Talk:Talyllyn Railway

On to Featured Article?

What do we think about pushing on and nominating this for Featured Article? I think we're in generally good shape, and seem to meet the primary criteria quite well. A few things I think we could still do:

1. I'd like to take another pass at the prose to see what could be tightened up and made to flow better. Any suggestions or help are welcome Done
2. I've rearranged the two images for the Abergynolwyn Village Branch section so they don't sit either side of the text. What do others think? Is there a better way to include them? I think both the map and the picture are important to give a sense of the branch, but putting them both on the right would leave a large gap of whitespace under the text Done
3. Another pass on the references is needed to remove duplication - I managed to introduce some more last night, sorry Done
4. Resolve the Route table issue to everyone's satisfaction  Done
5. Consider adding details about the operation and permanent way of the railway. These could be one or two sub-articles with short cross-links from here to avoid this article getting too large Done
6. Expand the lead slightly - this could grow to three paragraphs to summarize the main points of the article. Done

Any other ideas? Gwernol 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re #2 - I've moved both images to the left, and it hasn't caused a big area of whitespace on my screen. The heading "Galltymoelfre Tramway" is at the bottom of the second image. Personally I'd prefer a piture each side if the alternative is a large area of white space - pictures can always be moved when the text has been expanded. The only other thing I've noticed is that the interactive map could be expanded in width so that it takes the whole width of the page rather than most of it. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact positioning of the images depends on the width of your browser window. I browse with my window about 1200 pixels wide, so what I see now is the village incline picture to the right of the text on the village incline. Directly below that is the Galltymoelfre Tramway text with the village incline map to its righht. Below that is a large block of whitespace with the Cantrybedd incline picture on the right. Looks ugly. If I reduce my window to around 600 pixels in width, there is much less whitespace, but the village incline map is still aligned mostly with the Galltymoelfre Tramway text, not the Village Branch text. The effect varies depending on your thumbnail size preference too. That's why I prefer having the two Vllage Branch images below the text - that way they stay associated with the text they are related to. It is a non-standard layout though.

For the main map - is there a way in Wiki markup to specify it should be full screen width? I don't know of one. Gwernol 07:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way, and even if there was it would be hampered by the <imagemap> tags used to make the map clickable. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the current revision I just get a lot of white space under the text adjacent to the Cantrybedd incline image - I tend to agree with Gwernol here - it may well be non standard however looks better than a large mass of white as I see on my browser. - The other option would be to take the Cantrybedd picture out and move it to somewhere else - perhaps into the Bryn Eglwys article although would be a loss to the main article  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 13:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to do:

7. Go through all links, to ensure first reference of something is linked where appropriate, avoiding overlinking and ensuring the article conforms to MOS:LINK. I'll look at this tonight. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Done

Route table - We didn't really come to a consensus on the route table from the discussions above. Would it be appropriate to just add a grid reference column to the table and leave it without co-ordinates then we could tick off No 4 too if everyone is happy!  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That would work for me. Any objections or refinements? Gwernol 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd prefer to see it removed completely, but I'm happy to go along with the consensus. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section about the operation of the line as per #5. I've not put too much in about the type of token working used as I feel it's a bit too detailed for this article, but feel free to make any improvements you see necessary. I could do with a ref for the final sentence, as I haven't found one yet. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a reference from Rolt 1965. Gwernol 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Towyn // Tywyn

This is something that we might be picked up on if going for FA status. As far as I know we haven't touched on this yet: The historical spelling of Tywyn is Towyn - the Welsh spelling Tywyn only being formerly adopted in 1975 (see Bate page 186). Is it appropriate to use the old spelling in the article for events pre 1975 and Tywyn post 1975. Is there a convention on wikipedia for situations like this? Any comments?  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would open up that can of worms sooner or later :-)

The simplest way to tackle this is to used modern spellings consistently, which is how the article is written now. This simplicity comes at the price of some historical accuracy though. Tywyn/Towyn is one example, others include Aberdyfi/Aberdovey, Hendy/Hen-du, Pendre/Pentref. Then there is the vexatious issue of hyphens. Do we use Tal-y-llyn or Talyllyn or Tal y llyn. How about Ty-mawr vs. Tymawr or Fach-coch vs Fachgoch. Is the halt at Tynllwynhen, Tynllwyn hen or Tynllwyn-hen - and there are several other variations on that particular name. All of these variants come from reliable sources, some from the same reliable source. Given the complexity, I say we keep this article using contemporary spelling - which generally means Welsh rather than Anglecised (or is that Anglecized?) spelling. Articles like Tywyn can explain the deeper history of their naming, where appropriate. This avoids adding complexity to the article. Maybe we should add a footnote to explain that we have adopted this policy? What do others think? Gwernol 14:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked a similiar question about Tonbridge (was originally spelled Tunbridge until changed by GPO in 1870s) without getting an answer. I'd say stick to the modern spellings for reasons given above. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a footnote explaining that modern spelling is used in the article. Hopefully that will help readers. Gwernol 13:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryn Eglwys lease

In the Declining fortunes section it states As McConnel's lease drew to its close, there was no prospect of a further lessor coming forward... Presumably McConnel paid for the lease, rather than owning the land, therefore shouldn't this be lessee rather than lessor? Incidentally, who did he lease the land from? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoop, yes it should read lessee, well spotted. I believe the lessor was the estate of John Pughe, I'll need to check in Boyd 1988 though - I'm sure he covers the details. Best, Gwernol 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference and updated it. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

There seem to be a number of, sorry, ten instances of the phrase "a number of" or "several". Some of these are justified, but can we use exact figures where available? Even approximate values would be acceptable. For example "a number of goods vehicles in use". Five? Fifty? Five hundred? I know I'm guilty of using the phrase, but I've cleared up a couple, and I'll see what I can do about the rest. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately most of these are vague because we have no more precise information (that I can find). The example of the number of goods wagons at opening is a good one - all the sources I have say there were "a number of" wagons. This is not surprising at this distance in time, and I don't hold out much hope of getting real figures. Gwernol 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article

I've nominated the article at WP:FAC. Gwernol 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

Now that we have grid references for the stations, shall I add the co-ordinates too? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I've had some comments back from a friend, who's read through a printed copy of the article and made some constructive criticism. I've updated the article to reflect this.

Unfortunately this article hasn't made it through WP:FAC on the first attempt. It's been suggested we take it to peer review before trying again. As there seems to be no further updates at the moment, I'll put it forward. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been an automated review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/April 2008#Talyllyn Railway. This contains several comments that need to be addressed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of stations

I've been bold and moved the list of stations to a separate article. I know the idea's been rejected before, but it was suggested in the peer review and I still feel this is the best solution. I've linked to it at the top of the route section. Hopefully you'll agree with me that this method works - if not feel free to improve/revert as you see fit. I've also merged some of the route sections together, as per PR - this could do with some improvement. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric gauge

Hi there

I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and upon seeing the existing quality of the article I figured I would help get it to FA status by giving it a thorough copy edit and so on. I noticed that one point which was picked up before was the failure to use {{convert}} for the measurements, so I've started to add that in, but I've noticed that it auto-converts the 2 ft 3 in gauge to 690mm, whereas the article previously stated 686mm. Not knowing much about gauges I don't know if the 4mm is significant - if the article were to state 690mm throughout would that be a major problem.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In some places at least the {{RailGauge}} template is used which gives 27. Checking with Google Calculator says that 2 feet 3 inches = 68.58 centimetres which agrees with th figures from the {{RailGauge}} rather than the 690mm you got from {{convert}}. I'd suggest {{RailGauge}} is used throughout. --Zabdiel (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to solve the problem is thus in all cases: 2 ft 3 in (0.686 m) or 2 feet 3 inches (0.686 m). The key is "|sigfig=3". Peter Horn User talk 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) or 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm) where "|0" gives the extra precision. Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've done on this article - hopefully it'll be in a position for reassessment for FA soon. Coincidentally, I was in Tywyn today and took some more photos of carraiges for the rolling stock article - I'll add these soon. As far as the us of {{Railgauge}} goes, the only disadvantage of it is that it does not (currently) allow units to be expanded in full (i.e. feet and inches rather than ft and in). This is required, at least for the first instance, by WP:UNITS. I've therefore put this back to a manual entry for the first the gauge is stated in the main text. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange fact

Just a random fact. If you search for Railway in google, the Talyllyn Railway is the third choice for some reason.... Simply south (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true if you search on www.google.co.uk but not on www.google.com. Its perhaps not so strange that the TR website would come up first on the UK-specific Google page. Best, Gwernol 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I just tried a different neutral one one and for some reason NXEC was first. Simply south (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

The article has just been passed as a Featured Article. This is something we all should be proud of, and I'd personally like to thank all the contributors who have helped. Especial thanks to Tivedshambo and Chris who have made major efforts to improve the article recently. Best, Gwernol 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And thanks of course to you too, Gwernol. Well done everyone! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! And hopefully a few more little tweaks will enable the "List of stations and halts" article to go to FLC next...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating the obvious....

....encyclopediawise. This article doesn't tell us what country the Talyllyn Railway is in. It does say that it's on the Mid-Wales coast. I come from New South Wales. Is it anywhere near there? Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The country is Wales, as stated, though I see the article's now been changed to state UK as well. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, no one calls New South Wales just "Wales." Brutannica (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiveshambo, Brutannica, I am not a total fool. If the article had said that the railway was in "Wales" then I would not have made the comment. It read, as per my comment, that it was on the "Mid-Wales coast". The first sentence needed to give a clear geographical location. As I pointed out, "Wales" occurs in the name "New South Wales" as well as "Mid-Wales coast". My reference to NSW was intended to be mildly humourous, but make a definite point about the ommission. I notice:

• that another such foolish person as myself left a similar comment
• that someone fixed it, probably before you got back to inform me that "The country is Wales, as stated". Just remember that my timezone is 10 hours ahead of yours, so when you write back to me, it's already my yesterday. Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Brutannica, before air travel made "Home" (AKA "the old country") as accessible as it is now, New South Wales was frequently referred to simply as "Wales". This is reflected in the fact that the Westpac Banking Corporatation (previously The Bank of New South Wales) chose to call itself by a name beginning with "W". The reason for this is that the bank was always called "The Wales" and its logo was a big red "W", not an "NSW" as might be expected. (Australians tend to abreviate names). Whatismore, there is a breed of horses that have rather heavy heads, straight necks, deep chests, strong legs and high withers and are called "Walers". That's because they come from New South Wales, not Wales, as one might expect. They were taken to the UK by the Australian Light Horse in 1914 and proved very suitable for the hunt and steeplechase. Some horses were left in England after the War. Most were left behind in the Middle East or slaughtered. None was shipped home. Some of the horses currently used by the Household Cavalry appear to have a lot of Waler in their makeup. Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was certainly not my intention to imply you were a fool, and if that's the impression you got then I apologise profusely. What I meant was that Mid-Wales has always been linked, as you point out, although I agree that there was no direct link to the Wales article itself. My other point is that I personally don't believe that it's necessary to clarify where Wales is, as per the FA examples I listed below. What I was trying to get across is that they state that the subjects relate to Wales, but not that Wales is part of the UK. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the text on the front page

Reading the front page of Wikipedia today, I read the text about the Talyllyn Railway. In no place was it obvious for a lay-person where is this railway situated in the world? I guessed UK or Australia, and discovered the answer when I clicked on to the article itself. I believe this should be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.243.61 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the blurb so the front page now reflects the changes made to this article. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to clarify that Wales refers to the UK, not New South Wales. Personally I tend to think it's obvious, but on the other hand it's difficult to judge how well known places on your doorstep really are. The only thing I can compare it with are other Welsh FA's such as Wales national rugby union team, Slate industry in Wales and Tom Pryce. None of these seem to think it necessary to clarify that Wales is part of the UK. What do others think? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of sentences later it say "first narrow gauge railway in Britain authorised...". Assuming by Britain we mean the United Kingdom (rather than Great Britain), this ought to be changed and linked? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What needed to be clarified, Tivedshambo, was that the railway is, in fact, in Wales. This was not stated. The "Slate industry in Wales" states that it is "in Wales". So does the "Wales national rugby football team". So does the "Tom Pryce" article. This article did not state what country the railway is in, at the time that I wrote my comment, and, presumably, at the time that the unnamed editor above left their comment also. If you look back at the edit summaries, you will find out who fixed it and when. It occurred about 100 edits ago. Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Amandajm, see my comments in the previous section. To reply to Jza84, changing Britain to the United Kingdom is not as clear-cut as it may seem. As I understand it (though I may be mistaken), back in th 1860s the UK included what is now the whole of Ireland, as well as England, Scotland and Wales. Britain refers only England, Scotland and Wales. (Apologies if I'm explaining what you already know). Now, Ireland had a large amount of narrow gauge, so it may be that there was a steam passenger line authorised there that pre-dated the Talyllyn. I'll check the two sources cited for this tonight, and see what they state. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Mitchell & Eyres specifically states that the Talyllyn was "the first narrow gauge railway in Britain to be built for steam operation" (my italics), so I'm inclined to leave it as that. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links to on-line video

I've removed the links to the you-tube videos added here. Whilst you-tube links are not banned outright (see WP:YOUTUBE), I feel they should only be used where they contribute something of value to the article, e.g. to provide evidence of something that is not otherwise referenced. Unfortunately, I cannot view the videos at present, as my home PC is out of commission, and youtube is blocked on my office pc as company policy. If it's felt that either of these videos do add to the article, feel free to reinstate them, but these should be in the external links section at the end, rather than a separate section in the middle. What we should avoid are long lists of unnecessary links to fan sites, home videos etc. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead pic

I think that you can probably afford to say that it's a saddle tank engine. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 10:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not included in the nationalisation

The article states:

In 1947 the British railway system was nationalised and the Talyllyn was one of the few operating railways not included. The reasons for this are unclear, but it is significant that all official mention of the railway had ceased several decades before and it is likely that the line was simply forgotten by officialdom.

A check of the Transport Act 1947, third schedule (pp. 145-6) shows that not only was the Talyllyn not nationalised, but no independent narrow-gauge railways were nationalised. It is true that several n.g. railways did become part of the British Railways system: but these (the Corris, Welshpool & Llanfair and the Vale of Rheidol) were already part of the Great Western Railway, so under Part II, section 14 of the Act, these would have needed additional legislation to separate them off and so avoid nationalisation.

In the main text of the Act, Part II, section 13 is relevant: it implies that the railways which were to be nationalised were those which had come under Government control during World War II, under the Defence (General) Regulations 1939. Such railways would have been those used for the carriage of troops, munitions and other vital supplies; if slate didn't come under that heading, it's no surprise that the Talyllyn didn't come under Government control. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

By 1947, were there any other "independent" narrow-gauge railways still in operation in Great Britain ? The only one that comes to mind is the Snailbeach, which was never a passenger-carrying public railway. RGCorris (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talyllyn Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401155246/http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-10-30/Top_engineering_honour_for_railway_that_helped_inspire_Thomas_the_Tank_Engine.aspx to http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-10-30/Top_engineering_honour_for_railway_that_helped_inspire_Thomas_the_Tank_Engine.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talyllyn Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140121130007/http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/news/queen-honours-talyllyn-railway to http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/news/queen-honours-talyllyn-railway

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Loading gauge versus structure gauge

@Railfan23: Hi,
To say that "the loading gauge is too small" is, with all due respect, nonsense. To put it correctly one can say it in either one of two ways. The loading gauge was too large for the structure gauge, or alternately, the structure gauge was too small for the loading gauge. For example one can say that the loading gauge of French rolling stock is too large for the British structure gauge whence the Eurostar had to be built to a reduces loading gauge in order to fit. On the other hand, the smaller loading gauge British rolling stock fits comfortably within the French structure gauge and thus to say that the British loading gauge is too small, is nonsense.
Peter Horn User talk 13:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is "structure gauge" as defined here in common use in the UK ? The article references seem to be mostly North American. RGCorris (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The expression minimum structure gauge is part of the English language, period, and refers to anything so close to the track so as to determine what the maximum loading gauge of any rolling stock can be. That said, it is very, very, unusual to include open doors in the maximum loading gauge. More later.Peter Horn User talk 02:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There are many instances where British English and US English vary, so saying that an expression is "part of the English language, period" is a fallacy. RGCorris (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

All differences not withstanding, the terms loading gauge and structure gauge are part of all variants of the English language and are used for the purpose of ordering rolling and building stock.

I don't think that either loading gauge or structure gauge is strictly correct in this case. The problem was due to a specific scenario where a train is stuck under a bridge and some of the passengers are unable to exit the train because of insufficient clearance to open doors. This is a scenario not taken into account when specifying either gauge and I doubt if either was mentioned in the inspector's report. --Roly (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Roly Williams: To make open doors part of the loading gauge is unusual to say the least, if not unique. That said, nobody would have thought of taking this mishap into account. The structure gauge was/is ample to let the train with closed doors pass. Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, how wide were the doors? Peter Horn User talk 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose we just simplify the wording and say: "Tyler's report led to an unusual alteration, as it was discovered that the internal width of the overbridges was only 9 ft 1 in (277 cm), but the railway's passenger carriages were 5 ft 3.5 in (161.3 cm) wide, leaving less than 2 ft (61 cm) clearance on either side, less than the minimum required clearance of 2 ft 6 in (76 cm).".--Roly (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't have a copy of Tyler's report to hand, but I don't think it mentions the terms "loading gauge" or "structure gauge", and therefore adding our interpretation of the report could be considered WP:OR. I'll check tonight. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The proposed rewording looks good to me as well, but let's use Template:Convert Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Done that, then. I kept the original conversions in place.--Roly (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

FA sweeps—notes

This old FA looks in pretty good shape, but there are a few unsourced statements that I flagged as . FA criteria require that an inline citation at the end of each paragraph. (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe - I don't think there's anything controversial in those statements, and they shouldn't be too hard to source. I've made a start and will do the rest in the next day or so. — Voice of Clam 07:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

All {{cn}} tags now replaced with refs. — Voice of Clam 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)