text:
Aleksander Ford

Aleksander Ford (born Mosze Lifszyc; 24 November 1908 in Kiev, Russian Empire – 4 April 1980 in Naples, Florida, U.S.) was a Polish film director and head of the Polish People's Army Film Crew in the Soviet Union during World War II. Following the war, he was appointed director of the Film Polski company.

In 1948 he was appointed a professor of the National Film School in Łódź (Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Filmowa). Roman Polanski and Polish film director Andrzej Wajda were among his students. Amid an anti-Semitic purge in the communist party in Poland, Ford was stopped from preparing a film on the life of a Jewish educator. Shortly afterwards he emigrated to Israel in 1968 and from there to the United States, going through Germany and Denmark. He took his own life in 1980 in Naples, Florida.

Professional career
Ford made his first feature film, Mascot in 1930, after a year of making short silent films. He did not use sound until The Legion of the Streets (1932).

In 1932 he directed one of the first movies made about the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine, "Sabra".

When World War II began, Ford escaped to the Soviet Union and worked closely with Jerzy Bossak to establish a film unit for the Soviet-sponsored People's Army of Poland in the USSR. The unit was called Czołówka Filmowa Ludowego Wojska Polskiego (or simply Czołówka; spearhead).

After the war, Ford was appointed head of the government-controlled Film Polski and held enormous sway over the country's entire film industry. In the process of accumulating power, he denounced a fellow film director Jerzy Gabryelski to the Soviet NKVD secret police, contentiously accusing him of "reactionary" and "antisemitic" views, which resulted in Gabryelski's arrest and torture. Ford and a group of colleagues from the Polish Communist Party rebuilt most of the country's film production infrastructure. Roman Polanski wrote in his biography about them: "They included some extremely competent people, notably Aleksander Ford, a veteran party member, who was then an orthodox Stalinist. […] The real power broker during the immediate postwar period was Ford himself, who established a small film empire of his own." For the next twenty years, Ford served as a professor at the state-run National Film School in Łódź (Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Filmowa). He is perhaps best remembered for directing the first postwar documentary Majdanek - cmentarzysko Europy (Majdanek – the Cemetery of Europe) and the feature film Knights of the Teutonic Order (1960), based on a novel of the same name by Polish author Henryk Sienkiewicz.

Ford, a self-identified Communist, used his films to "express social messages on the screen," as in his documentaries: the award-winning Legion ulicy, (The Street Legion, 1932), Children Must Laugh (1936) and the postwar Eighth Day of the Week (1958) rejected by the communist party censors during the Polish October. Ford continued making films in Poland until the 1968 Polish political crisis. Accused of antisocialist activity and expelled from the Communist Party, Ford emigrated to Israel where he lived for the next two years. He later moved to Denmark and eventually settled in the United States. Ford made two more feature films, both of which were commercial and critical failures. In 1973, he made a film adaptation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's novel The First Circle, a Danish-Swedish production that recounted the horrors of the Soviet gulag. In 1974 he made , an English language, Israeli-German co-production based on the heroic story of Dr. Janusz Korczak. Blacklisted by the Polish communist government as a political defector, Ford became a non-person in contemporary discussions and analysis of Polish filmmaking. He committed suicide in a Florida hotel on 4 April 1980.

Selected filmography

 *  (1974)
 * The First Circle (1973)
 * The Doctor Speaks Out (1966)
 * The First Day of Freedom (Pierwszy dzień wolności, 1964)
 * Knights of the Teutonic Order (Krzyżacy, 1960)
 * The Eighth Day of the Week (Ósmy dzień tygodnia, 1959)
 * Five Boys from Barska Street (Piątka z ulicy Barskiej, 1954)
 * Youth of Chopin (Młodość Chopina, 1952)
 * Border Street (Ulica Graniczna, 1949)
 * Majdanek: Cemetery of Europe (Majdanek - cmentarzysko Europy, 1945)
 * Children Must Laugh (Droga młodych, original yiddish title:  Mir kumen on, 1936)
 * Granny Had No Worries (Nie miała baba kłopotu, 1935, co-directed with Michał Waszyński)
 * Legion of the Streets (Legion Ulicy, 1932)

title: Aleksander Ford


text:
Suat Atalık

Suat Atalık (born October 10, 1964) is a Turkish-Bosnian chess grandmaster. He is a three-time Turkish Chess Champion and the first Turkish chess-player ever to obtain title of chess Grandmaster.

Chess career
He was born in Turkey in 1964, represented Turkey in the World Junior Chess Championship in 1983, and was their top board for several Chess Olympiads.

Despite this, and his current residence in Istanbul, he had disputes with chess organizers in his country, so he declared himself to be a resident of Bosnia and Herzegovina, his ancestral home.

During the 2000 Chess Olympiad in Istanbul, Atalik insisted on playing for Bosnia rather than Turkey. As a result, the organizers of the Olympiad banned him from the competition. After the selection of the new national chess federation he returned to the Turkish national team.

In 2003, he took first at Mar del Plata. In 2007 he tied for first with Michael Roiz at the Gorenje Valjevo Tournament.

Atalık won the 3rd and 4th Mediterranean Chess Championships in Antalya, Turkey and Cannes, France, respectively.

He was the only Grandmaster registered in the Turkish Chess Federation in Turkey beginning in 1994 and ending in 2005, when Mikhail Gurevich took up residence there.

Notable games

 * Suat Atalik vs Gyula Sax, Maroczy mem 1997, Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical, Noa Variation, San Remo Variation (E37), 1-0
 * Florian Handke vs Suat Atalik, 16th open 2000, King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Donner Defense (E94), 0-1
 * Zurab Sturua vs Suat Atalik, Bled Olympiad 2002, Slav Defense: Chameleon Variation, Advance System (D15), 0-1
 * Suat Atalik vs Pablo Zarnicki, Bled Olympiad 2002, Queen's Indian Defense: Kasparov-Petrosian. Classical Variation (E12), 1-0

Personal life
He attended Galatasaray Lycee and studied Psychology in Boğaziçi University. On November 11, 2005 he married 22-year-old woman grandmaster Ekaterina Polovnikova from Russia. Former world championship challenger Nigel Short, who also played in the World Junior Championship in 1983, was his best man.

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

title: Suat Atalık


text:
Harka Haroyu

Harka Haroyu (born Hagereselam, Ethiopia 1959) was the Minister of Justice of Ethiopia from 2002 to 2005.

Haroyu was a member of Parliament for the Hagere-Selam constituency. He lost the seat on 15 May 2005 and won the seat again after a later election.

title: Harka Haroyu


text:
Innovia APM 100

The Innovia APM 100 (formerly known as the CX-100) is an automated people mover (APM) rolling stock first developed by Westinghouse (later Adtranz, Bombardier Transportation and now Alstom), intended mainly for airport connections and light rail in towns. They are operated by Automatic Train Control (ATC), making it fully automatic and driverless.

The Innovia APM 100 is an evolution of Westinghouse's previous people mover vehicle, the C-100. Bombardier's intended successor to the Innovia APM 100 is the Innovia APM 200 (originally simply known as the Innovia), which made its debut on Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport's Skylink APM. However, the Innovia APM 100 continues to be offered by Bombardier and will remain in service at many airports for years to come. In addition to being used at many airports, the Innovia APM 100 is used on the Miami Metromover which runs throughout Downtown Miami, Florida, United States.

History
The Innovia 100 APM people mover vehicle is a modern version of the Westinghouse C-100 people mover first built by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Westinghouse developed the technology in the early 1960s. They built the Transit Expressway Revenue Line in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as a prototype to demonstrate their people mover technology in 1965. Westinghouse marketed the people mover system as an urban transit system and had hoped to build a fully-functioning system in Pittsburgh. However, political leaders held opposing views on the prospects of a rubber-tired mass transit system and plans to implement this system were rejected.

Despite this, Westinghouse would see success with their people mover system at airports. In 1966, they were contracted to build a people mover system for the new terminal at Tampa International Airport. This would be the first time an automated people mover system was used to transport passengers within an airport terminal. The Tampa airport system included eight first-generation Westinghouse C-100 vehicles when it opened in 1971. Two years later, Westinghouse completed its second airport people mover system, the Satellite Transit System, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

In 1980, Westinghouse people mover systems were opened at Miami International Airport and Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport. The system in Atlanta (known today as The Plane Train), is one of the world's most heavily used people mover systems in the world. These systems used second generation C-100 vehicles, which has been the primary design of the vehicle ever since. The C-100 would be installed at more airports throughout the 1980s.

In 1986, the Westinghouse C-100 made its debut on its first urban people mover system, the Metromover in Miami, Florida.

In 1988, Westinghouse sold its transportation division to West German company AEG, which merged into a joint venture of ABB and Daimler Benz named Adtranz in 1996. Adtranz continued production on the C-100, which was marketed as the Adtranz C-100 and subsequently the Adtranz CX-100.

Adtranz was acquired by Bombardier in 2001, who then rebranded the vehicle as the Bombardier CX-100. Bombardier has since rebranded the CX-100 again to its current name, the Innovia APM 100, to bring all of their people mover models under the same branding.

While most of the earlier C-100s have been retired and replaced with Innovia APM 100s, London Stansted Airport still uses 5 C-100 vehicles on its Track Transit System. 4 C-100s are also preserved on display in museums: 2 vehicles from the Miami Metromover are preserved at the Gold Coast Railroad Museum and 2 from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport system are  preserved at the Southeastern Railway Museum.

Airport connections
A popular rolling stock for intra-terminal connection in large airports, it operates in a number of airports:

Miami Metromover
The Bombardier Innovia APM 100 is used on the Metromover in Miami, Florida, United States. This was the first application of Westinghouse's people mover technology outside of an airport. The system's original Westinghouse C-100s were replaced with the current Innovia APM 100s in 2008. The Metromover remains one of the world's few rail systems that uses the Innovia APM 100 for non-airport operations.

Bukit Panjang LRT
The Innovia APM 100 (C801) began operations on the Bukit Panjang LRT Line in 1999. These cars are similar to the C-100s formerly used at Singapore Changi Airport's Skytrain system in the early 1990s, jointly built by Westinghouse and Adtranz (acquired by Bombardier). Most of the new features available in newer MRT train cars are found here as well.

Instead of metal wheels on metal tracks, rubber-tired wheels on a concrete track are used, which makes it run very quiet. The windows are smart glass and are programmed to automatically mist within 6 m of (mostly) HDB apartment blocks ensuring residents' privacy. 19 individual cars (which can be coupled in pairs if necessary during peak hours) were purchased.

The line suffered numerous technical problems in its initial years, and subsequent LRT lines in Singapore used the Crystal Mover instead. SMRT also announced that they will upgrade the LRT system with full cost paid by the company.

13 more trainsets for the Bukit Panjang LRT Line (C801A) have been progressively introduced since late-2014 to ease the 100% peak hour congestion. As of 4 September 2015, all C801A trains are on revenue service.

Guangzhou APM Line
The Zhujiang New Town Automated People Mover System, or officially known as the Guangzhou Metro APM Line, is operated by a fleet of 14 Innovia APM 100 rolling stock. It serves the Zhujiang New Town area in Guangzhou, the new CBD of the city. The system began operations in November 2010 and is completely underground. In terms of construction cost per kilometre, it is the most expensive APM system in the world, yet it is the shortest and least used line in the Guangzhou Metro network.

Technical specifications

 * System operation: Automatic train control (ATC) under automatic train operation (ATO) GoA level 4 (UTO)
 * CITYFLO 550 fixed block signalling
 * CITYFLO 650 moving block communications-based train control (CBTC)
 * Gauge: 2642 mm central guideway with rubber tyres
 * Maximum speed: 55 km/h (Guangzhou Metro variation: 60 km/h)
 * Traction control: Thyristor drive powering two Bombardier 1460-P4 DC motors, each with a continuous rating of 75 kW
 * Capacity: 105 (22 seating, 83 standing)
 * Unladen weight: 15 t
 * Dimensions: 12.8 m long, 2.8 m wide, 3.4 m high

title: Innovia APM 100


text:
Interchange (Australian rules football)

Interchange (or, colloquially, the bench or interchange bench) is a team position in Australian rules football, consisting of players who are part of the selected team but are not currently on the field of play.

AFL
As of the 2023 season, at AFL level, each team is permitted four interchange players, and a maximum of seventy-five total player interchanges during a game; players have no limit to the number of times they may individually be changed, and an interchange can occur at any time during the game, including during gameplay. Additionally, a fifth bench player is designated a substitute, allowed to take the field only to permanently replace a player.

The players named on the interchange bench and as the substitute in the teamsheet, which is submitted ninety minutes before the commencement of the game, must be the interchange players who start on the bench, however they may be substituted immediately if the coach wishes.

Other leagues
Interchange rules are not uniform across all leagues. In the major state leagues, as of 2016, following interchange numbers are permitted:

 * South Australian National Football League: three interchange players, with a maximum of fifty rotations per team per game.
 * Victorian Football League: five interchange players.

In AFL Women's, in which each side has 16 players on the field instead of the 18 of the men's game, five interchange players are allowed, with a limit 60 rotations per game as of 2023. Prior to 2023, there was no limit on the number of rotations a team could make per game. The AFL, which operates the women's league, decided not to impose a limit on the number of rotations, as that league is contested during the men's AFL offseason in the southern summer.

Representative teams (such as State of Origin teams), practice and exhibition matches often feature an extended interchange bench of up to six or eight players.

Substitutes
At different times during the history of the sport, there have been substitute players (also known as reserves) serving a function distinct from interchange players. A player who begins the game as a substitute may take no part in the game until he is substituted for another player, and the player substituted out permanently leaves the field.

The substitute rule was resisted for many years, with the prevailing view in the 1910s and 1920s being that a team should be permitted only to substitute a player in the event of an injury, but that there was no practical way to rule against a team making a tactical substitution. A single substitute, known as the nineteenth man, was finally introduced by the Australian National Football Council for the 1930 season, with no restrictions on whether the substitution be used for injury or tactical reasons. A second substitute, the twentieth man, was introduced in 1946, before the substitutes were replaced by interchange in the 1970s. In the AFL since 2011, a hybrid interchange–substitution arrangement has often existed. Between 2011 and 2015, there were three interchange players and one substitute; under those rules, the substitute was required to wear a green vest until activated, and the player substituted out of the game donned a red vest. There were no substitutes between 2016 and 2020. A true medical substitute was introduced in 2021, which for the first time placed a formal restriction on using the substitute for medical reasons only; except with permission from the AFL Medical Officer, a player substituted off for the medical substitute was ineligible to play again until at least twelve days later; this rule remained in place only through 2021 and 2022, before the position reverted to a general substitute available to be used for tactical or medical reasons.

Interchange protocol
In front of the interchange benches is the interchange area (sometimes called the interchange gate), which is a 15-metre stretch of the boundary line, roughly centred between the two teams' benches, through which all players must enter and exit the ground when being interchanged. It is marked on the boundary line with two short lines, perpendicular to the boundary, and sometimes with a slanted end. A player who interchanges outside of this area is not permitted to return for the rest of the game.

Where a player leaves the ground on a stretcher, he is permitted to take the most direct route to the changerooms for medical treatment, and is still permitted to return later in the game; however, where he leaves on a stretcher, the player must wait for 20 minutes of playing time (the length of one regulation quarter) before returning. If a stretcher is brought onto the ground but the player ultimately does not need to use it, he must still wait for 20 minutes before returning.

Due to new AFL concussion rules, effective from 2011 onwards, any player suspected of suffering a concussion must come off the ground and undergo a concussion test; if found to be concussed, he is not allowed to return to the field for the remainder of the game.

A player may be forced to make an interchange by the umpire under the blood rule. If an umpire sees a player bleeding, he will call time-on at the next appropriate time, stopping play until the player has left the field and been replaced.

Where the league has a provision to do so, an interchange steward is provided to monitor interchanges.

Headcount
The primary means for controlling interchanges in most leagues (but not in the AFL) is via a headcount, currently detailed in Law 5.5 of the game. To initiate this procedure, a team captain must request a headcount from the umpire. The umpire, at the opportunity, will call time on, and all players from both teams line will line-up in the centre of the ground to be counted by the umpires.

If either team has more players on the ground than it should, the general rule, according to the 2019 Laws of the Game, is that any points the team had scored up to that point during the quarter of the headcount are deducted from the score and a free kick and 50-metre penalty are paid to the opposing captain from the centre of the ground or the spot of the ball. The league may impose additional sanctions, including reversal of a match result, as appropriate. Leagues will not necessarily deduct scores during the match; in some cases, the quarter's progress score at the time of the headcount is recorded, and league officials meet after the game to assess whether or not to retrospectively cancel that score. Provisions also exist in the rules for a league to review, identify and impose a penalty (including reversal of the match result) for having too many players on the ground in a post-match video review, without a headcount having been executed during the match.

If both teams have the correct number of players, a free kick and 50-metre penalty are paid against the captain who initiated the headcount; that captain may also be reported for time-wasting and ordered off (should the rules of the league permit) if the umpire believes the captain's primary reason for calling the headcount was to waste time.

Up until the 2018 Laws of the Game, the penalty for having too many players on the ground was cancellation of the team's entire score at the time of the headcount rather than just the score in the quarter of the headcount, and there was no formal allowance for a post-match review and reversal of the result if no headcount had occurred. This immense penalty, which predated the interchange bench or even reserve players, was long known to be one of the great curiosities in the game's laws, and was seen so rarely that decades would usually pass without a league seeing it invoked. The rules were modernized at the end of 2018 after two high-profile incidents which, by incredible coincidence, affected separate state league finals on the exact same day: the SANFL preliminary final, when the league had no recourse to change the result of a game won by a North Adelaide team which fielded 19 men for several crucial final-quarter minutes without a headcount; and the NEAFL grand final (described below) when premier Southport was caught with 19 men on the field in a headcount in the opening seconds of the final quarter. In recent years, the majority of incidents of extra players on the field have been an error by a player who was meant to go to the bench after an interval, hence the shift in rules from cancelling the team's entire score to just cancelling the score for that quarter, but with the provision for further penalty as appropriate.

Famous headcounts
Perhaps the most famous headcount request occurred in the SANFL in Round 15, 1975. West Torrens' champion Fred Bills, playing the last of his 313 league games (having announced his retirement earlier that week) entered the field of play before John Cassin, who was injured and lying on a stretcher, had left it. This prompted West Adelaide, trailing 11.7 (73) to 12.10 (82) in the final quarter, to request a headcount. West Torrens players ran for the boundary line, while West Adelaide players wrestled with them to keep them in bounds; in the chaos, one player, identified in the match report published in The Advertiser as Norm Dare, managed to leap the fence and hide under a supporter's coat to avoid detection from the umpire. Ultimately, the count was abandoned when it became impossible to vouch for who was on the field at the time of the request, and West Torrens went on to win by three goals. The incident was celebrated as one of the sport's 150 greatest moments in the 150th year celebrations in 2008. The debacle was covered in a popular Secret Base video on YouTube.

The other most famous headcount occurred during the Grand Final of the 2018 North East Australian Football League season between Southport and Sydney reserves. Southport was leading by ten goals at three-quarter time but accidentally sent nineteen men onto the field to start the final quarter; Sydney called for a headcount twenty seconds later, and Southport's extra man was discovered. Sydney received a free kick and fifty-metre penalty, and play continued with nobody sure whether or not Southport's score would stand – this incident occurred when the penalty could have been annulment of Southport's entire score. Only a few minutes before the end of the game, NEAFL officials decided not to annul Southport's score, using a separate provision within the laws of the game which allowed the full penalty not to be applied if the breach had no material impact on the game. Southport won the game by 55 points.

Scores which are stripped from a team due to a headcount are also stripped from the players' individual statistics. This had an impact on the 2013 VFL season's leading goalkicker medal: Frankston's Michael Lourey finished one goal behind Port Melbourne's Dean Galea for the medal, having had one of his goals annulled in a headcount earlier in the season.

There have been only three headcounts, all unsuccessful, in the history of the VFL/AFL.
 * by captain Wels Eicke against  Round 12, 1924;
 * by captain Jack Clarke against  in Round 17, 1958;
 * by captain Guy McKenna against St Kilda in Round 22, 1999.

Notable successful headcounts around the country which resulted in the cancellation of a team's score are listed in the table below. Where scores are given, the team which suffered the head-count penalty is listed first.

Interchange infringement penalties
In Round 6, 2008, and  played a controversial drawn match, in which a bungled interchange late in the game left Sydney with 19 men on the field for about a minute, during which time the Swans scored the game-tying behind. Although the AFL's laws allowed for each of the Sydney players to be fined $2500 for the error, there could be no change to the match result because North Melbourne had not called for a headcount. This highlighted the impracticality of the head-count rule in a modern professional league with its rapid use of interchanges for fatigue management.

A few weeks after this incident, the AFL introduced a new rule allowing the interchange steward to inform the umpires of interchange errors: specifically, when a player enters the field before the player he is replacing has left the field, or when a player is interchanged without using the interchange gate. In each case, the penalty is a free kick in the centre of the ground or at the spot of the ball at the time, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending team. If the offending team is not in possession of the ball, the umpire shall impose an additional 50-metre penalty against them. Any score or free kicks given to the opposition when an interchange infringement has occurred are cancelled.

This process is seen only at the professional AFL level; lower levels of the sport still rely on the head-count rule to police interchanges. AFL captains retain the right to call for a headcount if they believe an interchange infringement has not been detected by the interchange steward (which would most likely be after an interval), but this has not yet been exercised under the new rules.

In round 10, 2023, in another game between North Melbourne and Sydney, North Melbourne conceded a significant interchange infringement free kick. With the ball in its backline and leading by three points in the final minute, North Melbourne made a 76th interchange, exceeding the interchange cap of 75. The free kick and 50-metre penalty gave Sydney a set shot from the goal line, from which Hayden McLean kicked the winning goal.

Historical interchange rules and tactics
The number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line under Australian National Football Council (ANFC) rules:
 * Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played with 17 on the field (19 prior to 1899) if a player was injured.
 * 1930 – the introduction of a single substitute
 * 1946 – the introduction of a second substitute
 * 1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges

Following the disbandment of the ANFC, the following timeline indicates changes to interchange rules in the AFL. Other leagues have not followed this timeline:
 * 1994 – the introduction of a third interchange, and introduction of forced interchange under the blood rule
 * 1998 – the introduction of a fourth interchange
 * 2011 – the replacement of four interchanges with three interchanges and a substitute
 * 2013 – the introduction of forced interchange for concussed players, with the provision for temporary activation of the substitute while a concussion test is conducted
 * 2014 – the addition of an interchange cap, limiting teams to 120 interchanges per game
 * 2016 – the return to four interchanges without a substitute, reduction of the interchange cap to 90 per game
 * 2021 – the reduction of the interchange cap to 75 a game, and introduction of a medical substitute as a fifth bench player.
 * 2023 – the changing of the medical substitute to a general substitute.

Historically, the interchange bench was used sparingly, and mostly to take poor-performing or players who were injured and unable to continue out of the game. There was a marked change in this at the top level as professionalism grew in the sport between 2000 and 2010, and the interchange bench began to be used much more frequently as a means of rotating players to manage player fatigue through the game and offer rest periods for hard working players and game time for young/old players. The average number of interchanges in the AFL doubled between 2007 (56 changes per team per game) and 2010 (113 changes per team per game) as coaches sought to give frequent rests to their running players. Rule changes in the 2010s and 2020s placed restrictions on the number of interchanges, on the theory that lower fatigue levels were enabling a more defensive play style which was stifling open play and scoring, and that restricting rotations and increasing fatigue could reverse that trend.

title: Interchange (Australian rules football)


text:
Crystal Mover

The Crystal Mover is a rubber-tired automated people mover (APM) system for airport and urban rail transit applications manufactured at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Mihara Machinery Works in Mihara, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. The Crystal Mover, initially based on the Japanese APM standard, is used in automated guideway transit (AGT) systems in China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

Since 2010s MHI has been building and delivering a new family of AGT systems branded Urbanismo as the successor to the Crystal Mover. The Urbanismo family consists of a higher-speed model called "Urbanismo Super AGT" with a top speed of 120 km/h and three customizable models called "Urbanismo-22", "Urbanismo-18", and "Urbanismo-16" with a gross weight of over 22, 18, and 16 tonnes, respectively.

Japan
Between 2014 and 2016, Yurikamome, Inc., which operates the Yurikamome line in Tokyo, purchased a fleet of 18 six-car 7300 series trainsets based on the Urbanismo-18 class to replace all of the 18 six-car 7000 series trainsets. Between June 2018 and June 2020, MHI also delivered 8 six-car 7500 series (upgraded version of 7300 series) trainsets to replace the fleet of 7200 series trainsets.

Saitama New Urban Transit Co., Ltd., which operates the New Shuttle in Saitama Prefecture, purchased a fleet of 5 six-car 2020 series trainsets based on the Urbanismo-16 class to replace the fleet of 3 six-car 1010 series trainsets and 2 six-car 1050 series trainsets from 2015 to 2020.

In Hiroshima, Hiroshima Rapid Transit purchased 24 six-car 7000 series trainsets based on the Urbanismo class to replace the existing fleet of 23 six-car 6000 series trainsets and 1 six-car 1000 series trainset running on the Astram Line. The 7000 series entered service on 26 March 2020.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation purchased a fleet of 12 five-car 330 series trainsets, which are similar in design to the Yurikamome 7300 series trainsets, to replace the fleet of 300 series trainsets running on the Nippori-Toneri Liner from fiscal 2022 to 2024.

Singapore
In Singapore, Crystal Movers operate on the Sengkang LRT line and the Punggol LRT line, both managed by SBS Transit Ltd. These cars have been operating since 2003 on the Sengkang LRT and on the Punggol LRT since its opening in 2005. There is a fleet of 41 cars of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810 in total for the two LRT lines. An additional order was placed for 16 more cars (Contract 810A) with identical specifications to increase capacity on both LRT lines, and had been fully delivered as of 2016.

Macau
On 31 December 2010, Macau placed a MOP 4.688 billion order for Urbanismo-22 vehicles nicknamed "Ocean Cruiser" for the Macau Light Transit System, which started commercial operation on 10 December 2019. It was free of charge until 31 January 2020.

Airport connections
Crystal Movers are currently in operation in the following airports, with most applications being in the United States:

Hong Kong

 * HKIA Automated People Mover, Hong Kong International Airport

Singapore

 * Changi Airport Skytrain, Singapore Changi Airport

South Korea

 * Incheon Airport Shuttle Train, Incheon International Airport

United Arab Emirates

 * Dubai International Airport Terminal 3 APM, Dubai International Airport, UAE

United States

 * AeroTrain, Washington Dulles International Airport, United States
 * ATL Skytrain, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, United States
 * MIA Mover and Skytrain, Miami International Airport, United States
 * Orlando International Airport People Movers, Orlando International Airport, United States
 * SkyConnect, Tampa International Airport, United States

Specifications

 * Configuration: Single- or double-car
 * Capacity (passengers): 105 (including 18 seats) or 210 (including 36 seats)
 * Vehicle mass: 14.9 t per vehicle
 * Vehicle dimensions: 11.84 m (length) × 2.69 m (width) × 3615 mm (height)
 * Guide system: Side guide two-axis four-wheel steering system
 * Electric system: Third rail at 750 volts direct current
 * Gauge: ; guide rail span: 3.2 m
 * Maximum speed:
 * Vehicle performance: 70 /
 * Operation: 70 km/h
 * Service acceleration and braking: 1.0 m/s2 (3.6 km/h/s)
 * Emergency braking: 1.3 m/s2 (4.68 km/h/s)
 * Car body structure: Aluminum alloy welded structure
 * Traction motor: Two 3-phase alternating current induction motors each with a continuous rating of 80 kW
 * Propulsion control system: IGBT–VVVF inverter vector control (individual control of each axis with variable load control)
 * Brake system: Electric command pneumatic brake with regenerative brake (with stand-by brake, parking brake, variable load control and wheel slide prevention control)

title: Crystal Mover


text:
José Agostinho de Macedo

José Agostinho de Macedo (11 September 1761 – 2 October 1831) was a Portuguese poet and prose writer.

Early life
José was born in Beja to a peasant family. He studied Latin and rhetoric with the Oratorians in Lisbon, Portugal. In 1778 he became professed as an Augustinian, but due to his turbulent character he spent a great part of his time in prison, and was constantly being transferred from one convent to another, which resulted in him leaving the monastic lifestyle in order to live in urban Lisbon.

In 1792 he was unfrocked, but through powerful connections he obtained a papal brief which secularised him and permitted him to retain his ecclesiastical status. Taking to journalism and preaching, José made a substantial living and a unique position for himself. In a short time he was recognised as the leading pulpit orator of the day, and in 1802 he became one of the royal preachers.

Career
Macedo was the first to introduce from abroad and to cultivate didactic and descriptive poetry, the best example of which is his notable transcendental poem Meditation (1813). His made an attempt to supersede Luís de Camões as Portugal's greatest poet, and in 1814 he produced Oriente, an epic dealing with the same subject as the Os Lusíadas, namely Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to India. This amended paraphrase met with a cold reception, whereupon Macedo published his Censura dos Lusiadas, containing a minute examination and virulent indictment of Camões.

Macedo founded and wrote for a large number of journals, and the tone and temper of these and his political pamphlets induced his leading biographer to name him the chief libeller of Portugal, though at the time his jocular and satirical style gained him popular favor. An extreme adherent of absolutism, he expended all his powers of invective against the Constitutionalists, and advocated a general massacre of the opponents of the Miguelist régime. Notwithstanding his priestly office and old age, he continued his aggressive journalistic campaign, until his own party, feeling that he was damaging the cause by his excesses, threatened him with proceedings, which caused him in 1829 to resign the post of censor of books for the Ordinary, to which he had been appointed in 1824.

When he died in 1831 he left behind him many friends, a host of admirers, and a great but ephemeral literary reputation. His ambition to rank as the king of letters led to his famous conflict with Bocage, whose poem Pena de Taliao was perhaps the hardest blow Macedo ever received. His malignity reached its height in a satirical poem in six cantos, Os Burros (1812–1814), in which he pilloried by name men and women of all grades of society, living and dead, with the utmost licence of expression. His translation of the Odes of Horace, and his dramatic attempts, are only of value as evidence of the extraordinary versatility of the man, but his treatise, if his it be, A Demonstration of the Existence of God, at least proves his possession of very high mental powers. As a poet, his odes on Wellington and the emperor Alexander show true inspiration, and the poems of the same nature in his Lyra anacreontica, addressed to his mistress, have considerable merit.

title: José Agostinho de Macedo


text:
Template talk:Italian political parties

Major/minor classification
There was a long discussion at Talk:List of political parties in Italy which led to new rules of classification for major/minor parties. I am going to be bold and implement that decision also here by removing the "medium" category and standardising the thresholds. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Simplification
Wouldn't it be time to simplify the complicated inclusion and classification criteria still in place for this template? I think that inclusion criteria are still necessary in this case, but not such unnecessarily complicated criteria. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have currently no time to think about it, but I will surely come up with a proposal sometime soon. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I would like to remove the difference between major and minor parties, to list all the parties with representation in the Italian parliament, in the European parliament and in regional councils, without particular rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is OK to remove the difference between major and minor parties. I also agree that all parties with representation in the Italian Parliament, the European Parliament and Regional Councils could be listed, according to the current ordering. I would have three categories ("countrywide", "regional" and "overseas"). Regional parties should be listed by region. Possibly, I would add a note on parliamentary groups detached from political parties. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I could agree to organize the template into countrywide, regional and overseas parties (including only parties that have representation). Parliamentary groups are something else, so I wouldn't include them. Furthermore, unlike the current version, I would avoid repeating for each region the regional section of a national party, such as the Lega: it is repetitive and redundant.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would simply use the same categorization in List of political parties in Italy, therefore: parliamentary, regional-parliamentary, non-represented. Yakme (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be another solution, however the unrepresented parties cannot all be included in the template, they are too many: inclusion criteria would be necessary in this case.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then stop at regional-parliamentary. A selection based on threshold criteria will always cause troubles, and is a form of WP:OR. Yakme (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The organization of the template concerning only the division between parliamentary represented/regional represented for me is ok.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more on replicating the bad compromise of List of political parties in Italy here. Parties are better defined and classified by their nature: countrywide, regional and overseas. I understand the issue over the regional parties forming the League, but those parties, many of which predate the League, are autonomous parties: I could agree about removing them from the template, as long as they are restored in the List. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view the priority is to remove the current rules and make this template simpler too. I could also accept to keep the current territoriality criterion, even if I would prefer the representativeness criterion (which is more objective). Anyway, the sections of the League are already included in the list of political parties in Italy and it seems to me that you have expanded that part a bit too much, there was no need to give a presentation to each section of the League, including the establishment date and the name of the predecessor parties (that no longer exist). I agree that the Venetian League and the Lombard League have an important history (indeed they pre-existed the Northern League) but the others are just regional sections, nothing more.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Parties are better defined and classified by their nature: countrywide, regional and overseas. This is a personal opinion, not an objective fact. It was decided, on Talk:List of political parties in Italy, that parties are classified based on parliament membership. I would honestly assume that the same should be reflected in this template – it would definitely be confusing if the article and the associated template had different classification rules. Furthermore, as SDC said, the current classification is objective, contrary to a separation based on ideology or "nature" (what is the "nature" of a party?). Yakme (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reference to ideology, here, even though another template, the Template:Historical Italian political parties, is precisely organised according to the parties' ideology. It is quite objective that a party is active countrywide, regionally or overseas. I think that readers benefit from the current organisation of the template, let alone the distinction between main and minor parties that can be eliminated. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We should decide how to modify this template, I hope there is no need for a long discussion, I think we are all aware that the current setting of this template is obsolete.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and obviously the simplest immediate thing is to organize it according to the associated article List of political parties in Italy. Yakme (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current organisation of the template is not obsolete and it is arguably quite better than that of the List. I would just simplify the conditions of admission, not the structure. Also, it is important that some conditions of admission continue to exist, due to the vast number of parties active in Italy. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the templates currently used for other European countries and basically all use templates based on representation, without any difference between major and minor parties. My preference is to use a template similar to the one used by Spanish parties. P1221 (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the Spanish template model, without number of seats in brackets.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose that model, especially Chamber/Senate and figures, that are always changing (List of political parties in Italy is already out-of-date). --Checco (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, it is undeniable that most of the templates are organized on the basis of a criterion of representation, which is also the criterion that was chosen for the list of Italian parties. I hope that we do not have to dwell too much on this discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, other countries have less parties than Italy and not all political party systems are the same. We should be less provincial in ourt considerations. What about the Template:United States political parties (larger and smaller! major and third party!) and the Template:Indian political parties (national parties and state, thus regional, parties)? Those are really big countries and we should not ignore those examples and that there are indeed different models. --Checco (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot compare federal countries like India, the US, or Germany to the Italian system. Italy's number of parties is not that far away from Spain, which is also a unitary state like Italy, so the proposal of taking inspiration from the Spanish template is not a bad idea, in my opinion. What's more important is that we cannot create selection criteria by which we separate parties into major and minor – we had a long process of discussion about this and the outcome was to remove those criteria. Yakme (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just showing that there are more models. My proposal is to simplify the template by having looser and simpler conditions of admission and by ordering parties in three categories (countrywide, regional and overseas). I think it is a sensible proposal, that suits Italy's party system or, better, party systems (as several regions have their own party system, due to a number of regional parties). --Checco (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, introducing selection criteria is not a simplification, but rather a complication because anyone can challenge the ad-hoc criteria of admission. The obvious simplest thing is to repeat the classification used in the List of political parties in Italy, which is devoid of any possible arbitrariness, given that it is founded on a more generic criteria: representation. For the sack of brevity I would therefore only include parties represented in the national or European Parliament. If there is enough space we could include the parties represented in the regional parties. Yakme (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Italian party system is incomparable with the US or Indian system (also extremely different from each other). The system closest to the Italian one is clearly the Spanish one, so I agree with that type of template. The division between national and regional parties would give unfair prominence to small national parties at the expense of relevant regional parties, represented in Parliament (such as the South Tyrolean People's Party).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I am glad that, despite one of you affirming the opposite, both of you agree that some form of conditions of admission is useful. I agree with including in the template the parties that are currently represented in the Italian, European or regional parliaments/councils, even though there might been countrywide parties obtaining significant results without being represented anywhere (i.e. Italexit). Surely, a political party which took part in general or EP elections in most constituencies should be included too.
 * This said, consistency with other templates does not amount to a real argument for ordering parties by representation and not by their nature. I am quite convinced that it would be better to divide parties in three categories: countrywide, regional and overseas. I am also quite sure that such a proposal also regarding the List would also achieve support in a larger debate (it is a pity that the ill-advised RfC on the List did not offer that solution). --Checco (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone ever thought of having zero conditions of admissions for this template, given that we cannot insert all Italian political parties. The condition of being represented in a parliamentary council in my opinion is the one that is prone to less arbitrariness and at the same time it guarantees the inclusion of all relevant Italian political parties. Regarding the classification of the parties, I don't think there is a reason to subvert the result of multiple RfCs we just had on the List talk page. Therefore I would classify them in the same manner as the List article, where the classification has been established via an extensive and thorough consensus-building procedure (multiple discussions + third opinions + arbitration + multiple RfCs). Also, I agree that consistency with other templates is not an argument, however consistency within the template and the List belonging to the same country might be an advantage for editors and readers especially. Yakme (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to decide how to modify this template, it seems to me that there is sufficient consensus to adopt the Spanish model, or am I wrong?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm ok with the Spanish model, without showing the number of MPs. P1221 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, without the number of MPs.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose the Spanish model and favour an organisation according to the scope of political parties: countrywide, regional and overseas. --Checco (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would affirm that at this point there is sufficient consensus (three out of four users) to proceed with the Spanish model. The only alternative would be to resort to a tool for which none of you are "sympathizers", therefore, if there is nothing else to add, I will boldly modify the template in this direction in the next few days.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am clearly on the losing side also of this argument, but I think that 3 users against one is not enough to replace a long-established consensus. --Checco (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's surely not a strong consensus, but it's still enough consensus to edit it. If there's no news, I'll edit the template in the next few days. Of course, any new suggestions are welcome.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I oppose the "Spanish model", and do not believe it a suitable fit for Italian political parties – I would like to stick with the tried and tested national/regional/overseas tripartite split for this list.== Autospark (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The national/regional/overseas split goes against the consensus built through multiple RfC's in the List article, so it's not a good option. Yakme (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you will probably be against it, but in this case, the only solution is to have an RFC also on the template: currently there is not enough consensus either to keep it in its current state or to modify it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Although secondary, the national/regional/overseas split actually exists and is in place in the current list... what about considering, as compromise, a multi-level template, similar to Template:Malaysian political parties? By keeping the same rules used in the list, it could be done by using as first level the representation (national/european level, regional level only, unrepresented, former and defunct parties), and as second level the national/regional/overseas split. P1221 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For me it could be a good compromise.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as a compromise version as it is exactly what I am opposing. Instead of ordering the template according to "representation", I am with User:Autospark and "I would like to stick with the tried and tested national/regional/overseas tripartite split for this list". --Checco (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a good compromise, since it included exactly both proposals. However, if Checco does not accept this compromise version, it is clear that there is no consensus yet for any version proposed, so let's proceed with an RFC. I invite you all to participate, the most successful proposal will be applied to the template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not true. The Malaysian model is even less "territorial" (what a ugly word) than the Spanish model. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you didn't understand the proposal, but in this case you could ask (I assume that I understand the proposal of P1221, that should be a mixed template).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco, @Scia Della Cometa and whoever might be interested: my proposal (option C of the RfC below) can be seen in my sandbox. I'm not good in making templates, so consider it just an initial idea that can (and shall) be improved. P1221 (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * P1221 I understood your proposal, indeed I agree with it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about the template structure
What kind of structure should be applied to the Template:Italian political parties? – Relisting. Yakme (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Please express your order of preference for the three proposals in the survey, with a brief explanation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A: a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties (example: parties represented in the Chamber, in the Senate, in the European Parliament, in the Regional Councils);
 * B: a structure based on the principle of territoriality, similar to the current version of the Template:Italian political parties (example: countrywide parties, regional parties, overseas parties);
 * C: a mixed structure, including both the principle of representation and territoriality (with a drop-down structure, like this sandbox and similar to the Template:Malaysian political parties).

Survey

 * B is the only option I can support, as it is better to have parties ordered by their scope: countrywide, regional and overseas. I object how the the RfC is presented (representation v. territoriality) and, contrarily to what is written above, there is no territoriality in the C option (paradoxically there is more territoriality in the A option): parties are ordered just by representation, without considering the different levels of government. The whole RfC is quite faulty. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Things considered, option C meaning that available at User:P1221/sandbox is the worst of the three. It is very complicate, parties are still not divided by region (as they are in the current version) and, as a multi-level template, it looks very ugly. Thus, I strongly support option B and strongly oppose option C. --Checco (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * C, or alternatively option A. Definitely not option B, which is the most inadequate: why should a countrywide party with at most one or two regional councilors be listed before a regional party with many more MPs and regional councilors? It would not be logical.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Option B . This makes sense to me and I would image most users too. Seth Whales   talk  16:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option C as compromise solution. Between the other two options, I prefer Option A, as it keeps consistency with the consensus reached for sorting the list in the article List of political parties in Italy. P1221 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option B is my preference; I see some of the merits of the "Spanish option", but would prefer to stick with national/regional/overseas model.--Autospark (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A as it reflects the main decisions of multiple RfCs at List of political parties in Italy, which set the organization of Italian parties. Alternatively, option C. I am strongly opposing option B as it is against the consensus of the List article, and we cannot have the List and the template in two completely different organizations. Also, option B gives too much weight to tiny, secondary regional parties (see the current template) w.r.t. the largest and most influential Italian parties. Also, the difference between a countrywide vs regional party is not well defined and could possibly lead to mistakes and confusion (is "regional" based on location only, or based on party purpose and stance? is Lega a countrywide party or a federation of regional parties? does "regional" mean that the party is active in one single region? what about parties that are active in only two regions? are they countrywide? or multi-regional?). Definitely better to classify parties based on representation rather than territoriality. Yakme (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option A I would prefer this type of structure. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
@Checco: the presentation of the RFC makes perfect sense, since you are supporting a territoriality-based representation at the expense of representation. And if the option C is presented as a mixed system, that means that option C is a mixed system (the template of parties in Malaysia is cited just an inspiration for the structure of a mixed template, if you had not figured it out).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that this RfC started too early: it seems to me that not all involved users clearly understood the difference between the three options and the discussion hasn't yet hit a dead end... P1221 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the previous discussion (started more than a month ago) had hit a dead end (I assume that Autospark was in favor of your proposal, but didn't state it explicitly). If a discussion becomes a wall to wall, like in this case, it is better to start an RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, only three persons (Checco, you and me) participated in the discussion since I put forward the "Malaysian proposal"... Anyway, RfC has started and I don't like second-guessing other contributors' opinions, so let's go ahead with it. P1221 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC has been closed
Now what? P1221 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for departing from the status quo. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's restore the Rfc until there is not the consensus for one of the versions proposed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Rfc restored. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * @Scia Della Cometa what is the purpose of keeping this RfC open till kingdom come? Didn't you notice that nobody has intervened for the past 4 weeks? P1221 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I only noticed that there is no consensus on the current version, but neither is there a strong consensus on option A (four opinions against three). I would prefer to consolidate the consensus on one of the proposed options and this was the purpose of the renewal of the RFC. Do you think there is currently a consensus on any version of the template? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't consensus on any version of the template. But you don't build consensus by keeping an RFC open indefinitely: consensus is not built on !votes, but on discussions. P1221 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want to reopen the discussion? I might agree, but my fear is a dead end argument. On the other hand, it would not be correct to simply keep the current version, as it turned out to be less popular than the other proposed version. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As of now, three users have supported option B (status quo) as their first choice, two option A and two option C. --Checco (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but four users out of seven preferred the option A to option B, it certainly cannot be stated that option B is the preferred one. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not determined by the sheer number of WP:!votes, therefore none option got a strong support. When there is no consensus, usually status quo remains in place. Therefore, either somebody gives up their stand and accepts to work for reaching an agreement for a compromise solution, or shall accept that the dead end was already reached and there is no possibility to change the status quo. P1221 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree with you. While I consider the status quo a good thing, I hope that those users who have been opposed to the organisation of the template according to the parties' nature and the organisation of regional parties according to their region will have second thoughts: it is the best why to represent the complexity of the Italian party system/s. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not over. If the status quo has not certainly found users' approval (on the contrary), it is evident that a solution must be found. And listing the countrywide parties with little relevance and zero elects before important regional parties like the SVP is not the best solution to describe the Italian party situation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing my previous comment for better understanding: "Therefore, either all involved contributors give up their own stand and accept to work for reaching an agreement for a compromise solution, or shall accept that the dead end was already reached and there is no possibility to change the status quo." P1221 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your reasoning: for the users in favor of the status quo (a minority position up to now, something to remember), it is enough to oppose agreements or compromises to maintain the current situation. This type of tactics cannot and should not find space in wikipedia. I am open to reaching agreements, but is it so also from the other part? If not, the consensus will have to be reached on one of the two initial proposals, either with the extension of the RFC or with the involvement of other users in the discussion. But keeping a version supported only by the minority of the users is not the solution. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but technically this RfC has not been closed. I think that a closure has to be requested in the appropriate place, and then it could be that an uninvolved editor will indeed close it (and then evaluate the level of consensus reached). Yakme (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The rfc can also be renewed if a certain level of consensus has not yet been reached. for this reason I am inclined to give it a second chance before closing it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I restarted it, as it was never closed. In a couple of weeks I would request closure. Yakme (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yakme, I would consider asking the formal closure of this RfC, because nobody else joined the conversation since this RfC was reopened. P1221 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Outcome of the RFC
The RFC is closed, there has been no news in the last month and the outcome has not changed, i.e. a weak consensus for option A. At this point I would proceed to edit the template, also in line with the list of parties politicians in Italy. A discussion could be made on some simple parameters to include the most relevant extra-parliamentary parties. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not start adding problems to problems. For now, just replacing the template to one more similar to the Spanish one should suffice. I can also do it, as you wish. Yakme (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not an addition of problems, I have only opened the hypothesis of including some extra-parliamentary parties, if there is a will. However, I think anyone is free to edit the template following the outcome of the RFC, so you can edit it too, of course. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish model means listing the parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the European Parliament and the Regional Councils multiple times, with the number of members in each legislative body in brackets. What was done by the two users above has nothing to do with the Spanish model and is thus contrary to the weak consensus found by User:Levivich. I am against the Spanish model and I am not even convinced that there was actually a weak consensus, let alone any consensus, on it, but we should respect what User:Levivich deliberated and play by the rules. I am thus asking User:Levivich to intervene so that the weak consensus is correctly implemented. --Checco (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that what I implemented represents the (weak) outcome of the RFC above, i.e. classifying the parties by representation, as done in the List article. Repeating the parties multiple times in the navbox has no real motivation. If you wish, we can add the number of members for each House in parentheses, this is no big deal. Yakme (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It may not have a real motivation, but that is what the Spanish model is all about. You are not respecting the weak consensus, acknowledged by User:Levivich. Of course, I hope that a different consensus will emerge in the future, but, as of now, we should implement the Spanish model, not invent another model which was never discussed and that has nothing to do with the Spanish model and, thus, consensus. Let's play by the rules, please. --Checco (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everybody. I should say first that I have no authority here of any kind, I'm not an admin, I can't enforce anything, and there is no reason that anyone has to listen to anything I have to say. If somebody had asked me to revert my close, I would have, and still would agree if that's what other editors want me to do. That said, my opinion is that the current version is different than RFC Option A, because Option A is representation-only, and the current version is representation and territory. (Option B, the old version of the template, was territory-only.) But the current version wasn't discussed in the RFC, and maybe everyone will like it better, I don't know. Levivich (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all I would like to point out to Checco that I haven't modified the template yet, so I don't understand why he criticizes me for what I have not done. After that, I agree with the closing analysis of the RFC by Levivich, who is a third-party user, and his subsequent observation: the current template is much more similar to option C than to option A. The Spanish model provides for a sharp division between the parties in the Chamber, Senate, EP and regional councils. The only change I would make is the removal of the number of seats in brackets and the exclusion of the parties already listed in the field of parties in the regional councils (hence "Regional Councils only").--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * However I also agree to list all parties even in regional councils, for example with an acronym instead of full name.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, there are two possible ways forward: 1) ask User:Levivich to revert the RfC closure and re-open the debate; 2) implement the Spanish model, according to User:Levicic's RfC closure (weak consensus for option A, thus the Spanish model). In the meantime, the latest and clearly non-consensual edits to the template should be reverted. --Checco (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Levivich's closure is valid and his arguments are objective. Unfortunately, despite the one-month extension, it was not possible to obtain a broader consensus. So, at the moment, we should implement the tmp based on the Spanish model, if you want I'll take care of it myself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the template I created, it's based on the Spanish model (option A) with the only difference that I didn't put the seats in brackets (I think we all agree to avoid such highly variable data in this template).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The current version is one of the worst possible, given that it repeats parties multiple times, which is obviously useless and actually counter-productive (in a template that is supposed to be a summary). I am still convinced that my version does reproduce the outcome of the RfC, that is option A, namely: "a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties." Indeed, my structure is based on the principle of representation (only represented parties are shown) and is definitely like the Spanish one, although not exactly identical to it. But I do think that mentioning the "Spanish model" was meant to work as a rough example, an inspiration, not to copy the exact structure. Note also that my version makes the template sort of a mirror of the List article (which is the major reason why people !voted for option A). Yakme (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * While User:Yakme's version had nothing to do with consensus, User:SDC's version is at least consistent with User:Levivich's closure. In my view, it could be improved in two ways: 1) by having all regional parties in the fourth category; 2) by adding, among the latter, the long-established regional parties that are currently the federal components of Lega (Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, etc.). It is quite important that users have the opportunity to have the full picture of the parties active in Italy.
 * This said, as there is not a clear consensus on how to implement User:Levivich's closue, I think that we should return to the status quo ante, for now. --Checco (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Checco, your disruptive strategy to obtain what you (alone) wanted in the first place, i.e. the status quo ante, is quite evident. You should actually prefer my version to SDC's one, because at least it categorizes parties also by national/regional (which is one of your major discussion points). But you chose to generate chaos on this, in hope that your original version (the one opposed by everyone) will be put back online. In some way, it is quite amusing to see this, honestly. By the way, I oppose your proposal (1) because it is illogical and equivalent to implementing option B, and also proposal (2) because the Lega regional sections are not listed in the List article. Yakme (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, the only disruptive strategy is yours: as three users (including me) have pointed out, your version is not consistent with the RfC's outcome. Option A, the one implemented by User:SDC, may not be perfect, but it is consensual and surely better than your version. By the way, 1) would still be more in line with option A than your version (the fourth category can be different from the others) and would serve readers better; 2) nowhere it was decided that this template should be completely consistent with the List and, indeed, I am proposing the same improvements here and there (also because the regional parties forming Lega was not an issue of any RfC). --Checco (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I asked whether I could implement the RFC outcome, I was told that I could, and the version I implemented is how I pictured option A in my mind when I read it and when I !voted for it. Might be debatable, but no disruption was intended, nor bad faith involved (from my side). To be even more clear: I am not against SDC changing my structure to a version that is more literally adherent to the RFC outcome. However I am free to criticize it, as I personally still find my version more readable and organized, and without repetitions (indeed, I was the one creating it). Yakme (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yakme, @Scia Della Cometa, thank you very much for your proposed solutions. Although I like very much and prefer the one proposed by Yakme, I recognize it to be more similar to the Option C I put forward and I had in my mind. Since this option didn't attract a greater consensus than Option A, it is better to keep the solution proposed by SDC, which better reflects the weak consensus identified in the RfC. There is no reason to return to the status quo ante: doing this would disregard the outcome of the RfC. Wikipedia is a continuous WIP, the optimal solution can be achieved by building it a bit at a time. P1221 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yakme: In my view, the problem of your version is that reflected in the main characteristics the option C (ie "a mixed structure, including both the principle of representation and territoriality", which in any case I had supported as a possible compromise). I limited myself to copying a type of template that is not only used for Spanish parties, but also for German, Austrian, Portuguese, Romanian, Polish parties and many others. Of course, in all other cases the numbers of seats are indicated in brackets, which help to give greater meaning to the repetition of parties (I am not against including the seats in the Italian template, but we must consider that it is highly variable data). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, but we are not in a court of law here, we can be flexible. Here I gather that already three users out of four are not against my version with respect to the current one. Consensus can change, especially after realizing that some implementation is not as nice as expected during the RFC case. But I'm not going to insist anymore, if we want to keep literally the outcome of the RFC then let's go with it. Yakme (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:SDC's is closer to the new (weak) consensus that was achieved. Of course, anyone is free to criticise anything or to propose any changes. For my part, I will never stop arguing against the current consensus on this template and the List. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

New format of the template
After the RFC was closed, there has been some discussion about which implementation of the RFC outcome would work best. One version (version 1) implements a structure that is identical to the one appearing in List of Italian political parties: its first categorization is based on representation, and there is a sub-categorization by national/regional. Another version (version 2, the current one) implements a structure that is identical to Template:Spanish political parties: it is only categorized based on representation, and it repeats parties appearing in multiple chambers of Parliament or in the EP. The question is the following: regardless of previous discussions, do you prefer version 1 or version 2 of the template? My !vote goes to version 1, as I was the one implementing it, and because I think it gives a smart structure to the template avoiding repetitions. Yakme (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I could think of a polemic answer but I prefer to avoid it. In any case, the consensus that emerged from the RFC is weak but provides for a division on the basis of the representation (this type is not used only for the Spanish parties, but also for parties from other countries). Of course, nothing prevents a stronger consensus from being found for any version, which is always desirable. Honestly, I'm really not a fan of countruwide, regional etc labels, I initially supported a double division as a compromise but I would avoid it. In any case, the current template works better if the seats are indicated, I hope no one is against my last edit (it is a variable data, but in this way the structure of the template makes more sense).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So now you are in favour of a longer template with triple repetitions of parties listed. Weird how you !voted for option C in the RFC, and now you changed your mind. Who knows why... Anyway now the template is even larger with the addition of seats, which I would definitely avoid. Also, why are some seats in normal brackets and some in square brackets? Yakme (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My vote in the RfC was for option C or for option A, not only for option C . I always supported the "Spanish model", even if it was not my initial idea. I don't understand your allusion. The seats in square bracket are simply parties into federation, so already included in normal brackets, like in the Spanish template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about the proposal below? Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament are grouped together, like in the article List of political parties in Italy; parties are listed in alphabetical order and without showing the seats (the template would be easier to maintain); added a section for unrepresented parties, with rules of inclusion to be defined (here could be included also some notable defunct parties). P1221 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Excluding the Template:Political parties in France (which includes only the main parties and groups them by political position) and the Template:Political parties in India, it seems to me that almost all of the templates list the parties in order of relevance, and I think that's right. If the first Italian party is Fratelli d'Italia, it is right to list it first. If you want to avoid repetitions, a solution could be the one adopted by Template:Political parties in Australia (but keeping the order of the parties would become even more complex). I am also in favor of establishing a few simple rules for unrepresented parties, while I would keep the defunct parties in the appropriate template (again I would simplify the inclusion rules). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Australian one is basically my version, without the territorial division... I would definitely support it. Instead I am afraid I am against showing unrepresented parties, because that would mean inventing new admission rules (i.e. arbitrary thresholds), which likely amount to original research. Yakme (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how a recently-achieved consensus, albeit a weak one, is already under scrutiny. The version implemented by User:SDC is the closest possible to the Spanish model, which was selected as the most consensual option. Any departure from it means re-discussing the issue altogether. For my part, while I am not a fan of the consensual version, I also dislike the proposal above by User:P1221 and, especially, User:Yakme's version. My preference goes to something like the Template:Indian political parties or a joint template including both the Template:United States political parties and the Template:United States state and local political parties. Parties should be ordered according to their nature and scope: countrywide, regional, overseas. I would also add a fourth category, consistently to what User:SDC has proposed in Talk:List of political parties in Italy: "associate parties". --Checco (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The most certain result of the RFC was the rejection of the previous "major-minor" territorial-based classification. Therefore anything like the Indian or US templates should not be implemented. I think the Australian one proposed by SDC is a good compromise option, that reflects the outcome of the RFC. Yakme (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think Australian template is a good compromise. I would avoid showing the number of seats, just for making the maintenance of the template easier, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. I understand your preference for principle of territoriality, @Checco, but that option didn't get enough support. P1221 (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As of now, the only consensual version is the Spanish model, as implemente by User:SDC, including the number of seats. As we are re-discussing the issue, I feel free to propose a more rational organisation of the template and also a one that needs less updating: ordering the party not according to territoriality, but according to nature/scope. Our consensus, which should be respected as of now, is a weak one, thus anyone can propose improvements. --Checco (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that the consensus was reached on "a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties", not on just copying that template... In my opinion, any model that respects the principle above (and that can get enough support from the users) can be adopted. P1221 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Checco, you are stonewalling the process by repeating always the same proposals, which clearly have already not gathered the support of the community. As P1221 is stating, you are misrepresenting the RFC question: in the RFC we did not !vote for a specific implemented version of the template, we were !voting for the main categorization to adopt. The Australian version evidently adheres to the consensus that came out of the RFC, so it is definitely a viable option as much as the Spanish one. I think SDC, who implemented the Spanish model first, would also agree on this. On top of this, the Australia version avoids repetitions, and it looks like it has some support from involved editors. For the ordering, we can order parties based on number of seats, and not show the numbers. Yakme (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We have just achieved a consensus, albeit a weak one: let it be! As you have done, I also felt free to re-discuss the recently-achieved consensus. However, it would be better to pause a bit and leave the template as it is now, as the result of the RfC. --Checco (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Australian version is perfectly within the consensus that was just achieved. Apparently at the moment this version has also more support than the current one so if nobody else is against it I would implement it in the next days. Yakme (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to the “Australian version”, as honestly, as an off-the-shelf solution I don’t find it a suitable fit for Italian political parties and the setup in that country. At least, not without alterations. Could we discuss this further, perhaps?-- Autospark (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not need to copy identically any currently existing version, of course. This is also why indeed I am against the current state where we are basically copying the Spanish template, which is full of repetitions and borderline confusing. To me, the main point of the "Australian version" is that we would avoid the current repetition between Chamber, Senate and EP. If you wish, we can forget about references to other countries, and just discuss about how to remove the current repetitions in the table, while also following the RFC consensus. My proposal is to "merge" the rows of Chamber, Senate and EP into a single one, where we list "nationally-represented" or "parliamentary-represented" parties – you pick the title. Yakme (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Are we keeping the current status, with 3 repetitions for each party and the showing the number of seats per each parliament? Yakme (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, as long as an entirely new consensus is achieved. The current template is designed according to the result of the latest RfC. There is no need to say that I would rather prefer a template in which parties would be listed according to their nature, mainly countrywide, regional and overseas. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Personally I'm fine with both the current template (used for parties of many countries) and the "Australian" model.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision of the Template of historical parties
Hello everyone, I would like to point out the start of this discussion for the simplification of the Template on historical parties. You are all invited to participate. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Italian political parties


text:
Arcade (TV series)

Arcade was an Australian television soap opera shown in 1980 that was one of the least successful in the history of Australian television.

It aired on Network Ten with the premiere (76-minute) episode shown on 20 January 1980. The series then ran five nights a week, Mondays to Fridays, as a 25-minute serial.

It was produced solely by Network Ten (as an in-house production) with a start-up budget of almost $1 million.

The series was set in a fictitious shopping mall (hence the "Arcade" of the title) in the northern suburbs of Sydney, Arcade dealt with the lives and loves of the characters who worked at the various stores within the shopping complex.

Production
The plan was to have the show on the air before the ratings season started to build an audience, however the serial quickly proved itself a ratings disaster, which actually caused the shows on rival networks it was programmed against to improve in the ratings.

A total of 50 episodes were actually filmed and produced, but the series was cancelled after six weeks, so only 30 episodes ever went to air.

Theme music
The disco-style, metaphoric theme song "(Walking Through an) Arcade" was composed by New Zealand-born Mike Perjanik and performed by Australian singer Doug Parkinson. The opening title sequence feature aerial shots of a real building and shopping arcade, which was actually the exterior of the Strata Motor Hotel located on Military Road, in Cremorne.

Set designs
Rupert Murdoch in collaboration with the network spent almost $1 million to pour a new concrete floor in Studio A at the Sydney Channel 10 studios; install a complete new lighting grid and lighting system; new editing software; upgraded control rooms and cameras and, of course, the construction of the massive Arcade set itself.

The shows set was one of the most elaborate and realistic ever built for an Australian Studio at the time

Not long before the show was axed, there was talk the series might be moved to a later time slot allowing it to become a bit "raunchier" (similar to the hit series Number 96) and a large new set had been built featuring a "western-style" saloon bar, so that more of the action could take place in a venue that supplied alcohol.

There were also moves (before the show was axed) to have some of the regular characters "perform" in the bar/nightclub setting, as many of the actors appearing in the show had a background as cabaret artists, singers, comedians and so on, and it was felt that these skills should be utilised and might help save the series. However, the series was cancelled before these plans could be brought to fruition.

The shops
The shops featured in the initial episodes were:

 * Kitty's Record Bar (a record and tape store)
 * Aristocrat (a dry cleaning store)
 * FlashBack Leisure Centre (a pinball parlour)
 * Toby's (a sit down restaurant)
 * Pendleton's Health Studio (a health and workout studio)
 * The Bookworm (a book store and news agency)
 * Magda's Gifts (a gift shop)
 * Surf 'n' Ski (a sports shop specializing in water sports)

In later episodes, a small (illegal) casino was introduced in an apartment above the Arcade - many of the characters lived in apartments above the Arcade - and at the time the series was taken off air, a large new set had been built featuring a nightclub and bar called "The Sawmill".

The pilot episode
The 76-minute pilot episode was produced by Bill Harmon and Peter Benardos who had earlier produced the highly successful soap opera Number 96.

Arcade also employed Number 96's creator David Sale and its veteran scriptwriter Johnny Whyte as scriptwriters. Like Number 96, there was some room for light comedy as well as drama.

Murdoch had acquired what was then the 0-10 Network in 1979 and had ATV Melbourne change its call sign from 0 to 10 in January 1980 to make the network complete. So the launch of the pilot (or "movie-length opening episode") of Arcade was therefore seen as the "flagship" program of the brand-new Network Ten.

On the night it aired (Sunday 20 January 1980), the 0–10 Network officially became known as Network Ten to reflect ATV-0's transition to ATV-10 – although the Brisbane station continued to broadcast as TVQ-0 until 10 September 1988. On 27 December 1987, Adelaide's SAS-10 gave ADS-7 the affiliation rights of Network Ten, and became known as ADS-10. (Perth's NEW-10 did not go to air until May 1988.)

Cast
Lorrae Desmond (later of A Country Practice fame) played Molly Sparks, the exuberant thrice-divorced owner of the Bookworm News Agency, that she ran with her gossipy sister Miriam Buxton (played by Peggy Toppano the mother of Prisoner star Peta Toppano) Molly's energetic but bumbling son Joey Fellows was played by comic relief Greg Bepper. The prissy Miriam lived with Molly and Joey for a while. Mike Dorsey from Number 96 was cast in a regular role as Vic Marshall, the owner of the pinball parlour. Vic's paraplegic daughter Tina (who worked in the pinball parlour with her overprotective father) was played by South Australian newcomer Christine Harris, whilst Coral Drouyn went on to become a successful scriptwriter

Other recognisable actors in the cast included another Number 96 veteran, Aileen Britton who played Joyce Blair, the haughty woman who ran the Aristocrat Dry Cleaning store with her comical husband Walter, played by one time vaudeville comedian Syd Heylen. Tracy Mann played Susie Blair, Joyce and Walter's dry and slightly sardonic daughter, who helped out at her folks dry cleaners, after returning home from a religious cult she fled from.

Joy Miller, played Kitty Adams, a former cabaret singer who was the owner of Kitty's Record Bar and Danny Adcock as Duncan Adams, Kitty's estranged husband and former showbiz manager, who are constantly arguing.

Maggie Stuart appeared as grasping vixen Iris Pendleton, (the villain of the piece) who co-owned the Pendletons Health Studio with her nerdy brother-in-law Norman (Garth Meade), whom she is conniving to get rid of, with the aid of the dim-witted gym instructor Len Crosby (Bill Charlton), with whom she became pregnant. Iris had been married to Norman's late brother, Michael. Coral Drouyn, billed as Coral Kelly, played Consuela McPhee, the newly hired 'full figured' receptionist at the Health Studio, who was despised by the vengeful Iris. Despite this, Consuela and Norman became a mismatched set of friends.

Annie Semler (wife of Oscar-winning cinematographer Dean Semler) got a lot of media attention at the time for playing the outrageous, somewhat provocative but very well-meaning Hungarian gift shop owner Magda Yokochek. Magda was quite the hilarious character, with her continually calling everyone "darling"; her mangling of the English language (she called what she sold "Knicker knockeries") and her interactions with her tax advisor, Mr. Sponge. However, more seriously, Magda was an illegal immigrant who was looking for a wealthy man to marry to secure her residency in Australia.

Lucy Taylor and Raymond Nock as Si Wan and Philip Soo, the mother and son operators of Toby's (the sit-down restaurant), and Sinan Leong played the spoiled and pampered Mee Ling, Si Wan's daughter, and Philip's sister who balked at working at the family restaurant. In the 'shocking' storyline in the early episodes, Philip, a potential Olympic swimmer, realised he was falling in love with his sister. Fortunately, that attraction fizzled, and Mee Ling was arranged to marry a much older man named Chang Li.

Patrick Ward played conceited – and rather dimwitted – Craig Carmichael, who owned the Surf-n-Ski Sports shop, but spent most of his time trying to get work as a male model. His girlfriend Di Smith, played by former ballerina Olga Tamara, managed the shop on his behalf.

Jeremy Kewley played Robbie Stewart, a mysterious young man who turns out to be the younger brother of Craig Carmichael (whose real name was Stan Stewart, but he had changed it to Craig Carmichael which he thought was a sexier name for a male model). It would be later revealed that Di was the daughter of a wealthy man, and it was she who had gotten Craig his successful modeling jobs. She was tempted to blab this secret when he got quite obnoxious. She would also get mad at him later on when he had an affair with troublemaking Iris.

Cast members after Arcade
Many actors in the series went on to have successful careers after the ill-fated Arcade ended, both Lorrae Desmond and Syd Heylen went on to become long time cast members of A Country Practice, whilst Jeremy Kewley, Tracy Mann and Christine Harris went on to have high-profile television and film careers, whilst Coral Drouyn went on to become a successful television scriptwriter.

Jeremy Kewley went on to star in successful series like Janus and Stingers, and playing lead roles in movies like Frank & Jerry and Disappearance and became popular as the audience warm-up comedian on the AFL version of The Footy Show for almost two decades. However, Kewley's career effectively ended following his conviction and custodial sentence for multiple child sex offences in 2015.

Tracy Mann won awards for her roles in films like Hard Knocks and Fast Talking and starred in popular series including Prisoner, the 1984 ABC-TV series Sweet and Sour, and the 1990 police drama Skirts, as well as popular Australian mini-series such as Sword of Honour and Cyclone Tracy.

Tracy and Kewley starred together in the ABC-TV legal drama series Janus from 1994 to 1995.

Christine Harris went to play major roles in several 1980s soap operas – The Young Doctors, Carson's Law, Prisoner and Neighbours.

Coral Drouyn retired from acting after Arcade and changed her career to script-writing, becoming story editor on Prisoner, Blue Heelers and Home and Away.

Sinan Leong continued her career as a multi-disciplinary artist, including the fields of acting, dancing and the visual arts – however, she became most notable as frontwoman/singer of the pioneering Australian industrial music group SPK.

title: Arcade (TV series)