Talk:Blake's 7

Footnote 64
out of curiosity, how could the article footnoted (in footnote 64) have been retrieved on 12 April, when the article itself is dated 24 April? also, looking at the history, i see no edits made on 12 April. Whateley23 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Season vs Series...
Somebody recently altered 'Season' to 'Series' in this article. We've been here before, see the appropriate section of the archived page. To briefly explain, in the majority of B7 writing i've read, 'Series' refers to all 52 episodes, whilst 'Season' means a particular year's production of thirteen eps. Also, the History... article uses the 'Season /letter' convention, so IMO it should be consitent. So unless said editor would like to change all such occurrences to 'Series', and with no wish to start an editing war, i'll change it back when i have time and patience. Comments? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Series is more usual for UK-based programs isn't it? (Season being US). Having said that, I agree that there should be consistancy on the page so yes, I agree that the editor would have to change them all in that case. Although personally, US terminology in UK articles does annoy me, I think Season vs Series is not one for the editor to get worked up about ;-) Just my two-peneth!  --Rcalvert (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the subject matter is of UK origin, UK terminology dominates. While it might be helpful to note the double meaning of series, we should use the British terminology, and perhaps create a no-wiki, so noobs can read it before editing in the American terms. Be thankful that new Yanks are catching on to the series. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, i'll leave it alone, though 'History...' and possibly other articles may need changing for consistency. I doubt i'll bother, I *do* actually have a life, you know! :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be a bit of a myth that's being taken as gospel that "season" is exclusively US usage and "series" UK usage. The main UK counter example is Doctor Who where "season" is almost the only word used in published writing for the individual year bits (at least in the classic series) and by all accounts both terms were used in internal documents from the outset. The strong overlaps between the two series, both in terms of production personnel and writers, is probably the reason it's used a lot for Blake's 7. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In B7 fandom, 'season(s)' seems to be in common usage. Both the Attwood and Nazzaro/Wells books refer to 'season(s)' (Attwood uses A/B/C/D/ whilst Nazarro/Wells uses 1/2/3/4). The DVD box sets use 'series'. In those days, BBC would commonly (and still do IIRC) announce a 'new series of...' whatever programme. So there are precedents for both terms in the B7 context. I'm in favour of using 'Season(s)' but i'm happy to leave it alone atm... Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality
Where is the disputed neutrality talk? If the critical reception section isn't neutral, it should be changed or removed. Why is there no record of the dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.221.189 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in more detail what you mean about the "disputed neutrality talk"? Are there bad reviews of Blake's 7? I mean, I am sure there are, but are you suggesting that they were removed? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one disputing the neutrality. Look at the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingjones (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a negative review and have removed the tag. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's the old apostrophe issue, too? The negative review added was a good selection, Baffle gab.--Sturmde (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Although many tropes of space opera are present, such as spaceships, robots, galactic empires and aliens, its budget was inadequate for its interstellar narrative." The latter phrase is an opinion, not an absolute. --Neopeius (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Series / season 3 - Children of Auron
It is stated "Servalan's attempt to create clones of herself is thwarted and the clone embryos are destroyed. Servalan, suffering from "psychic miscarriage", swaps her trademark white clothes for the black of mourning.[30]". If you watch the episode, she is wearing black right at the start of the episode so how can she swap her white clothes for the back of mourning before her clone embryos are even impregnated ?AlexandrDmitri (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Servie's psychic, didn't you know? :-) Seriously, this page is here to discuss the article, not the programme, so please stay largely on-topic when posting here, thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

British Broadcasting Corporation
Please could the 'BBC' not be reverted to The British Broadcasting Corporation. The organisation is known as the BBC, indeed consider its own Wikipedia page: 1) is titled 'BBC, and 2) the introduction states The British Broadcasting Corporation, almost always referred to by its abbreviation "the BBC". There is no rationale for using otherwise, and 'BBC' is also consistent with the Wikipedia guidance page which notes 'Convention: Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article,'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the rationale for using otherwise - the Manual of Style sayeth:

"Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. When introducing a new name in an article, it is good practice to use the full name on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses. For example, The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority (first mention of New Democratic Party in the article), and The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters (subsequent mention)." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 119.224.43.24, I have since left a more in-depth comment on your talk page relating to this issue. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that on just about every other page that is about a BBC show (that I've looked at), the abbreviation is not expanded in this way. Luminifer (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC is also not alone in being treated this way: Lost (TV series), The Norm Show, The Critic... While there is reason to believe we should go and change all of these, there is also reason to believe that maybe we should re-evaluate the interpretation of the stated policy, given the natural trend of editors, or that we should rethink the policy itself. Luminifer (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I can't see how having a full, three-word title next to an abbreviation in parenthesis once in an article causes a single, anonymous editor (119.224.43.24) a problem. Perhaps if the article discussed DNA or EDTA, I'd be more understanding with his or her point. I was simply following Wikipedia's stated policy. I dunno, maybe i'm just old-fashioned. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. It does not hurt to follow what is often standard practice with acronyms, however well-known they might be perceived to be, to spell it out in full with the abbreviation in parenthesis the first time, and thereafter refer to the abbreviated version. It's not like we are writing a headline for a newspaper where space is short; we are writing an online encyclopedia whose aim is to be accurate, precise and inform. Even the BBC article starts off with The British Broadcasting Corporation, usually referred to by its abbreviation "the BBC". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back to the original text, thanks for all comments. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: I've been tracking this IP's activity; his/her edits almost always concern the names of countries and nationalities. It's probably flagging the use of 'British' twice in the opening sentence, but at that editor doesn't seem interested in this discussion, I'll see if I can find a workaround. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

?????? I am amazed. The organisation is known as the 'BBC' by itsef, Wikipedia, everyone in this country and across the world. No one calls it 'The British Broadcasting Corporation.' Using this long winded name would be cumbersome and simply confuse readers. An explantion of the origin of its name is of course needed in the 'BBC' article but this article is about Blakes 7 not the BBC. Let's just leave it in a form that make sense rather than claming 'rules', which in any case are fluid and hence liable to change. Using 'The British Broadcasting Corporation' would be a victory for illogical petty pedantry rather than common sense, and would damage the clarity and accuracy of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.163.77 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Irritated response text removed by original author under WP:REDACT Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the courtesy of replying, although I would find it politer and more constructive if you did not express such an awful atttidue to others: there is no value in highlighting a typographical error ('claming') and writing such as "I can't be arsed." Also, despite the attempts of people to discuss, and clearly explain, why BBC is valid & preferable, you have resorted to a passive-aggressive threat of "..do what you like .. it may have to change." And if you do not like the idea of "anonymous I.P.'s" commenting on discussion pages then it would be better if you lobbied for a change of the rule which permits this rather than making snide comments here. It is worth reminding yourself that no matter how passionate you are about the series this article does not belong to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.85.149 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record the following is the original comment from Bafflegab1978 to which the above comment refers. For some reason he / her then subsequently changed it on more than one occasion: "Well I'm not sure I was "...claming (sic) rules", merely following the guidelines by using the full name in the first instance - and hardly pedantry. Still, it doesn't matter much, and since it's such an issue with those who use anonymous I.P.'s, I'll leave it be. I'd like this article to be promoted to G.A. status one day - then it may have to change. But until then, do what you like because I can't be arsed."


 * Hi, thank you for replying. I've already made my comments about the issue in the thread above and I see no need to repeat them ad infinitum. We can continue this discussion on my talk page or you can report my conduct at the noticeboard. Thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who Overlap
I think there is significant interest in the overlap of casting between this series and Doctor Who. It is a useful piece of information, with respect to BBC casting, and science fiction casting in particular. Who thinks that it should NOT be there, and who thinks that it SHOULD? Someone already reverted it once, so I will ask here. Luminifer (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think it's trivial info that should be available at the Wikipedia pages concerning the actors, rather than this article, which is about the television programme, not the actors who played the characters. If it isn't already there, you might add it to the actors' pages, as long as it's referenced, of course. Thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find evidence that there is "significant interest" in the overlap, that it is "useful" (in what way?) and some evidence that the casting between the two shows was deliberate for the list you intend to add, then I would have no objections. But I doubt you can.  And let's face it, Doctor Who is such a long-running programme that actors in it are almost certainly going to crop up in any other TV series you can name, and not just other science fiction series.  Similarly, you could add lists of actors from Blake's 7 that also appeared in other TV shows, such as Emmerdale, for instance, but it would be equally pointless.  I'm with Baffle gab1978 - this information is really only relevant to the actors, not to the TV series itself. Stephenb (Talk) 08:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I had in mind would be similar to List of guest appearances in Doctor Who. It could be expanded beyond Doctor Who overlap, if that makes more sense. Luminifer (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that if one wanted to get this information without such a list being available, one would have to look at every actor's page that's ever been on Blake's 7. Luminifer (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to start a new referenced article, please feel free, but I think that list doesn't belong in this article. It could be linked via 'see also' or the template. It would probably be deleted as listcruf if posted here. Sorry. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One one occasion episodes of both series were being filmed in the same quarry - which was only discovered when the noise from one lot reached the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.37 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Series One-Four or A-D?
I notice that whilst this page numbers the four series/seasons, List of Blake's 7 episodes lists them as A-through-D. This presumably takes its cue from Attwood's programme guide, but surely we should be consitent, one way or the other. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes they *should* be consistent; the History of Blake's 7 article also uses letters to denote seasons, and uses 'seasons' whilst this article uses 'series' because someone changed it from 'seasons' and I couldn't be bothered to argue over it. I'd planned to standardise the articles but RL threw up some obstacles and I totally forgot. Feel free if you want to standardise them. You should also read this archived talk page for older posts on this issue.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe?
''"On the negative side, broadcaster and critic Clive James calls the series "...classically awful British television SF ... no apostrophe in the title, no sense in the plot."''

Was James wrong? If not, when did the apostrophe come in? --John (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The titles and the Radio Times listings never had an apostrophe. --91.111.57.167 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In which case surely the title of this page should be changed to "Blakes 7" or "Blakes Seven"? IanB2 (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless you can show in multiple reliable sources that the official title has no apostrophe. Everything I've seen shows that it has one. It's only the stylised logos that omit it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, hunting around there is clearly a variety of usage. The Clive James comment cited appears to be a cheap shot at the logo rather than the programme title, and in such circumstances isn't really a signigicant comment on the programme! IanB2 (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How can the program's own title captions and its broadcaster's official listings magazine not count as "multiple reliable sources". It could be arguable that its own title captions were only a "stylised logo", but not the Radio Times listings. The name of the program always was "Blakes 7", end of!--feline1 (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Baffleg has a point - even the BBC used an apostrophe from time to time, so the position isn't conclusive. Indeed I found this page here that not only has an apostrophe in the title but also a logo I haven't seen before, where the '7' is used as an apostrophe as in 'Blake7s': http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sp6cg IanB2 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is *not* what Baffleg's point was ("BBC used an apostrophe from time to time") - it is whether we have multiple contemporary references from the broadcaster as to what their own programme was called. Which we do. It was called "Blakes 7". Some Radio 4 webpage from decades later is immaterial, as it was obviously just done by someone acting on their own initiative.--feline1 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Feline1. Even so, unless a consensus of editors decides otherwise, we go with what the majority of reliable sources call the programme, per WP:CRITERIA. If it's any comfort, Blakes 7 redirects here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Radio Times isn't always right - they called "Top Cat" "The Boss Cat" and so on. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, for one, refers to it as "Blakes 7", no apostrophe. Personally I'm inclined to think that the lack of apostrophe in the logo was just the logo designer deciding that the design looked better if he left out the correct punctuation. But I wonder what a comprehensive search of authoritative sources would show. 108.7.232.142 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was, no doubt, 'an infestation of Grocers' apostrophe.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate season lists for Blake's 7
Would anyone care (in the absence of a B7 Wikiproject) to comment here on splitting the current History of Blake's 7 article into separate season lists as per other projects such as Lost and Battlestar Galactica. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Series Episode Decription
Hi. Could someone please list in 0rder the name of each episode and the episode/Series number as opposwd to just giving a summary pf the plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.117.223 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See List of Blake's 7 episodes which lists them in order. There's no articles for individual episodes so you'll just have to make do with the summaries there.  Or try some B7 fans sites Stephenb (Talk) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Big Finish
Yes could someone include the new deal with Big Finish as I don't have time to do it now: http://www.blakes7.com/index.php/2011/07/blakes-7-audiobook-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers
I appreciate Wikipedia should not have a blanket no-spoiler policy. All the same, the amount of infromation revealed in the opening paragraph of the article does not add anything to it. The information isn't important, nor necessary, to understanding a basic description of this entry

For people familiar with the show, it is extreneous. However, given that Wikipedia is such a default resource nowadays, it is a page very likely to be checked by those unfamiliar with the show for a bit more detail. As it stands, I have to specifically warn new viewers not to check the Wiki because of the information given away at the very top of the page.

Details of cast changes and plot developments should be on the page, but not in the opening paragraph. This makes it a more universal resource - those just checking to, i.e., look up cast names, running times or qualify season lengths, should be able to without having their experience hampered.

Support, please, for deleting "Later, a supercomputer called Orac is procured. Gan is killed during the second series. After the second series, Blake and Jenna disappear and are replaced by new characters Dayna Mellanby and Del Tarrant. In the fourth series, Cally dies and is replaced by a new character, Soolin. Following the destruction of the Liberator, the computer Zen is replaced with Slave, a new computer character, part of the newly acquired ship "Scorpio". "

Wikipedia spoiler policy is here: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPOILER"

I quote: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." - but this information is not in a section one would reasonably choose to avoid if avoiding spoilers.

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." - the information should be deleted from the lead section, but preserved in the rest of the article - where it is already (and should be) detailed.

"Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality" - including that information there in particular doesn't add to any of these.

Ninquelosse (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour of deleting that text wholesale, but it could be replaced with something better. I suggest: "At the end of the first series, a supercomputer called Orac is procured. The third series introduces new crew-members Dayna Mellanby and Del Tarrant, followed by Soolin in the fourth series. This last series also shows the characters gaining a new ship, Scorpio, and its computer "Slave"." How about that? Stephenb (Talk) 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." from WP:Leader. Stephen's text is fine, but removes the destruction of Liberator, deaths of Gan and Cally and the disappearances of Jenna and Blake. And "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." from WP:SPOILERS. Perhaps you could move some of this into 'Overview' - which needs expanding I think - and add more material to the leader to summarise the latter sections, like 'Critical reception' etc. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say thee was too much detail in the lede at the moment on the actual characters coming and going. (too "in-universe"?) Better perhaps to summarise that the composition of the 7 changed with the replacement of the characters. Worth including that this includes the replacement of the titular Blake (and the actors reason) and the iconic Liberator and the disruption of the Federation following Star One? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have edited along these lines - removing the contested information to the Overview, and bulking up the lead with more diverse information from the influences, production history and critical reception sections. 159.92.234.160 (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jona's Comments
If I may baffle gab, here are my concerns while reading this interesting article:
 * Infobox
 * Why does the run_time parameter reads "c. 50 minutes per episode"? Meerkat Manor, a FA television show, does not represent this. Also its best to use duration for this parameter.
 * Not done - 'duration' is a parameter that relates to music infoboxes, television uses 'runtime'; 'c.' means 'circa' which is Latin for 'approximately'. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "and was inspired by sources such as" - what does "sources" mean in this sentence?
 * "Sources" in this context means sources of inspiration (film and other media) that were drawn upon by the creator and writers of the programme. 'Changed to "fictional media texts". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is Roj Blake wikilinked at its second occurrence?
 * Fixed Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "they commandeer an inferior spacecraft" - is this a typo?
 * No it isn't a typo; to commandeer is to take something from somebody for a specific reason, usually applied to a legal authority (police, military etc). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "In the final episode, Avon discovers Blake's location and suspecting Blake of betraying the group to the Federation, kills him." - is not in past-tense tone, the rest of lead is in past-tense except for this sentence.
 * We use the present tense to describe fictional events that occur within the narrative per WP:WAF. This also tells the reader whether fictional or real-world events are being described. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "and its memorable final episode" sounds like an MOS:OPED to me
 * removed 'memorable' Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "but broadcasterClive James called it" - needs space
 * Fixed - thanks :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Music and sound effects were released by the BBC, toys and models were produced and books, magazines and annuals were published." - this reads like a run-off, xx was released, xy were published, and ab were published.
 * Done - it now reads: "Books, magazines and annuals were published, the BBC released music and sound effects from the series and several companies made Blake's 7 toys and models." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * References
 * FN#58 and FN#77 needs to be fixed
 * Use a consistent date format (compare FN#75 and #77)
 * Thank you for pointing those reference problems to me, I'll fix them as soon as I can. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ajona, thanks for commenting here, you've been very helpful. :-) This should be discussed at the peer review page; would you mind if I move these conversations into that page? It would help keep all the relevant comments together. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Viewing Figures
Where are they? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Overview: "Blake's 7 was watched by approximately 10 million people in the UK and was broadcast in 25 other countries.[7]". There's more on History of Blake's 7 if you need them. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Blake's 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061016000010/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/cult/news/cult/2004/09/23/14386.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2004/09/23/14386.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101222051358/http://www.blakes7.com:80/index.php/2006/12/blakes-7-reborn-on-audio/ to http://www.blakes7.com/index.php/2006/12/blakes-7-reborn-on-audio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

naming

 * En route he and fellow prisoners Jenna Stannis and Kerr Avon gain control of a technologically advanced alien spacecraft, which its central computer Zen informs is named Liberator.

As I misremember it, both Liberator and Zen are named by Blake. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Zen named the ship, having taken the word "liberator" from Jenna's mind. --50.0.128.145 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)