Talk:Djamaa el Djazaïr

Tallest building in Africa?

While this 2015 CTBUH article states that the new mosque would become the tallest building in Africa, currently it is listed as a minaret under construction (at 264 metre high) and is not included on their list of the tallest buildings in Africa. Although the entire mosque complex is over 50% usable space, there is no indication that the minaret is an occupied tower. As the CTBUH does not include minarets in its criteria for tallest buildings, this article should not list it as such either. Loopy30 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• مسجد الجزائر الأعظم.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Djamaa el Djazaïr

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Great Mosque of Algiers

• ... that the newly constructed Djamaa el Djazaïr (pictured) is the tallest building in Africa? Source: here

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)

5x expanded by Jupitus Smart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC).

• CGTN is RS for non-controversial assertions and the claim is inline cited. Five-times expanded and QPQ done. Image released as own work. NPOV and no obvious copyvio. Looks good. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• المسجد الأعظم في الجزائر العاصمة.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• جامع الجزائر الأعظم.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Djamaâ El Djazaïr 3.jpg
• Djamaâ El Djazaïr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

third largest mosque?

" third-largest mosque in the world after the Great Mosque of Mecca and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi of Medina in Saudi Arabia."

However, according to List of largest mosques, it is tenth by capacity and sixth by area. The mentioned Saudi Arabian mosques are #1 and #2 by capacity, and #4 and #3 by area. Largest by area and third by capacity is Imam Reza shrine (constructed nearly 1300 years ago), and is at least 5 times bigger in every aspect but the minaret. 193.210.201.116 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite right, the minaret part is true, but the third largest part was bogus. It is fixed + linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The list you're referring to in full of nonsense. In case, you're wondering: this mosque covers an area of almost 28 hectares. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That list has square meters and that equals 280 000 m², which would get this already on spot #5. And, that list at least has most of it sourced. (There are two figures marked with [citation needed], and two sources marked with [better source needed]) 193.210.204.125 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Translation Effort for Djamaa El Djazair

I'm trying to make this English version match up with the French counterpart article, which has more details on the "Architecture", "Geology", and "Management and Administration" sections. Jim856796 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jim856796

I have contributed to the French version, and I will take the time to expand the article here. It may take about a week for me to complete it. Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Riad Salih Good to see somebody answering my call, because I hate seeing article-translation requests go unanswered for years. Is there anything you can see in this mosque's Arabic counterpart article that you can't see in the French counterpart? I translated the "Access" section of that French counterpart today, although I was not able to bring some icons for the Algiers Tramway and Metro that were being used on that French version onto the English version. Jim856796 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

@Jim856796: the French wikipedia is not an example to follow. Most of their articles contain random "stuff" (usually, as a result of the silly games between the neighbours' kiddies) that would never make it into ours. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton I thought we are supposed to expand this article section-by-section from the French counterpart article to improve its chances of getting Good Article (or even Featured Article) status. It is clear that your continued removal of that section, especially after the same two sources from that French version were added, is only going to undermine those efforts. I've already asked Riad Salih and Sizito to assist me in this effort, but neither of them have been willing to do it so far. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get that kind of assistance for these expansion-translation jobs? Jim856796 (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you thought that, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a bad idea (per the reasons that I cited above as well as the fact that we have enough sources to cover what we want without resorting to another wiki project). For instance, since you're interested in the structure of the Mosque and its ability to withstand an earthquake, then you're much better off reading reliable sources such as these, than some cheap gossip that is reported by a journalist. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

M.BittonExpansion-translation efforts are not that bad of an idea. If you're active at the French Wikipedia as well, then why not alert their editors about that "nonsense"/"gossip" in the French counterpart article, and ask them why it's even accepted without problems on such foreign-language counterparts? If you're not going to aid me in this expansion-translation effort, you're better off leaving this article alone. Why do you keep removing that section as quickly as you did? I might as well insert a "Please do not revert this again" warning at this point, and/or seek a third opinion. This isn't the first time I ran into problems with an expansion-translation effort from the French Wikipedia (a similar effort for the article for Grand Palais in Paris has been stalled for literally years right now).Jim856796 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

you're better off leaving this article alone I'm done wasting my time with you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jim856796: this edit was reverted for a reason: as I explained in the edit summary, it's unsourced and badly written. Frankly, it's bordering on unintelligible. Reinstating it (while mentioning something else) and edit warring over it is very disruptive. When added to what you said above, the I'm not going to ask you again threats in you edit summaries and the fact that you're now also edit warring on someone's talk page, the whole thing amounts to what is way beyond what's acceptable. Please stop. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the French language article and agree it has some significant weight issues, particularly with the extended justification on the seismic design that reads like a PR piece meant to reassure the reader the structure is sound. A section-by-section transfer from the French article to here should not be performed. Please bear in mind that English language sources are preferred per WP:NONENG, as well. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess this means this article will just never attain GA status (or anything beyond B class status. Also, WP:NONENG means exclusively English-language sources are going to be used in any expansion-translation efforts. For example, if a verifiable fact has several foreign-language sources but no English ones, that fact is going to be removed in a heartbeat, and could potentially be edit-warred over. If you're right, then I may have to stop this expansion-translation effort for good.:( Jim856796 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

An article modeled on its French-language cousin would not be of GA quality in this case, and obviously most GAs are not translations. That's not what WP:NONENG says nor is it what I said. This is a collaborative encyclopedia; resorting to melodramatic mischaracterizations isn't helpful. Just because something is a "verifiable fact" does not mean it belongs in the article; see WP:VNOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Collaborative" means finding some other editors who are willing to clean up and improve instead of deleting outright instead of fighting with other editors who only want to delete outright.Jim856796 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like canvassing. Current consensus appears to be that there is very little to be gained from any translation effort from that particular source to this particular target. Collaborative means respecting that consensus. VQuakr (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Should This Expansion-Translation Effort Stop Altogether?

WP:TPG

To any Wikipedia users not named M.Bitton and Skitash: Should we just cease this expansion-translation effort at this point? I feel like I should just give up and concede defeat because of the behavior of M.Bitton and Skitash indicated that their reversions of translated sections will continue, even if those sections come with sources. I really don't want to give up, but I'm just not going to deal with and be overpowered by users who engage with that kind of behavior.

I think the only fair solution at this point would be to just seek a third opinion from somebody else, especially one who'll get around to actually assisting me in this expansion translation effort, unlike you two. I'm not sure where to request such a third opinion, but I'm just deadlocked at this point. Jim856796 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There is something called WP:Third opinion, however that is only applicable when there are exactly two editors involved in a content dispute, and a third is needed. Once there are already three editors involved, as is the case here, WP:3O is no longer an option. You could try enlisting the aid of members of one of the three WikiProjects listed at the top of this page, by means of a neutrally-worded feedback request at those projects' Talk pages. Finally, remember that French Wikipedia (and others) have their own rules, and their standards may not be up to ours (and their articles are often non-compliant even to those weaker standards). Translating from French Wikipedia is translating from a self-published source, therefore does not meet the definition of a reliable source. All translated content must meet the verifiability policy and other content guidelines of English Wikipedia. Put another way: just because something is perfectly acceptable at fr-wiki and follows all the rules there, does not guarantee acceptance of the translated equivalent at en-wiki, and often their articles don't follow their own rules anyway. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: So this means you're not willing to do this expansion/translation effort at all, either, even though I clearly saw your name on the "translators Available" page? If yes, how come?

How about we actually start this effort by listing on this talk page the sections on the French Wikipedia that the English article does not have (aside from the two earthquake-related sections whose translation got me in trouble in the first place)? Jim856796 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are focusing on who is willing to help translate the French Wikipedia article, or portions of it, and that for you, that is the main question, with the corollary that failure to do so is problematic in some way. I would say that expanding en-wiki is what we are all here for, so that is a noble goal, as far as those translations adhere to the requirements of English Wikipedia. There is no special get-out-of-jail-free card that protects content from removal, just because it comes from French Wikipedia, and if other editors whose work I know and respect continually remove translated work, that is a yellow flag for me, and before I spend my time translating anything, I would want to understand why that is happening.

As a translator, I have translated from French Wikipedia before (even from articles about Algeria) so I am quite familiar with that. As a volunteer, I get to choose where and how I spend my time, and how much of that involves translation, or template writing, or article expansion, or welcoming and guiding new users, or myriad other tasks I enjoy contributing to. I think you might be hurting your case a bit through a tone that comes across as a bit confrontational; I wonder if you are aware of that? Everybody here is a volunteer, and a more collegial approach is more likely to get you the goal you want, although no guarantees of course.

To answer your question directly: no, I am not willing to spend my volunteer effort right now translating this article; that may change in the future. There are plenty of other translators from French, have you tried reaching out to anyone else, or posting a request at WP:WikiProject France? As far as making a list of sections available in the original and not here, I think that could be helpful as a worksheet; I sometimes create those as a Talk page subpage. For example, this page is a worksheet containing a translated copy of the sections from the French Wikipedia article about the War guilt question, translated into English (there is no content, just section headings). Maybe that will give you an idea of one way to approach that, although simply listing the sections here on the Talk page as you proposed to do may be just as good. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like expansion and translation are being treated as synonyms in this section and header. They are, of course, not synonyms. There is discussion in the previous thread about why the French language article may not be a great source for material in this article, but as of this writing, the English language article is less than 800 words of readable prose. I highly doubt anyone would claim it is too long by any stretch of the imagination. I think following examples of existing featured articles at WP:WikiProject Architecture#Featured content is much more likely to trigger workable ideas for expansion. Alternatively, discussion could be about what sources are unused or underused and what topics those sources cover. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The Expansion-Translation Effort for This Article is Officially On Indefinite Hold

I will go ahead and put this expansion-translation effort for the Djamaa el Djazaïr article on indefinite hold, effective immediately. If those two sections from the French-language counterpart article I meant to insert were going to become so contentious that they were going to be subject to a back-and-forth insertion/removal war, this entire article would be put on the "permanently ineligible for Good Article or Featured Article" list, because I thought every section from a foreign-language counterpart article was supposed to be a significant part in the effort for the English-language article to reach GA or FA status. Accordingly, this is why I'm reaching this difficult decision. I apologize for even starting this expansion/translation effort in the first place. No wonder why I'm always disappointed over Africa's infrastructure defecit.Jim856796 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing occurring at this article will make it ineligible for GA/FA status. You are of course free to stop working on it, but there are some misconceptions in your comment above that might affect your decision. Others are still free to continue working on the translation if they wish, just as you are free not to. I have responded in more detail at your Talk page. Best, Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you are interested in articles about Africa's infrastructure that we do not have yet in English Wikipedia, here are 52 articles from fr-wiki in that category, and 47 from ar-wiki;^{[in English]} none of those articles exist here. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe putting it on permanent hold is a good idea, as my impression is that you have no ability in French, is that right? See your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What About the Citations?

In the French counterpart article, the subsection on the controversies over collapse risks has three paragraphs. At the end of the first paragraph, there is a "reference/citation needed" template, and at the end of the other two paragraphs, there are citations, both of which are at tsa-algeria.com. Unfortunately, both of those citations lead to "page not found" error messages, and this would land me in even further trouble. If that (translated) subsection were re-inserted into the English article with those two citations included, would you let it stay with some periodic improvements/grammar fixes, etc., or would you still remove it on sight? If it is removed (again), I will at the very least need assurance that any collapse threat for the Djamaa el-Djazair isn't legitimate. Why can't the users at the French Wikipedia also remove that contentious section themselves as well if it's going to cause major problems at any of the other-language Wikipedias? Curse the differing standards of inclusion between languages. What is the point in trying to verify any info on the collapse risks for the Djamaa el-Djazair further? Jim856796 (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, and thanks for your comment. (See tl;dr summary at the end.) To your questions:

• citations with "page not found" error messages – often the problem can be mitigated by finding a copy of the missing page elsewhere. The first place to look, is the Internet Archive (a.k.a., the Wayback Machine, at https://archive.org). For content at fr-wiki (or copied/translated from there) you can try Wikiwix, a dedicated archive just for fr-wiki (currently down; see description at fr:Wikiwix).
• inserting unsourced translated content into the en-wiki article: would it be deleted? – when writing for en-wiki, please do not add content (translated or not) that you know in advance is unsourced or unverifiable; this is contrary to English Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as our core policy on WP:Verifiability. If the original source is gone and you wish to add a translated version to English Wikipedia, the WP:BURDEN is on you to source it: please find new sources first, and then add it. Any unsourced content may be removed by any editor at any time.
• You said, "I will at the very least need assurance that any collapse threat for the Djamaa el-Djazair isn't legitimate." This sounds like you wish to translate content from fr-wiki that asserts that there *is* a collapse threat, and that those at en-wiki should be required to prove that there isn't any such threat before removing your translation, is that an accurate interpretation of what you mean? If so, I have to disabuse you of that notion and direct you back to WP:BURDEN: there is no requirement for editors at en-wiki to prove that editors at fr-wiki are wrong, especially because French Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In other words, you have it backwards: no one here at en-wiki needs to prove that unsourced fr-wiki assertions are illegitimate; rather, you, personally, must prove that the collapse threat is legitimate, by adding a citation to a reliable source at the same time as you insert the material in the en-wiki article.
• why users at fr-wiki don't remove that material – Part of answer might be that Wikipedia (in any language) is a volunteer project, and nobody is interested enough to remove it. Maybe they don't have the time; maybe they haven't noticed the dead links; maybe they don't care. But in truth, here at en-wiki we cannot speak to the question of why editors at fr-wiki do not remove unsourced content, or why they do anything; that is a question you could ask them at the Talk page of the French article. I sometimes edit fr-wiki, so maybe I will remove it; if not, hopefully somebody else will.
• cursing the differences between Wikipedias won't help improve the articles either at fr-wiki or at en-wiki, but I can see it frustrates you. I am sorry for your frustration, but it is just a fact that both projects are volunteer projects with their own set of rules, which are also created and maintained by volunteers. The en-wiki WP:Verifiability policy is similar to French fr:WP:Vérifiabilité policy but they are not translations of each other and not identical. When editing here, please refer strictly to en-wiki policies and guidelines and forget about any fr-wiki policies you might be familiar with.
• is there a point in trying to verify this further – I guess the point is that verifying it means you can add or retain information about the threat of collapse to the en-wiki article, without worrying too much that it will be removed as unsourced or unverifiable. If unsourced, it may be tagged, or simply removed.

I hope this answers your questions. I guess the tl;dr summary might be: while editing at en-wiki, follow en-wiki policies and guidelines, even when they conflict with guidelines you might be more familiar with at another Wikipedia like fr-wiki. If you are unable to do that, you will keep butting your head against a wall, and likely your frustration will just keep on getting worse. I hope that doesn't happen. (edit conflict) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit in any Wikipedia other than English. I am just deeply worried that if I inserted that collapse-risk section with those citations included, it's still going to get removed a short while later. That is what's making this section on the French counterpart contentious. The simple fear of getting dragged into an edit war is why I haven't been up to doing something like that myself. On the French article, every time I click on the bracketed link on those citations that says "archive", it might take too long to respond. I might not be able to live up to that burden due to time constraints and having other projects going on, so I wouldn't mind letting someone else source it. I thought the point was to avoid outright removal of sourced material whenever possible. I just can't do it all by myself; assistance from others is sometimes required. With the threat of a block for me being real if I re-inserted that contentious section with those citations included, the potential for an edit war needs to be worried about. Jim856796 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project and you are under no obligation to fix shortcomings in the article. However, if you choose to edit it and add unsourced content, you have to be prepared to see those edits modified, or undone, until what is left is verifiable. And you needn't worry about an edit war: if you don't keep editing repeatedly against another editor then there can be no edit war (at least, not with you), because it takes two for an edit war. Also, you are not going to get blocked for one instance of inserting unsourced content, especially if you don't edit war and reinsert it when someone else removes it for good cause, like being unsourced. The part that doesn't work too well is "I wouldn't mind letting someone else source it". You can take that approach if you want, and if you don't have time to source it, you can hope someone else will, but if nobody does then you just have to live with the possibility that another editor might remove it, which is supported by verifiability policy. If they do, you can always insert it back, along with a source. Adding a citation where there was none before is not edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Article title

Imho, the title of this article should be changed to Great Mosque of Algiers (2019), for which there are hundreds of sources in English:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

That the English term should be used instead of the current title can be seen by executing this query, examining the top 10 or top 100 results, and tallying how many use the English term versus how many use the current title. The results are greatly in favor of the English term. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Listed at: WT:ALGERIA, Talk:Regency of Algiers. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is that a) the sources use the "Great Mosque of Algiers" (without the 2019) and b) the "Great Mosque of Algiers" can refer to two mosques (hence, why it's a disambiguation page).

Making this one the primary target would solve the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any trouble, or understand your objection. Of course the sources use it without the '(2019)', but that's why we have parenthetical disambiguation. If this really were the primary topic, your solution would work, but I am not at all sure that that is the case. If we have different topics referred to by the same name and neither is primary (like Joker (2012 film) and Joker (2019 film)), we use PARENDIS on both. If one is primary, we use PARENDIS on the other (like The Lion King, and The Lion King (2019 film)). Where is the problem? Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the primary topic (just Google "Great Mosque of Algiers" and see what you get). Given its size and what it represents, this trend is only going one way. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I did, and I would say it is a toss-up, or perhaps more in favor of the 1097 mosque. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because you're looking at books that predate its construction. Try the normal Google search to include articles and the like. M.Bitton (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If by normal Google search you mean web search, that will be biased by WP:RECENTISM because the construction is recent, not to mention by unreliable sources which you would have to screen one by one. If you restrict book search to post-2008 when the plans were drawn up, I still see it as a toss-up. (And if you restrict to post-2019, it tilts clearly to the 1097 mosque.) I'm open to being persuaded that the new mosque is primary, but so far, I don't see it, and I don't accept the web results unless you prune them carefully. Here is Scholar post-2008, and post-2019; see what you think. If anything, I think 1097 is primary. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Historically speaking, the title "Great Mosque" in Algeria is associated with mosques from the Almoravid period. There were only three mosques with this historical name:

• 1. Great Mosque of Nedroma
  2. Great Mosque of Tlemcen
  3. Great Mosque of Algiers

The mosque in question can't bear this title, as historically, it is linked to the older historical structure. The logo of the mosque explicitly states its name. Riad Salih (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Riad, Your claim that the current mosque "can't bear this title" is simply incorrect; it can, if that's what English sources call it, and they do. Your comment is an interesting historical aside, but it does not affect the determination of the correct title here, unless you can relate what you are saying to Wikipedia's Article title policy. The 2019 mosque clearly is identified as the "Great Mosque of Algiers" in English sources, and so is the 1097 mosque, by the same name. Which mosque is meant is usually clear from context, as if they are talking about the Middle Ages, it isn't the 2019 one. The only open question I see here, is which, if any, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as in the case of The Lion King), or whether neither is the primary topic (as in the Aladdin films). If you disagree, you would have to demonstrate that English sources *do not* call the 2019 mosque by the name, the "Great Mosque of Algiers"; good luck with that. Finally, your argument suffers a bit from the piped link you used in your third bullet, but not any of the others. But enough of this; time to start a formal move request. Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

English sources merely rely on Arabic accounts that describe the mosque by size rather than name, as its official name had not yet been decided. The mosque was inaugurated in 2024, not 2019.

If you have no interest in the topic, next time, initiate a move request directly and let the consensus decide, rather than making dismissive remarks like, "But enough of this"; no one appreciates having their time wasted." Riad Salih (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Actual usage in reliable sources is what determines the title, not the official name, which has little to no influence in this case. And most especially, not the official name in another language, which is why we call the famous Memorial Church in Berlin the "Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church" and not "Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche", and the big structure in western Paris the "Eiffel Tower" and not the "Tour Eiffel". Precisely the same thing here; it is all about what English sources call it, and they almost all call it "Great Mosque of Algiers" (with a small minority calling it the "Grand Mosque of Algiers"). That will be decisive in any move request. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)