing scenario. I understand your “why,” but that’s why it’s in the notes column. It’s a note that the airline has potential options for the order. If options were being added up in the main order column, I’d get your point (that would also probably violate WP:CRYSTAL but I don’t see the issue putting it as a note if there’s a source with it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investments in aircraft under development is an unnecessary and awkward header. All aircraft and aircraft orders are investments so that is redundant and awkward. These orders are so unlikely to actually lead to actual revenue producing aircraft that even mentioning them in a United Fleet pay is more than enough. Norco3921 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#United_Airlines_Fleet_website that is of relevance to this article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple discussions here are relevant to the ongoing edit wars and remaining orders and counts:

United also placed an order for 50 XLR (in Oct 2019) with options for a few dozen more XLRs not yet exercised. These will start delivery in 2026. United’s initial order for 70 A321neo owned airframes (June 2021) was upgraded to 130 firm commitments (Oct 2023).

Then an order for what was initially 35 leased A321neo airframes (Apr 2024) was firmed up as 40 (instead of 35) airframes (Oct 2024) from multiple lessors supposedly for delivery in 2026/2027.

Finally United placed an ADDITIONAL firm order for 40 MORE A321neo on 10 Mar 2025 (disclosed May 2025).

This stands as a firm United order from Airbus for 70 + 60 + 40 321neo plus 50 XLR for a total of 220 A321 from Airbus (who counts both variants as A321neo in their order book).

The latest 30 April 2025 Airbus order book reflects this United-owned order count. The 40 firm lease commitments by United with SMBC and another lessor are not counted here, but are in addition to the 220 A321neo/XLR.

But the plot thickens, as the Airbus order book (30 April 2025) shows 35 delivered out of United’s 220 on order, but 37 in operation by United… So has United already accepted 2 leased airframes?

So was the order count incorrectly reduced by 2 for the leased airframes? Or should all the firm lease commitments be included in the order total, since these will be long term operating leases that will most likely be purchased by United in the end, anyways, since from United own 2024 Annual report (10-k) filing: “Under the terms of most aircraft leases, United has the right to purchase the aircraft at the end of the lease term, in some cases at fair market value, and in others, at a percentage of cost.”

If the firm leased aircraft are not counted as orders, Mayhem will ensue in updating counts as United accepts delivery of A321 aircraft from multiple streams in 2026 and 2027, and the order count is reduced for owned commitments, but not leased commitments that come into operation. Further complicating the count is difficulty in distinguishing deliveries are which, since two A321neo aircraft already might be from a lessor(s) and not United’s own order book… according to both Airbus’s report and FAA registration data on N14528 and N34535. FlySlow440 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further digging shows these two airframes (N14528 and N34535) clearly delivered by Airbus to CALC (China Aircraft Leasing Group Holdings Limited) in United livery. So they are the first two of twelve aircraft coming from that lessor. The reference was added to the ‘Notes’ column from CALC’s press release.

There must be a way to account for the leased airframes, I put them separately as a sum in the ‘Orders’ column, because on delivery, the United-ordered Airbus orders remaining CANNOT be reduced for leased aircraft received UNLESS the leased airframes are counted in the ‘Orders’ either together or separately. FlySlow440 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Norco3921: posted this on my personal talk page, but I believe it should be discussed here, in front of everyone:

The ‘gold standard’ designates the United A321s as A321-200NX neo and A321-200NY neo. Are you going to change that in the United fleet matrix? You also included ‘parked’ planes according to Cirium in the sub-fleet totals. Which N numbers are parked and should they be included? Cirium also includes 100 orders for ES-30s. Should those be added? Are you going to add Cirium to Delta, American, Southwest and others? Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘gold standard’ – For the record, I standby that designation. When industry journalists talk about aviation, they often cite “Cirium data”.

designates the United A321s as A321-200NX neo and A321-200NY neo. Are you going to change that in the United fleet matrix? – No. A321-200NX is the more formal name for the A321neo and A321-200NY is the more formal name for the A321XLR. But we generally have used the more public facing names. For example, the formal name of the Embraer 175 is ERJ 170-200, and the formal name of the CRJ700 is CL-600-2C10. We don’t use those formal names either.

You also included ‘parked’ planes according to Cirium in the sub-fleet totals. You also included ‘parked’ planes according to Cirium in the sub-fleet totals. Which N numbers are parked and should they be included? We don’t know why the aircraft are “parked”. Could be extended maintance, could be repainting, could be being prepared for remarketing. But they’re still in the fleet for now.

Cirium also includes 100 orders for ES-30s. Absolutely not. Because, A) the aircraft is not listed on United’s financial filings, meaning that even the company doesn’t feel like the order is “material” at this point and B) these aircraft are for regional service.

Are you going to add Cirium to Delta, American, Southwest and others? I wish. Cirium only makes the data for United public at this time. They charge massive subscription fees for the rest of the data. I’d love to have access, but unless Wikipedia is paying, I can’t justify a subscription to support my hobby.

— RickyCourtney (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some here are so infatuated with lagging summary data from Cirium, that you are missing the most accurate and up to date source with the United Fleet Site. This site is maintained by enthusiasts BOTH inside AND outside of United. No other data is close in its accuracy and completeness.

Just because the authors (plural, multiple editors) do not publicly put their names on the site (some of which may not be able to due to employment by a particular airline), does not make the site inaccurate or unreliable. Anyone who truly knows United Airlines from the inside can vouch for its incomparable completeness in terms of publicly-available information about the United fleet.

Cirium data, however, marks multiple planes as inactive that have recently flown, lists wrong total fleet counts, and wrong order numbers for some fleets…

The true irony here is that the United Fleet Site is the most akin to Wikipedia out there in the realm of airline fleets, but the Wikipedia police seem to be outlawing it as a source. FlySlow440 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United Fleet Site may be highly accurate (I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary), but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a self-published source which has provided no information to support that those who are maintaining it are subject matter expert(s). Wikipedia has rules. We have to follow them, even if we don’t like them. — RickyCourtney (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then enjoy your inaccurate summary of the United Airlines fleet that you are contributing to! FlySlow440 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus on the United Airlines Fleet site is that it is a self-published source with no evidence of being created or maintained by a subject matter expert. As such, we should avoid it per WP:SPS. – ZLEA _T\^C 00:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t make it untrue. The United Fleet site is maintained by multiple people who know the fleet and people who spend many hours per week keeping it up to date. Again, the real irony here is that the United fleet website is maintained collectively like Wikipedia, it just doesn’t allow know-nothing hack jobs edit whatever they please…

It’s not truly self-published, it’s collectively researched and compiled from multiple primary sources.

So in a way, an extension of the spirit of Wikipedia… and you’re using Wikipedia’s rules against it? FlySlow440 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, here we go.

Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t make it untrue. Maybe, but Wikipedia isn’t built on unverified truth. We need reliable sources, not fan sites with a WP:TRUSTMEBRO level of verifiability.

The United Fleet site is maintained by multiple people who know the fleet and people who spend many hours per week keeping it up to date. Where is the evidence that any of these people are subject matter experts rather than just fans?

Again, the real irony here is that the United fleet website is maintained collectively like Wikipedia, it just doesn’t allow know-nothing hack jobs edit whatever they please… Let’s try to keep it WP:CIVIL by not calling other editors “know-nothing hack jobs”.

It’s collectively researched and compiled from multiple primary sources. Yeah, and this research is published by fans, who are not subject matter experts as far as we are aware, with no apparent system for oversight or fact checking. That’s the very definition of “self-published”. It’s also worth pointing out that linking to FlightAware does not necessarily mean that UAF is trying to cite them, as it could just as likely be for the reader’s convenience. And assuming FlightAware itself is reliable (I am not aware of any consensus about its reliability), why not just cite it directly rather than a fan site regurgitating its info? – ZLEA _T\^C 02:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So in a way, an extension of the spirit of Wikipedia… and you’re using Wikipedia’s rules against it? We also have a rule against using Wikipedia as a source, if it helps to know.

Of course, all this is moot given the fact that a clear consensus about UAF’s lack of reliability was established literally yesterday. If it turns out that the creator of the site is indeed a subject matter expert, then we can revisit this. Until then, I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. – ZLEA _T\^C 02:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today Cirium says 1,031 even though United hasn’t retired any additional aircraft and the actual total is 1,034. So an admin changes the total in the lede of the United Airlines fleet to 1,031 without changing the sub-fleet and fleet totals in the matrix or the totals in the rest of the article including the info page and ironically says, “we have no need to be up to the minute up to date” which is exactly what this admin did. Cirium clearly is not the gold standard. It provides no means of corroborating its totals with something like a FlightAware hyperlink for each and every N number. The ‘consensus’ is obviously wrong. It happens. Norco3921 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘consensus’ is obviously wrong. It happens. One source being out of date does not make an unrelated fan site reliable. If you can find a source that meets WP:RS standards (which the UAF site absolutely does not) and is fully up to date, feel free to propose it. Until then, WP:DROPTHESTICK about UAF. – ZLEA _T\^C 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’re discussing Cirium and the current erroneous and conflicting information in the United fleet article. Norco3921 (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought by “The ‘consensus’ is obviously wrong” you meant the recent consensus on the United Airlines Fleet site we were just discussing. – ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are adding plane deliveries to other airline fleet totals without any corresponding source, not even one with incorrect information like Cirium. What’s interesting is how admins ignore this fact or miss it. It appears admins only check recent edits and rarely read articles checking for pervasive citation problems. The writing in many WP articles is often horrendous because nobody pays much attention to the overall article only to recent edits. Norco3921 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cirium is getting closer today estimating UA’s fleet total at 1,034. They fixed their erroneous fleet totals for A319s, A320s and 737 MAX 9s, but are not counting a 757-200 that has been in long term maintenance at ILN. How was I able to figure this out? 🙂 Norco3921 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cirium orders count for UA 737 MAX 9s is 165. The only explanation I can come up with is it includes the planned leases. Is that the new ‘Gold Standard’? And if so should we include it in other airline WP articles’ order totals? Speaking of other airline articles they have no references for the aircraft deliveries since 12/31/24. How should we fix that? Norco3921 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Fleet Chart, add 56 Orders for Boeing 787-10 and reduce the Orders for the Boeing 787-9 by 56 to 85.
Source: https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/united-boeing-787-10-conversion-a350-rolls-pratt-ge/ Cosyr (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done It seems another editor already did this without responding here, across three revisions: [1], [2] and [3].

Unfortunately they did not provide copyright attribution as is required when implementing edit requests. I have added a dummy edit [4] to fix this. GearsDatapack (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GearsDatapack I had zero idea there was an edit request for this. I made those three edits because I read the Air Current article, not because I saw this request. Electricmemory (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricmemory Ah, I apologise then. I had just seen another edit request where copyright attribution was not provided, so I assumed that was the case here too. GearsDatapack (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have received resources from Gemini that UA has 48 777-200er plane still in service and ua had 13 777-200(non er planes) planes still in service as of 2026 Feb. I want to do a edit for UA 777-200/200er fleet. ~2026-65223-8 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is Gemini? Is it Google Gemini? In which case it’s not a reliable source. You’ll need reliable sources for such an edit. Canterbury Tail talk 21:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZlYgN_IZmd6CSx_nXnuP0L0PiodapDRx3RmNkIpxXAo/htmlview#gid=12. Here is some new resources for new edits for ua 777-200/200er fleet. 5 ua 777-200 planes are stored so ua still has 14 777-200 planes still in active service.

ua had 2 domestic 777-200er planes still in active service as 2 domestic ua 777-200er planes are stored. ~2026-65223-8 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment