Talk:List of The Incredibles characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Syndrome's section has too much detail. He has his own article, after all. -Toptomcat 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Gazerbeam should be merged with Incredible characters. He was a minor character Huh? What was that noise? 08:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)No-Dachi

  • While he may not merit a full page of his own, and he contributed more to the plot of The Incredibles in death than in life, his life has significantly more known detail than most of the Supers. Suggest merge into a seperate paragraph on the "characters" page. DiogenesNY 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with DiogenesNY. The section on minor supers from the DVD was recently added and Gazerbeam doesn't fit into it well since he is mentioned more in the movie than any of the others. Eluchil404 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge He didn't appear in the movie as a character, just a corpse. CovenantD 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge'. Not noteworthy enough for an inidvidual article, but fairly important for the plot. RMS Oceanic 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the articles with only slight editing of Gazerbeam's entry to fit it into its new place. Anyone is welcome to further remove trivial content, fix links, etc. Eluchil404 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


The austrian comedian and entertainer Herbert Feuerstein worked as the german dub voice of Gilbert Huph - with whom he bears a striking optical resemblance - in the German language version of Pixar's "The Incredibles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to an interferometric resemblance? ;-) Nightscream (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Move[edit]

I've moved the page to Characters from The Incredibles; since the movie is named The Incredibles the article should be capitalized, IMHO. I'm currently fixing double redirects and adding the newly supported redirects to sections, but would appreciate a second set of eyes to make sure that I have done everything correctly. Eluchil404 14:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but generally page moves and such need to be discussed beforehand on the Talk page. There is an enormous tempest in a teapot brewing in the Television Wikiproject, where editors are fighting over naming conventions, and some editors are executing page moves without warning. In this case, the change is trivial, but take a look at Template:lowercase as that allows capitalization issues to be addressed without playing the shell game with pages.

I'll take a look at your work with my "second set of eyes," but tell me what redirect pages were effected nevermind, I can see that with "links to this page" page. Thanks for putting a note here on the Talk page. David Spalding (  ) 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right that I should have asked here first, especially since fixing all the double redirects would be a pain if it was decided that I had been to bold. It is perhaps worth noting that the original title was my mistake as I over compensated for my tendency to capitalize. In any event, I am excited by the new capability to redirect to a section which makes links like Gazerbeam much more useful whatever the name of the mainpage. Eluchil404 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

THE Macrobursts[edit]

Their super power was able to turn things into metal they manged to defeat omnidroid vx6 but later killed by Omnidroid VX7.

Bomb Voyage[edit]

Just passing through, I thought it was interesting that Bomb Voyage was originally intended to be named Bomb Pérignon, but the Dom Pérignon people would not endorse have a villain named after their product. This was revealed by Brad Bird in the DVD commentary, it may be worth noting in the article. Just a head's up. Annie D 09:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The OTHER Incredibles[edit]

Okay, I understand the RM of the Frozone trivia, but the other edit I made about the original Incredibles stays, right? SaliereTheFish 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bomb Voyage parallel...[edit]

Could it be stated that the Bomb Voyage character could be considered a reference to the Joker from the Batman series? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if you have a credible source to which such an assertion can be attributed. Nightscream (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bomb Voyage.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Bomb Voyage.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edna Mode edits[edit]

Since there appears to be an edit conflict between myself and Stealth500 over the Edna Mode section, it seems reasonable for me to explain my rationale as to my recent edits. The following are the aspects of the section I edited:

Edna cares a great deal about the supers who are willing to pay her a huge sum of money for her designs. This is not sourced, as it is a personal interpretation of the editor who placed it in the section. The character may very well care about the supers, but that is not a major aspect of her character. If anything, she appears (at least overtly) to be far more self-absorbed than caring. Any ally or fellow "good guy" can be said to care about them; it's not necessary to specify this. Since the page is already 32 kilobytes long, trimming it down to the essentials would seem reasonable to me.

Naturally, she had to warn Mr. Incredible about the impracticality of capes... She did not "have" to warn him, nor was it "natural", since again, this is the opinion of the editor who wrote this. Edna opined that she did not like capes for this reason, and chose to express her opinion thus, whereas Mr. Incredible favored capes, so it was her opinion. This is why I edited it to read

"Edna refuses to design super suits with capes, in light of the [supers killed by them]". Edna Mode is known for calling everyone Dahling (Darling). She designs the Parr family’s Supersuits, and the suits are designed in mind of the superpowers of each family member. Also one of her famous quotes is “Edna Mode” which is her password to get into her room.[1]

...which, prior to the ban on superheroes, led to the deaths of Dynaguy (strangled by his cape while flying with his rocket boosters), Meta-Man (his cape was caught in an elevator shaft while helping an elevator go up), Stratogale (whose cape caused her to get cut to pieces while helping a plane from a tornado and unexpectedly flew in front of the engine) , and Thunderhead (stuck on a missle when stopping a mad scientist from destroying the city) and the disappearance and possible death of Splashdown (whose cape caused him to be choked and sucked into a vortex). This level of detail is not necessary for a section that is on Edna Mode, rather than these other heroes. I also don't see why Stratogale's flying in front of the airliner was "unexpected". Again, the page is already giving size warnings, so this should be trimmed. The cause of these characters' deaths would more appropriate for the section in which they are listed, and not in Edna's. Let's keep the section succinct. Nightscream (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can understand why it is that you would trim it down, however the way you trimmed it here and here makes it look less important. If you would like, you could giev the names and then put all of what happened but in a shorter version. Either that or we would need links to that character in the article, could that work? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I made that info look less important, I just think it was more relevant to those characters than Edna. I believe the characters in question are listed further below in the article. Since they don't have their own individual sections (due to the small amount of info on each), the only way to link to them is to link to the entire "Other superheroes" section. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just did another edit here, tell me if that will work. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous edit contains all the important info and is more streamlined. Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Miarge-incredibles.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Miarge-incredibles.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Character models[edit]

In the Edit Summary for this edit, Horologium says "Removed statement about resembling Brad Bird; characters tend to resemble the actors who portary them." In fact, both Mr. Incredible and Syndrome were modeled after Brad Bird, as noted in the DVD commentary. While it is true that such characters often are modeled on their voice actors, this is not always true. Whether Incredible resemble Craig T. Nelson is debatable. But Syndrome looks nothing like Jason Lee (except possibly for aspects of his grin). Violet does not look like Sarah Vowell, and Edna Mode certainly looks nothing like Brad Bird. Nightscream (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Franklin Richards[edit]

I edited the page to add one sentence to compare Jack Jack to Franklin Richards and it was deleted. I find that odd since there are other comparisons to Fantastic Four characters or other comic characters all over the page. I thought it was a very well written and thoughtful sentence, and it's even mentioned on Jack Jack's wiki article. And, no, I did not write that sentence. So, it should either stand here or be deleted from his article as well. You all can do whatever you want. All the junk I try to do on this site just gets reversed anyway, so I don't care anymore. I'm adding it back and then letting it go, 'cause I don't think it did break any rules. I think someone is just trying to find any reason, however small, to delete it so they have something to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps they're just following Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, which requires all material to be sourced to reliable sources. To assume that it cannot be this, and must be the result of some nefarious motive, is not really in keeping with WP:Civility, or WP:Assume Good Faith. If such material is found elsewhere, then it should be either sourced, or as you suggested, removed.
Also, new conversations should be placed on the bottom of the page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
All I did was add a sentence that said Brad Bird's comment about Jack Jack having infinite possibilities parallels Franklin Richards' character. The whole movie is a parallel to the Fantastic Four. It's even mentioned in the article. My comment was linked to the Franklin Richards article, so it was sourced. If you are going to be that strict regarding opinion, then the article should not mentioned the Fantastic Four or any other comic character either. You're being hypocritical just to purposely annoy someone, that person being me. And, please stop sending me messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This dude Nightscream took out all the mention of the Fantastic Four parallels. He/She has obviously never even seen the movie. It's a valid parallel. It is not opinion. Stan Lee almost brought a lawsuit against these guys, but decided it was too much trouble. Why go around to pages you don't know enough about to be editing in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please do not blank content from articles or Talk Pages without just cause, as it this could be construed as vandalism. You should also sign your posts, which you can do by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. As to your points, let me see if I can address them in order:

I did not remove the material pertaining to Bird's comment about Jack-Jack. I only removed your POV comments about the FF. Bird's comments about Jack-Jack, which are properly sourced to the DVD commentary, are still there.

Parallels to the Fantastic Four constitute your personal point of view. Among Wikipedia's core policies is that all material must be supported by reliable sources cited in the text. Editors cannot add their own personal viewpoints to articles, as this violates Wikipedia's policy that requires articles to be written from a Neutral Point of View. Such interpretations of the material constitute original research, which is also strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. A source that establishes what Brad Bird says about the film is a valid source. An editor giving their personal interpretation bout parallels to the FF is not. Nor can other articles be used as sources.

There is no "hypocrisy" because this article was on my Watch List, but the other articles were not. Editors are not obligated to monitor the articles that others say they should. It's hardly my fault if I'm unaware of content on other articles, is it? However, I have since removed all other unsourced references that I could find on the other Incredibles-related articles, and added those to my Watch List as well, so this point is now consistent among all of them.

I have indeed seen in the movie many times, as I have it on DVD, and this is irrelevant to the issue. Editing is based on reliable sourcing, and not personal knowledge. Accusations regarding personal knowledge falls under WP:OWN, and are not appropriate in edit conflicts. If you have a source for a lawsuit by Stan Lee lawsuit, then feel free to add it. Barring that, interpretations of parallels are indeed derived from your opinion.

I understand that you're new to Wikipedia. If so, welcome! But you must understand that Wikipedia has certain policies that exist to ensure its reliability. I've been following these policies ever since I started on WP, as do all other reliable editors, and has nothing to do with trying to annoy anyone. If you look through my Edit History, you'll see this, so it's not about you. And given Wikipedia's policies on WP:Civility, Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks, accusing other editors in this way is not justified.

Feel free to check out the Welcome Page, and the Five Pillars if you wish to edit on Wikipedia, as following its policies is required. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream is in the right here. We can't include the Fantastic Four motif based on it being "obvious" from watching the movie. We need a reliable source discussing it. Eluchil404 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comic villains[edit]

Now that the Boom! Comic story is finished, shouldn't the two super-villains seen in the story get added? For spoilers' sake, I won't reveal their names, but I think they need to be mentioned. Maetch (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia no longer abstains from including spoilers if the information in question is relevant/salient to the article or section. (In addition, Wikipedia is not censored. So feel free to include that info. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comic continuity[edit]

I think it may be time for a new page pertaining to Boom!'s Incredibles comics. So far, it seems to be shaping up to be an ongoing series, and I can't just keep dumping everything about it onto this page. Comments? Maetch (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I come with this proposal to merge the following characters into this article:

because none of this characters have managed to prove notability outside The Incredibles media. With this, I mean that none of them have received deep coverage by reliable secondary sources, independent from the film or video games. Also, none of them have impact in popular culture. Most of these articles are unreferenced and are almost entirely in-universe. Their appearance in just one film and its derived media makes them no more relevant than other Pixar characters such as those from Finding Nemo, Wall E or A Bug's Life who have no articles at all or are just all in a single list. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition, nor improvement of the articles by adding real-world content establishing notability, then I will perform the mergers. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing[edit]

I've moved the following material here from the article until it can be properly sourced. I find it interesting, and it may be true, but the source provided for it does not appear to be an authoritative source considered reliable under WP:RS, but one person or group whose observations of similarities between the film and The Black Hole would constitute original research. I hope someone can find information to confirm this one way or the other:

The Omnidroid appears to have a design at least partially based upon that of Maximilian in another Disney film, The Black Hole.[2]

The Omnidroid has a red eye and a hulking body, just like the aforementioned Maximilian. Maximilian is also referenced in a scene where the Omnidroid uses its legs as blades, twirling them like a fan. Maximilian does the same thing in the film to the good robot, V.I.N.CENT, before he is killed by V.I.N.CENT.

Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of crap in this article that is unsourced. It comes off more like a press release.

Violet's name alludes to "shrinking violet", which means a shy person (usually a girl) or as a reference to ultraviolet light, which is outside the visible spectrum. The name is also a reference to the violet color of her force fields. Edna Mode designed a sturdy super suit that turns invisible when Violet does (her normal clothes do not) and will not disrupt her force fields. The nature of Violet's powers naturally made the super suit a tricky one to fabricate, but nowhere near the potential challenge of designing a newer, more superpower-friendly super suit for Jack-Jack.


The emergence of Jack-Jack's lengthy list of superpowers, however, has the potential to make designing another, more superpower-friendly jumpsuit for Jack-Jack even more of a challenge for Edna than Violet's skintight unitard was.

I'm pretty sure that elastic-girl stretched more than Violet. Who made this shit up? The article is protected so I can't even add a cite-needed tag.

Could someone just clean up this whole article since it is protected? 00:00, 9 October 2010

Done. For future reference, though, don't forget to sing your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which automatically create a signature and time stamp. Thanks for pointing that material out. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Main Protagonist a Tautology?[edit]

"The Incredible Family are the main protagonists of the film."

Protagonist means “the leading character” so it is a tautology to refer to ‘main protagonist’ and it is debatable whether there can be more than one.


...I'm not pedantic, I'm particular ;-)

--Robertwilliamsau (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge into film article[edit]

Since this page is mainly reiteration of the plot and has no real world content, character design, reception, etc. I propose to merge it into the characters section of the film's article, which already provides a list with descriptions of the characters. The Incredibles characters are no more notable than other Pixar characters like those from Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., etc. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A week has passed and there is no opposition or improvement of the article, so the merger is being performed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with merging this. I think this film differs from the examples you give. There are a great deal more secondary characters established in the film and bonus features of the film (not to mention spin off material) in the Incredibles franchise than there are in the other films. Additionally, a consensus was already reached on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if there are a million secondary characters, none of them have Wikipedia:Notability, that is what matters. The list was not deleted, but merged. The consensus to "keep" was an AfD discussion which is different. The spin-off material indicates nothing, everything is in-universe related and appearances in video games do not mean that the characters have notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The expanded Incredibles universe absolutely meets the notability criteria. And as mentioned on your talk page, a signifigant portion of the information was deleted, and that action goes specifically against existing consensus for this article. (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Have any of the secondary or throwaway characters outside of the main cast or central villains appeared in the expanded universe? Any that haven't thus appeared do not meet notability criteria. Nightscream (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Several have, and several more have not. So an argument can be made for culling a portion of those characters. That said, I think that the comprehensive list is a more practical solution than addressing each secondary character individually.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You should write a draft in a subpage of your userpage to work on a list that proves the notability of the characters. The burden of evidence falls upon you who are edit warring and still do not provide arguments in support of the notability of the characters. Once again, they belong only to one single film, not even a film series. The video games are related to the film, and so are the comics. All of those media is not a secondary source or popular culture. Coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture are needed to prove notability. This list is just a retelling of the plot of the film and descriptions of the characters, which goes against Wikipedia:Writing About Fiction and is becoming cruft. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The comic has been met with critical acclaim and the writer of the series was nominated for the comics industries most prestigious award for the series. Yes, it is related to the film, but the same could be said of the Star Wars or Star Trek expanded universe. It's official licensed material rather than merely supplemental as you claim. So we have: original and critically acclaimed and nominated for an award. Notability established. So no... the burden of proof is upon you, particularly as more than one person has reverted your attempt to integrate the article, and questioned your intent. To be clear: I'm not edit warring. I'm reverting the edits you are insisting on that multiple people disagree with. Address this on the talk page rather than inciting reversions through your insistence that your unpopular view must be correct. Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The film, video games, the creators, comics, etc. are notable. I am not saying they are not. However, the characters are not notable. If you were a notable person, would it automatically mean that your family and friends are notable only because you are notable? Not. Avatar is a notable and its video game is notable too, but it does not have a separated list for characters. Same case happens here. Notability is not inherited, a notable subject must be notable himself/herself/themselves, not because of its source is notable. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree with you. I think the page needs work. But I think deleting the information by redirecting it to the main page is overkill.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the incredibles live in mettroville —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatlover13 (talkcontribs) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More pedantry[edit]

"Dash also discovers throughout the course of the movie that his speed allows him to be able to run over water without submerging." No he doesn't, he discovers this in one particular scene. Should read "during the course of the movie" or something similar. (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat similar note, in Syndrome's section "His lack of superhuman powers, combined with intelligence and apparently vast resources bear a resemblance to the Fantastic Four villain Doctor Doom." Doom doesn't lack superpowers. Just the opposite in fact, owing to his obscenely powerful magical abilities. Should be changed to something like "reliance on technology" or something. (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012[edit]

Under the description for Universal Man, the last line ends: "...a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won the Mr. Universe title six times."

Arnold Schwarzenegger won the Mr. Universe title four times (in 1967 as an amateur and from 1968-1970 as a professional).

Mroozee (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done text has been changed to "multiple times". Pol430 talk to me 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2013[edit] (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Is [[Violet Parr's real Violetta?.

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013[edit]

The paragraph describing Elastigirl states "Originally a feminist while single, since her marriage to Bob Helen has become a dedicated spouse and mother, and is frustrated with her husband's continuing dreams of glory." This implies that Elastigirl was originally a feminist, but is no longer so because of her domestic relationships and responsibilities. A feminist is a person who believes that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Elastigirl as a wife and mother is a strong female character and there is no evidence to support that she is not a feminist. Please omit the "Originally a feminist while single" phrase and leave the rest of the sentence intact to avoid creating an antithetical between being a feminist and having a family: "Since her marriage to Bob, Helen has become a dedicated spouse and mother, and is frustrated with her husband's continuing dreams of glory." (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I've reworded that section a bit, but I don't think her feminism can be completely removed. I understand your concern, but the movie itself sets up that antithetical pretty well by starting off the movie with her refusing to settle down and then doing exactly that. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


Is there any particular reason why Jack-Jack is listed under "Allies" and not "The Parr family"? I'm pretty sure it should be the other way around. (talk) 00:59, May 29, 2014

Apparently it was changed on February 3 by Benja the Beauty Boy, a serial policy violator who has been given numerous warnings for disruptive editing and an indefinite block for sockpuppetry. I fixed it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014[edit]

Can the pronouns associated with Microburst be changed to "they" instead of the clunky "he/she/" (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Bomb Voyage voice.[edit]

So Bomb Voyage was voiced by Dominique Louis< >, someone might want to add that next to his name. - (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017[edit]

Change 10-year-old to 6-year-old. TrishaGaurav1 (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Helen's friend's name is SNOG* not SNUG*...someone changed it back to Snug after someone tried to correct it to Snog Queen Gaby (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)