Template talk:Midland Main Line RDT

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK Trains Portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

I have recently added the MML Old route around Sheffield. I admit I do not know if the diagram currently treats of the Midland Main Line services of the line itself (which I am inclined to favour). If the diagram and the article treat of the line then the closed stations and further outstanding features should be added. I will work on this from a sandbox under my userpage so as to not disrupt the current use of the template. If the digram is more of a 2000s service diagram then it can stay as it is. The sandbox is accessible [[Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is on the article Midland Main Line, and not on, nor about the current opperator, Midland Mainline. As such, I think everything north of Sheffield should not be in the template, and all the daft connections (we have three side-by-side for 1/3 of the template) should probably be removed. this looks more like what we ought to have. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on principle with LewisSkinner, however, the template settings are such that closed sections of the line can feature. As such and as precised above, Template:Midland Main Line is being reworked to show the actual MML route. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest then, a template:Midland Main Line for article Midland Main Line, which covers the actual route, plus any closed stations such as Corby railway station , Heeley Station, Wath North railway station (these may use the lighter red coulour)) and old names for stations such as Derby Midland railway station, Bedford Midland railway station , Dore and Totley station (these can say "renamed Dore Station", or simply link to the new station)).

A second template:Midland Mainline template ought to be created for article Midland Mainline (the operator) which deals with stations currently visited by that operator such as York railway station and Scarborough railway station, which are actually not part of the Midland Main Line. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i agree on some aspects, generally a lot of the main line encompass other lines as well. Look at the Cross Country Route and the Great Western Main Line, for example. So therefore it wouldn't be feasable for the actual route to be curtailed. Seperating route and sevice looks in principal a good idea however. Simply south 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that should be prolematic. First of all, the Cross Country Route was actually built by the Midland Railway, but that is besides the point. There is no reason why two "lines" cannot share one trackbed. See as an example the route information template on Sheffield_Midland_station#External_links. All the trains north use the same trackbed as far as Meadowhall, but the Midland Main Line, Cross Country Route, South TransPennine, Penistone Line, Dearne Valley Line, Sheffield-Hull Line, Hallam Line, Wakefield Line and Sheffield-Lincoln Line are all represented here, with only the latter branching (east) before Meadowhall. One piece of track may be on more than one line, just as oe station may be on more than one line. Indeed, were it not, journeys would be very difficult! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous suggestion on Talk:Midland_Main_Line#What_the.3F pretty much mirrors this. One for the logical track-work (Midland Main Line, the railway) and one for the currently operated routes (Midland Mainline, the trains). Sladen 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Scarlet: The diagram (currently up) shows track that is actually there, the faded sections are sections not used for regular passenger services (though frequently used on weekend diversions) and also on a daily basis for freight operation. Sladen 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lewisskinner: Yes, I agree that the area north of Sheffield needs fixing up in various ways; showing the route as understood through to Bradford and checking on the general classification of the Sheffield→Doncaster→Wakefield→Leeds routeing.

The fact that we have three parallel routes for a large proportion of the template is because they actually exist—even so, this is somewhat squished. Just North of Trent Junction, you have the four separate routes to Burton/Derby/Chesterfield/Nottingham. At various times of the day these all get used by London-bound trains (the Master Cutler runs non-stop from Chesterfield→St. Pancras via the Erewash Valley. Sladen 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, my only problem (depending on how you solve this) is that the light pink coloured lines, mean closed lines rather than freight or lines not normally used, according to the key. From what I can gleam, a split sounds a good idea. WP:TRAIL doesn't just have to show physical lines, as you can see at WCML and ECML its used to show long distance passenger operators routes. Pickle 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - have been invited by L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} to join this discussion, the following are my thoughts.

Can I suggest a way forward for this template. Have a look at what we are doing with the Scottish Railways (partly under the project WikiProject Transport in Scotland). West Highland Line as an example. There is an article which considers the line today, and then there are a number of articles (or future articles) to cover the Historical Railways that form the origins of this route - Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, Glasgow, Dumbarton and Helensburgh Railway, Lanarkshire and Dunbartonshire Railway, Caledonian and Dunbartonshire Junction Railway, West Highland Railway, Mallaig Extension Railway. These Historical articles include (or will include) closed stations, extinct junctions, etc.

Now transfer this to the Midland Main Line and we would have an article looking at the route as it is today, and separate articles covering the Midland Railway with its relevant constituents, branches and extensions (including Midland Counties Railway, North Midland Railway, Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Goole Railway). These articles would have the detail route maps. I suggest that the Midland Railway may need to be sectionalised, much at the Caledonian Railway article will need to be - with branches and extensions have their own route maps.

If you go this way, we will have a template (route map) for the current Midland Main Line with no historical detail, however the article will make reference to the origins of the route, which would then link to the Historical Railway Articles which would have their own route maps providing all the relevant detail - junctions with other lines, etc. I think a good example of this type of article is the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway.

I hope this suggestion provokes a healthy discussion and a concensus is achieved. --Stewart 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, train from the south via Chesterfield go through Dore (although they may not stop there) but Simply south (talk · contribs) has said they do not. Does anyone have any clarification on this? From the satalite, it looks ambiguous (but may appear s/he is correct) though it is possible to travel from Chesterfield to Dore without changing (the 7:14 for example). L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Midland Main Line platforms at Dore have been removed quite some time ago. This means that this station is in a similar position to Ambergate and Carnforth, which are/where junction stations which now have their main line platforms removed (of lines lifted in the case of Ambergate as the bypass line is use by the MML) and the local train platforms (or platform) remain. In Historical Line space this are junction stations, in modern usage space they are not. --Stewart 07:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dore and Totley (Dore) station is indeed on the MML. Of the four platforms it had at its largest, the first two were built on the MML to Chesterfield. Once the Cross Country platforms were rmeoved, along with the Sheffield-Derby all omnibus, Dore lost its connection to the MML, it does not however move it onto another line! I'm not aware the station had legs. It is a widespread misconception that Dore station is the Dore & Chinley railway (Hope Valley). It is in fact on the Midland Main Line. Ambergate is a different case altogether, it was never on the MML proper and only on the avoiding spur. As source I put forward: Peter Fox (1990). The Midland Line in Sheffield. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-872524-16-8 and Peter Harvey (1996). Abbeydale and Millhouses. Stround: The Charlford Publishing Company Limited. ISBN 0-7524-0732-5 which you'll notice were used as sources for the Dore & Totley station article. The diagram, which was purposely modified to move the station away from the MML will have to be amended, along with all the supposedly lifted lines (according to the railway template documentation) which still remain (the Old Route springs to mind). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The station opened as Dore and Totley station on 1 February 1872 (at a building a cost of £1517 and £450 for two acres of land) on the then two year-old Midland Main Line extension from Chesterfield to Sheffield, and was initially served by the local services on this line. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the platforms wre removed. I was only going by what is the current state according to satelite evidence. See [this zoomed in version showing Dore station on the left according to Google maps. Simply south 13:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posting of the satellite photo. If you look carefully, you'll see the junction physicaly being a few yards south of platform 1 ;) As it stands what is now referred to as the Hope Valley Line joins the MML below Twentywell Lane forming a three track MML until Dore station junction. Looking at the sat image, the line diverges after the platform. Regardless, I'm not leading you astay when I say it is on the MML. If you want to create some kind of compromise, place Dore & Totley on the diagram, but as a closed station. Since this diagram is for the MML only, the situation would be shown accurately. At the same time, the same station would be shown as open on the HPV. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i've readded it plus the compromise, per above. Simply south 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I wasn't thinking about that at all really :p, this is terrible if you don't mind me saying. I was suggesting, keep the layout there was and simply change from open to close. the open part of Dore can be left to a different diagram for the Hope Valley Line. sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs)

Its ok i suppose. I have added a note next to the station. Simply south 13:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not being pedantic, but I'e made a slight change in the note you added. I will later add Wicker and modify the old route so it is correct (Masbro is currently oddly placed, South of Sheffield!) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Captain Scarlett - that's my fault! I haven't learned all the markups yet on the rail templates, so I just fitted them in as best I could.

Incidentally, I looked on the North Midland Railway article, and there are a lot of stations between Dore and Chesterfield. Would these count officially as MML stations? I don't know which (if any) were open when the name was changed. Also, Wicker wasn't on the MML, but was the southern terminus of the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway (I'm sure you knew that). Is it still valuable to add it, or best to keep it as is? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are stations located on the MML, it is best to add them but not so significant mark with HST instead of BHF. Simply south 22:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No problems Lewis. The S&R was purchased by the MR for its NMR thence becoming part of the MML (otherwise the argument could also include Nottingham). Missing are Sheepbridge and Unstone. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Shouldn't Wicker be on a branch from Masborough? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shoudl be at the end of a branch from Grimesthorpe Junction (Brightside). I have also repaired line status for the NMR North and the Old Road; the Old Road has not been closed or lifted while the NMR North has. I've applied guidelines for the model from Wikipedia:Railway line template which does state that light coloured icons are for closed items, not freight only. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems fine. Do we need to show the route that the Midland Mainline trains take to Barnsley/Leeds/Donny then?

I guess this continues the debate of whether we need to split the template into midland main line and Midland mainline. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should these, as far as Kentish Town be added to the template? Simply south 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they were never on the MML, no. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what line where the Bed-Pan services on then, before Thameslink ? Thameslink isn't really a line, just a service by FCC over a series of other lines (primarily BML and MML via other lines built by other railways) Pickle 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only station I would possibly added to the MML template that is also covered by "local" Thameslink services is St Albans. In the days of the BR Intercity, some HST called at this station. --Stewart 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are inarguably physically located on the Midland Main Line. They were opened by the Midland Railway Company. Thameslink is but a service that runs over part of the Midland Main Line. If this is a diagram of the line rather than of a particular TOC's stopping patterns, then they should be on there. --82.45.163.4 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are they or were they ever on the midland main line proper? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unlike, say, the Watford DC Line, there is no physical separation between the two services, and in fact fast Thameslink trains alternate between the two pairs of tracks. --82.45.163.4 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical separation is not the issue. Were these stations in existence before nationalisation? Were they built by the Midland Railway. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have mostly all been there since ca. 1868, when the line was first built. Pretending they don't exist because the trains don't terminate at St Pancras is bonkers. --82.45.163.4 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. Any stations built with the Midland Main Line by the Midland Railway should be included. Those built later which happen to use the same trackbeds should not. This template is on the article about the Midland Main Line, not to be confused with Midland Mainline, the company. I do not know a lot about the MML south of Luton, but if you know better than me, by all means be bold and edit! You will have no complaints from me. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only station that isn't original is Luton Airport Parkway, which currently is on the template. --82.45.163.4 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, we need two templates. A Midland Main Line one and a Midland Mainline one. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question - is this a template for the modern Midland Main Line, or is it for the main line built by the Midland Railway. --Stewart 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy. There shouldn't be any difference between the two. --82.45.163.4 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There on a discussion on this very page about it, and we decided there should be a split. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink is explicitly for closed lines and stations. It seems to be being used here to indicate secondary routes and stations, making it hard to follow. Can someone who knows which are closed and which are secondary fix this please? --82.45.163.4 15:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confused. As it stands the template has ful red for lines and stations that are open and light red for closed portions of track and stations. Eg: Swinton to Normanton, Chesterfield to Rotherham, Corby... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The London area branches are pink when they're still open, and the line through Corby is still open for freight, and the situation at Dore needs to made clearer, and there's probably others I've missed. --82.45.163.4 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not misuses of pink but oversight really, you can amend the template yourself if you find something wrong. the location for Dore & Totley staiton was discussed and although the one platform serves trains to and from Manchester, the station is on the Midland Main Line. The template is about the line, not the franchised services, work needs to be done on the portion North of Cusworth since Doncaster isn't and never has been on the MML. Thanks for pointing out the errors, I'll see if I have time looking into it, in the meantime how about having a go yourself? Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the NLL link but i don't know about the rest. BTW what an accolade "misuse of pink", that should be on one of those barnstars of userboxes!!! LOL! Pickle 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the mistake you've edited in 82.45.163.4 concerning Dore & Totley. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What mistake? The new version was meant to show the situation without the current vague description. --82.45.163.4 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd positioned two stations instead of the one. Dore & Totley in this context is on the MML and closed, a clear comment is present. As pointed out above, this was previously discussed and this solution chosen so as not go off topic. The status of Dore & Totley on the Dore & Chinley railway is of little incidence to the MML and as such it is shown closed yet with a lbel indicating a single platform remains in service for thos services (despite the diagram relating to the line not the post BR franchises). Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly normal to show one station as a dot on each line. If it's left as one dot the position of the junction is wrong, since the north curve leaves the MML north of Dore's MML platforms. Maybe my version was too elaborate, but the current situation isn't great either. --82.45.163.4 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic but the current situation where the platforms do not serve the MML remove nothing of the fact that the station is on the MML and the Hope Valley Line... Just that the MML platforms were removed (in '84?). The station remains on MML despite the lack of services :) That is why it is shown in light red. It's a diagram, not a map! There's an article for the station too! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a TOC's route map (e.g. for Midland Mainline or NXEC), pink means 'Limited Service', whereas on a Line diagram it means 'Closed' or 'Proposed' or 'Unbuilt/Under Construction' Anywikiuser (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, this template does seem to have rather a lot of detail about the northern part of the line (e.g. closed stations, freight by-passes, etc., while very little about the southern part. For instance, other than Luton and Luton Airport Parkway, all the stations south of Bedford are missed out completely! As this template is supposed to describe the actual physical line (i.e. that what was built by the Midland Railway), rather than the operations of the recently-deceased TOC (Midland Mainline), shouldn't places like Harlington, Flitwick, Leagrave etc. be included? --RFBailey 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered by Thameslink but i suppose that is only a service except in central London. Simply south 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the southern stations: how does it look now? --RFBailey 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I will make some additional minor changes and i am agreeing with you now that we should include them. I also did the for Template:ECML article a while back. Simply south 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely this is similar to Thameslink line stations? Different in that, the stations were closed then re-opened but they were built when the origional Midland Main Line was built. I believe the three stations should be on the template, at worst the line should be mentiond on the template.Amgmichael (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diagram seems to have just been widened from BS3 to BS7-2 making it twice the previous width and most of the width of a 1024px screen. Was this an intended side-effect? —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I think some care needs to be exercised in order that these diagrams don't swamp articles! --RFBailey (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on that basis, I've done a temporary revert to make the main article readable again. I do like the changes; and they can be retrieved from the edit history. Sladen (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)—[reply]

Update: Included the newer widened version inside <noinclude> tags so it can be worked on. —Sladen (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if you were to work on a copy in your user space, rather than "hidden" on the "live" version. (Create User:Sladen/Midland Main Line to do this.) --RFBailey (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe more useful to forward this suggestion onto the editor who produced the new wider format, over at User_talk:Britmax. —Sladen (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might, on the other hand I might read it anyway!. Seriously, I've worked on the widened version: as usual, a couple of longer labels were taking the average out a bit. Let me know what you think. The BS7-2 format is useful for clearer labelling and shortening diagrams (it's great on the M&GN where the diagram is otherwise longer than the text) but maybe we could use a BS5-2 to avoid overwhelming some articles? Britmax (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with more skill than me have a look at the text sizes. I had a go, be couldn't work it out + I don't actually know the conventions. Talltim (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the MML really connect to Barnsley? If so, the map doesn't match real life - afaict from Google Earth, cudworth stn is totally disused, not just disused on used track, and I have no idea which route the map thinks is running in to Barnsley... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Corby actually on the MML, or merely connected? If the latter, it shouldn't be on the map. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Midland Main Line article states that Historically the line extended further north to Manchester in the north-west and through Leeds in the north-east to Carlisle. Well the Settle-Carlisle line is at least referred to in the template, whereas the former link to Manchester is not even shown in pink.

The article also mentions the historical routes into London, first via the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway (B&DJR) and Hampton-in-Arden into Euston, then by the Midland Counties Railway (MCR) and Rugby also into Euston, then via Bedford and Hitchin into King's Cross before finally going via Luton into St Pancras. The first of these is just labelled as the modern Cross Country Route, whilst the other two are shown as closed, but with no mention that they ever went to London unless one follows the links (where there are good templates of the original lines.

Thirdly, the Midland Railway built various cut-offs or diversionary routes, such as the route from Kettering to Nottingham via Oakham and Melton Mowbray. At Kettering, the template marks the Oakham to Kettering Line (which states that Historically the line formed a major part of the Midland Main Line between London St Pancras, Nottingham, Leeds and Scotland hosting regular named expresses such as The Waverley.), but the only label at Nottingham is for the Grantham and Lincoln lines.

Yes, I've read the comments from 2007 about the template looking as it is today (with East Midlands Trains running via Corby up to Oakham and Melton Mowbray), with historical railways elsewhere. But, the template has quite a few historical items (such as the Great Central Railway × 4), whilst omitting those above. Mattbuck's question about Corby was not answered (here); if there are no responses, I'm not sure if I just start making the changes myself, or give it up as a bad job. Tim PF (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to have grown recently to the point that it has prevented the Midland Main Line article from loading properly, so I've stopped it transcluding (now just a regular wikilink). I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Main Line RDT, and there may well be a consensus to have the article transclude a simpler template as we now have for the East Coast Main Line (which then has a link for this full template).

Please note and join the discussion I have started at Talk:Midland Main Line#Smaller template required, rather than here. Tim PF (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Midland Main Line § Map error

 – Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map as it stands suggests that there was never access from Swinton (Midland) to Leeds. This is wrong; the map should show a line running north of Swinton (Midland) then (at 'Wath Road Junction') forking left (in faint because closed) for Wath North and Darfield (etc.) and right (in bold because open) for the Swinton&Knottingley for York (and today's non-Midland route to Leeds).

(The indicated route through Swinton (Central) and then left is also incorrect; this actually ran through Wath (GC) to Barnsley).

86.183.83.192 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the map at the bottom of the infobox, i.e. Template:Midland Main Line RDT? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 86.183.83.192 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's wrong: but I'm not sure whether to add the proper route, or just truncate it at Nunnery Main Line Junction, given some of the sections above and the large amount of detail in the Sheffield/Rotherham area, only some of which is actually the Midland Main Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map has a typo in the word 'Nottingham', which is shown on the map as 'Notthingham'. Just thought I'd point it out for someone in a position to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inversions (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]