Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Referencing

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

---

Find A Grave corrections to be made

Hi, Here are the wiki pages that generated errors at Find A Grave today (duplicate entries have been reduced to a single line):

This list is getting fairly long. I don't want it to take up too much space on your page. But I don't know what the Wiki protocol is for deleting content from another user's talk page. Feel free to delete them as they are corrected or continue with the strike-through method if that is more inline with Wiki standards. GraveGuy (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this! It shouldn't be anywhere near this long again and should eventually taper off to zero as the links are corrected. Sorry for the double spacing. When I single spaced them, they wrapped like a paragraph?? GraveGuy (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Case Of The Missing Awards - and - The Man Who Died Twice

Hi. I know I've read and I would swear I even participated in a discussion somewhere where a consensus had been reached that a reasonable amount of eminently notable specified award nominations and wins were perfectly acceptable in lead sections and did not fall under WP:Peacock or any such nonsense. I recall Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman coming up in particular. Now for the second time in a month or two I'm observing an IP user engaging in wholesale removal of such content. As I noticed you on their talk page, I thought I'd duck on here instead of splashing back onto some project page to rehash this. I see you're part of WP:ACTOR. Do you recall offhand and could you direct me to wherever this or some equally relevant consensus is corroborated, so that I can A) be sure I'm not in the wrong by posting a warning at such rampaging editors' talk pages, and B) be sure I'm not in the wrong by in some cases reverting the info.

The same editor is removing the age at death of several of these actors. I can't for the life of me figure out why they would take issue with such a thing. As I explained to the anon, infoboxes automatically calculate the date. Though their age at death is reported in the infobox, however, it's hardly redundant to mention it in the body of the text as well, in the section that addresses their death. Is there some policy or consensus somewhere relating to this of which I am unaware? Thanks for your help, I'll watch your talk page for your response. Abrazame (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues at work here. It is entirely proper for a lead section to contain reference to notable awards. On the other hand, it is a problem when the lead sentence contains wording such as "Academy Award-winning, Golden Globe-nominated actor". The lead sentence should be a brief summary of who the person is and what it is that makes them notable. That someone like Alan Alda is an actor is what made him notable, the awards he won came later, although they may tend to enhance the notability. WP:FILMS has a manual of style that addresses that for the lead sentence, but WP:ACTOR doesn't have a separate MOS yet. However, the third note in the ongoing tasks mentioned at WP:ACTOR#On-going projects/to do lists page says: "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences." I agree with you, however, about the age at death. It is really fine to mention the age at death, although it doesn't have to be. Hope that answers your question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

More about lead sections. In a great many cases, the lead section of actor biographies are deficient in size and content. Another ongoing project with some members of WP:ACTOR is the effort to bring more articles to a higher class of quality and a lot of that encompasses writing more thorough lead sections. We've got lists of actor articles at User:Rossrs/Sandbox2 and User:Rossrs/Sandbox3 with assessments on what is needed and a major part of that is to expand the lead. From the Lee Grant article:

Lee Grant (born October 31, 1927) is an American Academy Award-winning, Golden Globe-nominated theater, film and television actress, and film director who was blacklisted by the Hollywood movie studio bosses in the 1950s.

This is the sum total of the lead as it currently exists and that is hopelessly inadequate. However, that's mostly why the awards are mentioned in the lead sentence. It should be at least two or three paragraphs long, part of that including mention of the awards in a subsequent sentence. Even one longer paragraph would be an improvement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think the task should read "Move lead sentence mention..." instead of "Remove" it, because newbies probably don't grasp why half of the job isn't helpful, and mass removal is what is happening. Even though it ultimately doesn't belong where it is, it's better for it to be there when a constructive editor arrives, so they don't have to re-research such things or open another window and trawl back through edit histories if subsequent edits happen in the interim.

And I love Lee Grant! Fantastic actress. Such a depth and intelligence comes through. Cannot believe she was born in 1927! She's always looked at least ten, fifteen years younger. (Though I haven't seen her in any new footage for a couple of years, and looking at her filmography, I'm realizing I've only seen a tiny bit of her work.) When I get a chance I'll try and help get a little more meat on that page. I've copied down those two Sandbox links. But in the near term my focus is on the Farrah Fawcett bio when I can give it my full attention. (Often I'm fiddling at Wiki during or between other things and can't really give something here my full attention all at once—or am burning the midnight oil and loathe to start a major, challenging project because I know I should go to bed, like now!) Thanks again, Abrazame (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would "move and/or expand" rather than "remove". This really interests me, and it is something that Wildhartlivie and I have discussed at some length. There are two ways of looking at it. On the one hand saying someone is "Academy Award-winning, double BATFA-nominated, Tony Award-nominatated....star of stage and screen" falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and for that reason I don't see it as vandalism. I see it as "maybe" a case of someone "fixing" one problem in good faith (maybe) and creating a new problem in doing so. It's much better to say "X won X award for X reason" and give it context, and that can only be done by expanding the lead, in my opinion. I've probably removed some myself, but usually this is when the award is already mentioned later in the lead, and I don't see that it should be mentioned more than once. I've been working on expanding leads and I think that's a better way to go. For example Jessica "I am just an actress" Tandy to Jessica Tandy, Julianne "I won a Volpi Cup" Moore to Julianne Moore and Judi "I've won everything but the Nobel Prize" Dench to Judi Dench. I don't think the anon is helping to provide context by removing a couple of words, even taking into account "undue" and "POV". Unfortunately some time in the past someone went through and added Award-winning or Award-nominated to every Academy Award, Emmy, Tony, Golden Globe etc..... person. Interestingly, the music project decided to avoid "Grammy winning" in the sentence. I think the awards are hugely important but I think the lead should be constructed in such a way that they become part of the story, rather than the whole focus of it.

Lee Grant - I agree she's wonderful. The lead section mentions that she's a Golden Globe nominee but fails to mention that she's an Emmy winner. It would be great to (as you said) "add a little meat" to it. It's strange that some articles are so neglected and brief while others are the opposite. I was constantly irritated by edits to Viola Davis - someone added "Academy Award nominated" several times, but was completely not interested in the fact that she is a Tony winner. I could never understand it as she's been primarily a stage actress until now - and a Tony is quite a big deal. Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had a Louis XVII chair

... I'd go and scare him with it. To answer your question, yes I do and no I don't. The image of him compulsively obsessively telling people that he's compulsive obsessive even if they don't want to know.... and no I don't think it was intentional. It would be less funny to me, if I thought it was intentional.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I love that he turned it into a positive by using it to bond with Warren Zevon. Oh the fun they must have had. Rossrs (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The werewolf thing looks more like a philia than a phobia. Just to let you know, I'm going to be away for a day or so, so I won't be editing at all. I've noticed an edit summary at Elizabeth Taylor that I disapproved of, and have left a message at the user talk page. You can guess who. I don't know if an ANI or whatever is due. On a lighter note do you think it's possible to forge a close friendship in a carpark? Apparently it is. Rossrs (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cusack and tables

Thanks, I also reverted it from other articles. Regarding tables, have you added any filmography layout you really like recently? I will then simply use that one. What is with you btw that editors start discussing you instead of the topic? The same happened with that weird awards discussion. Bad karma or something? :)

I still want to improve the Michael Palin article, so might as well start with the the filmography section. I did the lead and "Early life and career" section but stopped for the rest. I saw you have that article (probably) on your watchlist. Do you see any things which stand out immediately as need fixing? Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I have a "good article". :) Never saw that nomination which happened pretty much right after I cleaned up and expanded the article. I don't know if it actually passes for that. The first section is ok I think, but everything afterwards needs work. Will start working on it and definitely will use your templates/text for that.

And no, I don't think it's you. At least not from that surreal discussion about the awards in the infobox. The only discussion I basically read till completion. People just get excessive about stuff. Which seems to be happening more and more lately. Good luck with your surgery tomorrow. Garion96 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Check it.--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at 2help's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mail

You have mail. It's just a short yes/no question. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Damon

Of course I know that your intentions for the article are good, you've beat me to vandalism reverts numerous times. I know nothing of the sockpuppet issue except for what I read at AN/I. I would just recommend in the future to ensure that you don't risk 3RR, if there's a troublesome editor for whatever reason, there will be someone else to revert them. If you need help with anything let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on the Manson Scenario page

Thanks for letting me know the editor was identified as a sockpuppet and blocked. — I hadn't visited any of the Manson pages for a few weeks, I think, until a few days ago. I'm glad to see you still patrol them.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh

Yes. Why delete just that part of it? It's incomprehensible. Rossrs (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems to boil down to the simple fact that our basic policies either have not been read, or have not been understood or have been dismissed as unimportant. If I was a newish editor and everything I did was either challenged or reverted, I'd start to wonder what I was doing wrong. I guess some people never consider that they may be wrong. Rossrs (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Forbes

I will look for source material for Meryl Streep. Have you seen the Forbes 100? Angelina Jolie is number one, Meryl is number 54. I am outraged - I can't believe that Beyonce got $87million for doing whatever it was she did last year. Are there any celebrities that you can not abide and perhaps can't even explain why? For me, it's Beyonce. 87 million! Rossrs (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of celebrities that I like, and often the reasons are equally irrational, but I'm ambivalent about many of them. Ryan Seacrest is overpaid to put it mildly. I see him as a bit of a buffoon, though harmless. The only other one on the list that I feel strongly about is Kate Moss. Do you get that TV advert where she advises everyone to "get the London look"? I can't remember what product she's hawking. Well, if the London look involves lying in a gutter with a bottle of champagne in one hand and my dress up around my armpits, then no thanks. I have this image that a day in the life of Kate Moss would look something like that. Obviously I'm wrong and there's more to her than that, but I don't want to know.

Meryl Streep online and Simply Streep - The Meryl Streep Archives both link to a lot of material. Both are very pro-Meryl, which is no big surprise, but I'm exploring through them. Rossrs (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm now working through some of the sites. I've done a bit of a copyedit up to 1990 and now all I'm seeing is a lack of depth permeating the entire article. I'm probably overcompensating now. I like the Roger Ebert comments about Streep - his overview may well come in handy. I've quoted a bit about preparing for the role of Karen Silkwood but I don't know how to site it. The weblink is Google Books, rather than directly from the book. Could you please have a look - the edit is here. I've left it unsourced for now. I'm perplexed. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And, Magic Meryl - it's great. There's a lot of information there. Excellent. Rossrs (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure so I'll cite it just as you've suggested. Rossrs (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Yes, it's a tabloid. It's definitely not the worst of them, but if you're asking if it's a strong enough source, I would say probably not. Rossrs (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossipy rubbish. At least the source was careful to use the word "alleged" or "allegation" three times, and "claimed" once. Whoever added it to the article was far less cautious. Meanwhile a couple of Australian soap opera celebutards have gotten themselves into trouble this week, and of course the need to include a breathless and half-coherent report of it here is more important than WP:BLP. Frustrating, ain't it? Rossrs (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions, yes, I can see those, but ..... misguided. I find all those succession tables to be a complete (insert rude word of your choice here). They look tacky and unprofessional, and the last thing we need is more of them. We have lists for stuff like that. How innovative is that? You can see all the winners in one glance without having to plough through them one by one. Seriously, I think the person who added them will also be thinking about how much time it took to add them, so (I'm sure you've thought of this) - you may need to brace yourself. Rossrs (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also been avoiding that particular article, but I've had a look now and it seems to be dealt with satisfactorily under the circumstances. Rossrs (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re a note

One of the reasons I removed it was Rossrs comment above, I still had your talk on my watchlist. I really don't see any point in those. I also removed them from Judi Dench, probably won't stick but hey. At least it's better indeed than the "4 awards" section. Which was already mentioned a few times in the article and boxes and tables. But to have this separate for a POV of what awards are "the four". :) I really have to make an essay called "why do editors prefer infoboxes/navboxes/templates over actual prose?" Garion96 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my money on "Because reading prose is almost as hard as writing it." And please call it "Why do some editors...." Seeing as you're always watching.....  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Big Brother is always watching you('re talkpage). :) Also, more important than "four awards" and oscar award winning actresses, how did your eye surgery go? Garion96 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tatum O'Neal

Hello. In this article, her age keeps changing from 9 to 10 when she won her Oscar. I just changed it back again (to age 10). You had changed it from age 10 to 9 a day or so ago. Is there any reason why you believe 9 is correct, over 10? Am I missing something? I am confused about this. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Enough is Enough

If you've had enough, don't put up with that stuff. Don't you do it!

I don't look at Cher very often, so I've only discovered this morning that we couldn't buy CD singles in 1999. I must be hallucinating the "Believe" single that I have, in all its plasticky realness, as well as all the other singles I bought in 1999. It's ridiculous. I've yet to see this editor make a single useful contribution to Wikipedia, but I've seen numerous instances of him/her wasting time and attracting disagreement. I'd much rather be thinking about Meryl Streep's article (or any other article) than anticipating what happens next at Natalie Wood. Rossrs (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Robey

Thanks for the note on the alleged husband's talk page. I went to get a cup of tea and you beat me by three minutes. It's sort of amazing how her ex and now her hubby have taken to Wikipedia to fiddle with the article. How do I keep finding these messes? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I know....I think I'm a glutton for punishment or something. I saw the Excuses mess(es) last night and almost thought I was dreaming. I found the debate about who took Madonna's virginity to be most amusing (I wonder if she even remembers!). I'm not gonna touch the rest of those articles, but I'll clean up ol' Bob Wagner's page. I don't subscribe to the theory that he killed Natalie, but I think I can still work on the article anyway. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin

Well, what I'm trying to say here is that it makes no sense to just have a random sentence starting with 1) a lowercase letter and 2) without a noun or clause. The picture "interrupts" the flow. The header "Alec Baldwin" indicates the box is preparing to give information on that individual. Take a look at some of the following BLPs that use captions after the picture in the infobox: Rihanna; Jessica Biel; Chris Brown; Jerry Springer. They include the name, even after the caption box's header. Some exception may be Jerry Seinfeld, but it clearly only indicates the picture's origin. If you wish this to be the case, delete "at a..." and say "Photograph from a PETA event." Thank you for your understanding. At this time, I will return Baldwin's name into the caption, as per my rationale. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Take a look at my recent contributions, I just uploaded 41 new images (I got really lucky with an amazing author who has let us use many of her images). It took a couple of hours to upload them all, but it's definitely worth it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A flash from the past

Just FYI, User:Britneysaints seems to be out and about again - see Talk:Louise Brooks and File:Canary Murder Case.jpg. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported him at 3RRN Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart

I'm afraid the disambiguation question you refer to isn't something I'm clear on. I'm not sure what's being proposed. All I know is that I believe that the article on Stewart the actor should be entitled "James Stewart", not "Jimmy Stewart." If the disambiguation question presents an obstacle to that, I think I would be opposed to that as well. If it doesn't, then I'm not. As long as I've been contributing to WP, there are still some things that confuse me, and this question about some kind of shift in the disambiguation notice is one of them. Thanks, and thanks for taking an interest in this. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Hi. In your last edit you wrote that images should not go directly under section titles? Why is that? Does it do something funky on your set-up, 'cause it looks perfectly fine on mine? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I think you were probably referring to the Pandora's Box image, which had been on the left, and which I didn't see you had changed. I only saw the change to the Canary Murders image, and thought that was what you were referring to. So, I'm now assuming that you were objecting to the PB image on the left, and the way it caused the next section title to be indented? Or...?? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find that guideline, because I don't recall anything like that, and it's something I do quite often. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this, from MoS:Images, what you mean? Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two. If so, it doesn't apply, since the header the PB image was under was a level-2 header, not 3 or lower.

In any case, if the layout's OK for you now, I'm OK with it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Would you and Ross look at File:Louise Brooks in Europe.jpg and tell me what you think, please? I removed it from the Louise Brooks article because I didn't think it really added anything, and was hard to see even after I fiddled with it. As an orphaned fair use image it's been marked for deletion, and I wanted you to double check me on it - should it be restored to the article? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scanners

An invitation to take a look at this and see what you think. As always, no expectations, no hard feelings. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Users Think I was a Vandal

Geez Louise, and other users called me a vandal over the years I was on this website. You should try the user who is vandalizing Guiding Light, 2009 in television and 2010 in television. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag on cite #8 was a mistake, I have removed it. If you look at my talk page you will see that another editor likes the highlighting, it helps clarify and saves reviewers from copy pasting entire paras into the review. With regards to Tiscali I have not seen any evidence that it is a RS with a reputation for fact checking, editorial policy, citation by other RS, etc. I was posing the question. Do you have evidence that it is a RS? It is a good biography and in fact could be used for many statements in the article if it is OK Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Pesky! Looking over the article/review I would say that the article should have been placed on hold (if the tags had been there for a while, then it should have been boldly delisted). However if the reviewer added all of the tags, then a week hold should have been done first to allow the editors of the article ample time to attempt to address the issues. I only boldly delist articles if there are major issues such as no sources at all or large portions that are unsourced. Concerning the highlighting, I would recommend only adding citation tags to individual statements that need to be sourced, not the entire paragraph (unless it needs to be completely sourced). Film roles do not need to be sourced (that the actor appeared in it), as the film is a reference itself (such as when detailing the plot of a film). The notice shouldn't be at the top of the talk page, it should be moved to the bottom as with any other discussion. Obviously since we're dealing with a BLP here, a large majority of the gay issues need to be sourced, so many of those tags do need to be addressed. Since the article has already been delisted, you can contest it at GAR for a community consensus (where people may agree/disagree with the reviewer's method, but will probably agree with the suggested changes). I'll leave a note on his/her talk page clarifying some of the reviewing details. Let me know if you would like further clarification on any of these points. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent the reviewer some comments on the review so hopefully further reviews wouldn't encounter the same kind of issues. With television episodes, it's hard to source because many other editors and reviewers can't view the episode to see the actual claims. I always try to find another source if possible to go with it, but if the episode is a reliable source, there's no reason it can't be used. Like I said on the reviewer's talk page, every editor reviews articles differently, so different methods are used. When I reviewed GANs (would like to get back to that when Sweeps are over, hopefully in the next few months!) I usually did not correct issues with the article myself as I wanted the nominator to correct them to prevent them from making the same mistakes again. I prefer editors do that for me for my GAN/FACs so that I can continue to improve my editing/writing skills. If the reviewer didn't make significant changes to the article (was one of its contributors) prior to the review, then it should be acceptable if they want to make some copyedits. For Sweeps, I try and fix all of the minor issues as I don't want to place an article on hold for a single missing FUR or a few grammar mistakes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the major reason I delisted was that there is an entire section of McKellen's life missing from Bolton Little Theatre to his appeaarance in films. Putting that section in will undoubtedly take time, hence the delist. I have now specifically shown which bits need citing and why on the GA reassessment page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and with reference to Paris-Roubaix, I have made copy-edits where neccessary and left the article on hold for other points (e.g. where I have no sources, rewrites need to be done, sections need clarification, etc.) That is SOP for GA reviews. If you check out the review for that article your will see it all spelt out there. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

Cheers, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck

Hi. I am currently adding reliable references and eliminating unreliable ones in an attempt to get this article to Good Article status. Please don't delete the references I am adding. Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I have changed the references to "Bibliography," which is an academically-accepted term for relevant but not necessarily cited sources.
2. I have been specifically told during successful GA reviews/FAC candidacies that IMDb is not acceptable, ever. Nor is All Movie. Sorry.
3. Citations are not required in the lead, and thus neither are citation needed tags. Ricardiana (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)