Wikipedia talk:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! → Wikipedia:Avoid shortcut talkWikipedia:Avoid shortcut talk – The name is a complete gibberish nonsense. It may be a "joke", but it is counterproductive as a name: nobody who reads it listed in a list, navbox or category will have the slightest clue of what the hell is the page about. The section "The message" should be enough for such jokes. Cambalachero (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So merge and use the other name? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind, I didn’t realize they’d already been merged. Yes, I agree. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: LightlySeared, Locke Cole as participants in the previous discussion. FaviFake (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The gibberish is exactly the point of the essay. The name is supposed to make you say, what the hell if that? I don't understand anything. And then the essay explains the joke in the exact same way, using shortcuts. It should not be retitled.

However, I support changing all mentions of this article in all lists, navboxes, or categories and other places linking to it. People will only understand the pagename when they're on this essay, so all links to it have to be understandable. These links can simply be piped while keeping the joke intact. FaviFake (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, since we have a redirect from avoid shortcut talk I do like wtf better. I oppose. Sorry to windsurf here, but you have a good point. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would mess up the message, which references the title. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you admit that the name is useless. And if the reason to keep it is to stick to the (bad) joke, then the essay should be tagged with {{Humorous essay}}. Cambalachero (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s now the main essay regarding avoiding shortcuts, and it makes an important point, just does so in a mildly silly way, à la Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I also feel like it’s pretty straightforward what it’s about, and the title makes it more likely to be read if stumbled upon by a newcomer. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said the name is incomprehensible and can be changed everywhere except on this page, where it is funny and an integral part of the joke. FaviFake (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the title is the point of the essay, and like WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:WTF is meant to evoke the feeling one has when confronted with the spaghetti soup of wikilinks that can occur in discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Especially the part where the nom states that while it's meant to be funny, they don't think it's funny so it should be removed, feels very much like WP:MALVOLIO. There's no evidence the name is causing widespread confusion, besides to the nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose WP:NOFUN allowed!—blindlynx 18:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A serious essay has just been merged into this joke page, against the author' explicit wishes. WP:NOFUN is out of the window by now. If that essay had to be merged here, then this one should be fixed into a reasonable condition as well. Cambalachero (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The core message of this page is still serious even with a jokey title—blindlynx 01:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ... against the author' explicit wishes You may wish to give WP:OWN a read sometime (the nutshell at the top ought to be enough). WP:NOFUN is out of the window by now FUN flew out the window the moment a duplicate essay was created that really only varied in title. ... this one should be fixed into a reasonable condition as well Besides the title, what else needs to be fixed? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of curiosity, does WP:OWN apply to essays? It doesn't say it does but I'm guessing it does based on WP:Essays. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does, the first sentence at WP:OWN and even the first sentence of the nutshell makes it clear that it's not just articles, but any page, to wit: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). Further into the policy it does make clear how userspace is treated, but even there, it's a mistake to think of it as your own space. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 00:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh thank you. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per per per. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm starting an RFC since there seems to be a disagreement whether or not this page should use AI-generated content. The current debate is if we should use File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.png (AI-generated) or File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.jpg/File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup (2).jpg (real photographs). Please vote either:

• Support using AI-generated content instead of real photos
• Support using real photos over AI-generated content

Please also explain why you support your choice. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed images

Original AI image

First real photograph

Second real photograph

HTGS's suggested image

(As the creator of the real images) Support using real photos over AI-generated content. dot.py 00:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably explain my reasoning:

1. Ever since I first saw this page, I've absolutely despised the AI image.
2. The AI image has the AI "piss filter".
3. Per ClaudineChionh: [...] we want to see what you can say in your own voice, even with blemishes and imperfections, rather than perfectly proportioned [AI output].
4. Per ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: This isn't Grokipedia.

dot.py 00:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also per ArtemisiaGentileschiFan quoting Wikipedia's AI image guidelines: Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace and that Community members have largely rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors, or because no free non-AI-generated images are available. dot.py 00:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dot.py This is project-space, not mainspace. WP:AIIMAGES is irrelevant here. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cool story bro.
2. I explained this above, it's called color temperature, and the goal was for a warm image, not a cool image.
3. This isn't an article or a discussion where we want to see what someone thinks, this is an image used on an essay that is meant to convey a humorous idea.
4. Water is wet, in case you guys didn't know.

—Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For your third point, if it's just an image used on an essay that is meant to convey a humorous idea, then what do you lose from changing it to an image supported by almost everyone else in this discussion? dot.py 06:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(As RFC creator) Support using real photos over AI-generated content per Wikipedia's AI image guidelines, which state that Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace and that Community members have largely rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors, or because no free non-AI-generated images are available. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's stunning that you can quote something and not understand it. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support using real photos over AI-generated content I brought this up earlier (and it does seem silly for a humorous essay), but we should try to avoid clearly AI-generated content. Much of our editor base is against AI as well, so there's no reason to make an exception here since editors are the ones this page is intended for. HurricaneZeta^C 00:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a WP:PAG that disallowes AI image use in project-space? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Frankly, this is completely and utterly bizarre to me. This is not even a matter of an image being removed with no replacement. To me, it is nigh objective that the image without AI is in no way worse than the one that does use AI, so it becomes a question of why the AI-free image should be used. The image that uses AI looks, frankly, really poor. I wouldn't even say it looks good for an AI image. Like Artemisia noted, it has the piss filter, which is generally considered a flaw. What is wrong with the non-AI image, @Locke Cole:? Why should it be used over an image that will be the source of controversy from many more people that the non-AI image would not be? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, I thought we might be getting into RfC territory here. I support dot.py's photo, and real photos in general, per my comment quoted above, and thank dot.py for their initiative. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I see that Locke Cole (and possibly others) interpreted my previous comment as implying that canvassing had taken place off-wiki. The conversation I was alluding to took place on Discord and consisted of mostly technical/image-related feedback on earlier versions of dot.py's image. At no point did I feel that dot.py or anyone else in that discussion was attempting to rally support for changing the image on this page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For easy access, I'll place the images here. dot.py 02:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This RFC existing is absurd, the only opposer is Locke Cole. I'd boldly change the image myself but I can't figure out how to without screwing up the formatting. Athanelar (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'd strongly advise against it until the RfC is closed. Otherwise people wouldn't know how the image looks when cropped. FaviFake (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also, interpolating your comments inside other editors' is generally frowned upon on WP. For the record, the images below are part of @Dot.py's comment above. FaviFake (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hit 'reply' on the RfC and that's where it put my comment, not sure what happened there. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Multiple image}} template may be messing it up, I’ll move it to the top of the RFC. dot.py 18:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support using real photos over AI-generated content: There's nothing objectively wrong with the AI image, it does not make any harm, it is being removed against the essay's main editor explicit wishes, and for arcane reasons that are really uncalled for in a mere essay outside of article namespace... so yes, remove it, because we may not have the fun police, but we do have the karma police. Cambalachero (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the real photos. I'm not as anti-AI-image as some others, but when we have the direct option of the two, a real image is both less controversial (no need to antagonize folks unless there's a reason) and has a DIY aesthetic that fits with Wikipedia's traditional look and connotes a level of effort the AI image does not. I will note that the real image is similar enough to the AI one that I'd say it'd be fair to characterize it as AI-inspired. Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy pings: Locke Cole, 3df, FaviFake, all being in the previous discussion about the image. dot.py 04:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• If the joke needs a RfC to be explained, it's a horrible joke. – The Grid (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure I understand; the RfC is about whether to use an AI-generated image or a non-AI image, not the content of the joke Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RFC statement violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL and is miscategorized. No consensus can be reached with the statement as written. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There shouldn't have even needed to be an RfC in the first place, just a discussion with a means by which to determine how people feel. And, as it appears, most people are pretty strongly in favor of using the non-AI content.

  As I asked previously, what about the non-AI image do you object to? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There appears to be WP:CANVASSing involved in these discussions, and that is concerning given how rapidly editors showed up in the prior discussion and were pretty aggressively opposed to my image. Given the age of some of the accounts, there may even be some WP:SPI concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusing somebody of canvassing is a serious allegation and should not be thrown around frivolously. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but every account in this discussion is over a year old at least. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The only two accounts in both discussions under a year old are yours (22 January 2025) and Sugar Tax's (22 March 2025) dot.py 06:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you unwilling to speak to people? Why can't you answer my question? As someone who has not !voted support or oppose, it's incredibly odd and concerning how your only participation in this discussion has been to derail it or avoid responding to people. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Because so far a lot of the people here are assholes? Let me know when some people show up who aren't assholes and I'll be more likely to respond. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 06:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Who exactly has been non-civil here? Just because you don't like that nobody wants AI images doesn't mean everyone's being mean. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible to sound civil and still be mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is something to be said about people who see everyone around them as assholes Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the RFC statement is non-neutral? It's stated about as neutrally as possible. I gave my own vote with my opinion after starting the RFC but nothing about the RFC itself leans one way or another. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I also don't understand how it could be seen as not neutral. It's perfectly worded. FaviFake (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It you wanted the RFC question to look scrupulously neutral, then you could write an RFC question that says "Should we use File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.png or File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.jpg or File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup (2).jpg on this page?"

  That would remove negative claims ("AI-generated") and appeals to nature ("real photographs"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and if your first thought upon reading that shorter question is "but then editors won't know which one is bad because it's AI-generated", then congratulations: you've just figured out why the existing question is not as neutral as it could be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "AI-generated" is not a negative claim, it is a neutral descriptor of the image. The image is objectively AI-generated, and that fact is what caused controversy. It's silly to claim that 1) "AI-generated" is a negative claim rather than an objective description and 2) the fact that an image is AI-generated is irrelevant enough to leave out. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not everyone shares your opinion that "AI-generated" is a neutral circumstance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a matter of opinion. Objectively speaking, there is nothing biased or non-neutral in describing an AI-generated image as AI-generated. It's like describing a photograph as a photograph, or describing a painting as a painting. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Some words can be both factually true and express a negative judgment.

  For example, it's objectively true that it's AI-generated. And it's also true – according to you, anyway – that "nobody wants AI images". So if you write "should we use File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.png (AI-generated)" in the RFC question, then – again, according to your own words – you are effectively writing "should we use File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.png (that nobody wants)" in the RFC question.

  You might have intended to be neutral, but it is possible for other people to understand what you wrote in a different way from what you intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My own opinions on AI-generated content don't actually affect the meaning of what the RFC says. And people can interpret any phrase in any way, that doesn't make neutral language non-neutral. One could very well claim to interpret the question "Do you prefer cats or dogs" to be non-neutral because they prefer dogs, and that reflects more on them than on the question itself. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps “AI-generated” in it of itself may be neutral, however “real” would be positive, making “AI-generated” sound negative in that case. Maybe saying “AI-generated” and “non-AI-generated” would be a good compromise? dot.py 20:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Joining this discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#WP:WTF_RFC. The discussion/RFC seems in order, I see nothing that invalidates this RFC. Also Support real image, there's no reason to use AI images even in project space. And definitely not if good alternatives exist. Soni (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Real image per SDKB; like them, I'm not inherently opposed to AI generated images, but the human made one wins out in this case for the reasons they laid out. Also, the shadow makes the AI generated text harder to read. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Real image (preferably the second one) per Sdkb and 3df's analysis in the above section. Regarding the RfC statement, while it could be seen as borderline (although still quite acceptable) in terms of brevity, it absolutely fits the neutrality requirement in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chaotic Enby, in terms of WP:RFCBRIEF, I usually suggest looking at the other RFCs. If an RFC question isn't the longest on the page, then it's probably not a violation of RFCBRIEF. I don't see this as borderline long; I see it as average, even including the unnecessary how-to-vote instructions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, good to know! I was thinking in relative terms (how much it could reasonably be shortened), but your logic makes sense too! Either way, not a big deal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Retracting my !vote to avoid the appearance of impropriety due to weighing in prior discussions of that matter on WP:DISCORD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image - either of the two proposed images is fine for me. Even if there are no policies or guidelines discouraging AI images beyond mainspace, the real ones set a better precedent. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AI image. Now support HTGS's image, see below. I'll register my opposition to avoid a snow close. I'll explain my !vote when I have time. FaviFake (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to !vote in this RfC, but just so you're aware, WP:SNOW closures can still occur with minimal (non-zero) opposition if the overwhelming consensus is in support of one option. However, I don't think we're there quite yet - the RfC has been open for 18 hours and has already generated substantial discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image (preferably the second) - AI images are inherently non-representative & shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, unless the topic specifically refers to AI-generation/an AI-generated image, even if it's only intended to be used humorously. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for everyone's info, I have already reverted to the real image. I went with the first one rather than the second as I think it looks a bit better (the second one looks a bit contrasty/blown out) but I have no oppositions if someone wants to change it to the second one; anything is better than AI slop. Athanelar (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also think I like the first one better, it feels more like the can is on a shelf with that rack thing in the background. @Dot.py: Consider post-processing the photos for color and contrast! Not that they need it. 3df (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first real photo is fine the way it is. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I actually did take the photo on my pantry shelf, lol. I don't know exactly how to post-process it, and as @Aaron Liu stated, I think the first real photo is fine the way it is. If anyone else wants to post-process it, then they are completely free to. dot.py 19:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image, no real preference on which, but anybody who thinks an AI image is an improvement on Wikipedia on any page on which an actual factual image is available needs a {{trout}} IMHO, and the edit-warring to keep the AI image in the page by the creator of the AI image smacks of WP:OWN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But this isn’t a case of a factual image. The image is merely illustrative; it would have the same factual value if it were drawn with crayons. — HTGS (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I now wonder how editors would respond to an AI-generated can label that was printed out and then photographed, or an AI model printed on a 3D printer. It's real enough to do damage if you drop it on your toes, but is it still fake? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Athanelar (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image preferably the first. The second one has weird dimensions, has the can glaringly askew/slanted and off-center, and I find the colors off-putting especially at the top. The AI image is horribly lit and the shadows make everything unreadable if the small size even at thumbnail size didn't make it unreadable enough. No idea why people think the second real image is better. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, "The Free Alphabet Soup". Who can resists that‽ Aaron Liu (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Unrelated, but I love your use of the interrobang dot.py (alt) 20:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer this real image to this AI image. For very different reasons, neither of these images are ideal, but they are (imo) equivalent in quality for the encyclopedia. AI images are fine by me in this sort of context—where they are used as an illustration of a non-factual subject and are clear and error free—but where an AI image is equivalent in quality to a photograph or human-drawn image, the non-AI image should be preferred. Of course I believe either image could be improved fairly easily, so this RFC should have been conducted with better images, but per my ceteris paribus preference for the human made photograph, I would prefer to see that image improved first. — HTGS (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  

  

  It’s probably too late in the game to amend the RfC with new options, but I would prefer a high-quality AI image (right) to a low-quality human photo. I also include the slightly absurd option of printing the AI label and using it to create a human photo with a real can.

  (If only someone with some rudimentary design experience had access to a high quality printer and a photo studio… oh wait, that’s me! It’s a shame I’m on holiday still, and can’t be bothered with a couple of hours of work for an image so unimportant as this.) — HTGS (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone has a proper label printer and/or thinks that they could take a better photo than the two that I made, I would be willing to share the image of the label that I made. dot.py 19:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image First, on ethical grounds: the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and giving a winking acceptance to slop here is giving a winking endorsement to a technology that starts with eroding the scientific literature and the public trust in news media and only gets a whole lot worse from there. And, purely aesthetically speaking, don't piss on the encyclopedia, in article space or otherwise. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And even setting aside the image sources, the first real pic wins on composition and style. The shadows in the AI-generated image go the wrong way and impede legibility, and it is overall too slick to go with any joke in the "just like Grandma used to make" vein. That calls for a picture which looks a little scuffed up, like it was found in an old cookbook or spotted in a family photo album. I'd go with the first real photo over the second, which is a bit contrasty/blown out as noted above. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The "high-quality AI image" is worse in the slickness regard. The vegetables do capture the look of AI-generated food pictures, in that they appear to have been grown at the bottom of the uncanny valley (I don't trust that carrot; it is somehow part chestburster). The acronyms look less crowded in the bowl than in either of the real photos, which also goes against the desired message. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image, and I appreciate User:Dot.py taking their time (apparently a couple of hours!) to make a can of "Wikipedia Alphabet Soup" for use on this page. Some1 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Real image since, even ignoring the AI issues, those images are just better; it's easier to see the can, fewer disruptive shadows, etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Real image, per everyone. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Real image, for essentially the same reasons as everyone else (and you can also add me to the list of admirers of the effort that Dot.py put into creating that soup can prop for the image), but I also think the "The Free Alphabet Soup" on the photograph is a more humorous subtitle for the can, since it riffs on Wikipedia's slogan Yellowmarkers (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that I prefer the first photo over the second one because the second one is slightly tilted to the left, and it's also a bit difficult to read the whole "The Free Alphabet Soup" in the second photo because of the can's curvature, but this opinion is less pronounced than the one I outlined in my previous talk page comment. Yellowmarkers (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Real image. The physical mockup is a great piece of work, and much more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Belbury (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the project page and saw what I now know is the first real image. I assumed it was AI-generated because who on Earth would go to the trouble of creating a real can? I see that I was wrong now. Haven't you all got something better to do? Could I suggest watching paint dry? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that this is a bit of a silly fight, but in my opinion, keeping AI-generated content off of Wikipedia is valuable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The effort is admirable, though. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You think people who write an encyclopedia for fun wouldn't go to the trouble of mocking up a soup can? The entirety of this project depends upon people having downright strange ideas of how to have a good time. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Real image (first one); though is it possible to take a higher quality one? jolielover♥talk 14:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• HTGS's image -- this one is the best, clearly higher quality than any of the other suggestions and who cares that it was made using AI. That somebody printed out a label, wrapped a can in it, and took a photo of that, just to avoid use of AI, is absolutely hilarious. What's next? Typing out an article with a typewriter, taking a photo of the page, and uploading that? Or should we use lead typesetting and roll some ink over it, and press it onto some newsprint? This is a new record for silliest thing I've voted on at Wikipedia. But seriously, HTGS's image is the best quality of all the options put forward so far. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is saying that AI doesn't produce high-quality images, better than life itself some say. But who cares if it's AI? Everyone else here. Reality vs. fake technology, on Wikipedia reality should win that one hands down. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The human-created image is no more "reality" than the computer-created image. They're all fake -- they're all images of fake soup cans. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is more likely to have actual soup inside? That's the encyclopedic difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we rank images based on their likelihood of containing soup? FaviFake (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misstatement of what Randy said. Objectively speaking, an AI image of soup cannot, as a rule, be a real can of soup. Meanwhile, the real can with the fake label can be a can of soup. It is objectively more real than the AI image. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s much more likely that the real can is a can of soup. Despite the fact that it has had chili in it dot.py 20:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I think by those standards, your can is definitionally a soupish can (by virtue of its former contents), which gives it a leg up! Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the argument correctly, a human-generated image of a chili can covered with a fake soup can label is better than a computer-generated image of a soup can that doesn't actually exist with a fake soup can label, because the can in the human-generated image once contained something like soup, while the can in the computer-generated image never existed at all, and therefore the human-generated image is closer to reality and thus more "encyclopedic."

There is a flaw in this otherwise impeccable logic.

The flaw is that "Wikipedia Alphabet Soup" is not, in fact, a soup. Like the soup can in the computer-generated image, it does not exist in tangible form in the real world. Rather, Wikipedia Alphabet Soup refers to the use of acronyms--letters--on Wikipedia, a website. These website letters are not actually a soup in a can (trust me, I know what I'm talking about here), they are, rather, stored digitally on a computer, as 1's and 0's. Just as Wikipedia Alphabet Soup is a collection of 1's and 0's, so, too, is the computer-generated image a collection of 1's and 0's. The "soup" inside the can in the computer-generated image is 1's and 0's, just like Wikipedia Alphabet Soup is 1's and 0's, and therefore, the computer-generated image is closer to what the image is attempting to depict, and thus more encyclopedic. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus more encyclopedic"

Ah, yes, the most important concern on this humorous essay arguing against using weird acronyms when talking with newbies. ^[FBDB]

All 3 images are ugly; the one of the real can is at least cute ugly instead of distorted, slimy, "Instagram add about Tai Chi Workouts for men 40+" coded. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are four lights images. Levivich (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got that Star Trek TNG reference. I see you. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin Is this a sincere argument? I cannot imagine editors opposed to AI images in general would equally be opposed to a human-made oil painting of the same. — HTGS (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what I said. I didn't say people would be opposed to a depiction of a can of soup. On the topic of an oil panting of a can of soup, that would also be less potentially real than a physical can. But obviously, they wouldn't be similarly opposed to an oil painting because an oil painting isn't a low-quality image that requires stealing from artists to generate. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) None of this matters, because honestly “real” isn’t important for this image, but 2) I'm now interested in understanding what you mean; in this context, is an oil painting more “real” than an AI image? Or is there something else you’re trying to say, because you’re right, I don’t seem to understand what you’re saying. — HTGS (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HTGS's image per Levivich. This looks so much better than any other image! The quality difference between the real image and HTGS's image is immense. FaviFake (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an oil painting is a more real thing than an AI-generated image. One was made with actual physical materials, by a person, and the other was not. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real photo, of course. This is utterly absurd, why is this even a question? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• HTGS's image per also per Levivich. My prompt had the can explicitly in front of a window with light shining in, which is why there is a bit of a shadow on the front of the can. I like the setting of my original image, but it's undeniable that HTGS's image hits the mark. Also love the inclusion of the phrase "avoid unnecessary jargon". —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For the sake of clarity, would a physical reproduction of similar quality be acceptable? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, though I question the wisdom of wasting WP:EDITORTIME on something so irrelevant when there are articles that readers may actually happen across that could use a better image (or an image at all). Which is precisely why I initially utilized AI and limited refining in Photoshop for my original production. I knew it would be a waste of my time to mock up a can, find a setting visually pleasing and then do the necessary photography and post-processing to get it looking how I imagined. I look forward to XKCD doing a comic on this subject like they did for Star Trek Into Darkness's requested move debates... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it only took the other user a couple of hours, and they seem perfectly content with the new version, even if it's not perfectly executed (which I would contend none of the images, even with my bias against AI, are perfectly executed). From the perspective of people being anti-AI, however, I believe that there is a good case to be made that we shouldn't normalize the use of AI at any point on Wikipedia except in limited circumstances (such as providing an example of an AI image, for instance). Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a couple of hours that could have been used on something better for the project. Instead it's a poorly produced can, poorly photographed and overall worse than the original image I created. As for AI content, I direct your attention to Luddite. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We're spending more time trying to determine whether an AI image should be used instead of a real image than it took to make the real image. You have made an argument in favor of closing this discussion immediately in favor of the real can.

  And I'm sorry, but I think there's a severe disconnect if you think that your image is the superior one. One looks a little bad, but at least there's some charm to it. I can look at the real can and say "someone actually made the effort to make something". When I look at your image, I see a dime-a-dozen AI slop image. It's even still got the piss filter for criminy sakes! Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Neato, the "piss filter" again, as if I haven't addressed that red herring repeatedly. *yawn* —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think "red herring" means? It's a valid point to make that, to you, a piss filter is an acceptable thing to have, and in fact preferable to an image that lacks it. It makes me question you when you say the AI image is superior, because you also felt that way about an image that's so obviously inferior. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Asked and answered twice, I will not be addressing it a third time. You can search. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Having searched piss, you have not addressed this. Like other comments, this appears to be a mistruth meant to obfuscate the discussion (such as the claim that the RfC was non-neutral, which as far as I can see, every one who weighed in on that said you were wrong about). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia talk:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!#c-Locke Cole-20251123230900-Yahyehoku-20250903171000 —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a bad argument because people are saying that you failed to achieve your stated goal. To many, it just looks like you didn't correct the yellowing that AIs tend to put on images. Because if you think the original image is warm, then IDK what to tell you. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I know it's warm because that's some of the post processing I did in Photoshop. I also uploaded a cooler revision yesterday, though I think the warm image was superior. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is quite ironic to raise the question of whether this is worth editor time when you are the one who in the first place began an edit war to restore your AI generated image after it was replaced by the real one initially. The only reason anybody is here is because of your (and, to be fair, FaviFake's) obstinance

  You didn't find it to be worth your time to mock up and photograph a can, but you did find it worth your time to edit war with someone who did? Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We're here because some editors are very much against AI images, apparently coordinated their efforts on Discord, and then brought their WP:BATTLEGROUND here. I didn't start an edit war because I wasn't the one who attempted to change the status quo prior to a consensus being reached. I also haven't edit warred with Dot.py, so I have no idea what you're talking about. But anyways, carry on believing what you want. The rest of us in the real world will carry on.. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I also haven't edit warred with Dot.py, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, you edit warred with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan about dot.py's image instead. Technically correct and not at all pedantic. Athanelar (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you're going to make accusations, it's probably best to make accurate ones. It's also more accurate to say Artemisia and I edit warred, as it takes two to edit war. Though Artemisia instigated it by changing the image without a consensus when a prior discussion had determined the AI image was fine. Do you have any other straws you want to keep pulling on? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your edit warring was brought up as an example of you not adhering to "spend time doing something productive" Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It still takes two to edit war. We both wasted time would be the more accurate characterization. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're wasting time while complaining about people wasting time, do you understand why people are pointing this contradiction out? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't the one who brought an anti-AI WP:BATTLEGROUND here or wasted their time creating an inferior photograph, but here we are... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You created the battleground by obstinately digging your heels in to restore 'your' AI image, despite you now claiming that the whole debate is pointless and the images serve equal purpose anyway.

  There was clear consensus to replace the image from the start. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A clear consensus of canvassed users, absolutely. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have evidence of canvassing you haven't yet shared then please share it at ANI or to arbcom if private. Otherwise, I would strongly advise you drop the stick and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. CoconutOctopus talk 21:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I already shared my evidence at AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And it has not by my eyes been found particularly compelling. I would advise just stepping away from this discussion. This goes for everyone else who is in the midst of non-stop arguing here too. There is absolutely nothing to be gained here by anyone. CoconutOctopus talk 21:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is that your reservations about wasting editor time debating two functionally interchangeable images conveniently didn't seem to apply at that time. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep claiming that people "coordinated efforts" on Discord. That never happened. There was never any canvassing. You just like that narrative because the consensus went in a way you don't like. There was never any canvassing and you insisting on the contrary won't change that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose the five editors who had never edited this page before just showed up randomly by chance, all in support of Dot.py's image? WP:DUCKTEST. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I showed up after I saw your on wiki posts about it, Locke. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The five editors are listed at AN/I along with the time stamps of their first edits. They all appeared prior to this RFC launching, and all in support of Dot.py's image. But I suppose that's just a coincidence. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I showed up after seeing it discussed at ANI. Athanelar (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a gold star for you. Now you can feel special. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing editors on Wikipedia behave so misanthropic towards people who are being civil with them is depressing, please consider taking some time to adjust your attitude Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • checks notes* Piss filter ring a bell? Civil? You absolutely positive you want to claim that?

  —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, are you actually telling me that the reason you're being rude to an editor is because a different editor insulted the AI image you generated? I don't know that I would admit that my anger issues are so bad that I cause collateral damage. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I question what it is you feel I've done to you to warrant this kind of tone. Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan Is there a discord discussion about this page? Would you mind sharing a link? — HTGS (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The only one I know of is dotpy talking about their photography and getting technical feedback on the can design itself. That happened on January 1st at 03:48. There was no discussion about actually changing the image, asking anyone to participate in the page in any way, or talking about any onwiki discussion. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They didn’t mention what the image was for? Can I ask what Discord this was on? Or a broad topic area, if you prefer? — HTGS (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It was on the Wikipedia:Discord, I did mention what the image was for, however I did not mention the talk page or any messages on it. @ClaudineChionh said they would be willing to email someone with the chat logs with my consent, which I have given. dot.py 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget the waste of paper and ink, as compared to the amount of electricity it takes to run a microwave for five seconds. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not merely the generation of an AI image, it is the generation of an AI image that lends credence to generating more AI images in the future on Wikipedia project spaces. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not seeing the problem with that. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that readers don't benefit from fake imagery, especially fake imagery that steals from other imagery. We also shouldn't encourage the use of low-quality shortcuts. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The real image is a can with a fake label, that uses a stolen design. None of this question of “stealing” matters, because it’s all parody and protected speech. (And because it’s a joke image on a project page that almost nobody ever visits; I’ve been here a while and I think I might have seen this page once before.) — HTGS (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Stolen design? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Stolen design: Campbell's Soup Cans. (Clutches pearls) — HTGS (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Transformative works aren't stolen... come on, just be serious for even a second here lol Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You don’t think the AI image is transformative? — HTGS (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Transformation requires intent. AI isn't intending transformation, it is merely taking images it believes approximates what the prompt writer wants to see. It has no thought behind the transformative nature of the image. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, this is your opinion, and not one affirmed by the courts, or—to get back on topic—by Wikipedia policy or convention. — HTGS (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a well-founded opinion based on an understanding of an AI system's capacity to understand and create with the goal of originality (to be clear, the capacity is "none"). It's just following orders given to it by the prompt creator, and turns out an image that exists by stealing art to build it. The art on the real can is created to evoke Campbell's Soup, the AI-generated image looks that way because it used a Campbell's soup can as data. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HTGS: @Cukie Gherkin: The Campbell's Soup Can label should be PD, so the stolen design point is moot anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; to be clear, my intent was more to say "if someone did use Campbell's soup as a direct inspiration, it would be different than an AI using it as the basis for something it generated". Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dot.py, and to be clear myself, no criticism was intended in pointing out that your can was inspired by existing intellectual property, whether brand-name or AI. — HTGS (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Real image per nom and Chionh.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace the image with text that says "Pretend this is a can of Wikipedia^® Alphabet Soup" ^[Humor] dot.py (alt) 21:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, hopefully my last one here. Anyone is welcome to email me for a copy of the relevant Discord chats. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original image (File:Wikipedia Alphabet Soup.png). The framing of this RfC, "AI-generated content" vs. "real photos" is barely short of outrageous. Many of the best images used in article-space are photos so filtered and post-processed, they represent a purely aspirational reality. Partly because no camera can reproduce what the human eye sees. Many articles also use diagrams produced using software. And finally, this is not an article. The image looks fine to me. I don't see an unpleasant yellow cast, whereas I do see a scissored line on the physically mocked-up label (which I believe was produced using rendering software?). Perhaps both are equally figments of our respective imaginations? Subjectively, I prefer the original image as a fake can, as a representation of wiki-alphabet soup, and as a picture. More importantly, there was nothing terribly wrong with Locke cole's image; unless one is absolutely opposed to the use of AI. One is no more copyright-violating than another; there is nothing artistic in the can placement, no reminiscence of an artist's known work, nothing copyrightable about the ring-pull, and an equal evocation of branded and supermarket-brand soup cans. The image is not slop, and this use of AI is not analogous either to misusing AI in article-space to picture a historical figure or to misusing AI to generate prose. It's a tiny step beyond what Dot.py did with a printer and scissors. Bumping the original image simply because it's AI is tendentious, IMO. Framing this RfC as AI vs. real, invalidating Locke cole's equal effort and greater initiative because they used a different tool—and the invective of "slop" and "piss" in associated discussions—is uncivil, and given that none of the images is clumsy or unsuitable, that's more important and the original image should be reinstated whether you agree with my personal artistic taste or not. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it a little silly to be arguing that, because a camera can't create images the same as our eyes can, that the distinction between a photo and an AI-generated image is trivial. The difference between what an eye sees and what a photo can create is a world different than what an eye sees and what an AI produces. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  it's not even close to equal effort. typing words into a prompt box takes much more energy than making and printing a physical label, taping it to a can, and taking a photo from multiple angles. ltbdl (operate) 11:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  [citation needed] about the energy usage because it has to be no different than asking virtual assistants in the past 10 years where multiple tasks are performed. There are warehouses that process these cans and labels on a mass scale... – The Grid (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But the can isn't being made for this purpose, so that's all moot unless we intend on replacing eating soup with AI Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  well... ltbdl (jump) 01:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is bikesheddy and without meaningful policy, so assuming this is mostly polling preferences, then "First real photograph" as looking at it does not give the uncanny valley feeling the two on either end do, and the lighting seems better. More generally I bikeshed that the inheritance of the first image left us with not the best collection of OMG TMB TLA ARG. IAR is rarely used. GNG would be a good one. CMD (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the IAR acronym mentioned more often than GNG, I guess because I'm less active on XfDs FaviFake (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. I noted an IAR resurgence due to the RfC on its depreciation, but otherwise I don't see it much. I'd be curious about the results of running a few months of AN/I through some software to get shortcut counts. CMD (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]