User talk:Redrose64#Ref errors

Hi, RedRose64, I'd like to talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1272040047 this issue with the Victoria tram stop section of Manchester Victoria rail station's article. It's only a minor issue on what line(s) Victoria tram stop is on, but I really want to know what the problem is. I thought it be better to talk about this on a talk page instead of reverting each other's edits.

The lines that a tram stop is on is not exactly defined, but I have edited and reviewed every tram stop page related to Metrolink and used a common rule across all 99 articles: that the separate tram "lines" are defined by how they opened physically, and by line references across the network.

The different tram routes are different from the tram lines, and I'm certain that this is where the confusion lies.

You say that "trams to Rochdale bypass Victoria", and I agree. I don't agree that this means Victoria is on the Rochdale Line. The tram route from East Didsbury - Rochdale Town Centre operates through Victoria, yes, but the physical tram stop does not lie on the Rochdale Line's tracks. The Rochdale Line's tracks begin at Irk Valley Junction, like I said previously.

You also mentioned that I was implying that the line has no stops west of Monsall, and you'd be right. Again, the physical Rochdale Line tracks are at Monsall, but not Victoria. You also mentioned that this way would mean it's isolated from the rest of the network. I'm not saying that the Rochdale Line begins at Monsall, I'm saying it ends at Irk Valley Junction with the Bury Line. It would seem isolated if we were just talking about the stations, but I'm talking about the entire network, including the track.

You would be correct in saying the final stop for Rochdale-bound trams before getting onto the physical tracks would be Victoria, but this doesn't mean that the physical line begins there.

That's a long explanation, but I hope it makes sense, and I'd like if we could come to an agreement. Eccentral8688 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Eccentral8688}} I'm not claiming that trams to Rochdale bypass Victoria. My edit summary, in full, was {{tq|so trams to Rochdale somehow bypass Victoria, then?}} It's a question, asking how trams from the centre of Manchester can reach the Rochdale line without stopping at Victoria. There are no other routes out of the city centre; they must run via Victoria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::There is no way for trams from the centre of Manchester to reach the Rochdale Line without stopping at Victoria. That doesn't mean it's on the Rochdale Line's tracks, though Eccentral8688 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::You haven't replied back, so just to inform you, I'm going to redo my edit now. I have edited and reviewed every tram stop page related to Metrolink and used a common rule across all 99 articles: that the separate tram "lines" are defined by how they opened physically, and by line references across the network. In my personal opinion this seems fitting and makes more sense.

::The rule you're explaining would mean that Cornbrook tram stop for example, is not only on the Altrincham Line, but also the Eccles, Trafford Park, Didsbury (South Manc) and Airport Lines. This corresponds with the routes than run on the network as well, making the difference between "lines" and "routes" blurry and unclear.

::If you still think it's worth discussing, please reply, but in the meantime, I'm reverting the edit back and adding a small note. Eccentral8688 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, you win. That article can stay without a short description (or you could always add your own. I won’t revert it). Neiltonks (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on :Category:529 BC indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ty}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you for reverting the IP's edit on Vladimir Komarov, as it is a very important biography article on that Soviet Cosmonaut. I still like reverting vandalism too, because I don't want to spoil Wikipedia. I appreciate the efforts of rollbackers and recent changes patrollers like you. {{smiley|sad}} Gnu779 ( talk) 15:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any point to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&oldid=prev&diff=1286591872 this] at all. An anchor being present is not going to break the RfC bot (an incorrect RfC template would). Meanwhile, WP:FRS is directing people to "an RfC" at that page (without telling them what RfC it is), at an anchor that is gone, so directing editors to an actual RfC at the same page is actually useful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Yapperbot&offset=20250420003200&namespace=3&limit=11 these Yapperbot edits]. They are going to the correct place.

:For several years now, I have been following the RfC listings and how Legobot operates to maintain them, and fixed quite a large number of badly-constructed RfCs. The effects of some of these screwups had spilled over into the RfC listings with, sometimes, quite horrendous consequences. In this case, an effect of JacktheBrown reusing an rfcid value that had previously been used at Talk:Asquith Xavier was to add {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|prev|1286417586|this entry}} to the RfC listings, which is plainly wrong.

:One thing is absolutely certain: with one exception, nobody apart from Legobot itself should choose an rfcid value. Both Legobot and Yapperbot use them to uniquely distinguish one RfC from another. The one exception is when reactivating an old RfC on the same page, when exactly the same rfcid should be used as had previously been assigned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am contacting you as you left a comment on the Peer Review for One Direction. The article is currently at Featured Article Candidacy, and I would appreciate further comments to be redirected there. The link is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Direction/archive2.

Thanks, jolielover♥talk 08:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Jolielover}} If you check [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/One_Direction/archive2&action=history the page history], you'll see that I am already aware. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ty}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ombox

| name = First Edit Day

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, Gold, #FFF600);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy First Edit Day!
Hi Redrose64! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Redrose64&dir=prev&limit=1 your first edit] and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

:{{ty}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ty}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on :Category:Docklands Light Railway stations in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Liz}} Did you notice that the category was {{diff|Dagenham Dock railway station|prev|1289467344|emptied out of process}} just ten minutes earlier? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slam-door_train&diff=prev&oldid=1290085014 revert], I did read the (somewhat poorly written) article and tried my best to add a short desc. I would appreciate if you explained why it was wrong and provide a better alternative. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not all slam-door trains are multiple-units. Indeed, until the introduction of the British Rail Mark 4 coaches in 1989, all locomotive-hauled coaches had slam doors. A significant number of these remain, mainly in the charter fleets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! Though I'm not sure reading the article would've helped, since it states {{tpq|A slam-door train or slammer is a set of diesel multiple units (DMUs) or electric multiple units (EMUs)}}. What do you think would be a better alternative for a shortdesc (since you definitely have more train-related experience than I). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I appreciate your assistance there - I'm new to Wiki editing and still figuring how all of this stuff works. I didn't consider that the archive would need to be manually adjusted as well -- thank you! Gcollins94 (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Gcollins94}} One thing that you need to consider is that unless circumstances change, the next time that Lowercase sigmabot III runs, it will re-archive the thread that it archived last time. To prevent this happening, either post something to Talk:Cody Wilson#Regarding the facts at hand in the case of Cody Wilson, sex offender, and the definition thereof and sign that post, so that the most recent timestamp is less than 90 days; or extend the {{para|algo|old(90d)}} to something longer. Ideally, the RfC would not have been done as an entirely separate section, but as a subsection, so that it's clear that the two threads are closely related. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, when I posted that I was actually in the middle of getting assistance in the discord server. Such was my confusion at the time, I didn't actually know you could post a RfC within an existing thread. In hindsight, that would've been better and provided readers with much better context - I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever need to do this again, haha. Gcollins94 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that, I thought I'd deleted it but obviously hadn't. Much appreciated! 🙏🏻 Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey Redrose, long time no see! I must see about organising something in Portsmouth or Southampton as a half-way house for us both! Anyway, thanks for adding the latest Brighton meetup to all those various lists etc. I didn't know most of them existed! It seems like an awful lot of places to list things and steps to follow just to organise an informal get-together. Do you think there's scope to consolidate them or transclude a list from somewhere, or automate the process? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|HJ Mitchell}} There's a list-of-lists at m:User:Redrose64, which I put together more than ten years ago after noticing that different people had different ways of publicising meetups. Somebody at Oxford once did say that there should be only one list of meetups, but the problems include: (i) which one should it be; (ii) how do we persuade those who favour another list to add their meetup to the 'standard' list; (iii) how do we draw attention to the 'standard' list when those interested in going to meetups might have one of the others watchlisted; (iv) how do we handle two different requirements (namely, which ones are upcoming vs. keeping a permanent record); (v) you can't transclude from meta to en.wp or vice versa. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ty}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @Redrose64! Thanks for picking up on my attempt to request a change to the "Superstition in Africa" template. I'm having some trouble understanding how to make this request, and maybe you can help.

At the bottom of Superstition in Ethiopia there's a template labelled "Superstition in Africa". I think this is a bad name for a template, because the term "superstition" is inherently pejorative. I would suggest instead a name like "Traditional beliefs in Africa". But when I click on the edit link, I am taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAfrica_topic&action=edit. That's why a left a message on the talk page there.

How does one go about changing the "Superstition in Africa" template?

Thanks in anticipation for your help! Alarichall (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please see Template:Requested move#Shared talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I now see that I need to fill in and paste an adapted version of this code somewhere:

::

{{subst:requested move |reason=(the reason for the page move goes here). |current1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources |new1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}

::But I'm afraid I don't understand the instructions for where I am supposed to paste that. Would you be able to tell me? (And maybe the instructions themselves can be edited for clarity?) Alarichall (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The usual place is on the talk page of the existing name, but if that is a redirect, you would put it on the talk page of the new name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Alarichall}}: The "Superstition in Africa" template uses the template {{tl|Africa topic}} to automatically link to every article that starts with "Superstition in" and ends with the name of an African country. As you can see, there are only two such articles linked. You would have to get consensus to move each of those two articles to "Traditional beliefs in ..."; after that, it would be easy to change the template code at the bottom of each page to link to "Traditional beliefs in ..." pages. All of that said, the word "superstition" is used in reliable sources to describe the topics covered in those pages, so getting consensus to move those pages may not be easy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh, thanks for explaining this, @Jonesey95! OK, that makes sense. I'll see about moving those two articles. (Users are already unhappy with the naming of "Superstition in Nigeria" so consensus may not be so hard to build.) Alarichall (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::In your talk page posts, you may want to note that there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22Superstition+in%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 at least 13 articles] that use the word "superstition" in their titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, Redrose64. I don't mean to bother you or intrude, but I have a couple of little problems: one is a recurring message that won't get out of the way.

Cite warning: tag with name academia cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

The other is a rather confusing problem that even stumps me.

2.^ab Cite error: The named reference academia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I figured I seen your work, or rather, what you did for the Cinderella III: A Twist in Time Soundtrack section of the I Still Believe (Hayden Panettiere song) draft article on Wednesday, May 21st, 2025, at 07:15 A.M. so I figured you could help me by doing what you did for the Cinderella III: A Twist in Time Soundtrack section. 2601:401:4300:3720:A061:8694:102F:D61B (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:In {{diff|Draft:I Still Believe (Hayden Panettiere song)|next|1291762341|this edit}}, you added two instances of {{tag|ref|s|params=name="academia"}} but there is no matching {{tag|ref|params=name="academia"}} that they can relate to. Please see my post of 07:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC) at Help talk:Cite errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page :British Rail Class 455, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_455&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1291932556%7CBritish%20Rail%20Class%20455%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Redrose64§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:British Rail Class 455}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1291932556 report it to my operator].

Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I double checked this against various style guides, and it appears i have been, for decades, using these incorrectly.

There are hundreds of similar lists where I've confidently replaced commas with this stylistic error.

If might be easier to edit the style guide to allow this specific usage, and designate the change with a pithy reference to my mistakes.

noted. Augmented Seventh🎱 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Augmented Seventh}} It's a long-standing convention, that goes back to {{diff|Wikipedia:Manual of Style|prev|138095878|at least 14 June 2007}}. There was certainly much discussion about it at the time: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dashes#Proposed expanded version of advice on hyphens and dashes in MoS - that section and all those following it; also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 82. In view of that, I'm certainly not going to change it unilaterally; I suggest that you propose an amendment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for taking the time to inform.

::Valuable information.

::Have a Wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh🎱 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I see that you recently reverted multiple additions of short descriptions, including from articles that previously had none. "Class of train rolling stock" is pretty clear, a type of class for a train that is used as rolling stock. If you have better alternatives, please feel free to edit them. Keep in mind that short descriptions are meant to be short and use universally accepted facts (not train lines subject to change), avoid jargon (like Electric multiple unit), and avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (like repeating London Underground) per WP:SDAVOID Treeditor (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} there was a recent discussion on this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Danners430 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Treeditor}} Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#More short descriptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I see you're around. Could you, or whoever sees this first, undelete the revisions from 2002 to 2007 at Marrakesh Agreement for me, per [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/90642 this database query]? (The link won't always work because I might reuse it in the future). The page history there doesn't tell the whole story. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=Graham87&page=Marrakesh+Agreement&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist moved some revisions that were in the way] to Marrakesh Agreement/temp; if you could delete the latter page too, that'd be great. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Graham87}} OK, {{done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks again. Now that the undeletion is done I see that there was a page merge in the mix, making it more important to keep that history. Graham87 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed {{diff|Selby rail crash|prev|1291291227|your cleanup of overlinking}} the other day and chuckled at how many policies you cited. For future reference, MOS:GEOLINK precisely covers this exact situation. It's one of my pet peeves too, so I hope this comes in handy next time you do this cleanup as it's easy to just cite one MOS entry instead of three and an explanation. Cheers! Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to have a conversation with another editor please could you have it on their talk page, or yours, or one of the noticeboards, or by email, or post, or in a pub, or anywhere that isn't my talk page? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was pointing out that they left a post that was unreadable, and I did it right after that unreadable post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I had no problem reading it. I get notifications both on-wiki and off (by email) when people post on my talk page. It gets disruptive when they aren't anything to do with me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hiya! Do you have any idea where I might find a drawing or photo of the type of wheel that caused the Shipton-on-Cherwell train crash? Thanks Bob (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Robertpedley}} I don't know of any diagrams, but [https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Shipton1874.pdf#page=4 Colonel Yolland's report] has a description on page 5, column 2, paragraph beginning "The tyre which broke on this occasion". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Great suggestion! Unfortunately they didn't scan the illustrations in that report. I'll see if the Bod has an original. Bob (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You claim the description "Bristol KG5 ECW" is meaningless but that is how a large number of British bus pictures are captioned. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:The chassis is a Bristol K5G. The bodywork is by ECW. These are two separate pieces of information. Pushing them together makes it seem like ECW is some variant on the basic K5G, like VW Golf GTi. Also, examples please for your statement "that is how a large number of British bus pictures are captioned". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::To be cheeky :-), quite a few [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Murgatroyd49#Buses here] Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rose. I am here to explain my use of capital letters. Occasionally, if I ask for clarification within the bare code of a page, such as today when I added a Clarify template, my block letters are not intended as rudeness or shouting, rather, I deliberately deploy capitals for legibility within the visual busyness of bare article code, which ordinary article readers do not see. Indeed, the legibility I provide using capitals is intended as ergonomic helpfulness.

Of course, I understand another reading is possible (shouting) but that is not what I am, in fact, doing. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." As I say, sometimes capital letters are just big letters – to help other editors to find and see among all the article code what kind of clarification is being requested. Cheers. Spideog (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting. It applies to non-talk pages too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sigh. I went to some effort to explain that it wasn't shouting, and concluded clearly that "sometimes capital letters are just big letters". I thought that clarification couldn't be clearer. It was, as I said, for ergonomic clarity. As someone with professional experience in ergonomics and documentation, I have form in this area.

::The link you provided above is for Talk pages but I did not use capitals in a Talk page. Also, that guideline says capitals are "rarely appropriate" – it says rarely, not never.

:: But I'll leave it at that. I'm not convinced you will let the "shouting" interpretation go, no matter what I say. Spideog (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There were two different station sites in this settlement. Was the reason for the second of these two stations anything to do with the line connection of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:No; see Saxby railway station#History, first paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Many thanks. I have now had sight of a very old OS large map with both stations marked upon it since I wrote to you. Do I take it that the small Saxby stations line drawing on the Wikipedia article showing Saxby Goods will be that of the first of those two stations, which goods were handled upon after the opening of the second station?

::Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As our article states, the original station on a stub of the original line continued in use for goods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my errors in rating the pages! Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)