Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/France and French-related

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Comma Convention[edit]

I have found many arguments against comma disambiguation in Wiki placenames - namely because the majority of Wiki articles are disambiguated with parentheses. Disambiguation is disambiguation, and the "subject" should not matter; I don't think we should rely upon the readers ability to identify an article title as a placename (in order to "get" the fact that the name after the comma is not the placename's own).

Because of "local practices" (of referring to one state from another within the same country) in many English-speaking countries, I do understand that comma disambiguation is common, but please let's not recreate this ambiguity here.

Does anyone share this view?

THEPROMENADER 10:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, why has WikiProject France got a nbames convention page when it ought to be on wikipedia's one... does this mean if one is not a member or WikiProject France, WikiProject France has the power to impose the WP's point of view despite naming conventions? Adding to that, where are the discussion that brought the naming conventions on WikiProject France/Conventions forward? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I do concur. The method best suited to the Wikipedia media, because of the ever-frequent need to disambiguate placenames (not only because of conflicts within countries, but between countries) is parenthesis - and this because of a frequent need for multi-level disambiguation in/between some countries. What's more, I don't see much sense in citing a need for the comma convention for French settlements, as most (all) as France has adopted a method of natural disambiguation, one that has become the proper name of the settlement itself, that assures that very few settlements in France share the same name. In any case, this already-existing method should assure that most of France's placenames remain at a "single-name" location, but should disambiguation be needed, I suggest that it be treated as disambiguation, that is to say, with parentheses. There is no need to mimic the local methods of another country, especially when they cause as much fuss as the comma convention does. THEPROMENADER 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion - I vote to forget the comma convention and adopt the parentheses in use in the rest of Wikipedia, and to change the text of this guideline accordingly. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually disaprove of the parenthesis disambiguation; it's ugly, unnatural and Wikipedia conventions do, for now, state that comma should be used; this being a Wikipedia-wide naming convention that is for example not following on Wikipédia who uses the ugly disamb method. My original question wasn't so much on whether to use commas or not but why does WP France have a naming conventions page: a clear contravention of Wikipedia naming convention by applying its own little standard. This page should at best be nominated for speedy deletion and a warning left on WP France that they should lobby Wikipedia Help to get their ideas added to the main naming conventions page. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all: Yes, it seems that any WikiProject can create and maintain their own naming conventions, see the WikiProject Opera who capitalize according to Grove, not following the rule stated by Académie Française. Second: The disambiguation of placenames should follow the usage of the place, so if in France they use commonly "Endroit (Département)" than write it here so too, and not "Endroit, Département". Just for the sake of common sense, because the intention is that the user may find the article when consulting Wikipedia. The exact information on the subject goes into the article itself. Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


     For parenthesis disambiguation[edit]

  1. ChrisDHDR 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Picapica (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

     Against parenthesis disambiguation[edit]

Oppose. You have to remember that editors come to your articles from all over the world and must apply the rules of Wikipedia as laid out in WP: Style. I am used to editing articles like Culver City, California, where the comma is used, and I do believe that is WP: Style, is it not? If I am mistaken, kindly let me know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dashes in Paris Métro/RER stations[edit]

See Talk:Châtelet - Les Halles (Paris RER)#Requested move Basically I'm wondering what should be the convention on hyphens or dashes in RER or Métro stations. There are conventions on SNCF stations but I'm not sure if they apply to RATP or RER as well. -- Kelvinc (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style[edit]

After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, I have moved Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Conventions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related) and modified the intro section to mirror other Wikipedia MOS proposals (such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), etc.). Comments by Wikipedia editors on all proposed conventions/style/format topics are requested in order to establish the guidelines. Thanks - NYArtsnWords (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we're talking about you guys :)[edit]

Please join the conversation at WT:MoS#Appropriate use of capitalization in French titles and style from 1589 to 1830. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - NYArtsnWords (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's helpful, TCMOS, 8.34, on capitalization of titles, gives: "the duc de Guise (lowercased in accordance with French usage)". TCMOS is used as much as any style guide around here and more than most. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

French titles[edit]

Discussion from WT:MOS[edit]

Preserved in its entirety from 18:12, April 24, 2008 UTC

French titles cont'd[edit]

I have copied the discussion in its entirety and pasted it above, so it can be viewed but also so editors only have to edit this subsection to continue without scaring away with the older lengthy section. Hope this helps. It can be removed if necessary. Charles 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be continuing there, despite the bartender's cries. You'd better update the version above, and maybe close it formally, so the afterparty can continue here. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement in text, that it is consensus to use lower-case in French titles, even if that is an anachronism, does not seem supported by the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Since few in their right minds will actually read the whole discussion so far, I hope no one minds or is misrepresented if I summarize the views expressed as follows:

Those content with the current text (with the "hybrid" bit removed, but insisting on lower-case) :

Those not content:

Hard to say

Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Pmanderson/Septentrionalis has gone ahead and removed the statement "consensus has been...", but without giving any concrete advice (e.g. "style should remain consistent within articles" or some such) on what to do. If we are to remain without consensus, we really need to say a bit more. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. Consistency within an article may be uncontroversial (following the original version as with WP:ENGVAR). I have no objection to a statement that "scholarly historical works in English increasingly use the lower-case", but I think both should be allowed. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The recommendation of WP:UE would be to do what English does in each case; I believe, for example, that Comte de Buffon is customary (because it was contemporary usage). In some other cases, we should anglicize if we are to follow usage. A comment on the trend (if any) to normalize to lower case may also be helpful, although it would be all the better for a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There are cases, like Marie de Medicis where "de" for "of" is certainly customary, and a few where upper-case is, like (not) the marquis de Sade - and generally I think "Marquis" is never translated to Marquess, unlike Count, Duke, or Prince. But the vast majority can go either way as to case. I think it has been said that the Chicago guide specifies lower case, but I'm sure all British newspapers normally use Upper case, as will most non-academic books. I'm sure many American, and some Britsh, historians would use comte de Buffon now. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Modern English usage is marquis, not marquess, for all Continental titles. But Marquis de Sade, surely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes that's what I meant by the (not). But I'm not sure how many cases there are where one can be so emphatic. Not sure about "all continental titles" - Margrave and Marchese are surely not turned into either the English or French equivalents? Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Margrave" is already an English word, it is the English form of the German Markgraf (Count of the March/Marches). Marchese is an Italian form just as marquis isa French form. Charles 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

French titles (works of art)[edit]

After our lengthy discussion of French noble titles. I wonder if we might decide if there are any changes to be made to the "titles of works of art" section. Specifically, should we maintain these rules or should we adopt the simpler rules (only the first word and any proper nouns) adopted by the WP Opera people? - NYArtsnWords (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly not recommend the unEnglish La bohème (It is worth mentioning in the article that French usage is different); but La Bohème is the English title, because Bohemia (even figurative) is a proper name. I observe that we capitalize Murger's original play as La Vie de Bohème. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Opera Project's latest response to this issue see our talk page Voceditenore (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The particular position taken by the Opera project is noted in the text already. I'm not sure their position is that simple anyway. Theirs is certainly not the position taken by the Visual Arts Project - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, which essentially accords with the text as it is, although the actual foreign usage is irrelevant - it is the usual usage by English-language art historians that is important (there is a sort of Anglitalian art-historical dialect affecting some terms since the 18th century). I don't imagine literature causes too many problems. No change is needed, I think - we don't want Les demoiselles d'Avignon thank you. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. The position of the Opera Project re titles, is relevant only to opera titles and should have no bearing on policy about titling French painting, sculpture, film and literature. I only posted the link here since our project's capitalization/naming conventions were referred to by NYArtsnWords and PMAnderson (who specifically highlighted La bohème). I wanted to be sure the discussants here know what the position is and can access our most recent discussion, a discussion which PMAnderson initated, by the way.
We base our system on that used in the leading reliable sources in our particular subject area as well as the Chicago Manual of Style (all this is explained more fully in the link I posted above). For articles that fall within the scope of our project, we prefer a clear, transparent and consistent system for rendering titles because we have enormous amounts of interlinking between articles. It's not just articles on individual operas themselves (well over a 1000). Articles on opera theatres, composers, singers (well over 4000 and counting), librettists, conductors, directors, etc. all make references and link to individual opera articles, often multiple opera articles.
It works for us and our particular needs, but may not work well for other projects and their particular needs. They should make their own decisions as whether they want to 'spell it out' as clearly as we do, what sources they consider reliable in this context, and whether they want to specifiy those sources in their MoS. I should point out that the French Projects' current style guidelines for title capitalization are slightly at variance with the MoS for the French Wikipedia. However, the French Wikipedia MoS is itself is slightly at variance with both Le Petit Robert (which is based on the Académie française), and the Dictionnaire de citations françaises. But, hey, that's a whole other boîte of vers. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Titles of articles . . .[edit]

I notice that some articles dealing with French subjects are titled in French. This is in opposition to WP:Style, is it not? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. You could list some examples here for cleaning up, if you like. Kind Regards, Mcewan (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Style for arrondissements[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.

I see in the new stub Canal Saint-Denis that 19th arrondissement is in redlink as of today, however we do have an article at XIXe arrondissement.
So, IMHO we need to:
(1) Make sure that we are using a standard format for the titles of all the articles on arrondissements (Arab numerals or Roman numerals)

I'm seeing the style 4th arrondissement of Paris for at least some of these.

(2) (Probably) include in WikiProject France's info a recommendation for which format shall be preferred on Wikipedia.
(3) Make sure that there are redirects from one format to the other for all titles of articles on arrondissements . (Newbies? Want to help out but don't feel confident of tackling anything complicated yet? Your chance. :-) )
(Cf. Arrondissements, Arrondissements of France, Municipal arrondissement, Municipal arrondissements of France, Arrondissements of Paris, and others.)
Thanks, all. -- (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering WP:ENGLISH I would support the English format 4th arrondissement of Paris. ChrisDHDR 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Using the Roman numeral and the French ordinal number form make them look particularly out-of-place. Best would be article itself under "5th" and a redirect from "Ve" Mcewan (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Arrondissements_of_Paris#Consistent_naming for another (differing) view. Mcewan (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this also not come under WP:Naming "Article naming should reflect what English speakers easily recognize."? Mcewan (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I also support the English format 4th arrondissement of Paris. --Bob (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the trend of 'dumbing down' article titles - Roman numerals are still 'English' - but either method will do if one redirects consistantly to the other across all similar articles. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The style Ve arrondissement is not English (note the "e") and considering that arrondisements exist elsewhere (ex: Lyon, Marseille) as well as the possible confusion with their "bigger" counterparts (in France among other places) the format 5th arrondissement of Paris seems to be the best. Lastly this format isn't not French as these examples show. ChrisDHDR 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a proposed wording to the main page. Please revert or place here if this was premature. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That looks good. Now the articles need to be moved over to the new names and one should also propose that the categories pertaining to each of the articles is also changes to reflect the new naming nomenclature. On a sidenote, I have adjusted the home page for the arrondissements as the template used throughout uses Arabic numerals ({{Paris arrondissements imagemap}})--Bob (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A bunch of articles still had titles in roman numerals, and for the sake of consistency - my apologies for not being aware there was this discussion here. I have today moved them all to 4th arrondissement of Paris format - all with the exception of Ier arrondissement, for technical reasons. If someone could complete the job, that would be great. Now, what should we do about the related categories, which are all in Roman? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The categories have been listed for renaming here. Input requested. Ier arrondissement has been listed for a quick uncontroversial move here. Now the churches and the Metro categories need to be listed as well. --Bob (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for all your work on this! Mcewan (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I applaud this; there is no reason to be obscure to the reader of mere English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Once the categories have been moved, which should be soon, I will need help modifying about 200 or so articles such as Châtelet (Paris Métro) in which the infobox has the arrondissement in French! This is the English wikipedia. I don't understand why so many articles about French topics have so much needless French in them when English equivalents exist. Rant over. Any takers? I will obviously adjust the infobox template as well to take into account the change over. --Bob (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ier arrondissement[edit]

Please voice your support or opposition to the move of this article to 1st arrondissement of Paris at Talk:Ier arrondissement and Wikipedia:Requested_moves#17_September_2008. Bureaucracy is holding up the move now that a consensus has arrived. --Bob (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrondissements should be capitalised eg 1st Arrondissement of Paris QuentinUK (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation[edit]

There is ongoing discussion on the talk page for the Manual of Style (including a series of polls) aimed at achieving consensus on presenting dates in American (July 14, 1789) or International (14 July 1789) format on an article by article basis. The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

  • C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
  • R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


I've added some more comments (or rules if you like) to the Sorting section on the main page. Please leave comments if you agree or disagree, or have other comments of questions. I've based my thoughts mainly on the AA 2005 Maxi Atlas France (ISBN 0-7495-4260-8). Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see some guidelines. Are you sure that accented letters by default sort separately from the their non-accented version? I would have thought this should be automatic, but haven't looked into it on Wikipedia, so the collation may be different from what I'm used to. Thanks, Mcewan (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A while ago, I added the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template to Évisa. Prior to that, it appeared in Category:Communes of Corse-du-Sud in its own "É" section. Kiwipete (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of your "rules" except the one about Sainte coming after all the Saint entries. Currently, they are sorted as if all the letters (except articles) were one word, which would put the female saints in with the male saints that start with e. This is more consistent. Ksnow (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Ksnow
This seems to be getting too far away from common sense. The main aim here is to stop accented characters affecting the sort order, so hyphens should definitely not be removed. If you want to have Saint-/Sainte- communes mixed together, I would suggest creating a sort key for either name starting "Saint-", e.g. add {{DEFAULTSORT:Saint-Cecile, Indre}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:Saintcecile, Indre}} to Sainte-Cécile, Indre (note the missing "e" from Sainte). That way, those communes will be sorted by the name after the first hyphen. Kiwipete (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Page split?[edit]

There is an odd dichotomy to this MoS: it purports to govern matters related to France (limited to one country), but at the same time it purports to govern matters related to the French language (an issue not limited to France). There may be some value into splitting this page into an MoS (French language) and a Naming Convention (France), because some of the guidelines pertaining to the former are not limited to France. In the meantime, I have added a reference to the Canadian guidelines on Canada and Quebec-related French names, given that the scope of this page is currently broader than just France. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

L'homme moyen sensuel[edit]

I just wandered into this page (from a notice in, I think, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style) and I think it has a huge problem of conception. This page isn't just for specialists or experienced editors; it should also be accessible to someone who just wandered into Wikipedia off the street but happens to know something about a particular point in French history or art or politics or cuisine and wants to contribute his/her deux centimes. Perhaps he or she won't know about this page at first, but when his or her work is edited by someone else, or is discussed on the article's talk page, it's quite possible that this guideline (if it serves its intended purpose) will be raised.

That newcomer's not me (while I'm no Wikiexpert, I've been on English Wikipedia for over a year and several thousand edits), but I try to keep that fresh contributor that we all want to attract and keep in my mind as much as I can.

But this article is full of obscurities, templates, abbreviations and technicalities that would set any non-veteran Wikipedian aback. I expanded unnecessary in-group abbreviations like WP:NOR in the introduction, but haven't gone through the body of the article. And I gave up trying to understand what the section on capitalisation in French noble titles was trying to say.

I hate to come here just to criticise, and I'm not going to proceed any further with detailed complaints, but I would really urge the creators and editors of this guideline to take a completely fresh look from the viewpoint of someone outside the Wikipedia in-group. Bonne chance! —— Shakescene (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that this be accepted as part of the MoS?[edit]

I can't find it here. Tony (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style[edit]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS[edit]

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Railways article titles[edit]

Hi, I only saw this page after I created Paris–Lille railway. Why would this MoS recommend renaming it to Ligne de Paris - Lille? It's not really a proper name, and I doubt French railways are known by their French names in English, except maybe the LGV's. Wouldn't it be better to change the MoS to "Xxx–Yyy railway"? BTW French wikipedia doesn't use "de" in its titles. Markussep Talk 19:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, when noone objects I'll change the preferred article title to "Xxx–Yyy railway". Markussep Talk 17:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning French titles for works of art[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion that concerns the guidelines of this MOS for works of art. In short, some editors believe that this guideline contradicts WP:V, and that for example Entre gris clair et gris foncé should be moved to Entre Gris Clair et Gris Foncé because this is how it is spelled by verifiable English-language sources like Allmusic [2] and Billboard [3]. Interested editors are invited to comment over at WT:ALBUM#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs. – IbLeo(talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. "some editors" believe that WP:ALBUMCAPS should not be rolled out unilaterally across Wikipedia. This discussion fork is, well, interesting, but not directly relevant right now. However, it is worth noting that WP:V would be worth revisiting, as it's "verifiability, not truth" that we're looking for across the encyclopedia. In any case, feel free to pop over to the album talkpage to talk about stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style[edit]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to the guideline on capitalization within an article[edit]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in many cases, it appears no consensus has been reached concerning capitalization of certain French words when used in a running text in an English language context. I am thinking, for instance, of words like "rue", "boulevard", "porte", "place", etc. If this is the case, I suggest we add additional language to the current guideline in the section "Capitalization" under "Orthography" as follows:

  • "Capitalization of French expressions and titles is currently highly chaotic. As a general rule it is recommended, that when no consensus has been reached on the capitalization a particular expression, that forms remain consistent within a given article and follow the practice first established within the article. For capitalization of noble titles or of French works of art, see below."

I have highlighted this proposed addition in this example, but do not mean that it should be highlighted in the guideline itself. I believe this proposal is similar to the guideline which is currently in place regarding date formats. It would probably also be very helpful to include a list of examples of French words commonly used in English to which this applies. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity on É majuscule[edit]

Although the main page mentions French orthography, it would be helpful to give guidance on É which is frequently absent in older sources due to typographical limitations. For example

Common French usage used to be to omit accents in capitals, however this is not the proper usage and accents should be included in capitals (as required by the Imprimerie nationale and usual in Canada). When used in article names, all common non-accented/non-ligatured forms should redirect to the article. There will often be many redirects, but this is intentional and does not represent a problem.Per French orthography; thus Saint-Étienne, Édouard Manet, Édith Piaf, Émile Zola, but note Flemish and Swiss-German forms of French names do not always carry the accent. Note also exceptions for saints, monarchs, and WP:STAGENAME: title Eric Cantona, lede "Éric Daniel Pierre Cantona" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b See, for example, the Britannica Online Encyclopedia ([1]). The entry for Étienne François, duc de Choiseul is given as: "Etienne Francois de Choiseul, duke de Choiseul".
Follow others eg: École Nationale Supérieure d'Électrochimie et d'Électrométallurgie de Grenoble
QuentinUK (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

French capitalization rules[edit]

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like some rules might benefit from being harmonized across WikiProjects and more general standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)