text:
Canada Line

The Canada Line is a rapid transit line in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, that is part of the SkyTrain system. The line is owned by TransLink and InTransitBC and is operated by ProTrans BC. Coloured turquoise on route maps, it operates as an airport rail link between Vancouver, Richmond, and the Vancouver International Airport (YVR). The line comprises 16 stations and 19.2 km of track; the main line runs from Vancouver to Richmond while a 4 km spur line from Bridgeport station connects to the airport. It opened on August 17, 2009, ahead of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

The Canada Line was anticipated to have 100,000 boardings per day in 2013 and 142,000 boardings per day by 2021, but it has consistently exceeded early targets. Ridership has grown steadily since opening day, with average ridership of 83,000 per day in September 2009, 105,000 per day in March 2010, and over 136,000 passengers per weekday in June 2011. During the 17 days of the 2010 Winter Olympics, the line carried an average of 228,190 passengers per day.

Governance of the project was through Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (CLCO), formerly RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO), a reflection of the original "Richmond–Airport–Vancouver" name). The line was built by SNC-Lavalin, and InTransitBC is under contract with TransLink to manage the line for its first 35 years, until 2044. The Canada Line is operationally independent from British Columbia Rapid Transit Company, which operates SkyTrain's Expo and Millennium lines but is considered a part of the SkyTrain network. Like the other two SkyTrain lines in Metro Vancouver, it is also light metro rapid transit, using fully automated trains on grade-separated guideways. However, the trains are powered by conventional motors with third rail electrical pickup rather than the linear induction system used on the other SkyTrain lines.

Route
The Canada Line begins in Downtown Vancouver at Waterfront station (0.0 km) in a cut-and-cover subway tunnel beneath Granville Street. It quickly goes into twin-bored tunnels, heading southwest beneath Granville Street, then curving southeast to follow Davie Street through Yaletown. The tunnels then dive deeper to pass below False Creek before rising back up to Olympic Village station (2.7 km). There, the line transitions back to a cut-and-cover tunnel (which is noted by the tunnel changing from a circular to a square shape), heading south under Cambie Street. This section has some portions where the two sets of tracks are stacked vertically. The line emerges from the ground just south of 64th Avenue, climbing to an elevated guideway.

The line continues elevated across the North Arm Bridge over the North Arm of the Fraser River, leaving Vancouver and entering Richmond. Just beyond Bridgeport station (11.1 km) at a flying junction, the line splits, with the Richmond branch heading south on elevated tracks along No. 3 Road and terminating at Richmond–Brighouse station (14.5 km). The airport branch turns west and crosses the Middle Arm Bridge over the Middle Arm of the Fraser River, connecting to stations on Sea Island and terminating at YVR–Airport station (15.0 km). Portions of the airport branch are at grade in order to accommodate a future elevated taxiway for aircraft over the line. Both branches narrow to a single track as they approach their respective terminus stations. Just before Bridgeport station is the Operations and Maintenance Centre (OMC) facility, which houses Canada Line trains that are not in use.

Stations
Station construction was designed as a two-stage process. Sixteen original stations opened at the same time as the line did. Three additional stations are planned, and may be built in the future. The stations are listed below.

Each Canada Line station is slightly different in appearance, designed to blend in with the surrounding neighbourhood. For example, Langara–49th Avenue station is designed to fit into the area's low-density residential neighbourhood.

The five busiest stations have platforms 50 m long, while the rest of the stations have 40 m platforms that can be easily extended to 50 metres. The termini at YVR–Airport and Richmond–Brighouse stations are single-tracked, whereas the Waterfront station terminus is double-tracked. The double-tracking is necessary to accommodate the three-minute headways between trains on the Waterfront–Bridgeport portion of the line. King Edward station is the only station with a stacked configuration, and Broadway–City Hall station is the only station with a double-height ceiling over the platforms. Vancouver City Centre station is linked to Pacific Centre mall and Vancouver Centre Mall, in addition to having street level access. All direct transfers to the Expo and Millennium Lines must be made at Waterfront station; there is no direct connection from Vancouver City Centre station to Granville station. However, it is possible to transfer between those two stations via a short walk through Pacific Centre or Vancouver Centre Mall.

Stations were configured to allow for the future installation of fare gates, and received fare gates in 2013 as part of full implementation throughout all SkyTrain stations. Every station has an up escalator and an elevator, but only the three terminal stations have down escalators.

Until late 2019, six stations (Vancouver City Centre, Olympic Village, Broadway–City Hall, Marine Drive, Templeton, and YVR–Airport) were equipped with self-service flight check-in kiosks which allowed customers to check into their flights at Vancouver International Airport while at these stations.

Additional stations
Provisions have been made to allow for the addition of the following infill stations in the future:

 * 33rd Avenue (Cambie Street at West 33rd Avenue, next to Queen Elizabeth Park)
 * 57th Avenue (Cambie Street at West 57th Avenue)
 * The future of a 57th Avenue (Cambie Street and West 57th Avenue) in Vancouver is not fully known at this time. The original plan was that one day a station could be built, but new documents and talk between TransLink and the City of Vancouver raise the possibility of it never happening. The station was part of the broad policy statement adopted in 2014 by city council for the redevelopment of the Pearson Dogwood lands. But in June 2017 Susan Haid, city assistant director of planning for Vancouver South, submitted a report to Vancouver council stating that "though it is desirable to achieve a future station at 57th Avenue there are a number of key challenges," Haid wrote in her report. "Currently, the station is not considered in regional transportation plans and is not considered a regional priority such as the Broadway Corridor line." Haid also added to her report that, "Should the station not be attainable in the long-term future, the financial contribution towards a future station would be re-allocated to address the amenity priorities identified for Pearson Dogwood and those in and around the Cambie Corridor consistent with the respective public benefit strategies."
 * Capstan Way
 * A future station at Capstan Way (No. 3 Road and Capstan Way) in Richmond had been planned but was cancelled in March 2009. Pinnacle International and Concord Pacific, the developers of the Sun Tech City project, could not fund the $25 million required to build the station. The developers could only offer $15 million up-front, but this sum was not accepted by TransLink and the City of Richmond. In May 2012, the city of Richmond made an agreement with TransLink and the developers to fund the project in a special way: the developers would pay a fee of just over $8,500 per unit with the specific amount adjusted in October to account for inflation. In November 2017, the City of Richmond released $3.5 million to TransLink to cover costs of designing the Capstan Way station. As of September 30, 2017, about $19.36 million of the $27.8 million required has been collected. In 2012 when the agreement was struck, it was expected to take about 15 years to collect the required funds, but based on development permit applications, it was possible the full $27.8 million could be achieved by mid-2018, a full nine years early than expected. By May 2019, $32million had been raised, exceeding the required $27.8million, which had been reached in November 2018. By December 2019, the station was still in the detailed design stage. Construction on the station began in September 2021, with the station expected to open in March 2023. It has since been delayed to early 2024.
 * YVR Terminal 3 (near YVR Terminal 3)
 * The master plan for the Vancouver International Airport for 2027 indicates that this station would be built alongside the airport's proposed Northeast Terminal expansion.

Transit connections
Many transit services connect with the Canada Line and form an important part of the service. With the opening of the line, most bus routes in Richmond, and connecting services from White Rock, Tsawwassen, and Ladner, doubled their service frequency. Waterfront station provides connections to the R5 Hastings St, Expo Line, West Coast Express, and SeaBus. Broadway–City Hall provides a connection to the 99 B-Line service.

There are currently only two routes serving Vancouver International Airport: the N10 NightBus, running parallel to the Canada Line along Granville Street, and route 412, running between Airport South and Bridgeport station. Riders on these bus routes are not subject to the YVR AddFare. The Airport Station exchange was downgraded to a regular bus stop on September 7, 2009, a few weeks after the opening of the line. Bus routes that used this loop were discontinued (as in the case of the 424 and the 98 B-Line), short-turned (as in the case of the 100, renamed 100 Marpole Loop), or redirected to Bridgeport station (as in the case of the 620, C90, and C92).

Work began in May 2021 to extend the Millennium Line from VCC–Clark station west along Broadway to the new Arbutus station, allowing for a transfer to the Canada Line at Broadway–City Hall station. As indicated in material presented by the City of Vancouver at public meetings in early 2006, this station was designed with such a future extension in mind. A "knock-out" panel was installed in the concourse that would facilitate construction of a connection between the station and a Broadway-corridor SkyTrain extension.

The Canada Line uses the same fare system as the rest of the transit system managed by TransLink, with two exceptions:

 * The YVR AddFare, started in January 2010, is a surcharge that applies to some passengers leaving the airport and travelling eastbound to Bridgeport station and beyond. Passengers headed away from the airport must pay a $5 AddFare on top of the regular fare to leave the Sea Island stations unless they are travelling on a monthly pass; or a DayPass or a single-use Compass Ticket not that was not purchased on Sea Island.
 * Travel between the Sea Island stations is free to everyone. There is no additional fare for passengers travelling toward the airport. Such trips require a special Sea Island ticket that is free to obtain at any ticket machine at the Sea Island stations. These tickets are not valid for tapping out at other stations; an exit ticket is required for Sea Island ticketholders exiting at any station outside of Sea Island.

The Canada Line operates on a "Fare Paid Zone" system. Passengers are required by law to possess a valid fare when they are in Fare Paid Zones. Fare Paid Zones are clearly marked, and fares can be bought from Compass Vending Machines at all stations. Fare inspections are mostly conducted by the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service. Passengers who fail to pay the fare or do not have a valid fare may be fined $173 and/or removed from the station or train.

Canada Line attendants are the customer service staff for the Canada Line. They are easily identifiable by their green uniforms. They provide customer service, troubleshoot certain problems with the trains, observe and report safety issues, and check fares.

Technology
The Canada Line uses a fleet of trains built by Rotem, a division of Hyundai Motor Group. The trains are powered by conventional electric motors, rather than the linear induction motors used by the Expo and Millennium Line's Bombardier ART trains. Canada Line trains are operated by the same SelTrac automated train control system used in the rest of the SkyTrain network.

The selection of Rotem was largely a consequence of the request for proposals process for the public-private partnership, whose terms did not allow Bombardier to consider efficiencies in combining operations or rolling-stock orders for the new line with those for the existing system. This placed all bidders on a level playing field, albeit at the cost of not necessarily picking the most efficient choice for long-term operation. The RFP also required that the system have a capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour in each direction (leaving the choice of technology and platform length to the proponent) and a maximum travel time between the airport and downtown Vancouver of 24 minutes.

The fleet consists of 32 fully automated two-car articulated trains, for a total of 64 cars. The capacity of the trains is estimated at 334 people per pair of cars (comfortably) or 400 people at crush load. The trains have a top speed of 80 km/h in normal operation and 90 km/h in catch-up mode. Each married pair of gangway-connected cars is 41 m long and 3 m wide, and longer and wider than the Bombardier ART fleet used on the Expo and Millennium lines. Each train has LED electronic displays on the exterior to indicate the terminus station and on the interior to display the next station and the terminus station, a useful feature considering the line has two branches.

In 2018, twelve additional trainsets were ordered by Translink from Hyundai Rotem at a cost of $88 million to increase capacity on the line. The sole-source contract allowed for commonality between the two train models, and reduced the number of specialized tools and parts required. These were delivered in 2019 and 2020.

Canada Line Hyundai Rotem specifications

 * Car builder: Hyundai Rotem, South Korea
 * Car body: brushed stainless steel, with a vinyl wrap at the outer ends
 * Unit numbers: pairs numbered 1xx and 2xx where xx increments from 01 to 32
 * Fleet of: 32 two-car train sets
 * Train length: 41 m
 * Car width: 3 m
 * Car height: 3.6 m
 * Track gauge:
 * Total weight: 76 t (empty)
 * Propulsion system: Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) AC traction motors
 * Max. speed: 80 km/h
 * Power: 750 V DC
 * Braking system: Pneumatic wheel disc brake
 * Capacity (per train set): 342 passengers (41 seats)
 * Capacity: 5,000 to 15,000 passengers per hour
 * Coupling/numbering arrangement: All married pairs.
 * Signalling system: moving block controlled by cable Loop, Thales Rail Signalling Solutions from Toronto, Ontario

Name
During the planning and public consultation stages, the line was known as the "Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Line", or RAV for short. The name "Canada Line" was adopted in 2005 to coincide with the beginning of construction. Some early documents also refer to it as the "Olympic Line", in recognition of the 2010 Winter Olympics, continuing the practice by which the Expo and Millennium lines were named after significant events occurring at the time of construction. This name was adopted for the demonstration modern streetcar service that operated along the Downtown Historic Railway for a two-month period centred on the Olympics.

Timeline

 * Between 1990 and 1992, BC Transit and N. D. Lea (now WSP Global) consultants studied intermediate-capacity transit system options in the Vancouver–Richmond corridor.
 * From September 1991 through August 1993, the TRANSPORT 2021 Steering Committee carried out an extensive program of research and public consultation to create "A Long Range Transportation Plan for Greater Vancouver". Under Project Director M. L. (Martin Crilly), a comprehensive transportation investment and financing strategy was envisioned for the region. Until today all existing and proposed road and transit investments have been put forth in this plan. The plan calls for the provision of an intermediate-capacity transit system from Richmond to Vancouver's central business district.
 * In fall of 1994, N. D. Lea and Delcan consultants carried out studies examining technologies, operating feasibility, ridership, capital and operating costs, traffic impacts, and development potential in three corridors, including the Richmond–Vancouver corridor. These studies were prepared as input into BC Transit's 10-Year Development Plan. They did not include a spur line to the Vancouver International Airport.
 * In 1995, BC Transit (a crown corporation responsible for public transit) expressed a desire to create a special bus rapid transit (BRT) or automated rapid transit (ART) service connecting the cities of Richmond and Vancouver and the Vancouver International Airport in one of the transit improvement plans.
 * Underground rights-of-way were reserved at the Concord Pacific development close to the Cambie bridge.
 * From mid-1997 to mid-1998 a number of BRT routes for Vancouver-airport/Richmond were evaluated, and the preferred route and station locations were selected.
 * June 24, 1998, the minister in charge of BC Transit, Joy MacPhail, announced plans to build a Vancouver–Richmond ALRT: "The new line would link Richmond city centre, the airport and Downtown Vancouver—probably running north-south through Vancouver along the Cambie Street corridor." "MacPhail said the province wants to accelerate the construction of rapid transit to Richmond as part of a bid to bring the 2010 Winter Olympics to the Lower Mainland."
 * In 1999, detailed design of the Vancouver-Airport/Richmond BRT was carried out.
 * On April 1, 1999, The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) was created under the direction of CEO Ken Dobell, previously city manager for the City of Vancouver.
 * In April 2000, TransLink adopted its Strategic Transportation Plan 2000–2005. The plan noted that future transit lines have equal priority, and recommended the planning and design of a Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) rapid transit line.
 * May 2000 saw the approval of the RAV study, while construction had begun on the BRT service between Richmond Centre, Airport Station exchange, and downtown Vancouver.
 * In 2000, a Transport Canada report on rail access to the airport estimated it would cost $1.3billion for a SkyTrain expansion using the Cambie route and $738million for a light rail system along the Arbutus corridor.
 * In December 2000, TransLink received the report on public-private partnerships for road and transportation infrastructure, the model that would be used to finance, construct, and operate the new Canada Line.
 * On April 1, 2001, bus operators and other CMBC employees went on strike, delaying full implementation of the Vancouver-Airport-Richmond BRT by four months.
 * That same month, TransLink reaffirmed a Vancouver–Richmond line including a connection to the airport, and approved a recommendation by the TransLink CEO that, based on greater benefits from a private-sector perspective and community concerns, at-grade rail transit be excluded from further analysis and that analysis in Vancouver be restricted to underground options.
 * On August 1, 2001, the 98 B-Line BRT service began service in the corridor, ultimately carrying over 20,000 passengers per day, while plans were already under way for an ART service to replace it. This proposed service was projected to carry over 100,000 passengers per day.
 * On December 10, 2001, the federal government under Jean Chrétien announced over $2.0billion in funding for large infrastructure projects; the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund established by this budget would fund the federal government's contribution to the Canada Line. The government stipulated that the fund promote private-public partnerships where appropriate.
 * In April 2002, work was started on the third phase, project definition. This ten-month task consisted of a technical evaluation to determine if it was possible to build the line by 2010.
 * In 2003, ten companies or consortia submitted expressions of interest in the project.
 * In December 2003, this was shortlisted to the following three consortia, which were given a request for proposal:
 * RAVLink Transportation, which included Fluor Canada, Siemens AG Canada, MTR Corporation, and Balfour Beatty Capital Projects;
 * RAVxpress, which included Bombardier, AMEC, Bouygues Travaux Publics, and Bilfinger Berger; and
 * SNC-Lavalin/Serco, which included SNC-Lavalin and Serco.
 * On April 16, 2004, the federal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin increased its funding promise from $300 million to $450 million.
 * On June 10, 2004, the provincial government restated its commitment to the Canada Line, increasing funding from $300 to $370 million, and earmarked $170 million for the Evergreen Line.
 * On June 30, 2004, after twice voting to cancel the project, the TransLink Board approved the RAV line but maintained the right to cancel the project if none of the bids met the approved budget of $1.35 billion.
 * On November 19, 2004, RAVCO recommended that the SNC-Lavalin/Serco (now known as InTransitBC) proposal for a fully automated, grade-separated system be accepted. This "best and final offer" bid was $343 million over the approved budget. The project was, however, brought within the funding allowance through various cost-trimming measures, including design changes, the contractor agreeing to lower its bid, and the province contributing another $65 million.
 * On December 1, 2004, the TransLink board gave final approval for the project.
 * On July 29, 2005, the final contract to design, build, and operate the RAV Line was signed by InTransitBC and TransLink. Serco was no longer a partner to InTransitBC, and two pension funds were brought into the partnership.
 * In October 2005, the utilities relocation and road work was started.
 * On November 25, 2005, the design of the new trains was unveiled, and Hyundai Rotem was announced as the supplier of the trains. It was announced that the new line would be called the Canada Line as a funding condition from the federal government.
 * The line opened at 1 p.m. local time on August 17, 2009, on budget and three and a half months ahead of schedule, and six months ahead of the 2010 Winter Olympics held in Vancouver. It began normal revenue service on the following day.
 * On September 30, 2009, it was announced that the Canada Line had seen an average of 82,500 passengers per day since opening, putting it well on track to reach its ridership target of 100,000 per day within two years.
 * On December 28, 2009, it was revealed that the average daily ridership (including weekends) has grown to 93,000 and has occasionally exceeded 100,000, three years ahead of expectations.
 * On February 5, 2010, ridership reached a (then) record of 135,000 during a campaign to encourage residents to use transit prior to the Olympics. Further single-day records included 157,000 on February 11, 2010, and 210,000 on February 15, 2010, with all 20 trains running.
 * Overall, the 2010 Winter Olympics saw the Canada Line's ridership increase by 118 percent to an average of 228,190 per day for 17 days, with a single-day record of 287,400 on February 19, 2010. Its regular non-Olympic ridership was stated as being 104,674 per weekday.
 * In February 2011, Translink revealed that the average daily ridership of the Canada Line had grown to 110,000 per day.
 * In September 2021, construction began for the Capstan station at Capstan Way, which is expected to open in March 2023.

Project funding
The Canada Line was built as a public-private partnership. Funding was provided by both government agencies and a private partner, the proponent. As of March 2009, the entire project was expected to cost $2.054 billion. The premier of BC stated that the project was on budget and ahead of schedule. When approved in December 2004, the cost was given as $1.76 billion.

The public contributions to the budget come from the following sources:

 * Government of Canada: $450 million
 * Government of British Columbia: $435 million
 * Vancouver Airport Authority: $300million
 * TransLink: $334 million
 * City of Vancouver: $29 million

These sums are all in 2006 dollars, except for the government of Canada's contribution, which will be paid out when constructed, and is estimated to be equivalent of $419 million 2003 dollars.

The private partner was expected to contribute $200 million, and be responsible for any construction cost overruns. As of November 7, 2009, InTransitBC has invested $750 million. InTransitBC is a joint venture company owned by SNC-Lavalin, the Investment Management Corporation of BC, and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

The BC government had committed $370 million, but when the bid came in over budget, it contributed an extra $65 million. TransLink also put in extra money by committing money from the sale of the Sexsmith Park and Ride in Richmond and from the introduction of a special fare in the Airport Zone.

In November 2004, bid costs were reduced by postponing the construction of a walkway between Waterfront station and the cruise ship terminal, removing Westminster station, and moving Richmond Centre station and the end of the line several hundred metres north. TransLink would further pay for the cost of reinstallation of the trolley wires along Cambie. As a way to further reduce the best and final offer, RAVCO no longer required that the proponent provide for 59 ticket vending machines and 38 ticket validating machines or for a police unit to operate on the RAV line. RAVCO also shifted responsibility for moving trolley wires from SNC-Lavalin to TransLink. Costs were also decreased due to decisions to single-track sections on the Richmond and airport branches. The Richmond branch was single-tracked from Ackroyd Road onward in large part due to Richmond's city council pressuring for the visual profile of the overhead line to be reduced for esthetic reasons.

On July 11, 2006, a decision was made to relocate Broadway station half a block north at a cost of $3million to allow for better integration of the station with Broadway and a new development in the area. The funding was provided as follows: one third from the City of Vancouver, one third from TransLink, and one third from surplus funding available to CLCO.

In February 2007, TransLink approved the addition of a pedestrian and bicycle path to the Canada Line Bridge and agreed not to postpone the construction of a station at 2nd Avenue (Olympic Village station), but instead build it to be ready when the line opens. The $10million cost of the bridge bike path was paid for by TransLink and not considered part of the cost of the Canada Line. The Olympic Village station cost an additional $29million.

RAVCO was set up by the agencies funding the transit line to oversee project design, procurement, construction, and implementation. This TransLink subsidiary, later renamed Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc (CLCO), made distributions to the builder as work progressed.

The table below lists the year-by-year contributions (in millions of dollars) made by various governments on a year-by-year basis up to December 31, 2008. Contributions by TransLink are total disbursements minus contributions from the City of Vancouver, the government of British Columbia, and the government of Canada. Calculations show that TransLink has contributed $271million to date. It has committed an additional $52million in its 2009 budget.

The private sector will operate the line for 35 years in return for a share of its operating revenue.

In early 2006, TransLink decided not to install turnstiles at Canada Line stations, but stations would be designed to accommodate controlled access to allow TransLink to install them for less cost if it wished to do so in the future. On April 9, 2009, TransLink, the provincial government, and the government of Canada announced joint funding of $100 million to introduce turnstiles at all 49 SkyTrain stations. While a large portion of this funding will be used on the Expo and Millennium Lines, a portion will be used on the Canada Line stations. The federal government is contributing $30 million and the province is adding $40 million toward fare gates, or controlled access gates.

Construction
Construction began in October 2005 and was completed in August 2009.

At initial completion, the line comprised the following construction elements:

In addition to the 18.4 km of track above, there are about 500 m of track in the OMC.

Controversies
Opponents have claimed that the approval process was undemocratic and dishonest. In 2004, critics said that the projected ridership figures were grossly inflated; ridership projections were exceeded in 2010 and subsequent years. Opponents also argued that the official claim that the project had nothing to do with Vancouver's bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympics was not credible.

Public-private partnerships
Opponents of the RAV line's public-private partnership (P3) believe it was politically motivated and that it will cost more money because of the private involvement. However, the private involvement allowed for construction costs to be known and fixed up front. After raising its contribution to $435 million, the BC minister of transport and premier reaffirmed that this was the final contribution and that any cost overruns would be the responsibility of the proponent. The Canadian Union of Public Employees opposed the use of a P3 to design, build, and operate the Canada Line. The P3 process did not allow precise plans to be developed with public consultation, but limited discussion to certain abstract parameters, while leaving actual design details to the private partner.

Ridership projections
Before the building of the line, TransLink had projected that it would require a 100,000 passenger/day average to reach the "break even point". They also projected that it would take about three years for capacity to reach this point and that TransLink would be responsible for the loss. However, the Canada Line reached its projected ridership goal in late 2010, three years early. In 2017, TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond suggested that the Canada Line was underbuilt for its ridership, especially because more people moved into transit-oriented developments along the line following its completion. In 2019, former Vancouver city councillor Gord Price noted that the desire to have the line open in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, as well as not exceeding the budget, led to cautious decision making. In 2018, 20 additional trainsets were purchased to increase capacity on the line by 35 percent.

Vancouver
Although the latest proposal for rapid transit did not include an option for rapid transit down the Arbutus corridor along the abandoned CPR right of way, Vancouver council reopened debate on this issue. Given that the rail right of way is currently zoned for transit use with space available for transit lines, running the line down the Arbutus corridor may have been more cost-effective than tunnelling under Cambie. The planners and RAVCO, however, countered that the Arbutus corridor does not have the major concentration of transit destinations and origins that exist along the Cambie Street corridor, such as Vancouver City Hall, Vancouver General Hospital, Oakridge Centre, and Langara College, which are necessary to provide the ridership required for this project to be successful. Also the Arbutus corridor is longer than the Cambie corridor and would cause longer travel times. The Cambie corridor further had greater potential for future ridership growth.

The Project Definition Report further specified that any service had to be able to travel from Waterfront station in downtown Vancouver to the airport in 25 minutes or less. At-grade transit, either along Cambie or the Arbutus corridor, was ruled out as a result. The reason or origin for this exact requirement was not specified, although travel times were considered an important factor in attracting new riders and in retaining existing riders, who were now required to make an extra transfer relative to the existing bus service.

All partner contributions were made upon the specifications set in the Project Definition Report. Any "significant change" would allow each partner to reconsider its respective contribution. As the Arbutus corridor proposal could not meet the specifications, this could put participation of funding partners in jeopardy.

Residents along Cambie Boulevard created the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society in 1994, which opposed any alteration to a wide green centre median that is currently a grassy area with various species of trees, including cherry trees donated by the City of Yokohama on occasion of the 1967 Canadian Centennial. The residents had already been mobilized in 1989 in response to the possibility of elevated rail along Cambie Boulevard. In effect the residents were opposed to surface, trench, or elevated rail along much of Cambie Street. Even cut-and-cover construction raised concerns over construction impacts and temporary traffic diversions. Cost and ridership risks were also concerns to property tax–paying residents. Advertisements asked residents to join "to prevent Vancouver's worst traffic nightmare and from burdening ourselves and our children with unnecessary tax risks for years to come". The society suggested that the line instead be constructed along Arbutus, where its impact and cost would be minimal. Despite the society's concerns, one of the final two proposals for the Canada Line in 2004 involved a trench in the centre of Cambie Street from 49th to 64th Avenues.

On June 18, 2004, the TransLink Board voted 6–6 to oppose sending the project to the "best and final offer" stage. Opponents of the project favoured a proposal to build a line along the Cambie corridor involving a minimal amount of tunnelling, at a saving of about $300 million over the previously fully grade-separated proposal. The province responded to the suggestion by withdrawing funding until after the 2010 Olympics; Minister of Transport Kevin Falcon said that such a change of scope could no longer be accommodated in the time left before 2010. Mayors and councillors sitting on the TransLink Board, however, could not come to an agreement on this alternate plan of action. The impasse created a stir in the business community, which joined together and called for the province to take over control of the project. "The Coalition FOR a Lower Mainland Rapid Transit Solution" in a newspaper ad called on the premier to "please rescue our rapid transit". The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Council of Tourism Associations, and Tourism Vancouver led the call on the premier. While the board ultimately voted to proceed, the incident had lasting repercussions for TransLink.

Richmond
When the results of the bidding process indicated that an elevated option in Richmond was the winning bid, Richmond council engaged in some last-minute opposition to the RAV line and refused to give RAVCO the green light.

Objections to the elevated line included its visual impact and the impact and cost of any extensions into Richmond. The line would have varied impact on businesses along No. 3 Road.

In November 2004, a survey of 11,750 people was conducted by RAVCO to determine if people in Richmond supported an elevated or at-grade service in Richmond. Of the respondents, 58 percent favoured an elevated option.

Even after the survey, however, another option was brought forward. On November 22, 2004, Richmond council considered whether an elevated guideway along No. 3 Road in Richmond was appropriate. If an at-grade service was not feasible, council had instructed staff to look into the possibility of relocating the elevated guideway further west, along Minoru Boulevard. In response, residents along Minoru Boulevard presented a petition containing 666 signatures opposing the Minoru alignment. In the petition they "indicated that if Translink and RAVCO were not prepared to construct an at-grade system on No. 3 Road, then the project should be abandoned in favour of bus service on No. 3 Road."

When further surveys and public consultation conducted by city staff in December indicated that residents did not support the realignment along Minoru Boulevard, council was left to either turn down the development or support the best and final offer. They chose to go ahead with the project. As a final compromise, part of the elevated track in Richmond was single-tracked to reduce visual impact.

Impact on local businesses

For the entire consultation process, it was assumed that any underground construction along the Cambie corridor would be by bored tunnel. It was only upon the publication of the winning bid that it became apparent that the portion of the line from 64th to 2nd Avenues would be constructed using cut-and-cover construction. This raised concern over the disruption of local business on Cambie Street. Businesses in Yaletown and No. 3 Road in Richmond would also be affected by the construction. Although construction in the downtown was mostly by bored tunnel, businesses in Yaletown were caught off guard when it turned out that Yaletown-Roundhouse station would be north of Pacific Boulevard on Davie Street, rather than south of Pacific Boulevard. InTransitBC responded by launching an advertising campaign promoting local business on the line. Despite these efforts, businesses on Cambie Street experienced significant loss of business. After numerous failed appeals to the provincial government for compensation, store operators unsuccessfully sued for compensation. However, since the completion of the Canada Line, the line has been linked to rising property values along Cambie Street and in Richmond.

Impact on expansion of other transit options
It had been pointed out that construction of the Canada Line would do little to improve transit or alleviate congestion on the Broadway corridor to UBC, which serves more than 100,000 weekday trips on bus services, with many trips continuing to University of British Columbia. In addition, the Evergreen Extension rapid transit project was delayed (until 2016). As TransLink is solely responsible for funding bus operations, any shortage of funding may translate into cuts in bus service.

Hiring practices
There were several labour disputes related to wages and unionization between employees and contractors working on the construction of the Canada Line. To excavate the final 2 km of the tunnel underneath the downtown core a crew of 36 Latin American workers were brought to Canada from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Colombia in April 2006. The employer, a joint partnership of SELI Canada and SNC (Pacific) engaged workers to assemble the tunnel boring machine (TBM) and begin excavations. Pay stubs and testimony evidence from the workers indicated that they were paid US$1,000 monthly in exchange for 65-hour work weeks (less than $4 per hour). The Latin Americans, all on temporary work permits, joined the Construction and Specialized Workers Unions Local 1611 and, in a majority vote, won union certification on June 23, 2006. This was the first time in Canadian history that a group of temporary foreign workers in the construction industry had successfully exercised their right to form a union. Before the union had a chance to begin collective bargaining, workers' wages were increased to $14.21 per hour and hours were reduced to 40 hours per week with overtime concessions as required by BC labour law. The union was not consulted, and the unilateral pay raise led to an unfair labour practice complaint from the CSWU 1611. The BC Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) sided with the employer's (SELI–SNCP) explanation that there had been a mistake in calculations of wages during the months before the workers voted to join the union. The employer stalled negotiations for a collective agreement until they were ordered back to the bargaining table in August 2006 by the BCLRB.

In September, bargaining broke down. On September 21, 2006, CSWU 1611 workers threatened a strike vote to bring the employer back to the bargaining table.

After almost two years of litigation, the BC Labour Relations Board ruled against the union's claims of unfair labour practices.

In a separate complaint, the union claimed discrimination against the workers based on their country of origin. Even with the newly imposed wage of $14.21 per hour, the Latin Americans were earning half the wages of European (Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) workers with whom they worked alongside and performed the same underground TBM operations.

On November 9, 2007, the BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Latin American workers had been intimidated to sign a petition against being represented by their union. The tribunal found that the workers were intimidated and coerced to sign a petition in the fear of possibly losing future job prospects with their employer. The petition would have prevented them from being represented by a union before the tribunal and would also have created evidence that could have jeopardized the ongoing investigation by the tribunal over perceived discrimination.

Upon completion of the tunnels in March 2008, the workers were laid-off and returned to their home countries. Only five of the workers were re-hired by SELI after their arrival back to their home countries.

On December 3, 2008, the BC Human Rights Tribunal found in favour of the discrimination complaint. The decision prohibits employers from discrimination based on a workers' country of origin. Migrant workers must not suffer wage discrimination based on low wage labour markets in their countries of origin. The Latin Americans workers were awarded the difference in wages with an additional $10,000 each in punitive damages. The total award averaged approximately $50,000 per worker or $2.5million.

SELI Canada appealed the decision to the BC Supreme Court. In December 2012, SELI agreed to a settlement offer by the union. The Latin American workers voted unanimously to accept a settlement. The settlement provided payments worth 50% of the original award.

title: Canada Line


text:
Talk:Claude Chirac

Untitled
I apologize for my bad English language.

Claude Chirac was never married with David Douillet, which is on ly a friend of the whole Chirac family, and working with her mother Bernadette Chirac for 'Charities' ('Opération Pièces Jaunes' for hospitals and children).

But she has been 'in love' with an another French judoka, Thierry Rey, which is the father of her son.

2004/03/08 about 19:22 - Jerotito, Franch 'wikipedian contributor' http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Jerotito

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerotito
Your English is very good. 😊 2601:586:8300:F0D0:9A0:97B3:6ECC:B4BC (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Claude Chirac


text:
Maria João (singer)

Maria João Monteiro Grancha (born 27 June 1956) is a Portuguese jazz singer. She is known for her vocal flexibility and improvisational skills. Although considered a jazz singer, she incorporates folk music, avant-garde, and electronica.

Her main musical partner is Portuguese pianist Mário Laginha. She has also worked with Aki Takase, Bobby McFerrin, David Linx, Dino Saluzzi, Gilberto Gil, Joe Zawinul, Kai Eckhardt, Lenine, Manu Katche, Ralph Towner, Trilok Gurtu, Wolfgang Muthspiel, and OGRE.

She was invited by RTP to compose an entry for Festival da Canção 2024, the Portuguese selection for the Eurovision Song Contest 2024; she performed the song "Dia" in the second semi-final on 2 March 2024, failing to qualify for the final.

Discography

 * Quinteto Maria João (Orfeu (Pt), 1983), with Mário Laginha
 * Cem Caminhos with Maria João Quintet (Orfeu/Nabel (G), 1985)
 * Conversa with Maria João Quintet (Nabel, 1986)
 * Looking for Love with Aki Takase (Enja (G), 1988)
 * Sol with Grupo Cal Viva (Enja, 1991)
 * Alice with Aki Takase and Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen (Enja, 1992)
 * Danças with Mário Laginha (Verve World, 1994)
 * Fábula (Verve, 1996), with Dino Saluzzi, Ralph Towner, Manu Katché a.o.
 * Cor with Mário Laginha, Trilok Gurtu and Wolfgang Muthspiel (Verve, 1998)
 * Lobos, Raposas e Coiotes with Mário Laginha and NDR Radio Philharmonic Orchestra Hannover and Arild Remmereit (PolyGram (Pt)/Verve, 1999)
 * Chorinho Feliz with Mário Laginha (Universal (Pt)/Verve, 2000)
 * Mumadji with Mário Laginha, Toninho Ferragutti and Helge Norbakken as Mumadji (EmArcy, 2001)
 * Undercovers with Mário Laginha (Universal (Pt)/Verve, 2002)
 * Tralha (2004)
 * Pele with José Peixoto (Zona Música (Pt), 2006)
 * João (Universal (Pt), 2007), also released with additional DVD
 * Chocolate (2008)
 * Follow the Songlines with David Linx, Diederik Wissels, Mário Laginha (Naïve, 2010)
 * Amoras e Framboesas (2011)
 * A Different Porgy & Another Bess (2012)
 * Electrodoméstico (2012)
 * Iridescente (2012)
 * Plástico with Ogre (Espuma Preta (Pt), 2015)
 * Mar Afora with Guinga (Acoustic Music (G), 2015)
 * Studio Konzert with Ogre (Neuklang (G), 2017)
 * A Poesia de Aldir Blanc (Selo Sesc (Br), 2017)
 * The Blues Experience with Budda Power Blues (Mobydick (Pt), 2017)
 * Agora Muda Tudo (Now Everything Changes) with Nuno Côrte-Real, José Luís Peixoto, Ensemble Darcos (Odradek (Cz), 2018)
 * Open Your Mouth with Ogre Electric (2020)

Compilations

 * Pensa Nisto! (1996) – Fidjo Magoado
 * Etnocity/Underground Sound of Lisbon (2000) – Saris e Capolanas (Remix) (MJML)
 * Movimentos Perpétuos (2003)– Mãos na Parede (MJML)

As featured vocalist

 * ABBAcadabra (1984)
 * Júlio Pereira (1990)
 * LX-90 – Uma Revolução Por Minuto/One Revolution Per Minute (BMG Ariola (Pt), 1992)
 * NDR Bigband – Bravissimo II - 50 Years (ACT, 1998) with João on one track recorded 1993
 * Júlio Pereira – Tarde Quente (1994)
 * Laurent Filipe – Ad lib(itum) Vol. 1 (Movieplay (Pt), 1995)
 * Bom dia Benjamim, children's musical audiobook (Movieplay (Pt), 1995)
 * António Pinho Vargas with Maria João & José Nogueira – A Luz e a Escuridão (EMI (Pt), 1996)
 * Carlos Bica, Frank Möbus, Jim Black – Azul (EmArcy, 1996)
 * Cantigas de Amigos – São Macaio/A Garrafa (1998)
 * Clã - Pois (1998)
 * Dulce Pontes – Modinha das Saias (1999)
 * Bana (1999)
 * Jorge Palma – Acto Contínuo (Mercury/Universal (Pt), 2001)
 * Joe Zawinul – Faces & Places (ESC, 2002), João on one track
 * Carinhoso – Ingénuo (2002)
 * Simentera – Lua Cheia (2003)
 * Pirilampo Mágico (with Mariza e Teresa Salgueiro) – Faz a Magia Voar (2003)
 * DEP – Esquece Tudo O Que Aprendeste (Universal (Pt)/EmArcy, 2004)
 * Danças Ocultas (2004)
 * Saxofour – European Christmas (EmArcy, 2004)
 * Saxofour – Cinco (EmArcy, 2005)
 * Teresa Salgueiro – Obrigado (EMI, 2005), João on two tracks
 * Blasted Mechanism – Avatara (2005), João on one track
 * Clã – Vivo (EMI (Pt), 2005), João on one track
 * D'Herbe Foundation – Inner Face (Free (Pt), 2006), João on two tracks
 * Lucía Martínez Cuarteto – Soños e Delirios (Nuba (Es), 2008), João on one track
 * Jan Gunnar Hoff – Magma (Grappa (Nw), 2008)
 * Vera e os Seus Amigos – Papagaio Fofoca (2008)
 * Ogre – Electrodoméstico (JACC (Pt), 2012), João on one track
 * Guinga – Porto da Madama with Esperanza Spalding, Maria Pia e Vito and Mônica Salmaso (Selo Sesc (Br), 2015)
 * David Helbock´s Austrian Syndicate (ACT, 2023) on track "Komm, lieber Mai und Mache"

title: Maria João (singer)


text:
Translink

Translink (or TransLink) may refer to:

 * TransLink (British Columbia), the public transport operator in Vancouver, Canada
 * Translink (Northern Ireland), the public transport operator in Northern Ireland
 * Translink (Queensland), the public transport operator in Queensland, Australia
 * TransLink, the original name of the San Francisco Clipper automated fare collection card

title: Translink


text: User talk:66.216.161.251

title: User talk:66.216.161.251


text:
Irving Janis

Irving Lester Janis (May 26, 1918 – November 15, 1990) was an American research psychologist at Yale University and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley most famous for his theory of "groupthink", which described the systematic errors made by groups when making collective decisions. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Janis as the 79th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.

Early years
Irving Janis was born on May 26, 1918, in Buffalo, New York. He received a bachelor of science degree from the University of Chicago in 1939, then received a doctorate from Columbia University.

Career
During the Second World War, Janis was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he carried out studies of military morale. In 1947, Janis became a faculty member of the Yale University Psychology Department, where he remained for nearly forty years. He collaborated with Carl Hovland on his studies of attitude change, including the sleeper effect.

During his career, Janis studied decisionmaking in areas such as dieting and smoking. This work described how people respond to threats, as well as what conditions give rise to irrational complacency, apathy, hopelessness, rigidity, and panic.

Janis also made important contributions to the study of group dynamics. He did extensive work in the area of "groupthink," which describes the tendency of groups to try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without sufficiently testing, analyzing, and evaluating their ideas. His work suggested that pressures for conformity restrict the thinking of the group, bias its analysis, promote simplistic and stereotyped thinking, and stifle individual creative and independent thought.

Janis wrote or co-wrote more than a dozen books, including Psychological Stress (1958), Victims of Groupthink (1972), Decision Making (1977), Groupthink (1982), and Crucial Decisions (1989).

In 1967, Janis was awarded the Socio-Psychological Prize by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1981, he received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association. In 1991, he won the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology.

He retired from Yale University in 1985, and in 1986 was appointed Adjunct Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

Personal life
Janis' father, Martin Janis, owned an art gallery in Los Angeles. His uncle was the pioneering art dealer Sidney Janis. Irving Janis was married to Marjorie Janis, with whom he had two daughters. He died of lung cancer on November 15, 1990, in Santa Rosa, California.

title: Irving Janis


text:
Gardner Pinnacles

The Gardner Pinnacles (Pūhāhonu) are two barren rock outcrops surrounded by a reef and located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The Pūhāhonu volcano responsible for the pinnacles is 511 nmi northwest of Honolulu and 108 mi from French Frigate Shoals. The total area of the two small islets, remnants of an ancient shield volcano, the world's largest, is 5.939 acre. The highest peak is 170 ft. The surrounding reef has an area in excess of 1,904 km2.

The Gardner Pinnacles were discovered and named in 1820 by the whaling ship Maro. The island may be the last remnant of one of the largest volcanoes on Earth. It holds the record for the largest and hottest shield volcano.

History
The Gardner Pinnacles were first discovered on June 2, 1820, by the American whaler Maro, commanded by Captain Joseph Allen.

In 1859, the position of the Gardner Pinnacles was determined by the survey schooner USS Fenimore Cooper.

The Gardner Pinnacles are home to the Giant Opihi (Cellana talcosa), Hawaiian Limpet known as the ‘opihi ko‘ele, which is not found anywhere else in the world outside the Hawaiian Islands. Numerous insects live on the island.

In 1903 the Gardner Pinnacles became a part of the Hawaiian Islands Bird Reservation. In 1940 it became a part of the Hawaiian Island's National Wildlife Refuge. In the 21 century it is part of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument wildlife refuge.

The Gardner Pinnacles were used as an emergency helicopter landing spot for the Hawaiian HIRAN project, an effort to determine the locations of area islands with great precision for navigational purposes. In the Hawaiian Archipelago, adjacent islands/reefs are French Frigate Shoals to the southeast, and Maro Reef to the northwest.

Geology

The island is made up of basalt rock, which comes from lava erupted between 14 and 12 million years ago. The rock is dark grey and dense, and has a high forsterite content implying the magma source was at 1703 ±.

According to a 2020 report in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Pūhāhonu contains approximately 150000 km3 of rock, based on a 2014 sonar survey. This would make it Earth's largest single volcano. Only about one-third of that volume is exposed above the sea floor while the rest is buried beneath a ring of debris, broken coral, and other material that has eroded from the peak. By comparison, from sea floor to peak, Mauna Kea, on Hawaii's Big Island, is the tallest shield volcano on Earth, but it is nowhere near as massive as Pūhāhonu. Another volcano on the Big Island is Mauna Loa; a 2013 study estimates Mauna Loa's volume at 83000 km3 which is believed to be an overestimate. Pūhāhonu is so heavy, researchers note, that it has caused Earth's crust nearby—and thus the volcano itself—to sink hundreds of meters over millions of years. The Puhahonu volcano (Gardner) would be twice as big as Mauna Loa's based on that research.

The Pūhāhonu and West Pūhāhonu volcanoes result from the Hawaii hotspot which is fed by the Hawaiian plume which had a major magmatic flux pulse at the time. A longer magmatic flux pulse produced the Hawaiian Islands. The five seamounts of the Naifeh Chain to the north of Pūhāhonu have a completely different tectonic origin, and are older (Late Cretaceous). At one time they were hypothesised to be related to the Pūhāhonu volcano because of arch volcanism, which can not be the case, given the newly determined age difference.

Ecology
The island has one plant known to grow on it, the succulent sea purslane. However, there are over a dozen species of bird observed here, many nesting. There is also a variety of insect species on the island.

In the surrounding waters there is variety of sealife, which is noted as habitat for a limpet, the giant ophi which lives in tidal areas of the rocky island. There are many species of fish and coral life in the nearby waters.

The large numbers of birds have coated many surfaces of the island in guano, giving it a whitish appearance.

Some of the fish species in the nearby waters include red lip parrotfish, doublebar goatfish, and reef triggerfish.

Name
The name Gardner comes from its discovery in 1820, when the Captain Joseph Allen of the ship Maro named it Gardner's Island. They also discovered Maro Reef, which is named for that sailing ship.

It has sometimes been called Gardner Rock or Gardner Island, besides the Gardner Pinnacles.

The Hawaiian name, Pūhāhonu, means 'turtle surfacing for air', from pūhā 'to breathe at the surface' and honu 'turtle'.

title: Gardner Pinnacles


text:
Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield

Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield, (23 July 1666 – 28 April 1732) was an English Whig politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1705 to 1710. He was Lord Chief Justice from 1710 to 1718 and acted briefly as one of the regents before the arrival of King George I in Britain. His career ended when he was convicted of corruption on a massive scale and he spent the later years of his life in retirement at his home, Shirburn Castle in Oxfordshire.

Early life
Parker was born in Staffordshire, the son of Thomas Parker, an attorney at Leek and his wife Anne, daughter of Robert Venables of Nuneham, Cheshire. Sir Richard Levinge, 1st Baronet, a leading figure in Irish public life for three decades, was his first cousin. He was educated at Adams' Grammar School at Newport, Shropshire, Derby School in 1680 and at Rev. Samuel Ogden's school at Derby. He was admitted at Inner Temple in 1684 and at Trinity College, Cambridge as a pensioner in 1685. On 23 April 1691, he married Janet Carrier, whose sister was the wife of William Anson and mother of the future Admiral Lord Anson. He was called to the bar in 1694. Together they had two children:

 * Lady Elizabeth Parker (d. 21 Feb 1747) married Sir William Heathcote, 1st Baronet. They had six sons and three daughters.
 * George Parker, 2nd Earl of Macclesfield (circa 1697 – 17 Mar 1764)

Political career
Parker was returned as Whig Member of Parliament for Derby at the 1705 English general election and was appointed QC and serjeant-at-law and knighted on 9 July 1705. He was returned unopposed for Derby at the 1708 British general election. Like other Whigs, he voted for the general naturalization of foreign Protestants in 1709. Being one of the leading Whig lawyers in the House of Commons, he was deeply involved in the moves to impeach Dr Sacheverell. He was appointed to the committee to draw up the articles of impeachment on 14 December 1709. The committee was later given the management of the trial. In 1710 he refused the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, but was made a Privy Counsellor. The office of Lord Chief Justice fell vacant in 1710 and the administration wanted a quick replacement. Parker was appointed on 11 March 1710 and vacated his seat in the House of Commons.

Lord Chief Justice
From 1710 to 1718 Parker was involved in the prosecution of Henry Sacheverell. He made a vehement attack on Sacheverell and the high church clergy. He defended Whig propagandists and harried Tory publicists, including Defoe and Swift, on the slightest suspicion of favouring the Pretender. He spoke against the peace in the Privy Council in April 1713. In June 1714 he was given evidence of the recruiting activity of Jacobite agents which resulted in a price being placed on the Pretender's head. On 1 August 1714, Queen Anne died, and her successor, King George I, was in Hanover, so Baron Parker was designated as one of the regents of Great Britain, Ireland and the realms beyond the seas until the new monarch arrived in Britain. His support for the Hanoverian succession was appreciated by King George I who reappointed him lord chief justice in 1714, and raised him to the peerage as Baron Parker of Macclesfield in 1716, in which year he purchased, and then commenced to restore, Shirburn Castle in Oxfordshire, which was to be the seat of the house of Macclesfield for the next 300 years. In 1718, because the King could not speak English, Parker read the King's Speech in the House of Lords.

Lord Chancellor
In 1718, Parker became Lord Chancellor, and was given a pension for life. In 1721, he was advanced to the title Earl of Macclesfield with the additional subsidiary title of Viscount Parker.

Impeachment
In 1724, Parker was implicated in financial irregularities, but he did not resign as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain until 1725. In 1725, he was impeached and tried in the House of Lords. He was, unanimously, convicted of corruption for taking more than £100,000 in bribes (the equivalent of more than £11,000,000 today). He was fined £30,000 and placed in the Tower of London until payment was received. He was also struck off the roll of the Privy Council. He was a fabulously wealthy man, possibly because of his corruption, but as this money was confiscated, he had no resources to pay a fine. He spent most of the rest of his life at Shirburn Castle. He died in Soho Square, London on 28 April 1732 and was buried at Shirburn.

Parker was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1713. He was a friend of Bernard de Mandeville, whose satirical Fable of the Bees became highly controversial in the 1720s. He was patron of a grammar school built at Leek, his home town. In 1727, he was a pallbearer at the funeral of another friend, Sir Isaac Newton.

title: Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield


text:
RAF Third Tactical Air Force

The RAF Third Tactical Air Force (Third TAF), which was formed in South Asia in December 1943, was one of three tactical air forces formed by the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the Second World War. It was made up of squadrons and personnel from the RAF, Indian Air Force (IAF) and the air forces of other Commonwealth countries. Third TAF was formed shortly after the establishment of South East Asia Command to provide close air support to the Fourteenth Army.

It was first formed on 19 December 1943 designated the Tactical Air Force (Burma) and renamed as the Third TAF on 28 December 1943. Along with parts of the USAAF Tenth Air Force, it was subordinate to Joint Allied Eastern Air Command which was also formed in December 1943.

As the Air Force was formed, it was felt that at last British forces could go over to the offensive against the Japanese in the Burma Campaign. A start was made towards establishing a general offensive in Arakan in early 1943, but this was forestalled by a Japanese offensive. The Japanese were decisively beaten, but they shifted the focus of their attack to central Burma. Third TAF gave sterling service to Fourteenth Army during the Battle of Kohima and the Battle of Imphal, strafing and bombing the besieging Japanese troops, often at very low level.

After the defeat of the Japanese by IV Corps and XXXIII Corps in Assam, the monsoon intervened before many counterattacks could take place. After the enforced period of reduced operations, the Third TAF supported the advance of Fourteenth Army against the Japanese forces. However, command arrangement changes at the end of 1944 cutting short the life of the Third TAF. It was redesignated HQ RAF Bengal and Burma on 4 December 1944.

The Third TAF had two commanders, Air Marshal John Baldwin up until 15 August 1944, and then Air Marshal Sir Alec Coryton.

Composition

The Third TAF comprised the following Groups:
 * 1) No. 221 Group RAF supporting the IV Corps.
 * 2) * During the battle of Imphal there were seldom more than seven squadrons engaged at one time but over the three months' of the siege altogether 21 squadrons took part: including three from the Indian Air Force (Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 9). The RAF squadrons were Nos. 5, 11, 20, 28, 34, 42, 60, 81, 82, 84, 110, 113, 123, 136, 152, 176, 607 and 615.
 * 3) No. 222 Group RAF
 * 4) * No 222 (General Reconnaissance) Group was based in Ceylon. The Group role was, amongst others, reconnaissance over the Bay of Bengal. The RAF squadrons were at one time Nos. 8, 17, 22, 81, 89, 132, 135, 160, 191, 203, 205, 212, 217, 230, 240, 273, 292, 321 and 413.
 * 5) No. 223 Group RAF 151 Squadron (formerly 151 OTU)
 * 6) No. 224 Group RAF (commanding officer Air Commodore Alexander Gray) supporting the Indian XV Corps. In the 1943–44 campaigning season, this Group comprised:
 * 7) * Three RAF fighter squadrons equipped with Spitfires (this campaign marked the first time Spitfires were being used in South-East Asia)
 * 8) * Six fighter-bomber squadrons with Hurricanes (mainly Mk.IIc variants) (Includes the No. 3 Squadron and No. 4 Squadron IAF equipped with the Hurricane Mk.IIc)
 * 9) * A single tactical reconnaissance squadron No. 6 Squadron IAF equipped with the Hurricane Mk.IIb
 * 10) * Two light bomber squadrons (one of which was No. 8 Squadron IAF commanded by Squadron-Leader Niranjan Prasa), equipped with Vultee Vengeances.
 * 11) No. 226 Group RAF
 * 12) * 226 group was one of the fighter groups based in Singapore. After the fall of Singapore the number of the group was transferred to the maintenance unit (No. 1301 MU RAF) of the tactical air force.
 * 13) No. 227 Group RAF
 * 14) * 227 group, based in Bombay, was the RAF training group based in India for the training of Indian pilots.
 * 15) No. 229 Group RAF
 * 16) * 229 Group was the transport part of the Tactical air force. The RAF squadrons were at one time Nos. 31, 52, 62, 96, 117, 194, 216, 232, 238, 267, 353, 435, 436, 668, 669, 670, 671 and 673.
 * 17) No. 231 Group RAF
 * 18) * The role of the group was to provide heavy bombers for the campaign in Burma. The RAF bomber squadrons were at one time Nos. 99, 159, 200, 215, 355, 356, 357 and 358.

Squadrons
A Third TAF Communications Squadron was established on 28 December 1943, but disestablished on 4 December 1944 at RAF Comilla.

Postwar in Burma

 * HQ RAF Bengal and Burma was formed on 4 December 1944 by renaming the 3rd Tactical Air Force, still under Air Marshal Sir Alec Coryton.
 * HQ RAF Bengal and Burma was renamed HQ RAF Burma on 27 February 1945.
 * Renamed Air Headquarters Burma on 1 June 1945. Air Marshal Sir Hugh Saunders became Air Marshal Commanding from 1 August 1945.

Burma was relatively straightforward to deal with, although more complicated than Siam. Much of the colony had been conquered several months before the war ended, in the big British offensive of summer 1945. That gave Air Command, South East Asia, crucial breathing space to start getting the colony back on its feet before the massive increase in occupation duties postwar occurred. At the end of the war, it had 28 squadrons under its control. This quickly reduced as the demobilisation really kicked in. Again, the transport squadrons saw the largest amount of work, evacuating prisoners of war and internees and supplying garrisons and the civilian population. Second to the transport squadrons in workload were the photo reconnaissance aircraft. The opportunity was taken to complete the process of surveying SE Asia from the air, and using the survey to bring maps up to date. The survey was not completed until August 1947.

A light transport and liaison squadron, Air Headquarters Burma Communication Squadron, was established on 20 September 1945 at Baigachi, but disbanded within two months, on 14 November 1945 at RAF Mingaladon (now Yangon International Airport), by being downgraded to Air Headquarters Burma Communication Flight RAF.

After the clean-up immediately postwar, came the task of preparing Burma for independence. AHQ Burma moved out of Rangoon to Mingaladon on 1 January 1947. The Burmese Air Force was established on 16 January 1947 with former British aircraft. AHQ Burma was disbanded on 31 December 1947, and three months later Burma became independent.

title: RAF Third Tactical Air Force


text: User talk:166.109.0.155

title: User talk:166.109.0.155


text:
Indian Standard Time

Indian Standard Time (IST), sometimes also called India Standard Time, is the time zone observed throughout the Republic of India, with a time offset of UTC+05:30. India does not observe daylight saving time or other seasonal adjustments. In military and aviation time, IST is designated E* ("Echo-Star"). It is indicated as Asia/Kolkata in the IANA time zone database.

History
The Indian Standard Time was adopted on 1 January 1906 during the British era with the phasing out of its precursor Madras Time (Railway Time), and after Independence in 1947, the Union government established IST as the official time for the whole country, although Kolkata and Mumbai retained their own local time (known as Calcutta Time and Bombay Time) until 1948 and 1955, respectively. The Central observatory was moved from Madras to a location at Shankargarh Fort in Allahabad district, so that it would be as close to UTC+05:30 as possible.

Daylight Saving Time (DST) was used briefly during the China–India War of 1962 and the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971.

Calculation

Indian Standard Time is calculated from the reference longitude of IST at 82°30'E passing near Mirzapur. In 1905, the meridian passing east of Allahabad was declared as a standard time zone for British India and was declared as IST in 1947 for the Dominion of India. This longitude of 82°30'E was chosen as the standard meridian for the whole country as it is located centrally between western India (local time UTC +05:00) and northeastern India (local time UTC +06:00). Currently, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research- National Physical Laboratory (CSIR-NPL) maintains the Indian Standard Time with the help of the Allahabad Observatory.

Criticism and proposals
The country's east–west distance of more than 2,933 km covers over 29° of longitude, resulting in the sun rising and setting almost two hours earlier on India's eastern border than in the Rann of Kutch in the far west. Inhabitants of the northeastern states have to advance their clocks with the early sunrise to avoid the extra consumption of energy after daylight hours.

In the late 1980s, a team of researchers proposed separating the country into two or three time zones to conserve energy. The binary system that they suggested involved a return to British-era time zones, but the recommendations were not adopted.

In 2001, the government established a four-member committee under the Ministry of Science and Technology to examine the need for multiple time zones and daylight saving. The findings of the committee, which were presented to Parliament in 2004 by the Minister of Science and Technology, Kapil Sibal, did not recommend changes to the unified system, stating that 'the prime meridian was chosen with reference to a central station, and that the expanse of the Indian State was not large.'

Though the government has consistently refused to split the country into multiple time zones, provisions in labour laws such as the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 allow the union and state governments to define and set the local time for a particular industrial area. In Assam, tea gardens follow a separate time zone, known as the Chaibagan or Bagan time ('Tea Garden Time'), which is one hour ahead of IST. Still, Indian Standard Time remains the only officially used time.

In 2014, Chief Minister of Assam Tarun Gogoi started campaigning for another time zone for Assam and other northeastern states of India. However, the proposal would need to be cleared by the union government.

In June 2017, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) indicated that it is once again studying the feasibility of two time zones for India. Proposals for creating an additional Eastern India Time (EIT at UTC+06:00), shifting default IST to UTC+05:00 and daylight saving (Indian Daylight Time for IST and Eastern India Daylight Time for EIT) starting on 14 April (Ambedkar Jayanti) and ending on 2 October (Gandhi Jayanti) was submitted to DST for consideration.

Time signals
Official time signals are generated by the Time and Frequency Standards Laboratory at the National Physical Laboratory in New Delhi, for both commercial and official use. The signals are based on atomic clocks and synchronised with the worldwide system of clocks that support Coordinated Universal Time.

Features of the Time and Frequency Standards Laboratory include:
 * High-frequency broadcast service operating at 10 MHz under call sign ATA to synchronise the user clock within a millisecond;
 * Indian National Satellite System satellite-based standard time and frequency broadcast service, which offers IST correct to ±10 microsecond and frequency calibration of up to ±10−10.
 * Time and frequency calibrations made with the help of pico- and nanoseconds time interval frequency counters and phase recorders.

IST is taken as the standard time as it passes through almost the centre of India. To communicate the exact time to the people, the exact time is broadcast over the national All India Radio and Doordarshan television network. Telephone companies have dedicated phone numbers connected to mirror time servers that also relay the precise time. Another increasingly popular means of obtaining the time is through Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers.

title: Indian Standard Time


text:
Allied Expeditionary Air Force

The Allied Expeditionary Air Force (AEAF), also known as the Allied Armies’ Expeditionary Air Force (AAEAF), was the expeditionary warfare component of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) which controlled the tactical air power of the Allied forces during Operation Overlord during World War II in 1944.

Its effectiveness was less than optimal on two counts. It did not function as the controlling headquarters for all Allied air forces, with the strategic forces of RAF Bomber Command and the US Eighth Air Force being retained by their national command authorities until pressure from U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower resulted in them being placed directly under SHAEF instead of AEAF. Its commander was also not universally liked. Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory was regarded by some as being too inept for his place in the high command.

It had two major components, the RAF Second Tactical Air Force and the USAAF Ninth Air Force. Each supported their own nation's Army Group. It also had operational control of the Air Defence of Great Britain, but with that organisation not being under the control of SHAEF.

AEAF was dissolved after Leigh-Mallory was reassigned to command RAF forces in the Far East, later being killed in an air crash.

title: Allied Expeditionary Air Force


text:
Talk:Semnopithecus

Description
This sentence: "Hanuman langurs are largely gray, with a black face, which is thought to relate to Hanuman, a monkey warrior from the Ramayana who burnt his hands and face trying to rescue Rama's wife. "

I can find nothing online that corroborates that reference. The Hanuman main article does not support it. There are mentions of Hanuman, the deity, being sentenced to having his tail burnt as punishment. Other (not so reliable) sources have Hanuman burning his face in the sun. Anyone got a source? --Rosetta1207 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me awhile, but I've found one. I'll add it to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks! --Rosetta1207 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be re-written? This is the description section about the monkey - not a section to describe religious myths about the origin of it. Can we move it elsewhere to a Myths/Trivia/Cultures section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.65.239 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Why is American spellings used? Note:
 * the monkey is not found in America.
 * the earliest bearing if the article did not use Amercian spelling (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_langur&oldid=2622920) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.153.83 (talk • contribs) 15:35, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this. There are lots of non US references for grey langur.

You try to make a cogent change to improve readability and it just gets reverted, with no cogent explanation. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors:

Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.172.114 (talk • contribs) 09:08, February 1, 2019 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page posts.
 * We don't need both "gray langur "and "grey langur" int the article. We assume readers understand either. Both are acceptable English spellings, but "grey" is most common in the UK and "gray" is most common in the US.
 * The article was originally created by user:Jimfbleak in 2004 as Grey langur but was moved to Gray langur by user:UtherSRG  three months later. It seems a bit odd. There is no particular to associate this article with the US, so I don't know why it was changed. Both of those editors are still active, so let's see what they have to say. Meters (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care about which spelling is used. What I care about is consistency of spelling used in title and rest of page. But imo, it's ridiculous to war over whether gray and grey are different or same colours, or whether there are people anywhere who don't understand this is one and the same. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies are Manual of Style and Article titles. The article was started by me with BE spelling, the species has no connection with North America, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent. I'm surprised that the article was moved, apparently against policy, by an experienced admin like rather than the more usual US editor "correcting" the spelling. Unless he has a compelling reason, it should clearly revert to BE Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Before you continue discussing the spelling of colour names, lets bypass this altogether and move this page to Hanuman langur!! A name used anyway in most of listed refs, apart from Latin name. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Title name

 * The reason the page was moved was the consensus at WP:MAMMAL and WP:PRIMATE to use common names from Groves' MSW3. Although he does not give a common name for the genus, all the species are given as "X gray langur." Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for solving this riddle!!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was a consensus to align with MSW3. And I believe Groves is Australian... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was. No langurs there either, :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to the title of the article, I'm not sure "gray langur" (or even "grey langur") is ideal at this point, but I think Hanuman langur is less ideal. The taxonomy in this article (and the related species articles) is not up to date.  With the addition of the purple=faced and Nilgiri langur into this genus (which now seems to be universally accepted), the genus doesn't only include the "gray" langurs anymore.  Now that S. entellus and S. dussumieri have been redefined (S. dussumieri not being considered valid anymore), "Hanuman langur" seems to be restricted to only S. entellis at  this point, which of course was once the only recognized species in this genus, and not more generally.  Looking at some of the sources that have been discussed at WP:MAMMAL and WP:PRIMATE as being more up-to-date than MSW3:
 * ITIS] gives a common name for the genus, which is "Indian langurs." That actually seems most accurate now, but I don't think I have seen this in widespread use as a common name.  As to the species, the gray-colored species are generally given multiple common names - as both gray langurs and as sacred langurs (and for S. entellus, Hanuman langur too), with the exception of S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur."  ITIS is US-based, which could explain the use of "gray" rather than "grey" but I have not seen "grey" used in any major source.
 * Mammal Diversity Database doesn't give a common name for the genus, but all the species they give common names for use "gray langur."
 * Handbook to the Mammals of the World (2013) generally uses the name "sacred langur" for the gray-colored species, except for S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur."
 * All the World's Primates (2016) also generally uses the name "sacred langur" for the gray-colored species, except for S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur." They also give the name "Hanuman" for S. entellus, which they refer to in the title as "Bengal (Hanuman) gray langur." Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple more points. In some of the text, Handbook to the Mammals of the World uses the term "Hanuman langurs" to refer to Semnopithecus collectively.  However, it is not clear whether they are referring to the entire genus or just to the species that used to be in S. entellus, and from the context the latter seems more likely.  Similarly, All the World's Primates uses the term "gray langurs" to refer collectively to the genus, but again it is not clear they are referring to the entire genus or just the former S. entellus species (i.e., excluding the purple-faced and Nilgiri langurs).Rlendog (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent discussion at WT:PRIMATES about naming in general, I am thinking that this page should be moved to "Indian langur" since that is the name given by ITIS, and even though ITIS is the only source that seems to use it, it also seems to be the only one that unambiguously provides a common name to the genus Semnopithecus in light of the includes of the purple-faced and Nilgiri langurs. Or we could just name this page Semnopithecus.Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree to base name in title on ITIS, and thus disregard all other sources. If you think a page move is necessary at all, then it should be to the generic name Semnopithecus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert at this as seems to be, but here's my two cents.  In Indian English, British English, or Commonwealth English,  the common name would be spelled "Grey langur," not "gray langur.'"    On its langur page, MSW3 (Groves) refers a few times to Pocock's 1928 articles in the Journal of the BNHS.  I don't have online access to JBNHS, though I could check it in the library in the coming days, but in Pocock's, Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma, Volume I, published in March 1939, in which they are described between pages 83 and 119,  (Semnopithecus starting page 88), they are simply called Langurs, or Indian langurs.    However, Pocock was able to use the expression "Indian langur" at a time, before 1947, when India broadly meant South Asia (and included Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, in addition to India, but not Ceylon (Sri Lanka)).  Today using India to mean South Asia would be problematic.   (As is to be expected, Pockock never commits the cardinal sin of spelling grey "gray" (see page 92).)  As for other names,  "Hanuman" is the name of a deity in Hinduism; I doubt that is is commonly used any more, especially in today's more sensitive times.  "Sacred" would be an even less frequently used common name. As for Groves, he is inconsistent, preferring his native Australian spelling for the Eastern/Western Grey Kangaroo but denying the same charity to the fellow-Commonwealthian   Indian Langur, for Commonwealth English, too, spells, gray "grey."  From my perspective, there are two options for names:  "Grey langur," or "Langur, South Asia." Neither aligns with MSW3.  So might as well go with "Grey Langur." Yes, people will attempt now and then to change the spelling, but so what, they attempt at least once a month at the Indus Valley Civilisation.    Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  01:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your 2 cents, which I enjoyed reading :) !! I too checked Pocock's account y'day to see whether referring to the common name he used would be a solution. And I fully agree with your opinion re using 'Hanuman', 'Sacred' or 'Indian'. But I think the only solution re the spelling of grey/gray, which seems to be a problem, is to use Semnopithecus as title. Latin names are used in lots of other pages on genera, see e.g.Vulpes, Felis, Prionailurus, Herpestes, Zosterops. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am certainly no expert, although I have access to a number of resources. I would be on board with Semnopithecus, especially since 2 of the species now included have never been referred to as "gray" or "grey" langurs as far as I know.  I am not so sure about the objection to "Indian langur" though.  I think that every single species has at least part of its range within the country of India or Sri Lanka.  Since Sri Lanka is part of the Indian subcontinent, "Indian" is not inherently wrong in that context.  I don't think that any non-Semnopithecus langurs occur in India or have much if any range within any Indian subcontinent countries.  And apparently there is historic precedent for "Indian langur" (even though it didn't quite mean the same thing then) and at least some current practice by ITIS and as a descriptive term by other sources.  I don't think "Langur, South Asia" works at all since the comma makes it awkward and I don't think it would meet the definition of a common name, either in the way it is traditionally used for animals or within WP:COMMMONNAME. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Gray langur → Semnopithecus – Per the above discussion and recent Google Scholar results, although a majority of the species are referred to as grey langurs, there are two species that are not referred to as such, so there is no defined common name for the entire genus according to recent research. Therefore, it would be most appropriate to move the page to Semnopithecus, and a disambiguation page should be created for "Gray langur." PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Primates has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Agree - Using the genus name is most appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Genus name is clear and unambiguous. The name should have been Gray langurs (plural), anyway. —  Jts1882 | talk 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Gray langur was ok under the classification from 2005, before the 2 other species were classified as Semnopithecus. But now it doesn't really work. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Semnopithecus