509:– A litany of the innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow until they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance. As well, it should be written in prose, in paragraph form. This "raises the bar" for contributing to the section, and makes editors less likely to add trivia.
339:
455:– If an actor had a two-second cameo in a TV commercial, it is unlikely that anyone except that actor cares. If the film is one of thousands showing a particular major landmark in the background, don't bother mentioning it in the article about that landmark. Depth of treatment in the source (e.g., the landmark is a major plot element, or the importance of the landmark is explained at some length in secondary sources) is usually a strong determining factor in the distinction between relevance and triviality.
139:
1223:
422:
359:
itself a prominent setting, and a musician's article may name television series or films in which the performer appeared. However, a
Knowledge (XXG) article about a city with an "in popular culture" section should not contain examples of films which make a one sentence reference to the city in dialogue, or songs which mention the name of the city in one sentence.
805:. Further research may yet uncover earlier instances; the first use may never be known due to lost data from the earliest days of Knowledge (XXG). Nevertheless, usage was rare until sometime in 2004, after which it became more popular. The cause or nature of this increased popularity is still under research (see talk page August 2021).
57:
120:
527:
The importance of the works it may be reasonable to mention in a pop-culture section should rise commensurately with the level of notability of the subject of the article in which the section appears. A nonfiction best-seller, or film that won major awards, about a historical figure is more likely to
390:
through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level; but if
765:
Attempt to pare the section down first. In some cases, the section is not so much a new article as it is just bloated. In others, the section should be split off, but paring down the section first will help the new article stand on its own. In addition, if there are any items in the section that
362:
When fictional characters are modeled after notable people or celebrities, they can be mentioned in the article about the person when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source. Major monuments dedicated to a person or significant locations named after a
358:
information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. For example, it is appropriate if a city's article mentions films, books or television series in which the city is
783:
to keep material you view as undesirable out of the main article, realize that this approach has been tried before, and can often backfire. One common pattern in such a circumstance is that the new article degenerates to the point where it gets deleted, and then the same content builds up in the
899:
was closed with: "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the
366:
Passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be appropriate if the subject responds to it in a
267:
The divide between popular culture and elite culture is more permeable than in previous centuries. Nowadays even the very rich or the classically educated may read bestselling novels, listen to folk music, and watch
Hollywood movies. There's no need for the "popular" qualifier anymore. It's just
532:
got to perform a few songs on a late-night talk show, but this will just be trivia in an article about a major recording artist. And in the case of the more obscure band, it would be much better to work into the main flow the article what effect their TV appearance had on their career.
528:
be encyclopedically relevant than a special issue of a magazine, or a one-hour TV documentary. The relative importance of or focus on the
Knowledge (XXG) subject in the works should also rise with the article subject's notability. It may be relevant that a band that barely passes the
391:
the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists. Another good test is whether the item would be sufficiently useful to include in the article even if there were no special "in popular culture" type section.
918:, naming the high school where the movie is set after him. Inclusion of this particular reference, which requires little more than a familiarity with John Hughes movies and a DVD player, is probably not contentious. Other references that may be more opaque or subtextual, such as
855:
382:
that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.
367:
public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. As well, a brief reference in film or TV dialogue may be appropriate if secondary sources (film critics) write about the significance of this reference to the city.
629:
Information in a pop culture section should be presented in a logical and understandable way. Related items should be grouped together and the article should flow. Alphabetical, regional, date, media type and other forms of organization should be applied. Bulleted
302:. These would, if followed to the letter, exclude entities named after the subject, for instance, and some other instances. Still, they can be a good choice, since an influence of the subject in question on broader aspects of culture, such as
610:
Did the referencing material significantly depend on the specific subject? For example, if the reference is to a specific model of car, did the material use that model car for some reason, or was it just a case of "use a well-known name of a
676:. In many cases an excessively long section can be trimmed by removing entries unlikely to have verifiable discussion of significance. Entries that make only passing reference to the subject can usually be removed.
1193:
1188:
394:
When there are multiple copies of the subject item, references to it become less meaningful. For example, reference to a pickup truck in a movie is not a reason to include that reference in the
150:
Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture", "Cultural references", or "In fiction", which exclusively contain references to the subject in
564:
style during his 2008 State House race. It attracted attention from sources who wouldn't ordinarily be interested in such a race, and the campaign received over $ 100,000 from online donations.
860:
770:
264:
The word "popular" unnecessarily restricts the culture in question, and often some items in this section are hardly ever called "popular culture", while being indisputably encyclopedic.
1106:
374:, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute
169:
and their sources should establish their significance. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is
638:. Since it is easier to add bulleted points than it is to write in prose, having a pop culture section that uses bulleted points will tend to attract more trivia and cruft.
234:
The title "In popular culture" emerged in the early days of
Knowledge (XXG) for this particular type of article content (along with "See also", "External links", etc.) and
615:
If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are probably just adding trivia. Get three or more, and you are probably adding genuinely encyclopedic content.
755:
Further addition of popular culture content can easily be discouraged with HTML comments in the areas of the article where cultural references are usually added, e.g.
740:
Editors are better able to maintain the main article if pop culture references are kept in another article, because pop culture sections tend to grow exponentially.
1052:
1096:
583:
1073:
850:
624:
197:
132:
examples that are bona fide cultural references. When such sections grow too long, they may be split into subarticles, but this should be done with caution.
32:
1183:
631:
896:
582:
routinely mentions dozens of other subjects without the reference impacting popular perception of the subject. Examples here would, sadly, basically be
875:
601:
379:
170:
129:
574:
written on it for a few seconds. This should NOT be used as an example of xkcd in popular culture, because it is a passing, insignificant reference.
1157:
865:
43:
1162:
489:
by
Knowledge (XXG)'s definition, but the better known the source is, the less likely that its inclusion in a popular culture section is trivial.
706:
guidelines, when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles. This allows the main article to stay at a
932:
773:. Be sure to read the debates, don't look only at the outcomes. Don't split the section out if you think it would be likely to get deleted.
1078:
193:
186:
162:
72:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
537:
174:
73:
1152:
386:
In determining whether a reference is encyclopedic, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic
1045:
727:
178:
271:
The existence of the section can tend to cause or allow inclusion of material which otherwise not be worth including in the article.
261:
to be digestible for wide consumption (and because of this the section itself is often perceived as a collection of useless trivia).
1198:
1136:
375:
371:
182:
1203:
1208:
363:
subject can be included (but this should not lead to a listing of all 100 elementary schools named after a certain president).
1101:
870:
744:
546:, a webcomic that deals with subjects from obscure mathematics to ball pits. Some appropriate and inappropriate examples of
378:
where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a
1038:
479:– There is no encyclopedic interest in a famous historical figure being featured prominently in someone's self-published
766:
can be integrated with the main article, try to do this before splitting, because it is less likely to happen afterward.
1249:
1227:
1178:
1116:
36:
17:
832:
650:
793:
The earliest known section for storing popular culture references, and titled "popular culture", was in the article
346:
is verifiably wearing an "Area 51" T-shirt in this photo; but this doesn't mean that the
Knowledge (XXG) article on
238:
by the way of habit as the first title to effectively encompass it all: "in cinema", "in poetry", "in video games",
587:
247:
1126:
1111:
748:
703:
355:
166:
155:
961:
707:
242:. When these sections grew enormously, the phrase even made it into article titles: who would have thought that
985:
660:
646:
Sections or articles that list too many inappropriate popular culture or fiction references may be tagged with
757:<!-- Please do not add cultural references to this section, and instead add them to the article ]. --: -->
915:
670:
338:
593:
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
485:
28:
910:
1131:
851:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Trivia sections § "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material
625:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Trivia sections § "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material
77:
784:
main article again: the problem in the end remains unsolved and in the meantime, editor time is wasted.
685:
431:
321:
217:
201:
87:
204:. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in
138:
856:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures
448:
The three most common forms of unencyclopedic pop-culture trivia, even when not in list form, are:
1088:
940:
65:
205:
31:. For the Knowledge (XXG) style guideline on how to organize and trim pop culture sections, see
154:. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to
816:
referenced the "In popular culture" section of
Knowledge (XXG) articles in the July 7, 2008
307:
710:
and focus on the most essential aspects of its subject. The new article is usually called "
529:
507:
Inclusion of more and more pop-culture details the more influential or general the topic is
933:"Running for Office: It's Like a Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner"
842:
597:
Has the subject (if a person or organization) acknowledged the existence of the reference?
151:
295:
291:
287:
280:
276:
235:
607:
Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?
146:, but a Knowledge (XXG) article should not become an indiscriminate collection of stuff.
813:
483:. The source of an in-depth popular culture reference does not necessarily have to be
1243:
1030:
128:"In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and should contain only
986:"Receipts and Expenditures Report of a Candidate for State Office, October 27, 2008"
80:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
919:
462:
421:
395:
258:
192:
When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into
143:
737:
It keeps the main article focused on the most essential aspects of its subject.
751:
have one less variable to deal with in maintaining the article at that status.
557:
343:
570:
A popular cartoon show depicts a minor character wearing a baseball cap with
769:
Before splitting, familiarize yourself with some of the precedents found at
521:
The only
English-language novel that features this article's obscure subject
350:
should inform the reader that "Simon Pegg wore an Area 51 t-shirt in 2011."
802:
480:
303:
27:
For the article on references to Knowledge (XXG) in popular culture, see
257:
The term "popular culture" has acquired a sense of something trivial or
900:
verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance."
347:
275:
For this reason some Wikipedians look for alternative titles, such as
794:
243:
779:
for the new article. If you are considering creating a new article
412:
An appropriate cultural reference is important in the cultural work
1079:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
635:
337:
246:
would attract enough interest to generate an entire article about
137:
962:"Strangely, I Find Myself Wishing I Lived in Kansas : Pharyngula"
542:
1034:
560:
decided to promote his tech credentials by running an ad in an
405:
114:
51:
861:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture
771:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture
550:
being mentioned in Knowledge (XXG) articles are as follows:
310:, is usually notable enough to deserve a separate section.
515:
Any of the thousands of romance novels that mention Paris
42:"WP:POPCULTURE" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
1009:
495:
Self-published content, books almost no one has heard of
798:
693:
586:, but at any given time there will usually be a few on
439:
329:
299:
225:
142:
It can be fun to pick through piles of stuff at a real
102:
95:
18:
Knowledge (XXG):"In popular culture" articles
726:
in fiction". Many of these articles can be found in
634:
should be avoided when practical in favor of normal
370:
Although some references may be plainly verified by
165:
from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be
161:
When properly written, such sections can positively
1171:
1145:
1087:
1066:
1189:Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
538:provides both good and bad pop culture references
876:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not TV Tropes
501:Popular television shows and best-selling books
33:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Trivia sections
734:The main article stays at a reasonable length.
416:to the subject of the Knowledge (XXG) article.
1046:
714:in popular culture", "Cultural references to
354:"In popular culture" sections should contain
8:
761:Use caution in splitting out such articles:
286:More restrictive alternative titles include
866:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Popular Culture
465:appears briefly in the background of a film
253:This title has some significant drawbacks:
44:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Popular Culture
35:. For the related, more general essay, see
1107:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
1053:
1039:
1031:
1194:Don't cite essays as if they were policy
922:should be drawn from secondary sourcing.
74:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
888:
402:Good and bad popular culture references
730:. Advantages of such a split include:
680:Creating "In popular culture" articles
878:, a user essay about similar material
7:
453:Unremarkable mentions or appearances
1061:Handling miscellaneous information
728:Category:Topics in popular culture
78:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
871:Knowledge (XXG):Coatrack articles
471:A film centered around a monument
1222:
1221:
1097:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday
420:
118:
55:
49:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
1008:Munroe, Randall (7 July 2008).
914:references teen movie director
37:Knowledge (XXG):Handling trivia
1184:Avoid writing redundant essays
1:
536:An example of a source which
1122:"In popular culture" content
920:Sideshow Bob's underpinnings
530:general notability guideline
300:"In literature and the arts"
718:", "Cultural depictions of
477:Works of minor significance
187:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
163:distinguish Knowledge (XXG)
1266:
799:diff from 21 December 2001
683:
622:
604:pointed out the reference?
588:Special:WhatLinksHere/xkcd
429:
319:
248:tunnels in popular culture
215:
194:indiscriminate collections
85:
41:
29:Knowledge (XXG) in culture
26:
1217:
380:reliable secondary source
283:. "Legacy" is also used.
156:keep main articles short
126:This page in a nutshell:
1067:Policies and guidelines
175:policies and guidelines
1250:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1209:Knowledge (XXG) essays
911:Not Another Teen Movie
702:Per Knowledge (XXG)'s
351:
147:
623:Further information:
341:
179:neutral point of view
141:
76:, as it has not been
1199:Quote your own essay
1137:Relevance of content
1010:"In Popular Culture"
277:"Cultural influence"
183:no original research
173:and consistent with
777:Take responsibility
578:On the other hand,
519:Consider including:
499:Consider including:
469:Consider including:
342:Comedian and actor
292:"In creative works"
833:In popular culture
809:In popular culture
651:in popular culture
352:
148:
1237:
1236:
1102:Coatrack articles
708:reasonable length
428:
427:
376:original research
281:"Cultural impact"
136:
135:
113:
112:
16:(Redirected from
1257:
1225:
1224:
1055:
1048:
1041:
1032:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1005:
999:
998:
996:
995:
990:
982:
976:
975:
973:
972:
966:ScienceBlogs.com
958:
952:
951:
949:
948:
939:. Archived from
929:
923:
907:
901:
897:October 2015 RfC
893:
847:
841:
837:
831:
758:
745:featured article
696:
675:
669:
665:
659:
655:
649:
602:reliable sources
442:
424:
406:
332:
316:
308:social structure
228:
171:properly sourced
130:properly sourced
122:
121:
115:
105:
98:
59:
58:
52:
21:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1213:
1204:Value of essays
1179:Essay directory
1167:
1158:Popular culture
1141:
1117:Handling trivia
1083:
1074:Trivia sections
1062:
1059:
1029:
1028:
1018:
1016:
1007:
1006:
1002:
993:
991:
988:
984:
983:
979:
970:
968:
960:
959:
955:
946:
944:
931:
930:
926:
908:
904:
894:
890:
885:
845:
839:
835:
829:
826:
811:
791:
756:
725:
721:
717:
713:
700:
699:
692:
688:
682:
673:
667:
663:
661:Cleanup section
657:
653:
647:
644:
627:
621:
461:Every time the
446:
445:
438:
434:
404:
372:primary sources
336:
335:
328:
324:
318:
314:
232:
231:
224:
220:
214:
152:popular culture
119:
109:
108:
101:
94:
90:
82:
81:
56:
50:
47:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1263:
1261:
1253:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1181:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1163:Trivia Cleanup
1160:
1155:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1093:
1091:
1085:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1057:
1050:
1043:
1035:
1027:
1026:
1000:
977:
953:
924:
902:
887:
886:
884:
881:
880:
879:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
825:
822:
814:Randall Munroe
810:
807:
790:
787:
786:
785:
774:
767:
753:
752:
741:
738:
735:
723:
719:
715:
711:
698:
697:
689:
684:
681:
678:
671:Fiction trivia
643:
640:
620:
617:
613:
612:
608:
605:
600:Have multiple
598:
576:
575:
565:
525:
524:
523:
522:
516:
513:Don't include:
504:
503:
502:
496:
493:Don't include:
474:
473:
472:
466:
459:Don't include:
444:
443:
440:WP:IPCEXAMPLES
435:
430:
426:
425:
418:
409:
403:
400:
334:
333:
325:
320:
317:
312:
273:
272:
269:
265:
262:
230:
229:
221:
216:
213:
210:
134:
133:
123:
111:
110:
107:
106:
99:
91:
86:
83:
71:
70:
62:
60:
48:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1262:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1245:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1127:Insignificant
1125:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1112:Example cruft
1110:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1056:
1051:
1049:
1044:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1015:
1011:
1004:
1001:
987:
981:
978:
967:
963:
957:
954:
943:on 2009-10-25
942:
938:
937:SeanTevis.com
934:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
912:
906:
903:
898:
892:
889:
882:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
844:
834:
828:
827:
823:
821:
819:
815:
808:
806:
804:
800:
796:
788:
782:
778:
775:
772:
768:
764:
763:
762:
759:
750:
746:
743:Editors of a
742:
739:
736:
733:
732:
731:
729:
709:
705:
704:summary style
695:
691:
690:
687:
679:
677:
672:
662:
652:
641:
639:
637:
633:
626:
618:
616:
609:
606:
603:
599:
596:
595:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
573:
569:
568:Poor example:
566:
563:
559:
556:
555:Good example:
553:
552:
551:
549:
545:
544:
539:
534:
531:
520:
517:
514:
511:
510:
508:
505:
500:
497:
494:
491:
490:
488:
487:
482:
478:
475:
470:
467:
464:
460:
457:
456:
454:
451:
450:
449:
441:
437:
436:
433:
423:
419:
417:
415:
410:
408:
407:
401:
399:
397:
392:
389:
384:
381:
377:
373:
368:
364:
360:
357:
349:
345:
340:
331:
327:
326:
323:
313:
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
282:
278:
270:
266:
263:
260:
256:
255:
254:
251:
249:
245:
241:
237:
227:
223:
222:
219:
212:Section title
211:
209:
207:
203:
199:
195:
190:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
159:
157:
153:
145:
140:
131:
127:
124:
117:
116:
104:
100:
97:
96:WP:POPCULTURE
93:
92:
89:
84:
79:
75:
69:
67:
61:
54:
53:
45:
38:
34:
30:
19:
1226:
1172:About essays
1146:WikiProjects
1121:
1017:. Retrieved
1013:
1003:
992:. Retrieved
980:
969:. Retrieved
965:
956:
945:. Retrieved
941:the original
936:
927:
909:
905:
891:
817:
812:
792:
780:
776:
760:
754:
749:good article
701:
645:
628:
614:
592:
579:
577:
571:
567:
561:
554:
547:
541:
535:
526:
518:
512:
506:
498:
492:
484:
476:
468:
463:Eiffel Tower
458:
452:
447:
413:
411:
396:Pickup truck
393:
387:
385:
369:
365:
361:
353:
296:"In fiction"
285:
274:
252:
240:ad infinitum
239:
233:
191:
160:
149:
144:rummage sale
125:
63:
916:John Hughes
632:list format
259:dumbed-down
226:WP:POPTITLE
206:list format
64:This is an
1153:Laundromat
994:2009-12-01
971:2013-03-18
947:2009-09-12
883:References
619:Formatting
584:nose-beans
558:Sean Tevis
356:verifiable
344:Simon Pegg
288:"In media"
236:stuck here
177:, such as
167:verifiable
1132:Listcruft
398:article.
88:Shortcuts
1244:Category
1228:Category
1014:xkcd.com
824:See also
803:User:CYD
686:Shortcut
481:webcomic
432:Shortcut
322:Shortcut
304:religion
268:culture.
218:Shortcut
820:comic.
797:, in a
789:History
722:", or "
694:WP:IPCA
642:Cleanup
486:notable
348:Area 51
330:WP:IPCV
315:Content
244:tunnels
1089:Essays
843:Trivia
795:Batman
298:, and
198:trivia
185:, and
103:WP:IPC
1019:7 May
989:(PDF)
636:prose
611:car"?
202:cruft
66:essay
1021:2015
818:xkcd
781:only
580:xkcd
572:xkcd
562:xkcd
548:xkcd
543:xkcd
388:only
895:An
801:by
747:or
666:or
540:is
414:and
306:or
279:or
200:or
196:of
1246::
1012:.
964:.
935:.
846:}}
840:{{
838:,
836:}}
830:{{
674:}}
668:{{
664:}}
658:{{
656:,
654:}}
648:{{
590:.
294:,
290:,
250:!
208:.
189:.
181:,
158:.
1054:e
1047:t
1040:v
1023:.
997:.
974:.
950:.
724:X
720:X
716:X
712:X
68:.
46:.
39:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
