Talk:AEC Routemaster

message: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
#Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
*Introduction The introduction could be rewritten or expanded to cover all aspects of the article. The introduction should be a summary of the article itself (and should not contain any information that is not covered in the article itself), and normally should not contain any citations unless necessary. 
:# Major topics such as "London" and "UK" should be wikilinked in the introduction.
*Wikilinking Wikilinks to other articles should be linked only on the first instance and all instances thereafter should be de-linked. The exception for this is the introduction. Articles may be linked in the introduction and again upon first mention in the article itself.
*Bolding Bolding should not be used except in specific circumstances (see MOS:BOLD). Use italics for emphasis or quotes when mentioning specific words or titles.
*Quotes Many words are encased within single (') quotes where double (") quote are appropriate (see WP:PUNC).
*Images There are too many images in this article. Some users with larger screen resolutions (such as mine) will see large areas of whitespace which doesn't look good. Please reduce the number of images and place them in a gallery if necessary. Also, vertically-oriented images can be tagged with "|upright|" to reduce their vertical size (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Avoiding image "stackups" ). I will assist with image placement. Also, image sizes should not be specified using the "px" parameter unless absolutely necessary.
*Prose Some of the prose could be improved, I will assist with editing the prose when possible and defer any necessary clarifications to the nominator. More specific issues to follow.
*Citations Some statements lack citations, such as entries in the list of "Notable Routemasters". A more detailed list of statements will be forthcoming. Cites should also be formatted following puncuation marks, not before (see WP:REFPUNC). Cites also lack proper formatting using  or other appropriate templates.
:# A general rule is one citation per paragraph. Also, everything preceding an inline citation should be taken from that reference. If any information that follows is taken from the same reference then the cite should be moved.
:# Paragraphs in sections Novel design, Prototypes, Decline in London, Colorful Routemasters, Withdrawal from London, Non-public service use, and Notable preserved Routemasters all lack cites. 
Overall an informative and interesting read. I am an American, so forgive me if I am not familar with British spellings or conventions. While editing this article, I will try to preserve British-language conventions. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I moved this comment here from above, because it really is a separate topic. --Abd (talk)
The article has enough images in it not to need a gallery.Geni 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geni removed that section, which clearly was approved by every editor involved in the edit war (the only disagreement being about one image), hence I consider this a significant edit made without first seeking consensus, so I reverted. It's legitimate to try, Geni, but, really, there should be more discussion before taking that kind of action. I'm open to considering the section unnecessary, but I would retreat to the basic question: is the article better with it or without it? --Abd (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files.  Now I'm prepared to accept that short articles where there just isn't anywhere else to put photos may have a use for them but this article has 15 images inline which is probably enough. The gallery can go to commons.Geni 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, there's plenty of images in the article and they already represent a good variety. Mfield (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Compare to other articles? Certainly. In fact in order to isolate best practice lets compare to featured articles. Mini Mini moke Maserati MC12 Winter service vehicle. No galleries.Geni 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet again Oxy unilaterally takes action, reverting Abd's change.  I'm not going to bother reverting, but I think it's pretty plain who was at fault last night, it's also pretty clear the tendatious nature of the reverting and dogmatism shown is rapidly into the vandalism arena due the the time it's taking up resolving such a simple issue. Minkythecat (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  User Minkythecat keeps posting uncivil content on my user page can someone please explain how to take action about this users conduct. Minkythecat please note the reasons why you were blocked Oxyman42 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've accused me of bullying and sockpuppetry.  A reminder of WP:AGF to you is hardly uncivil content.  Indeed, Abd has given you advice you continue not to heed. Minkythecat (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  again this hyporcrical user fails to understand that the rules apply to him Oxyman42 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some last informal warnings. Formal warnings on your Talk pages will remain, forever, as a possible stain, people will see them in History if there is a future problem, and may check to see what the original cause was. Warnings here won't make much difference unless someone seriously searches. So, please, take these as friendly warnings. What goes formally on your Talk pages will be civil, but I wouldn't call it friendly, more like stern. Minky, let it go. Whatever Oxyman did in the past, leave it. Stay away from Oxyman's talk page unless you have a formal warning to give. Oxyman, simply ask Minkyman to not post on your talk, that is your right. He can still post there, but only formal warnings, that right must remain. You can remove anything you want to remove from your talk page, but be sure to read it, you will be held responsible for having done so. "Hypocritical" is a personal attack, and is uncivil. Restrain yourself. Sit on your hands, if you have to. Log out and take a walk. Both of you, one more uncivil peep and you'll see it on your Talk pages. Please, if you have to grit your teeth, pretend that you are in court and the judge will throw the book at you if you speak out of turn. Say what you have to say about the article. There can be a time to comment on editors, but it isn't here and it isn't now. Leave that to those who know how to deal with WP:AN/I, etc., or administrators. If you continue to duke it out verbally, you will both be blocked. If that's what you want, be my guest, it can be arranged. I'd find it sad, but necessary. Is this enough? Do I need to explain any more? --Abd (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Minky and Oxyman consent, here, or at least don't object in a reasonable time, I'll remove their comments that I considered uncivil and my warning. If either objects, I'm bound to leave both them and my response. Please don't respond to this comment unless you are demanding that all this be left on this page (this just refers to this section). That's a demand that I would not like to see from anyone, since, if the editors agree to removal of their comments or don't object, it should become moot. I have no desire to punish any editor for making what I think is a mistake. We all make mistakes. I'd prefer we all move on, and help make this article as interesting, beautiful, well-written, and solidly sourced as possible. --Abd (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: We have 16 non gallery images on this article. That is enough by any reasonable standard and the gallery could still exist on commons.Geni 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geni, can you point me to a standard that describes how many images are "enough," and, in particular, to a guideline that shows that, if an image improves an article, it still should not be added because "the article already has enough images"? I've probably overlooked it, there is lots I haven't read, I've got a lot to learn. --Abd (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace" Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. We have a whole project for collections of images. If you feel that the 16 inline images do not adaquately illistrate the subject they can be swapped around untill they do. We could put probably a couple of thousand images into Cat but we accept that image galleries go on commons not en.Geni 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this Geni, these images could be swapped/moved into the body, losing some along the way. The only times a gallery is necessary in my opinion is to represent the diversity of the subject of an article e.g. with subspecies of plants, multiple uses of a subject etc. This is an article about one specific  type of bus, and the gallery is not really adding anything. I mean it can never fully represent every Routemaster bus route or location, after all they will all be images of a red bus in front of a building, and they don't come in a great variety of shapes or colors :) The unusual ones could be incorporated into the body where they illustrate a point in the text. Mfield (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely happy with this, but ... it seems like it should satisfy a number of editors, and little damage was done the way Mick did it, and it's almost what I suggested, i.e., merge the pictures. So what didn't I like? Well, that picture of the interior was the only one. I'm going to place the images removed below, in their own section, with the captions, as they were. We can see if any of them should go back, and where. Thanks, Mick. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had an issue with the interior picture in that I can't tell if it is an original, or a restored, bus. I have an idea it comes from somebody's pics in the London Tranport Museum, but without a source I don't know, so couldn't confidently claim it belonged in a contemporary or preserved section of text. MickMacNee (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of entire Image Gallery

message: IP editor 86.163.173.165 please explain why RM1914 is a notable example of a preserved Routemaster, per repeat requests. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or anyone else, of course. Doesn't have to be the same editor, and it makes little difference, for starters, how many there are. In the end, it will be cogency of argument that prevails, I'll predict. Another way of approaching this would be through relative notability, with the others listed. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Mick, as to this edit, yes, maintaining articles and welcoming new editors to the consensus process involved can be tedious, perhaps, but it's essential. I'll suggest a reframe. It's fun. It takes a little readjustment. Think of it, if you like, as judo. Suppose someone comes in, hell-bent on demolishing all your work. Or at least damaging it. By not biting, by being welcoming, you haven't really given up anything, you merely stepped out of the way, like a martial arts master who allows an opponent to throw himself to the ground. On the other hand, if the newcomer didn't intend harm, but just wanted to improve the article and had a bad idea, by being welcoming you separate the relationship with new editors from the content issue, and, then, with that foundation, consensus may be much easier to find, and nobody ends up on the ground. I guarantee one thing: it won't be harder. If the new editor is the Grand Panjandrum, Sock of Socks, Wild Beast of the Wild Wiki, and I've had to deal with such, you will be much better able to deal with the challenge. Besides, don't be this way, and be attached to article content, you can easily be the one who throws himself to the ground, by edit warring, incivility, etc. To the IP editor, please understand that Mick has done a lot of work on this article, and might be a bit touchy. Meanwhile, you've been invited to explain why your edit was legitimate, and your edit stands for the moment, because I reverted Mick. But if no explanation appears here that we can, most of us, agree justifies it, one of us will surely take it out. You have the floor now. We are listening, and, I'm sure, we will carefully consider what you say. --Abd (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing any sentiment here supporting the IP editor's position. We should allow a little more time, but ... just pointing it out. The mention in the article that .165 inserted has a reference, but it is simply a photo, which doesn't seem to me to be enough to establish notability. Any particular importance to this particular bus other than someone happened to take a picture of it? --Abd (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going ahead and removing that edit, no evidence or even supportive discussion having appeared that RM1914 RM1941 is notable.--Abd (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 86.152.177.205 added RM1941 back in. I reverted. Edit summary seemed unaware of this discussion. Source cited didn't show notability, it was simply an image of the bus. Nobody has presented any argument, other than mere assertion, for notability of this specific bus. Source is simply an image without any special notability, such as being a show bus as with another likewise being challenged below as non-notable. If contentious editing by IP editors continues without the seeking of consensus in Talk, I'll have to ask for article semi-protection, which would prevent IP and new editors from editing the article. I'd rather leave it open. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The IP editor again reverted, with no discussion here. The edit summary was (Undid revision 227829739 by Abd (talk) Revert change - talk page was about RM1914. This piece is about RM1941.) Sure. But yesterday I edited the Talk page section header to show that it was, in fact, about RM1941, "RM1914" was simply a typo by MickMacNee. It's still posssible to assume good faith on the part of the IP editor, because perhaps he or she simply edited from memory, rather than looking again. Still, if this editor were assuming that those objecting had some basis to be considered, the editor would presumably have considered the issue anyway. Assumption of good faith should be in both directions. Please discuss here. I'll start a new section on "Notable preserved Routemasters," we should discuss and set some rough standards for inclusion in this section, and possibly the section should be changed. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RM1914 [sic] (or RM1941)

message: Mick, apparently to satisfy objections to the Image Gallery, merged some images with the article, and dropped some images, eliminating the Gallery. The following are the removed images. If anyone thinks they should go back in the article, I'd suggest a place be found; they should probably illustrate some part of the text, if possible, though there is a value to pure eye candy, which those red buses are, in my opinion. My standard: whatever makes the article more beautiful, more interesting, and more informative, without being too much, i.e., not improving those qualities any more, but only multiplying space. Images that might be of interest to special aficionados of these buses can be move to other wikis, I'm not familiar with that process, but I'm sure that someone here would help, in case the images aren't already available elsewhere.
Image:Routemaster Interior 1.jpg|The upper deck of the Routemaster.
Image:Routemaster in Montreal.jpg|A Stagecoach Routemaster in Montreal.
Image:Routemasters in the garage after final day.jpg|RM5 (Right), RM6 (Gold/Centre) and RM2217 after the last run. December 9, 2005.
Image:Routemaster RM1562.jpg|Heritage Routemaster running off service on Route 9
Image:Heritage Routemaster.jpg|Rear platform of a Routemaster, with updated hand-rails for Heritage Route operation
If I missed any or one of these images was used, please fix this gallery.
:Moving images to Commons is something I am fully conversant with, so I'll keep an eye on this and whatever images end up not used, I'll make sure they end up being moved to Commons so they appear under the commons category wikilink. Maybe we could edit the above gallery to reflect removed/swapped out images as it happens so it makes it easier to track what needs to be moved over? Mfield (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no fair use images in this article at all, so every image can be moved to the commons cat. I don't know how to do it is all. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, when I get a minute I'l move them over. Mfield (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the image of the rear platform back into the article because no pictures of the platform were present. Every other photo (but one) shows the bus from the front. (that one exception shows a modified design with doors instead of the open platform. Jmcontra (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images removed from article. 

message: He's back . I think the time for assuming good faith has long since passed. He has a long history under different IP's of adding information against consensus, and then persistently re-adding it, while tagging other parts of the article to make a point. This is persistent disruption, but as the IP changes, there is no point to my mind in giving warnings to each IP as they only make a few edits at a time, most likely being a dynamic ISP. So, suggestions? Ever increasing IP protections which sadly denies edit rights to this article to all IP editors for longer due to this one person? Or have we reached the stage where a checkuser case history is needed to b established so that he can be banned on site. I believe he has had enough warnings and advice for this to be a reasonable step now. If the checkuser route, he definitely watches this page, so he can consider this a warning. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tendentious IP editor

message: Your identical insertions  are pure trivia and will continue to be removed from this article on sight until you stop and try and justify your contributions on this talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are claiming that a bus having a differently painted air vent is as notable as, for example, the last bus in service, or the first preserved bus, of the 1000th bus, or the first RCL, or any of the other buses listed? This is patent nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree it is not intrinsically notable.  I'm am no expert in buses but the Routemasters are old.  It strikes me as inevitable that each bus will differ from the others in small aspects as repairs are made, possibly when exact replacement parts are no longer available.  Effectively this is a minor livery detail that sounds like an oversight rather than a conscious decision.  This is a section on notable examplesso to be here the bus has to be notable.  I think it difficult to sustain the notion that this bus is notable simply because of this minor detail.  I also note that this claim is entirely unsourced, and given the lack of details it is virtually impossible for a reader to verify. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPs 86.163.175.18 and 217.43.27.157  

message: The above IP wants to add this to the Routemaster#Notable_preserved_Routemasters section. To my eyes this is total trivia, has no relevance or comparison to any other entry in that section, and simply does not belong in the article. He disagrees, see above for his explanation of how this is the same as the other entries and not WP:TRIVIA. MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree it is not intrinsically notable.  I'm am no expert in buses but the Routemasters are old.  It strikes me as inevitable that each bus will differ from the others in small aspects as repairs are made, possibly when exact replacement parts are no longer available.  Effectively this is a minor livery detail that sounds like an oversight rather than a conscious decision.  This is a section on notable examplesso to be here the bus has to be notable.  I think it difficult to sustain the notion that this bus is notable simply because of this minor detail.  I also note that this claim is entirely unsourced, and given the lack of details it is virtually impossible for a reader to verify. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion request

message: An IP objects to an addition I made yesterday on grounds of WP:TRIVIA . It is not trivia, the skid pan performance is a crucial element of the story of the Routemaster, and therefore, obviously, the noting of any footage of it is going to be of use to readers of the article. Requesting a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say in all honesty that it does seem like trivia to me, however I've got a feeling that I may be accused of being bias as I've been involved in disputes with MickMacNee in the past, so I won't remove the 3O entry, but that's my honest opinion. Perhaps you could explain it's relevancy further? Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already explains how performance in the skid pan test was an important part of the story of the bus. Nothing at all is gained by removing it. It is hard to see how anybody reading the article would read that sentence and then conclude that the information is inconsequntial. At best, their reaction would be neutral. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, if this were to be included, so should other trivia on the topic, cluttering the page and distorting the more important information. It may seem to you that it's hard to believe others would find it non-encyclopaedic, but so far 2 editors have. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the information. If this information distracts, the solution is to organize the article better, or to find consensus here, removing verifiable information isn't helpful and can be disruptive. I'm not accusing you of bias, Welshleprechaun, and your opinion isn't unreasonable, but, at this point, MickMacNee's argument looks stronger. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'm not going to argue with it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion request - Skid pan footage mention 

message: The well-known quote by Ken Livingstone that "only some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemasters" has caused me a bit of a headache because although it was supposedly said during 2000, no trace of a source appeared. I've now explained the mystery. It was actually in 2001 - after Ken Livingstone had been elected as Mayor rather than during the election campaign. However, it did not become known to the public until it appeared in a documentary on ITV in March 2005 which was inconveniently and embarrassingly just as the Routemasters were being withdrawn from service. I've corrected the article and put the quote in context. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On 'ghastly dehumanised morons' 

message: Recommend end of article makes reference to Mac Tours Edinburgh who operate a fleet of at least 14 open top Roputemasters on a daily basis 9 months of the year.
Aljan1949  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljan1949 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already mentioned under "Non-public service operations". Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROUTEMASTER 

message: Koki2008 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skopje City Master section 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Northern Routemaster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Given that the article title is out of sync with most other similar articles in only listing the model vs more common manufacturer / model practice, eg AEC Reliance, Scania N113, Volvo B7TL and the New Routemaster likely to be a more common search term in the future (both currently running @ 6,000 hits in the last month), suggest this article be renamed AEC Routemaster, and Routemaster set up as a disambiguation page for AEC Routemaster and New Routemaster. Castroex (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Article Rename 

message: I have edited the Production section because it gave the impression that the initial restriction in length of production Routemasters to 27ft6in was because of regulations.  I believe this may have been caused by a misreading of the cited source in the absence of background knowledge.  The background is that the maximum permitted length of 2-axle double deckers was increased from 27ft to 30ft in 1956.  See for example Leyland Titan (front-engined double-decker)#PD3.  Wollygobble (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routemaster Lengths 

message: SajraM (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This appears to be already in the article, no? What changes do you want to be made? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020 

message: dansk Er det jeg taler mit navn er william og jeg hader sarja og elsker has to be removed as it has nothing to do with the article. SajraM (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Looked like vandalism. TheImaCow (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020 

message: In the subsection "Withdrawal from London", more than halfway through that subsection, it says:
"... in August 2003, as the existing contracts became due for renewal, ..."
It seems as though "the existing contracts" refers to conductors' contracts for employment, but it isn't clear. Further on in the same subsection, there's a reference to "the five-year contracts", and I assume this means the same contracts that were referred to in connection with August 2003 - but again it's not exactly clear. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which contracts? 

message: The page for the final episode of the series The Young Ones states that the bus used in the final scene is a Routemaster, but there is no reference to confirm the statement.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to say one way or another. Philh-591 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.busesonscreen.net/screen/index.php?p=screentv.tvy.youngones confirms that it was indeed a Routemaster.  I have attempted to add a citation but failed.Wollygobble (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the ref to the page though a better one would be preferable Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses in popular culture 

message: Perhaps the article should also mention Routemaster rebuilds, such as the ERM Extended Routemasters (one bay longer than RM; half-a-bay longer than RML) built with open tops for a London sightseeing company (one has since been fitted with a normal closed top), and the two single-deck Routmasters? 2003:CB:7732:E100:95E6:AD51:2450:D2D0 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERM...