Talk:Opera Game

More information needed

I'll look about for the identities of Karl, Herzog von Braunsweig and Comte Isouard, so they can be linked if they get articles. (Also there seems to be some question about which Opera this was, with most accounts saying it was Rossini's Barber of Seville, and Morphy's memoires saying Bellini's Norma??) -- Someone else

Yes, there's some disagreement about that, I seem to remember. I think Edward Winter or some other chess pedant historian, wrote an article on it. I should probably apply for a grant so I can properly research this pressing question. --Camembert

Would it be correct to refer to the Duke as the Duke of Brunswick or as the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg? I seem to remember that, prior to Queen Victoria, the Sovereign of the United Kingdom was "Elector of Hanover, Arch-Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire, and Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg." I presently assume that Karl, Duke of Brunswick, is a descendent of Ernst August, who inherited the Dukedom due to Salic Law. Lord Emsworth 01:03, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Patience, Lord Emsworth, I'm looking<G>. I think so, though, one site says that he was a descendent of the cryptographer-duke August II Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, presumably by male line, and so presumably Karl, Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg. I too, will investigate the availability of grant money for further research<G>.-- Someone else 01:08, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody looking at this speaks Dutch (I'm afraid I don't), but this article (from the Google cache) seems to raise the possibilities of Rossini's La cenerentola (Cinderella) and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro as being the opera in question (in addition to the aforementioned Norma and Barber of Seville). I'm afraid I can't work out what conclusions (if any) it reaches, however. --Camembert

Hmmm... I believe the librettist for La cenerentola is one Nicolo Isouard who, alas, was dead well before this game. I'm hoping "Comte Isouard" is at least related, for coincidences sake...-- Someone else 01:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Concise Grove says the libretto is by Jacopo Ferretti, I fear. Apparently, Nicolo Isouard was a composer who himself wrote an operatic version of Cinderella (Cendrillon), so, I don't know, maybe there's a really tortuous link in there somewhere... --Camembert

Well, it will be ever-so-much-the-more-satisfying for having been tortured out<G> -- Someone else 02:10, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely :) --Camembert

Nicolo Isouard was born in Malta. Perhaps if we find a connection between Comte Isouard and Malta, we might be able to progress somewhat. Lord Emsworth 01:39, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

I've been putting Isouard off: he's going to be hard to track down unless a chess reference is more explicit, since Isouard is not "big" in the world of French nobility. I'm thinking the other participant is Karl III of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel: he's at least chronologically fit, and a descendant of Gustavus Selenus. -_ Someone else 02:09, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, there are some very amusing quotes online about this game

An impatient Morphy annihilated his opponents in only 17 moves during The Marriage of figaro, a slaughter that was best described by the great German analyst, Helmut Jüngling, in his pivotal book Matings of the Masters. "This game--if, indeed, it merits the honorable distinction of being called a game--exhibited none of the delicate foreplay of two sensitive virtuosi, but rather the frenzied bestial thumping of an impassioned hart driven to frenzied Wagnerian passions." Morphy, having withdrawn from the world of Chess after only 75 competitive games, suffered from severe bouts of delusions and paranoia before being felled by a stroke while taking a bath on 10 July 1884.

. Almost makes me wish I understood chess well enough to understand what makes this game special>... -- Someone else 02:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

Wow, "frenzied bestial thumping"... I'm lucky if my games get as far as a polite tapping... --Camembert

where is the pgn?

Try it again - should work now. --Camembert

Hello everyone! I've been intrigued by the question of 'which opera house', given that building work on the Palais Garnier didn't begin till 1861. I think I've tracked it down to the Salle Ventadour, because in Winter's discussion of "what opera", he quotes one D.H. Lawson as saying the match(es) took place in "the Duke's box at the Italian Opera", and the Théâtre-Italien used Salle Ventadour for their productions from 1841 to 1878. --Redpaul1

References

Who won?

I can't read the algebraic notation and I don't know much about chess. Morphy won, right?. Maybe this fact could appear somewhere in the first paragraph. Also, I wonder why this match mattered and what was so important about the players. --Fazdeconta 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Importance of the game

Morphy won. This game is important because it demonstrates the fundamentals of opening play almost as though he was teaching a class rather then playing a game. I teach chess and this game is taught to all of my students.

Other Names

I have always refered to this game as the Opera House Massacre. I believe that this is a correct name for this game but I may be mistaken. I recomend that this game is given an alias of the 'Opera House Massacre'. I do not know how to do this. Also can anyone confirm whether or not this is a valid name for this game?

I think that before you make that addition, the onus is on you to find a credible source for this alias. I have studied this game immensely and seen it mentioned many times in many different writings about chess, and I cannot recall it ever being called that. The fact that you know it as such is not enough. You must confim, through credible thrid-party sources, that this game has been referred to by that name, BEFORE you make the change. 210.216.45.65 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

---

Anotating the Game umm... I think it should be noted that Nf6?? loses two pawns. You don't go from a bad postion into dead lost (in a short period of time) without something big happing. This article is not about the art of this game; it is supposed to be an objective look at it. I will leave it as is for now...

Notation convention

• WP doesn't use multiplication sign for "captures", e.g. 15. B×d7+ N×d7 instead of 15. Bxd7+ Nxd7.
• WP doesn't use endashes for "castles", e.g. 12. 0–0–0 instead of 12. 0-0-0.

It's true ProjChess is weak re having strong notation conventions (e.g. 0-0-0 vs O-O-O has no status like White/Black vs white/black does, and there is no convention for 3...a6 vs 3... a6 vs 3. ...a6 vs 3. ... a6, etc.). But anyone would be hard-pressed to find even a single chess article using × instead of x, or 0–0–0 instead of 0-0-0 among the hundreds or thousands there are. (How many are there, anyway?!)

Why add a format convention now, which has essentially never been used in articles before and inconsistent with the 99.99% that already exist? (Uniform notation presentation is a *good thing* for chess articles across WP. Uniform readability. ProjChess needs *more* standard conventions re notation presentation, not *less*.) IMO the recent change goes in the wrong direction. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Why add a format convention now"? A wiki is a work in progress by definition, and that proposition seems to fly in the face of this fact. All over WP, especially the English WP, style, topography, and other issues have evolved steadily. I grant you that there's less change now than there used to be—that's the inevitable outcome of the evolution; but I suspect that chess notation has never undergone scrutiny with respect to the sources. We should be pleased to debate this thoroughly. It's at MoS central talk page. Tony (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the substance for a debate here. Are you proposing to "scrutinize the sources" for the publishers' choice of font, too (e.g., some Helvetica, some New Times Roman), and mirror those differences in WP articles as well? There is no *meaning* in the differences at topic here: N×e5 vs Nxe5, or 0–0–0 vs 0-0-0. Why ever would you want to reflect those meaningless differences found in sources, in their respective WP articles?! Also, even if there were any meaning or use to it whatever, one source could differ from another source, or two, or three, or four other sources, for the same gamescore. (What will you do then? Represent *all* the sources equally without prejudice, having a gamescore reflecting the stylistic differences found in each source, to maintain NPOV?) ... As you see, the argument you are proposing, balloons to absudity quite quickly. I see no substance here to debate; the entire premise is valueless. (If a reliable source for a math article was a book with white pages and black ink, but for another article the book source had vanilla paper with black ink, would you want to somehow color the computer screens to match the sources? This makes no sense.) WP evolves, no debate there. But what you want to debate, contains no value. It's the information and the moves that have value, not the stylistic aspects of notation, "×" vs "x". And what about diagrams? If the sources you like to scrutinize contain diagrams having chess font styles different from the WP chess font style, do you propose to reflect in the WP article from the source, the precise chess font style too? (And again, if we even allow that, what do you intend to do when different sources for the same game use different chess font styles? Represent them all to avoid non-NPOV?!) I see no logic in what you propose to debate. Please show some logical merit in the topic that makes it sensible to debate it. (I can't see it. What am I missing? Where's the value? The benefit?) And you didn't reply to the question posed, what if the source contains descriptive notation? Do you or don't you propose to replicate descriptive notation to the WP article then? Provide an answer, please. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I transfer this thread to MoS central talk? Tony (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. But is your proposal article-specific? Or generic for all chess articles? If generic, are you proposing notation styling mirror each article's source(s)? Or that styling be uniform across all articles, according to a "new" notation convention, one determined by some sources sampling? (As you see, it's not clear to me what it is you're proposing; it's hard to know when Qs to understand you get non-responses. Meantime, *this* article was changed by you to a notation style inconsistent w/ 99.99% other chess articles.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

p.s. IMO, your thread, whatever proposal it is about, belongs at ProjChess, not MOS. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but this is a style issue that will be resolved at WP:MOS and you will be expected to follow whatever the consensus there turns out to be. If you have a problem with this, I suggest that you go to WP:MOS and participate. I also advise avoiding the behavior that got you blocked before.

The editors at WikiProject Chess has been notified[1] and invited to participate, but Wikipedia does not make style decisions at the WikiProject level. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, in case you don't already know, I'm not interested in anything you have to say, on any topic. Please stop your incessant lecturing, and various attempts to bait. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what other Wikipedia editors can and can not post, and in particular you don't get to post your opinions about where style discussions should occur without allowing other editors to disagree. You have been blocked for this kind of behavior twice already. WP:CIVIL is not optional. Start following it or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for the Wikilove Cookies you left on my user Talk. I've contributed at the MOS thread referred to above, in effort to help get consensus on a number of items, including the two applicable to this article. I think only one member of ProjChess responded to the note you left there asking for participation. As far as any of the items being "resolved" at the MOS thread, which I'd encourage everyone interested to read, I don't see that anyone is motivated there to form any conclusion, or draw a consensus, let alone add new ProjChess convention(s) or MOS guide(s) re chess notation and sundry related expression. There is a big precedent, however, as noted in the MOS thread, re "x" for captures and "0-0-0" (hyphens) for castles, and I challenge anyone to find even one article on WP where "×" is used for captures, or endashes in castles, other than the Morphy versus the Duke article here, after Tony1's recent mods, which created this whole discussion starting on his user Talk. It seems to me reasonable, that such a massive precedent should be honored, not contradicted, unless someone can make a case why the massive precedent should be overturned, even in light of the fact there is no explicit ProjChess convention or MOS guide specifying these details. Clearly I'm frustrated at the lack of will to form consensus and bake cookies re add'l ProjChess conventions and/or MOS guides to support uniformity as opposed to edits and reverts based on editors' personal preferences for whatever reason, that is why I'm drawing attention to the massive precedent that already exists across all WP chess articles, to lessen the inconsistencies, as opposed to letting new ones in (e.g. Tony1's changes in this article). Again I don't see any conclusions being drawn at the MOS thread, though I've tried to encourage it, but then again, I'm not the editor who opened that thread with ambition that decisions might be made there. (Mainly because of lack of interest shown at ProjChess for this type of thing.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of standards, I say you should edit this page as you see fit. I don't agree with all of your opinions on formatting of chess articles, but they are certainly reasonable and well-thought-out and we won't go wrong by implementing them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. But can we get specific?: I'd like to revert Tony1's changes to this article ("×" and castles dashes), on the basis to stay consistent with the already massive precedents in place for those items in chess articles, in spite of the fact no ProjChess conventions or WP guides exist dealing specifically with those items (though a decent new effort was attempted to that end at MOS Talk, about to become archived, without take-aways). Tony1 has been consistently insistent regarding his changes, and I have no interest to "edit war" with him. (How will Tony1 respond, if I revert his changes "as I see fit"? Will he re-revert "as he sees fit"?) To me this is all as clear as mud! (Just being honest.) Thanks for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem. IMO, Tony's opinions on formatting of chess articles are also reasonable and well-thought-out and we won't go wrong by implementing them. Going for a third opinion at MOS didn't work. And we certainly don't want an edit war. Hmmm. How about bringing it up at WP:DRN? I am a volunteer clerk/mediator there but of course I will recuse myself because I am involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy, are you sure that's what you said at the MOS thread? Because if memory serves, you were in disagreement with not only the two changes Tony1 has introduced to this article ("×" for captures and dashes in castles), but disagreed with his "sources" argument by referring to FIDE guide rather than "some random chess books". So since you disagreed, why are you now saying "reasonable, well-thought-out, can't go wrong", etc.? (And I'm especially puzzled, on what basis you credit Tony1 for "opinions on formatting of chess articles" that are "well-thought-out", when what he has merely done, if I'm not mistaken, is just change "x" to "×", and "0-0-0" to "0–0–0", and backed those changes with a list of eight chess books and a claim "what about the sources?"; I don't see any line of thought from him other than that, did I miss something?)

It's my undestanding the thread at MOS was for purpose to potentially create a new MOS guide, not generate "third opinion". (Isn't RfC for third opinion?) Also, it's my understanding DRN is a step that's taken, after discussion at article Talk as failed. (Has it in your estimation? Has Tony1 engaged with me, or deflected Qs and repeated generalities. The discussion was diverted from here, to MOS, and doesn't discussion at MOS have a different purpose than that at article Talk?) But I don't have a lot of experience about WP policy, like you do. I found this at WP:CONSENSUS: "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." Okay, as you observed, there is no consensus here. So, why should Tony1's changes, which fly against a massive precedent already in place in chess articles, prevail? According to WP:CONSENSUS, there s/b no change to the article in that case, which means his editorial changes can be reverted. (Am I reading it wrong?) Why would there be impetus to go to DRN in that case? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO Tony1's changes should have been reverted based on BRD. The B has taken place, also the D. The R didn't see the light of day, because I did not prefer to revert another editor then. But I do not see R as really inappropriate even now, for reason stated numerous times, that a massive precedent is already in place in virtually *all* chess articles, except this one, regarding "x", and hyphens for castles, and short of a ProjChess convention or MOS guide, that precedent should be respected, not contradicted, in this one article. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly, what about the sources??? Tony (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's baiting, Tony1. (You know that I've already responded in full to your "sources" argument. Go back and read the threads. So why the three "???". Also, I've asked you more than once to quantify your characterization of what Macon aptly called "random books", as "predominent practice", etc. No responses from you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of chess articles certainly, perhaps thousands. Can you put a finger on even *one* (other than this article, which you've changed) that uses "×" for captures and dashes in castles? Why create a single exception in this article, inconsistent with the massive number of other articles that consistently use "x" and hyphens? You quoted Penguin as "predominent publisher", but as any chessplayer knows, Penguin is so little involved in chess book publication they don't even show up on the radar. (Did you check Batsford? What did you find?) I have no idea what you're thinking, because you haven't engaged in content discussion, beyond your repeated mantra "What about the sources?", and your list of eight chess books, which is less than .01 of 1 percent of chess publications. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, I'm actually open to your idea of a fine, sans detail cross to replace letter "x" for captures in chess articles, but other than the negligible list of eight chess books, you haven't made a case for the change, let alone a strong case. Perhaps such a case could be made, seeing that the crosses do appear in numerous books, combined with some justification stemming from your knowledge re PhD in Reading, and so on. I do think letter "x" appears in the majority of books, that is my guess, but fine sans detail crosses is nothing to be sneezed at either (I can see that). If you someday plan to make a real case for the change, it could be interesting, and I might even could help provide a better list of sources (there would be no Penguin books, e.g.). But all that seems a far-away project, and nothing the MOS Talk was posturing to deliberate. So your changes to this article are in effect way premature. But I like to leave this article as is, as a marker to show several things, one being how atrocious the "×" is due to lack of selectable symbols from the WP inventory. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: (Or not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is a mess?

This article is a mess. It concerns one of the most well-known historical chess games and it gets many of the facts wrong, inserting extraneous and superfluous information. The problem is that the author extracted information from Frederick Edge's Exploits of Paul Morphy without understanding that what Edge described had nothing to do with the subject game. According to Edge, "We were frequent visitors to his box at the Italian Opera." Edge goes on to describe their first opera encounter. The Opera Game [The usual sobriquet - not the Opera Massacre Game] was played in one of their subsequent visits during which Gioacchino Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia was performed. This is noted by David Lawson [Morphy's primary biographer] and supported by E. Winter, with some supportive documentation:

"On their first visit in October they played chess throughout the entire performance of Norma.... On the second of November they heard The Barber of Seville, during which Morphy played his most famous game, the Duke again consulting with Count Isouard [Count Isouard de Vauvenargue]." -Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson; pp. 159-160.

Winter's Chess Note #2895 reported that "Christian Sánchez has consulted the fortnightly magazine L’Univers Musical of October and November 1858. He reports that although Morphy’s name did not appear, the 16 October and 1 November numbers mentioned that the October performances at the Théâtre-Italien included Norma, while the 15 November issue stated that The Barber of Seville had been performed that month. This schedule is in line with the information quoted from Lawson’s book." [The Opera Game was played on Nov. 2, 1858] -- Batgirl (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Query about original research here

Could I ask whether the commentary (which is especially appropriate for this extraordinary and iconic game) is OR by WPians, or whether it's based on a source? Tony (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a single thing about this article that passes the WP:V test. There is a lot of material out there that could be used (Search Google for -"Wikipedia"+Morphy+Brunswick+Isouard ) but nobody has bothered sourcing anything in the article.

There also appears to be a copyright issue. The original 24 November 2006 version of the Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morphy_versus_the_Duke_of_Brunswick_and_Count_Isouard&oldid=89849382

Appears to be identical to this page that claims to have been last modified on 10 Jun 2005:

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Opera_game

Which, according to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Academic Kids, is a mirror of the WP database from June 23, 2005 with no mention of Wikipedia as a source.

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 22 --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question resolved. Academic Kids is a copy of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

8.Bxf7+ isn't actually any good

The move 8.Bxf7+ mentioned in the notes isn't actually any good. As Edward Lasker notes in "Chess Secrets", Black gets some nice counterplay by 8...Qxf7 9.Qxb7 Bc5! when either 10.Qxa8 O-O or 10.Qc8+ Ke7 11.Qxh8 Bxf2+! gives Black a dangerous attack for the material. Besides it wasn't Morphy's style to move his Q several times in the opening chasing material at the expense of the initiative. I doubt he even gave serious consideration to the move. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Circumstances

The article wrote; On several occasions, the Duke invited Morphy to the Italian Opera House in Paris, Salle Le Peletier, where the former kept a private box which was, according to Morphy's associate Frederick Edge, so close to the stage that one "might kiss the prima donna without any trouble", and which always contained a chess set, the Duke being a keen player as well as an opera lover.

Morphy was extremely fond of music and opera and was eager to see Norma, which played on his first visit. Unfortunately, his host had seen Norma countless times, and Morphy found himself forced to play chess, even seated with his back to the stage.

As the game progressed, the two allies conferred loudly enough with each other, debating their moves against the American genius, that it attracted the attention of the opera performers. Madame Penco, who had the role of the Druidic priestess in Norma, kept looking into the Duke's box, to see what all the fuss was about, even as she was performing the opera. The performers who were the Druids marched about the stage, "chanting fire and bloodshed against the Roman host, who, they appeared to think, were in the Duke's box", Edge recounted.

It is doubtful if the distracted opera singers had a good enough view into the box to know what the noise was about. Comically, Morphy created this brilliant game while spending his time trying to overcome his blocked view of the opera, while the performers tried to catch glimpses of what was going on in the Duke's box.

Norma was performed at the Italiens de Paris on 21 October 1858, with Rosina Penco in the title role, L. Graziani as Pollione and Cambardi as Adalgise. Some commentators would rather have the chess game taking place with The Barber of Seville, La Cenerentola, or else The Marriage of Figaro on stage.

While certainy colourful, this sounds like storytelling and relevant sources are lacking, as noted for a long time. The story went through many hands. Have a look at what Edgar Winter writes, for instance. By the way, it makes little sense that Morphy's opponents talked loudly in his company about their plans. -- Zz (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zickzack: This story is in EDGE, F. M. Paul Morphy, the chess champion, by an Englishman. IMO the backgroung of this game is important, but it wants shorten it and add other contexts. I wrote article on cswiki. OJJ (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

10...Qb4+

It's not as simple as White winning a pawn. After 11.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 12.Nc3, Black has 12...Nxe4. This doesn't look very advantageous for White.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right. But instead of 12.Nc3, it's better to play 12.c3 and white keeps his extra material. For example, 12...cxb5 13.Bxb5+ Nbd7 14.cxb4 and black can't take on e4 because Bc6 (forking knight and rook) will win even more material. 2601:646:8701:9740:29BE:86B0:1A15:FE0B (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bg4 Standard Theory

It's hard to imagine that 3. ...Bg4 is really standard theory, when it is instantly refuted by what Morphy played, and dxe5 is a rather obvious move to consider. There is a link to a chess book from 1843 to prove the contention of the article, but I did not see the book actually recommend Bg4. Morphy, in his matches with professional players, faced the Philidor several times, and they did not play ...Bg3. They were obviously well aware it is a terrible move. The claim seems very dubious. 2603:8081:2603:E100:D536:3F91:B697:592B (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, I've edited the article to reflect this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns for Black

I see it as illogical to refer to Black as "he" in this game. Black was a team of two players working together, and it does not make sense to refer to a team of multiple people as if it consisted of only one of those people. For example, I imagine one would say, "Though the United States men's basketball team performed poorly in the first half, they managed to pull ahead in the second half," and that the word "he" would be incorrect in this case. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I found one more "he" referring to black which I rephrased. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

OK but ISN was tying himself up in all sorts of knots with awkward phrasings. Keep things simple and natural sounding. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)