This article is an
outline, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are within the scope of WikiProject Outlines, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Wikipedia. For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see
Wikipedia:Outlines.OutlinesWikipedia:WikiProject OutlinesTemplate:WikiProject OutlinesOutlines articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
As this is a list, per community practise, consensus, guidelines and policy this should be a list article. Please demonstate some form of consensus for naming this an "outline" the water project or in the general community. Verbalchat09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Notice the introduction, the heirarchical style, the references, the templates (I could go on). If you want to move this to List of water topics, then add a move request rather than just doing it - that way you could get a consensus. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
PS. You talk about consensus, but you havent got consensus to move it yet either, at least if you say there is no consensus for outlines then prove it here.
There are consensus, policy and guidelines in support of lists, but not outlines. The recent debates at
WP:OUTLINE, that failed to reach policy status, and at relevant projects has been against this non-standard naming. Please demonstrate community support for this renaming. Verbalchat15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose the move to "List of water topics" and Support renaming it back to its original name: "Outline of water" - this is an outline with OOK formatting. It was designed specifically for the
WP:OOK. Unilaterally moving pages from that collection is disruptive and was done by Verbal without consensus.
The Transhumanist04:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I second TT's proposal, but I'm willing to keep the status quo, like I was willing to let the page be moved in the first place (eventually), until a proper binding consensus agreement on outlines is made, preferably by RfC. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I oppose the change, and suggest moving the title back to outline. Apparently, this adiminstrator acted alone on the move, and did so without consensus. See
WP:Outlines, consensus is there to convert these types of topic lists into outlines.
Burningview ✉ 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I support the use of the "lists" title format as this title is very vague and ambiguous in English. It just doesn't sound right. Adding a word to the end (Outline of water topics) would help, but "list" is unambiguous. --
Brangifer (
talk)
02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Lists are supported by policy. Also there are many editors in a lot of different locations questioning the use of outlines. Until outlines get a community wide consensus I think it would be best to wait until a community decision is made. There should be one location that is highly visable to get wider community input. I also don't think that 'lists' should be renamed to outlines. During my reading about this I have found that a lot of the outlines were originally in list formats. I just noticed that this has already been considered a consensus and an administrator has already acted upon this. This is the second time this has happened to me, the last one only lasted 3 days before it was relisted as a outline. Well I'm still leaving this, please give enough time for editors to find and iVote on the different issues. Thanks, --
CrohnieGalTalk10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
editprotected
{{editprotected}}
Per community consensus above, please move List of water topics back to Outline of water. The original move protection was done in a very controversial way. The original page was created as an outline, but User:Verbal moved it to a list, and others reverted over 3 times and after which, User:Verbal
asks for this page to be move protected . The protecting admin did not look into this matter very deeply and protected the page. Please view move logs as evidence. --
penubag (
talk)
23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Also object, this is just a pile on from the outline project. Community consensus is for lists. Unless consensus is established this page will probably be moved back to "list". Verbalchat08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you count the number of "votes" on each side and tell me how this shows consensus? Can you tell me which arguments are supported by polices, guidelines, and consensus - and which aren't (hint, lists are supported by policies, guidelines, and consensus) Verbalchat16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes I agree lists are supported by policies, guidlines, and long-held consensus. However, Verbal, TOPIC lists HAVE gained consensus through various means of discussion this year to be converted into outlines. Topic lists are what we're talking about here not just typical lists, and it's what
WP:WPOOK has achieved consenus on to convert into outlines. I suggest you go to the
WP:WPOOK page and click on the "
arguments over outlines" link; there you can educate yourself and get a glimpse of all the past arguments over outlines. The argument your proposing here is similar to other users past ones; all of which have failed, and again consensus has been consistantly reached to convert topic lists into outlines.
Burningview ✉ 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, 4 vs. 1, simple enough. I'll admit that a much bigger sample is needed for a real consensus, but as straw polls go I think it is a quite nice demonstration. It doesn't really matter what 'policy' there is in place, any RfC either way would be establishing new policy. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It isn't 4 vs 1. I've seen no evidence that
WP:OOOK has achieved any kind of consensus for its activities, and know there are questions over whether it is actually a valid project at all. It's 4 vs 2 now, and the two are backed by community consensus and policy. When I wrote it was 3 vs 2. I don't know why you're discounting one of the opinions. Burningview, you might want to have a look at the talk page of
WP:OUTLINE. Topic lists are lists, covered by
WP:LIST. Verbalchat19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok we disagree on the Outline vs List titles and formats, but why take this route though? If you don't like the idea of outlines taking the place of topic lists then attack it on the basis for all potential situations like these. Do you realize there are more topic lists like these that have been converted into outlines? So will you decide to go after those outlines next? Per Transhumanist, in the beginning, this was designed specifically for the Outline project which included outline formatting. Unless, there is more consensus against outline titles it should remain Outline of water, and we can debate the ambigous nature of the title later when appropriate. Again actions against outlines should apply to all, not on a one-to-one outline attack strategy.
Burningview ✉ 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Verbal, you say 4 v 2 is not community consensus. In fact it is. To change the status quo, you need a super majority of at least 70%. You have -50% which is 120% off. --
penubag (
talk)
00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I thought it wasn't necessary, but since there is "vote" counting going on here and the imaginary support for the absurd outline project is being used as a crucial argument: I am also against the move that was abusively requested with an "editprotected" template and unfortunately implemented.
The vote counting is totally improper, however. We only do this kind of thing after long discussions have shown that neither side can convince the other or "win" on policy grounds. As to consensus being required before something is renamed:
This list was created as
List of water topics, a name under which it existed for a little less than 2 months.
Nine days ago it was renamed to
Outline of water. This was reverted 6 minutes later, followed by a re-revert after 6 hours.
Three days later it was moved back to
List of water topics; this was reverted by an admin who responded to an improper "editprotected" template. Admins are supposed to check on their own whether there actually is a consensus in such cases, but the bold statements in the RfC above because it's not at all clear what to "oppose" or "support". The fact that the request was followed looks like an innocent oversight to me.
Hans, your claims are flawed. This list was originally created as Outline of water.
Check the history yourself. It was only renamed back to outline of water after
Verbal first controversially moved it to List of water topics. Many editors reverted his moves but Verbal
asks for this page to be move protected and the protecting admin did not look closely into this matter and protected the page only to be corrected by admin Jake W. Verbal should not have started the move and request for move protection. There is no ground for a page move here. --
penubag (
talk)
08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ooops! You are right about the original name. Sorry for this; I was confused by an extension I am using. (It collapses consecutive edits by the same editor, and by almost inexcusable carelessness I missed that the first move was collapsed. Very sorry indeed.
HansAdler08:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
No problem at all, we all make mistakes. But what really troubles me is that Verbal knew this all along and still has the nerves to ask for a page move based on the saying the original title was list of water topics. I hope he can explain his dishonesty on his talkpage, but I already know he will derail the subject as he did on his AN/I. EDIT:Verbal has claimed on his talkpage that he made a mistake himself, and I accept his claim. I retract my comments that he is dishonest and a lot of trouble. --
penubag (
talk)
08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I oppose any more moves from Outlines to lists until this
dispute is resolved. All parties agreed that there would be no further page moves until a consensus on the naming style of Lists and Outlines are resolved and moving this page would breach that agreement. Furthermore it was determined that any further moving of these articles constitutes as a movewar
[1]. Verbal, why are you adding flames to this fire? Firstly, you do not have adequate consensus at all and secondly, you agreed yourself that there shall not be any page moves until this whole thing is resolved. --
penubag (
talk)
08:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree that there is no consensus, but admit that I made an error in thinking this was originally a list. This is due to the huge number of lit to outline renames, and was a genuine mistake, and does not deserve the personal attack on my talk page. A simple reminder would have sufficed. Verbalchat10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I thank penubag for his edit above where he acknowledges my mistake was a mistake. Hopefully that point is resolved - progress!? :) Lets hope the other issues can be resolved as quickly! Verbalchat10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Lead
I've removed the intro as it was too long for a list, and was copied verbatim from the
Water article, which is against policy and license restrictions. I've replaced it with a simple description of this article. Verbalchat15:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
No, I removed it because of policy and license restrictions. You should remove such copied intros from any other outlines if you know of any. The history of the page, ie who added what, is required by the GFDL. This page doesn't have the history of who added what to the intro because it was a cut and paste. Verbalchat
As I read
Terms_of_Use all that is needed is a link to the page that the content was copied from. I'm guessing that the license issue is no longer valid after the licensing to CC-BY-SA 3.0? But then I'm not a license expert. --
Stefantalk12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It requires linking and specific tagging at the time and by the editor who makes the copy, there is a process that must be followed and wasn't here. It can't be retroactively applied. This is not my opinion but that of wikipedia editors specialist in this area (the copyvio team). Also, the history requirement is still in force - although there is some debate as to whether even this is sufficient. It is required at the very least. Verbalchat16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It can probably be done again from scratch. I suggest you speak to one of the copyvio team. However, I would oppose that as it needlessly duplicates the main article, which should simply be linked to. The lead, per policy, should describe the content of this article, which in this case is a list. Verbalchat13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)reply
So you do not know? And you wrote above ' I removed it because of policy and license restrictions ' and ' It can't be retroactively applied '. I planned to ask the copyvio team since they are the experts, but found
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which they are working on (not policy yet), see section Repairing insufficient attribution, but if you do not trust them please ask, I'm convinced. All that needs to be done is to retroactively add a link to the source. No ' specific tagging ' needed and can be done by anyone, do you want to revert your edit or do you mind that I do? --
Stefantalk13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)reply
"
Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the
tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See
Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation.
The Transhumanist00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
This article is an
outline, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are within the scope of WikiProject Outlines, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Wikipedia. For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see
Wikipedia:Outlines.OutlinesWikipedia:WikiProject OutlinesTemplate:WikiProject OutlinesOutlines articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
As this is a list, per community practise, consensus, guidelines and policy this should be a list article. Please demonstate some form of consensus for naming this an "outline" the water project or in the general community. Verbalchat09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Notice the introduction, the heirarchical style, the references, the templates (I could go on). If you want to move this to List of water topics, then add a move request rather than just doing it - that way you could get a consensus. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
PS. You talk about consensus, but you havent got consensus to move it yet either, at least if you say there is no consensus for outlines then prove it here.
There are consensus, policy and guidelines in support of lists, but not outlines. The recent debates at
WP:OUTLINE, that failed to reach policy status, and at relevant projects has been against this non-standard naming. Please demonstrate community support for this renaming. Verbalchat15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose the move to "List of water topics" and Support renaming it back to its original name: "Outline of water" - this is an outline with OOK formatting. It was designed specifically for the
WP:OOK. Unilaterally moving pages from that collection is disruptive and was done by Verbal without consensus.
The Transhumanist04:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I second TT's proposal, but I'm willing to keep the status quo, like I was willing to let the page be moved in the first place (eventually), until a proper binding consensus agreement on outlines is made, preferably by RfC. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I oppose the change, and suggest moving the title back to outline. Apparently, this adiminstrator acted alone on the move, and did so without consensus. See
WP:Outlines, consensus is there to convert these types of topic lists into outlines.
Burningview ✉ 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I support the use of the "lists" title format as this title is very vague and ambiguous in English. It just doesn't sound right. Adding a word to the end (Outline of water topics) would help, but "list" is unambiguous. --
Brangifer (
talk)
02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Lists are supported by policy. Also there are many editors in a lot of different locations questioning the use of outlines. Until outlines get a community wide consensus I think it would be best to wait until a community decision is made. There should be one location that is highly visable to get wider community input. I also don't think that 'lists' should be renamed to outlines. During my reading about this I have found that a lot of the outlines were originally in list formats. I just noticed that this has already been considered a consensus and an administrator has already acted upon this. This is the second time this has happened to me, the last one only lasted 3 days before it was relisted as a outline. Well I'm still leaving this, please give enough time for editors to find and iVote on the different issues. Thanks, --
CrohnieGalTalk10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
editprotected
{{editprotected}}
Per community consensus above, please move List of water topics back to Outline of water. The original move protection was done in a very controversial way. The original page was created as an outline, but User:Verbal moved it to a list, and others reverted over 3 times and after which, User:Verbal
asks for this page to be move protected . The protecting admin did not look into this matter very deeply and protected the page. Please view move logs as evidence. --
penubag (
talk)
23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Also object, this is just a pile on from the outline project. Community consensus is for lists. Unless consensus is established this page will probably be moved back to "list". Verbalchat08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you count the number of "votes" on each side and tell me how this shows consensus? Can you tell me which arguments are supported by polices, guidelines, and consensus - and which aren't (hint, lists are supported by policies, guidelines, and consensus) Verbalchat16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes I agree lists are supported by policies, guidlines, and long-held consensus. However, Verbal, TOPIC lists HAVE gained consensus through various means of discussion this year to be converted into outlines. Topic lists are what we're talking about here not just typical lists, and it's what
WP:WPOOK has achieved consenus on to convert into outlines. I suggest you go to the
WP:WPOOK page and click on the "
arguments over outlines" link; there you can educate yourself and get a glimpse of all the past arguments over outlines. The argument your proposing here is similar to other users past ones; all of which have failed, and again consensus has been consistantly reached to convert topic lists into outlines.
Burningview ✉ 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, 4 vs. 1, simple enough. I'll admit that a much bigger sample is needed for a real consensus, but as straw polls go I think it is a quite nice demonstration. It doesn't really matter what 'policy' there is in place, any RfC either way would be establishing new policy. Highfields (
talk,
contribs)19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It isn't 4 vs 1. I've seen no evidence that
WP:OOOK has achieved any kind of consensus for its activities, and know there are questions over whether it is actually a valid project at all. It's 4 vs 2 now, and the two are backed by community consensus and policy. When I wrote it was 3 vs 2. I don't know why you're discounting one of the opinions. Burningview, you might want to have a look at the talk page of
WP:OUTLINE. Topic lists are lists, covered by
WP:LIST. Verbalchat19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok we disagree on the Outline vs List titles and formats, but why take this route though? If you don't like the idea of outlines taking the place of topic lists then attack it on the basis for all potential situations like these. Do you realize there are more topic lists like these that have been converted into outlines? So will you decide to go after those outlines next? Per Transhumanist, in the beginning, this was designed specifically for the Outline project which included outline formatting. Unless, there is more consensus against outline titles it should remain Outline of water, and we can debate the ambigous nature of the title later when appropriate. Again actions against outlines should apply to all, not on a one-to-one outline attack strategy.
Burningview ✉ 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Verbal, you say 4 v 2 is not community consensus. In fact it is. To change the status quo, you need a super majority of at least 70%. You have -50% which is 120% off. --
penubag (
talk)
00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I thought it wasn't necessary, but since there is "vote" counting going on here and the imaginary support for the absurd outline project is being used as a crucial argument: I am also against the move that was abusively requested with an "editprotected" template and unfortunately implemented.
The vote counting is totally improper, however. We only do this kind of thing after long discussions have shown that neither side can convince the other or "win" on policy grounds. As to consensus being required before something is renamed:
This list was created as
List of water topics, a name under which it existed for a little less than 2 months.
Nine days ago it was renamed to
Outline of water. This was reverted 6 minutes later, followed by a re-revert after 6 hours.
Three days later it was moved back to
List of water topics; this was reverted by an admin who responded to an improper "editprotected" template. Admins are supposed to check on their own whether there actually is a consensus in such cases, but the bold statements in the RfC above because it's not at all clear what to "oppose" or "support". The fact that the request was followed looks like an innocent oversight to me.
Hans, your claims are flawed. This list was originally created as Outline of water.
Check the history yourself. It was only renamed back to outline of water after
Verbal first controversially moved it to List of water topics. Many editors reverted his moves but Verbal
asks for this page to be move protected and the protecting admin did not look closely into this matter and protected the page only to be corrected by admin Jake W. Verbal should not have started the move and request for move protection. There is no ground for a page move here. --
penubag (
talk)
08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ooops! You are right about the original name. Sorry for this; I was confused by an extension I am using. (It collapses consecutive edits by the same editor, and by almost inexcusable carelessness I missed that the first move was collapsed. Very sorry indeed.
HansAdler08:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
No problem at all, we all make mistakes. But what really troubles me is that Verbal knew this all along and still has the nerves to ask for a page move based on the saying the original title was list of water topics. I hope he can explain his dishonesty on his talkpage, but I already know he will derail the subject as he did on his AN/I. EDIT:Verbal has claimed on his talkpage that he made a mistake himself, and I accept his claim. I retract my comments that he is dishonest and a lot of trouble. --
penubag (
talk)
08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I oppose any more moves from Outlines to lists until this
dispute is resolved. All parties agreed that there would be no further page moves until a consensus on the naming style of Lists and Outlines are resolved and moving this page would breach that agreement. Furthermore it was determined that any further moving of these articles constitutes as a movewar
[1]. Verbal, why are you adding flames to this fire? Firstly, you do not have adequate consensus at all and secondly, you agreed yourself that there shall not be any page moves until this whole thing is resolved. --
penubag (
talk)
08:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree that there is no consensus, but admit that I made an error in thinking this was originally a list. This is due to the huge number of lit to outline renames, and was a genuine mistake, and does not deserve the personal attack on my talk page. A simple reminder would have sufficed. Verbalchat10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I thank penubag for his edit above where he acknowledges my mistake was a mistake. Hopefully that point is resolved - progress!? :) Lets hope the other issues can be resolved as quickly! Verbalchat10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Lead
I've removed the intro as it was too long for a list, and was copied verbatim from the
Water article, which is against policy and license restrictions. I've replaced it with a simple description of this article. Verbalchat15:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
No, I removed it because of policy and license restrictions. You should remove such copied intros from any other outlines if you know of any. The history of the page, ie who added what, is required by the GFDL. This page doesn't have the history of who added what to the intro because it was a cut and paste. Verbalchat
As I read
Terms_of_Use all that is needed is a link to the page that the content was copied from. I'm guessing that the license issue is no longer valid after the licensing to CC-BY-SA 3.0? But then I'm not a license expert. --
Stefantalk12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It requires linking and specific tagging at the time and by the editor who makes the copy, there is a process that must be followed and wasn't here. It can't be retroactively applied. This is not my opinion but that of wikipedia editors specialist in this area (the copyvio team). Also, the history requirement is still in force - although there is some debate as to whether even this is sufficient. It is required at the very least. Verbalchat16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It can probably be done again from scratch. I suggest you speak to one of the copyvio team. However, I would oppose that as it needlessly duplicates the main article, which should simply be linked to. The lead, per policy, should describe the content of this article, which in this case is a list. Verbalchat13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)reply
So you do not know? And you wrote above ' I removed it because of policy and license restrictions ' and ' It can't be retroactively applied '. I planned to ask the copyvio team since they are the experts, but found
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which they are working on (not policy yet), see section Repairing insufficient attribution, but if you do not trust them please ask, I'm convinced. All that needs to be done is to retroactively add a link to the source. No ' specific tagging ' needed and can be done by anyone, do you want to revert your edit or do you mind that I do? --
Stefantalk13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)reply
"
Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the
tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See
Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation.
The Transhumanist00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply