Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Moving the edit-talk-log-watch links

Resolved.

I have noticed that people edit the texts in this template to keep the content as compact as possible. But now the actual text content of this template is only 40% of its total height. Personally I think the text content can be allowed to be much larger, but since some wants this template to be small I have made a slightly more compact version of this template. (Then you guys can perhaps allow a little more space for the text content?) See {{cent/core/sandbox}}. See {{cent/core/test1}}.

I have done the following changes in the /sandbox version:

• I moved the "edit-talk-log-watch" links down to the "Archive" field. Thus making the template one line less high.
• I renamed the "log" link to "history", since the name "log" was confusing.
• I fixed the double border bottom this template had.
• I added the missing ":" in the margin style. The current template thus has no margins, while the /sandbox version has 0.5em margin all around. I know some editors prefer no margin, so this might need some discussion.
• I removed the "metadata" class. That class makes it so the template doesn't print to paper. But this template is not used on articles. When we print project space pages then we probably want to see everything on them.
• I did a lot of other cleanup to the styles, classes and code in this template. But that cleanup doesn't cause any visible changes.

So, can I deploy this updated version?

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Visually, I prefer the "edit-talk-log-watch" where they were, because it creates a more aesthetically pleasing effect with the extra white space around the logo. I have no issue with any of the other edits, although I'm a little concerned that we aren't currently allowing cent to be utilised to it's full potential, if we're constrained to 40% of height. Hiding T 12:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• I like it. I like having all the "tool links" at the bottom. Good use of the otherwise empty space. Seems to make more sense there -- most people are reading this most of the time (not editing), so put the content first, tools second. • I have an idea/suggestion: Why not put the icon and title side-by-side? Save a little vertical space, and still leaves plenty of horizontal whitespace, I think. Something like this. Feel free to revert/improve if you don't like. • Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiding: Yes, having those links directly under the image did look nicer. But as DragonHawk points out, having them at the bottom in a way is more logical. But mostly I/we are trying to please the editors that want this box to be as small as possible. (Personally I don't mind a big box.)

The text area in the box isn't technically limited to 40% of the height. We can add any number of lines. It's just that currently, after the other editors have been compacting the text lines in it, the text only takes up 40% of the height. So that's why I mean we should instead compact the surrounding stuff, and instead use longer and clearer text lines.

DragonHawk: Eww, putting the image and the title on the same line is slightly ugly. But it is more compact. So I think I am "weakly opposed". Thus I guess it is up to the rest of you guys to decide which variant you prefer. (I tested your box variant in all my browsers and at both very low and very high screen resolutions. Your code works fine, it allows both a very thin and a very wide box.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no issue with the current design, so in that sense then I guess I weakly oppose any change. I don't think there's impetus on making the box as small as possible, but rather making the text as succinct as possible. So I guess we'll have to wait further input. I'd prefer not to sacrifice style for no good reason. I don't like DragonHawk's modifications at all. Hiding T 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this?. It remind me of the Navbox styling with a right aligned image... it has a slight issue on a very small resolution, but I noticed the prior revision also has that issue. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Izno: I don't like how your version looks. And I know some people like to set this box to be much thinner when they have it on their user pages. But your version can not become as thin as the current, my and DragonHawk's versions, so the users that set a thinner box width will be disappointed.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. It's a consequence of using the full words on the same line as the image...

What about converting to divs? That would solve the problem, because divs fail a bit more gracefully when you want the appearance of something floating, which is what I was aiming for. For example, when the template is very small, it looks like your version or his version, but when it's big, it looks like mine. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I prefer the icon-side-by-side-with-title style. I'm thinking it's similar to the ambox templates. But I'd chalk this one up to personal preference; I don't require anyone to agree with me. So unless there's a sudden outpouring of people demanding the side-by-side look (grin), I'd say keep the title-above-icon look, status quo. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We tried divs for the article message boxes and discovered the hard way that divs aren't a mature technology. They give all kinds of weird box flow problems in different browsers, even in some of the latest more well known browsers. The only thing that works decently in all browsers is tables.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but amboxes are also seen by everyone reading the wiki. Surely it wouldn't kill this template to gracefully degrade when this template isn't seen by everyone using the wiki out there? --Izno (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this template is seen by enough people that it would generate a lot of complaints. Wikipedia's got almost ten million named accounts; even if only 10% of those are legit, and even if only 10% of those read this template, and even if only 10% of those have trouble, that's still 10,000 people with trouble. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - See section Options below. --David Göthberg (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Default width

I just changed the current {{cent/core}} to use if-cases instead of pipe-trick for the default values in the width and float parameters, so they work correctly also when getting empty but defined parameters. I see that {{cent/core}} uses width=45%, which I find nice. But {{cent}} overrides that to width=auto. We know that using width=auto causes problems in many browsers. In my Firefox 2.0 it causes the box to take up 2/3 of the page width, which looks really bad. And in my other browsers it makes it take up even more width. So I would like to set {{cent}} to use the default in {{cent/core}} which is 45%.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - See next section. --David Göthberg (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Options

Resolved.

Is there a way to make the top part of the template collapsible? We've added it to several of the high-traffic areas, but a lot of white-space sometimes throws the formatting off. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would go against the whole point of the template, which is advertising the discussions; hiding them would defeat that purpose. I agree with your end goal, though. Anyone have any ideas for fixing the formatting?--Aervanath (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could try using the float parameter to move it around a bit. But even if we could get just the top part with the logo to auto-collapse, I think it would help. I don't really want the actual discussion listings to collapse even. — Ched :  ?  06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't add collapsible to a right-floating template like this. It will break in so many browsers. Instead see section Moving the edit-talk-log-watch links above where we suggest some more compact designs for this template.

And we could add a parameter like "compact=no/yes/very" that removes the image and some other stuff. See my examples of the new design, and the "compact=" parameter at {{cent/core/test1}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this? It adds a compact= parameter, which hides everything but the text title and the list of centralized discussion. You can see it in action at Template:Cent/core/testcases. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh, it appears both David Göthberg and I were working in the same direction at the same time.  :) • David, in your test cases, in my browser (Firefox 3.0.7), the "Centralized discussion" heading is flush left, rather than centered like it is in the "production" template. Is that intentional? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, to add a "compact=" parameter is a pretty natural conclusion after one has read all the discussions on this talk page. Note that my code also contains lots of other fixes, among other things so this box should look good in all browsers and all screen resolutions.

The "Centralized discussion" heading is centred in all my browsers. I changed from using a <td> cell with "text-align: center;" to a <th> cell, since th cells are automatically centred here at Wikipedia and that title were anyway bold. My first guess was that perhaps th cells aren't centred in some skins and you are using one of those skins. So I tested, but the heading is centred in all skins. Could you bypass your browser cache and then take a new look?

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

←←← Outdent ←←←

I'm using the MonoBook skin. I've tried bypassing my cache, purging the page, and bypassing again. Also tried cache bypass on all the stylesheets I could find. Same result. This is at work, on Firefox 3.0.8 on Win XP. Before was on Linux at home. MSIE 6 (also at work) does show the heading centered. Perhaps a difference in browser CSS implementation? I see something like this with {{talkheader}}, too.

Other than this centering issue (which isn't really your fault), I applaud the work you've done at {{cent/core/test1}}. • One suggestion: I think it might be more appropriate for compact=yes to omit the "Proposals/Discussions/Recurring proposals" line as well. I doubt anyone wanting a compact template needs a link to find WP:PUMP. They might want the quick links for {{cent}} though. • Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks folks. I appreciate ya'all jumping on this so quickly, and taking the efforts to make things look a little smoother. ;)— Ched :  ?  18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm on Firefox 3.09 and it works here. My favourite so far is the bottom right one, but obviously that is the compact version. My initial distaste of moving the links down to the bottom seems to have passed. Coming in now cold with no reference to the old version I have no problem. I guess I am just becoming old and resistant to change. ;) Hiding T 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ched: We aim to please!

DragonHawk: I like to use both belt and suspenders when I build things. And we want our templates to work in as many browsers as possible. So I have now added "text-align: center;" to the header. I think you should now see it centred in all your browsers. Tell me if the other rows need hardcoded centring too. The image and the other two blue rows should be centred. Only the dotted list should not be centred.

I agree, that "Proposals - Discussions - Recurring proposals" row isn't very nice when the image is removed. So I changed "compact=yes" to remove that line too. If anyone wants a semi-compact setting where only the image is removed then I can easily add that. Perhaps named "compact=some". Which would make it "compact=no/some/yes/very".

Hiding: Yeah, I also often resist change, until I get used to the new thing. Which one do you mean is your favourite? The "compact=very" example, or the "width=200px" example?

And I would like to deploy this version now. Do you guys agree?

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I still have the centering problem after an update to Firefox 3.0.9. However, if I start Firefox from a new profile, it looks fine. So it's something about my Firefox profile. I tried Firefox's safe mode, which is suppose to disable all extensions, and that didn't fix it. So I guess it's something funky that crept into a data file somewhere, or something. The weird part is that my config at home is independent from this one, and it has the same problem. Very strange. Whether you want to hardcode for a bug that may be quite rare is your call. • I can confirm that hardcoding fixes it for me, and that the other two header rows have the same behavior.

As far as deployment goes, I say go for it. Looks good, real improvements, tested by several people. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - I have deployed the new version, and documented it.

DragonHawk: I got an edit conflict with you when I was going to save my new version of the /doc for this template. I saved my version anyway, to show it. Now we should compare our versions and see how to merge them. I have some points about that:

1: Note that the default width is now 45%, not "auto".

2: I think that your parameter explanations are too technical. As you can see I opted to use examples instead. But I am not satisfied with my version either. I was/am planning to take a look at it again in some day.

3: I prefer to have the "Editing / Adding items" section at the top, since it is much shorter than the "Usage" section. And I think that adding/editing items in the list is more common than needing instructions how to place {{cent}} on a page. And someone that is going to add something to the list might not expect instructions about that in the doc, so might not look for them. But someone wanting to know about the template parameters expects they are in the doc and thus will scroll down.

4: I see that you expanded the old instructions on where this template can/should be placed. While I shrunk the old instructions about that. I thought that those instructions should perhaps be kept at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. But your expanded instructions are good, and it is probably convenient to have them in the template doc too. So we should probably add them. But I'd like to skip the page-pair sentence. Here is a version of the instructions that I wrote but didn't save:

This template should normally be placed at the top of any page to which it refers. It is also placed on a number of community pages where many users see it, thus drawing attention to the discussions announced in it. You can also place this template on your own user page if you want to keep track of the community discussions.

I am to mushy in my head now to merge our versions. So if you feel like doing it, go ahead.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The width=200 was my favourite, if that helps any? Hiding T 12:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

width=45% looks terrible on a widescreen monitor; the text only takes up half the box so there's a ton of empty space. What was wrong with it before? Mr.Z-man 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man: See previous section. {{cent/core}} already had the 45% default width. But {{cent}} did override that and instead set a default of "width=auto". But that "width=auto" setting breaks in older browsers. And even in newer browsers when using 800x600 in screen resolution it caused the box to be 60-80% of the page width, which looked really bad. Among other things it squeezed the table of contents badly on the pages it was used, when using lower screen resolutions.

What we could do is to set it to a fixed width in pixels. That should work in all browsers and will perhaps work fairly well in most screen resolutions.

And that is why I asked Hiding exactly which one he preferred. Since if we can find out which width setting the majority of users prefer, then we can set the default width to that. Personally I am not sure which setting I prefer, either somewhere around 40-45%, or perhaps 220-270px or so.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WAY COOL - Thanks guys, great work, and I appreciate it! — Ched :  ?  23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

Decision on how many edits and/or length of time before applicants are normally granted reviewer status on the Flagged Protection Trial.

Is this significant enough to be advertised here? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll add it. hmwithτ 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I misunderstood. I thought it was more of a discussion. Unless you want a lot of comment on it, I don't think it should be posted, but I could be wrong. hmwithτ 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Too long

This list is getting too long with old discussions remaining. Can I go remove some without spending hours archiving and figuring out the conclusions of the discussions? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just click through and see how active the discussion is. If it's not active anymore, then feel free to remove it. No archiving required; there's no obligation that the discussion be closed before it is removed from the template.--Aervanath (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think archiving meant transferring to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. I'll go do some. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize we were supposed to do that. Good thing I haven't been one of the folks removing discussions then. :) --Aervanath (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Too long again

It may make sense to add a hidden text dating and remove stale ones. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Something like this, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Now we just have to keep trimming it down. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved archive note

In case there's some objection, I'm starting a thread regarding these two edits, in which I've moved the note suggesting archival of inactive discussions to the "core" template; if it's kept in the content, itself, it will still be displayed in "compact" mode, which seems undesired to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose a two week or so time limit

I wonder if we can't let discussions be archived after two weeks or less? when most regulars would likely have seen the template a few times. It seems to be getting awfully long and my hunch is that it's becoming noise and ignored a bit. Thoughts? Other ideas? -- Banjeboi 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking very anecdotally, I currently see eight entries from July, and eight from August (16 total); how many entries is too many? I'd personally say five or fewer is on the low side, and ten or more is getting to be on the high side. Timing entries is simple -- so it could work, certainly -- but I'm not sure if it's ideal. Just brainstorming other ideas: some more aggressive management and culling of old discussion, multiple levels of subscription with a default setting that trims to just a few entries, a more newsletter-based format that sends a smaller number of links more often, and so on. I've always been a big fan of this effort, and I think it'll be great if we can keep it running smoothly. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would ditch the ones from July then unless there is compelling reason not to. If we could auto age off anything too old keeping a minimum it would seems to be more friendly. I think it's overwhelming to have too many but what exactly is too many is certainly subjective. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. I agree that the Template seems to be approaching the point of being unmanageably and unreadably long. On the other hand, I like to do a lot of pondering before votes and some discussions, so if they're still live, it's nice to have access to them. (It's going to take me some time, for example, to assimilate the one about correct titles for Ireland's island and state, given the long arguments and many choices.) —— Shakescene (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's a sign of an exceptional discussion that would linger? -- Banjeboi 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal vote (sic)

If Wikipedia is not a democracy, why are we advertising something as a "formal vote"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That particular poll is binding for the next two years, which is about the level of a formal vote (compare board and arbcom elections). I wouldn't push that, as it's a tender area to begin with, as it has already been to ArbCom. Let it chill. --Izno (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Drop archiving?

Could we drop the rather tedious archive requirement? This list is always too long, and does anybody go to the cent archive to check old discussions anyway? As more people learn about this template we will either have to set requirements before adding something, or make it easy to remove old or unimportant topics. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the archiving as possibly helpful although it's just a start compared with how many community discussions should be listed there but aren't. Maybe there's another solution like adding a template at each discussion compelling editors there to add a note to the list. And possible we can list the removed items until they are archived? -- Banjeboi 05:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Just a quick note, the "Wikipedia Forever" discussion entry is currently being, er, discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advice please. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hullo all, looking for places to advertise that voting has begun in the ArbCom elections. Would it be kosher to advertise a vote on this template, or is that evil?  Skomorokh  03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse

This is the centralized discussion template, yes? I strongly oppose the inclusion of the above petition, which invites users to sign their names (thereby expressing 100% agreement with one author's precise, unilateral wording), with the only other option being to do nothing. There is no opportunity to express a dissenting viewpoint or engage in any sort of discussion whatsoever, and the author's response to criticisms is that the petition "doesn't really have to" gauge anything meaningful because "it is what it is" and "people can guage what they like from it." Well, it "is" something other than a discussion, and there isn't even an assertion that it "is" something that will in any way benefit the community.
I reject the claim that the past inclusion of petitions set a "precedent." Those instances probably were wrong too, and I understand that the petitions in question drew similar criticisms. Let's learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them. —David Levy 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that if I were the point-making type, I would add a link to my new petition. —David Levy 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that petitions do not belong here. There does need to be a place to advertise petitions though. I see that the IAR petition is already at the community bulletin board, which is an appropriate place.-gadfium 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I support the sentiments behind this particular petition, I don't think petitions are the wiki way (in fact, they're the sort of tactic typical of the abusive group which this petition rails against - I remember how they set up a petition and then "owned" it to mislead people and stifle opposition). Will anyone sign a petition to ban petitions? (Certainly keep them off this tempate.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All these BLP proposals

How many of these are there going to be? Is the discussion going to get centralized in any one place? Can some of them be removed from this template?--Kotniski (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

JD Salinger

{{editprotect}} There is a heated discussion about File:JD Salinger.jpg at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg. It should probably be in central discussion.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility of links

Old format, from before all this started

At the time of writing, {{Cent}} (see subst version, alongside) has six links comprising only the word "Discussion", each linking to different targets.

WCAG web accessibility guidelines tell us:

13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2] Link text should be meaningful enough to make sense when read out of context -- either on its own or as part of a sequence of links.

For example, we could change:

• Discussion on implementation of bureaucrat removal of admin/crat flags.
• Discussion about a possible contest to help reference BLP articles.

to, say:

• Implementation of bureaucrat removal of admin/crat flags.
• Possible contest to help reference BLP articles.

(in all cases, the word "discussion" is in any case redundant to the template's title).

I'd like to both fix the template as it currently is; and find a form of words suitable for its documentation, to advise future editors on how to avoid this pitfall. I've made a start on the former. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, my switch was to maintain the standard that has been implemented for a good bit now. Let's try and make a style which is standardized in the same vein. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

NP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's sensible to only have one link for each entry. So, for example:

• Discussion on how to balance BLP concerns with WikiProject article tagging

should become:

• How to balance BLP concerns with WikiProject article tagging.

with any secondary links (BLP, WikiProject) being available from the linked discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK; I've had a stab at that ; here's how it looks after tweaking: Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! I've long thought that WP:CENT could have been improved that way. Your action spurred to make further changes (hopefully seen as improvements). To wit:

• Put the uniquely identifying information first. "Proposed amendment to Admin policy for crat removal of admin/crat flags" should put "Crat removal of admin/crat flags" first because that's what it's about. The fact that it's a "proposed amendment to admin policy" is secondary. This gives people context first (usually increases understanding), and it makes it easier to scan the left column for the item(s) one is looking for.
• De-emphasize "proposal", "change", etc. Most things on WP:CENT deal with proposed changes; it's the nature of the beast. Repeating it at the start makes it harder to scan the entries. They're best mentioned in a parenthetical or trailing phrase.
• In general, favor brevity. Keeping things short (almost like a newspaper headline) is appropriate here, I think.
• Remove non-functional leading noun markers (articles), i.e., "a proposal" becomes "proposal".
• Removed trailing periods. These aren't sentences.

Comments, objections, suggestions, are welcomed, as always. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All good stuff. I've subst the version with your amendments, alongside:

[Stale subst removed; permalink ]

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS:DAB#Individual entries might be handy for reference or comparison. On the whole, I like the thrust of the change. I personally find it a little harder to read the text, now that it's all linked (as opposed to mixed links and plaintext), but I don't know if that'll be a common complaint or not. ;) If it is, we might experiment a little, whether with link formatting suggestions or just by playing with font color or size. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) I agree that with all of each entry linked, it was turning somewhat into a "sea of blue text", which didn't help. I've tried to address that, by moving the secondary text ("proposal", etc.) outside of the link. Before, after. Improvement? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)