EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 20 June 2011: new section |
71.3.237.145 (talk) |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)</div> |
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0152 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0152 --> |
||
==Abortion lede== |
|||
I invite you to take a look at [[abortion]].[[Special:Contributions/71.3.237.145|71.3.237.145]] ([[User talk:71.3.237.145|talk]]) 01:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:04, 26 June 2011
Etymology of Vietnam
Sorry for being late. I have had a lot of homework to do recently.
- ""Việt" is derived from "Bách Việt", so "hundred Viet" cannot be the original meaning of this word. What would this phrase mean anyway? A hundred Vietnamese? IMO, it represents translation cruft"
I could be. The most accuracy translation for the phrase "Bach Viet" should be "hundred of Viet tribes". I used "hundred Viet" because I found it on Google Books.[1]
About Khiem's works, it shouldn't use as reliable sources because of three reasons: first, this is original source, the second is what I mentioned, and the third onse is that even Khiem's poem isn't the first work where the word Viet Nam was used (according to Vietnamese, the first work used the word Viet Nam is Việt Nam thế chí written by a Tran Dynasty official named Hồ Tôn Thốc). Even Vietnamese scholars are still very careful whenever they explain about the origins of the word "Việt Nam" as they always use the phrase "it is possibility that" . In other words, these explains are nothing but theories (for instant, you could refer to Vietnamese Wikipedia for more information). If it is needed to be covered in Wikipedia, I think the article Names of Vietnam is a better place, the article Vietnam should have only essential infomations.--AM (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thốc's book was entitled Nam Việt thế chí. Check here (in Vietnamese) and here (seven sources in English and French). That's not the only problem the Vietnamese Wiki article either. There is a folk etymology that the name "Vietnam" originated with Gia Long, so it is important to point out that there was earlier use. Earliest known use is always significant in etymology anyway. There is no general ban on using primary sources. The type of primary sources they don't want you to use are things like archival material, an eyewitness report from your friend, or self-published material, not published material you can find easily on the Web. All the same, I will add this as a supporting secondary source.Kauffner (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- You see, even academic sources conflict with each others in this matter. For instance, Tran Trong Kim used the title Nam Viet The Chi [2] for this book (he also gave it a Han Tu name). Kim wrote much his books by using classical history text books (such as Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư so that one of them used the title "VIet Nam The Chi" instead of "Nam Viet The Chi". I don't think we could ignore Kim's book in this case, even if there are seven sources in English and French support your point. Moreover, your point further strengthens my opinion that we should write all of them in Names of Vietnam, not in Vietnam which could unnecessarily prolong the article to comply with WP:NPOV. The problem of ""Vietnam" originated with Gia Long" can be easily resolved by [add some worlds into the sentence] to make it clear that Gia Long is the first used "Viet Nam" officially, not the inventor.--AM (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nguyen Phuc Giac Hai isn't an academic, he is an biologist turned to be an historian and mystic reaseacher so that I think that he should be regarded as an amateur researcher and writer. Because of this research, he got blamed and denied when he was trying to register as a candidate of the upcoming election[3]. I don't know why his research was received in this way, but I think you shouldn't give him much credibility.--AM (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as the word Bách Việt/Bǎiyuè goes, Wilkinson has this to say in Chinese History: a Manual, pp. 224-225: "The numbers 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 are frequently used to indicate orders of magnitude, not exact numbers. In this usage they are called xushu (hyperbolic numbers) and are similar to numbers in English in the plural ('dozens', 'tens of thousands' or 'hundreds'). Thus the Wangli changcheng is not 10,000 li, there are not 1,000 Buddha in the Qianfodong just as there are not 10,000 in Wanfosi.....When used in a compound expression, the number need not be translated as in 'the Yue' or 'all the Yue' for 'Baiyue,' not 'the hundred Yue;' 'general merchandise' for baihuo, not 100 goods;" I think it is clear from this that "Hundred Viet" is just a poor translation even if you assume that literal translation is appropriate. "Hundreds of Yue" doesn't make much sense either, so I would conclude that the word is a phonetic, like Meiguo for America or Faguo for France. Kauffner (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I translated "Bách Việt" by applying my knowledge of culture of Vietnam. My professor taught me that Bach Viet is the name came from the legend is that Au Co gave birth for a pocket of hundred eggs. Each of these eggs was one tribe of Viet/Yue people. Most of Vietnamese who know English would translate like me or like these books' authors, I can be sure about that. Unfortunately, my Chinese skills are basic and I don't know what really Bach Viet means in Chinese.--AM (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I surely don't believe. I told you for showing that I haven't just followed Google Book mindlessly. And this is is not an obvious conclusion, this is just a wide-accepted theory; I never see any book\source which fully lists one hundred Viet/Yue tribes.--AM (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Earliest recorded use is the most important single piece of information in any etymology. I can't agree with the idea that this should be relegated to a satellite article.
- The word "Bách Việt" must have come first, its real derivation now forgotten. Much later, someone came up the hundred egg story to explain this mysterious word. What other possibility is there? Âu Cơ really laid a hundred eggs and that is where the word comes from? Kauffner (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have you got anything supporting your point that "Bách Việt" must have come before the fairy tale? The truth of this story is something I couldn't answer because of the unavailability of a time machine. All I could do is working with the books.
- And if you don't agree with me. I happily to work with you in somewhere else (such as WT:VIET) so that we could get a best solution for this issue.--AM (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Âu Cơ is first mentioned in Lĩnh Nam chích quái (14th century). The word Bách Việt first appears in Lüshi Chunqiu (239 BC). So, yes, the word Bách Việt certainly predates the Âu Cơ legend. I think this is obvious just from the legend itself. Why is it exactly 100 eggs? The storyteller must have misinterpreted Bách Việt to mean one hundred eggs, tribes or whatever, just as you have done. I have already given an authoritative source that says "Bách" should not interpreted as 100 anything, and that should be enough. I should not have to show Âu Cơ, fairies, and the Easter Bunny do not really exist. Kauffner (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your sources didn't convince me. Lĩnh Nam chích quái might be the first book recorded this legend but it doesn't mean the legend of Au Co-Lac Long Quan date from 14th century. Lĩnh Nam chích quái was a book recorded many fairy tales and legends of Vietnam which had been existed looooong before. How long? Only god know. The other thing is Chinese civilization had been superior to Vietnamese civilization (they had a writing system, education etc.) and they ruled Bach Viet territories (including Vietnam) at this time so what is the point you wanted me to understand with a Chinese book mentioning "Bach Viet". Lastly, many Chinese book mentioned Lac Long Quan and Au Co's ancestors like vi:Thần Nông or vi:Xích Quỷ so I could certainly say that this legend was much older than your expectation and the argument "Bách Việt certainly predates the Âu Cơ legend" was not a solid one.--AM (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How did one Chinese immigrant written observation of the people living on the outer boundary of the Baiyue's domain in the second century BC became the "Chinese writers depiction" of that civilization? Anyhow, after reading through your discussions above about the legend of Âu Cơ and Lạc Long Quân, I would like to give my opinions. The legend as it has been passed down from generations to generations, verbally or written has hidden meanings within itself. Hundred Eggs is a metaphor for Bách Việt. Sea dragon (Lac Long Quan) and mountain fairy (Au Co) can be interpreted as a marker for their land of origin; from the sea to the east to the mountains of the west. It is the nation of Âu Lạc; The marriage or alliance between Âu Việt and Lạc Việt people. The legend did not go into detail on why Âu Cơ and Lạc Long Quân separated; each taking 50 children with them. However, one can interpret the separation as the the partitioning of the Bách Việt clans. The reason behind Âu Cơ and Lạc Long Quân's separation would become apparent for those who understand its meanings after listening. Why would this legend be told using metaphors? If one hundred eggs meant hundred Việt, then what force drove them to separate? Was this story ever used to fuel the rebellion against China's government? Or, was it meant to be told this way, to ensure that the story would be interesting enough that the Việt's origin would not be forgotten? One can only speculate if one does not know the history of the Việt. One must also put himself/herself into the time period when this legend was widely spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.133.132 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Giovanni Borgia
I moved Giovanni Borgia (1498-1548) that you had moved to Giovanni Borgia, 3rd Duke of Gandia, back to it's original lemma. Please be more careful in future about such moves, because that was the wrong person you moved. The third duke of Gandia was the son of Giovanni Borgia (1474-1497) and is better known as Juan Borgia, as he lived in Spain all his life. The Giovanni you moved is the infamous infans romanus who spent all his life in Italy and was most likely the younger half-brother of Giovanni Borgia (1474-1497) and the uncle of the actual 3rd Duke.--Feuerrabe (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was confused by the link at bottom that says, "The Murder Of The Duke Of Gandia". Under the circumstances, it certainly needs to be removed. Giovanni Borgia (1474-1497) was the second duke, the guy who was murdered. The third duke was his son, yet another Juan de Borgia (1495-1543). Wiki does not seem to have an article about him. In any case, we need a better title than Giovanni Borgia (1498–1548). How about Giovanni Borgia (infans Romanus)? Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed where the confusion would come from after I posted on your talk page. ;-) There were unfortunately quite a few Juan Borgias, there is at least one more who was a cardinal and a cousin to the second duke. (The second duke should in my opinion be moved to Juan Borgia as well, as I don't think he ever actually went by the italian version of his name). For Giovanni Borgia, the infans romanus, your suggestion would perhaps be a good idea. And I suggest moving Giovanni Borgia (1474-1497) to Juan Borgia, 2nd Duke of Gandía, since he held that title until his death and it would be the proper lemma for him.--Feuerrabe (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
Controversial sort keys reverted
Your response to the concerns of several editors (including me) regarding the unconventional sort keys for British monarchs was this blanking with a rather dismissive summary. In particular, you have implicitly declined to revert the changes yourself, and I have therefore decided to do it. Please don't try to reintroduce them without prior discussion. Wikipedia talk:Categorization would probably be the right forum. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You know that you've taken Lincoln and six other U.S. presidents out of the category "Presidents of the United States"? Don't worry, I won't reintroduce them. Kauffner (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And that wouldn't have happened if you had taken the other editor's advice and reverted your own actions with greater care. Actually, Lincoln is a member of Category:Republican Party Presidents of the United States, which is a subcategory of the general category. I suspect something similar is the case with the other guys. That whole hierarchy may need attention. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see nothing in WP:SORT that bans or even discourages the type of sorting I was doing. The only part that seems relevant is where it says, "Categories of people are usually sorted by last name rather than first name." It is explicitly stated that there are, "categories where the logical sort order is not alphabetical." This whole episode has been such a lot of nonsense.Kauffner (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the guidance you are looking for is at WP:NAMESORT: "The sort key should mirror the article's title as closely as possible. Some exceptions are made, however, to force correct collation". It then lists exceptions, all of which are intended to deal with article names that would lead to a non-intuitive or less than ideal alphabetical sort order if not treated as a special case. No it doesn't say categories should be sorted alphabetically as they are automatically, and I think the writers of the guidelines simply didn't consider an editor would try and override this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you interpret the guidelines that way, then SORT and NAMESORT are in conflict. However, the titles "NAMESORT" and "Ordering names in a category" suggest another possibility: NAMESORT is simply a section about sorting by name. Editors sort alphabetically because that's the easiest way, so the guidelines focus on that. I see no suggestion that other methods are discouraged. It's very common for categories to be sorted incorrectly, so I don't think that readers necessarily have the expectation of an alphabetical sort. It's not like I invented the three-digit sort. I saw other categories done this way and I thought it looked like a good method. Kauffner (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a conflict. WP:SORT states:
- Entries containing numbers sometimes need special sort keys to ensure numerical rather than alphabetical ordering (for example, ... IX comes before V). So ... Pope John IX might have a sort key "John 09".
- and in WP:NAMESORT we have something both more directly relevant and more explicit but in no way contradictory:
- Similarly, for monarchs with their monarchical name as article name: e.g. on the Louis IX of France page, use [[Category:Saints]] (without category sort key), but also: [[Category:French monarchs|Louis 09]] (in this case the ordinal number is converted to an Arabic numeral with a leading zero to get up to XVIII "Louis" kings in the right order in the French Monarchs category).
- This last is actually under WP:PEERS, which is the same page as WP:NAMESORT but a few paragraphs down. So it's not a case of interpreting conflicting guidelines: the situation for monarchs (who are a subset of peers) is explicitly covered. It may easily be adjusted to the exact situation under discussion simply by substituting French, etc. with English, etc. and adjusting for the fact that no English king has had a regnal number higher than VIII:
- Similarly, for monarchs with their monarchical name as article name: e.g. on the Henry III of England page, use [[Category:1207 births]] (without category sort key), but also: [[Category:English monarchs|Henry 3]] (in this case the ordinal number is converted to an Arabic numeral without a leading zero to get up to VIII "Henry" kings in the right order in the English Monarchs category).
- It would be interesting to know where else you have seen other categories with "the three-digit sort" - it's possible that those have been misconstructed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a conflict. WP:SORT states:
- If you interpret the guidelines that way, then SORT and NAMESORT are in conflict. However, the titles "NAMESORT" and "Ordering names in a category" suggest another possibility: NAMESORT is simply a section about sorting by name. Editors sort alphabetically because that's the easiest way, so the guidelines focus on that. I see no suggestion that other methods are discouraged. It's very common for categories to be sorted incorrectly, so I don't think that readers necessarily have the expectation of an alphabetical sort. It's not like I invented the three-digit sort. I saw other categories done this way and I thought it looked like a good method. Kauffner (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are restating JohnBlackburne’s argument, so I am going have to sound like a broken record here. I interpret NAMESORT as a section about sorting by name, which is a straightforward interpretation of the title of this section. Initially, I was a accused of a “violation of WP:SORTKEY”, which is what I assume the uproar was all about. After I debunked that argument, then people started searching for some obscure guideline somewhere that I might have violated. There is a generally accepted numbering system for presidents of the United States, and it’s very common to refer to Obama as 44th president. So the situation is analogous to the symphony example given in WP:SORT. Dukes have numbering systems as well. PEERS just says that that British peers should be sorted by title, so I don’t see how that is relevant. (It certainly wouldn’t apply to "Category:Dukes of Normandy", which is the only peer category involved in this dispute.). If English monarchs are considered a subset of peers, that would imply that they should be sorted by title, which makes no sense. Isn’t is it supposed to be about improving the category, improving the encyclopedia? The revert removed Æthelstan and other monarchs from this category. Kauffner (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SORT isn't obscure: you were the first to mention it, not me, not JohnBlackburne. If you would care to follow that link, you will find, in the third paragraph, 'Categories of people are usually sorted by last name rather than first name, so "surname, forename" sort keys are used (as in "Washington, George"). For more information, see Ordering names in a category in the people categorization guideline.' That last link is exactly equivalent to WP:NAMESORT, so since we didn't need to do very much digging it's hardly "obscure".
- There is indeed a numbering system for U.S. presidents - but there are at least two that I know of, differing on whether Grover Cleveland was 22nd & 24th, or 22nd only. But presidents are more generally known by their names: you don't get news reporters saying "At the White House today, the 44th President announced..." - they say "At the White House today, President Obama announced..."; about the only time you expect them to use the number is on 20 January every four or eight years: "In Washington today, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President".
- The thing about symphonies is that many of them have no actual name: Beethoven completed nine symphonies, but only three have names: no. 3 (Eroica); no. 6 (Pastoral Symphony) and no. 9 (Choral Symphony). Haydn wrote over 100 symphonies (the actual number is between 104 and 108, depending upon which books you read), and like Beethoven, about two-thirds were unnamed. Sorting a category of symphonies by number is thus entirely logical. Sorting a category of Presidents is not. Since historians do not speak of Elizabeth II as the "xxth monarch of England/Scotland/Great Britain/the United Kingdom", any numbering system (other than the regnal number) is WP:OR and so sorting a category of monarchs on such a basis is even less logical than for U.S. Presidents. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The British dukes all have three-digit sort keys, which is where I got the idea from. It makes at least as much sense to number U.S. presidents as dukes. A sort key is OR? Are you serious? Kauffner (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dukes are not generally known by their given names. The present duke of Norfolk is Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk; but he's generally known simply as "the duke of Norfolk"; and when it's necessary to distinguish him from, say, his father, he's referred to as "the 18th Duke of Norfolk", not "Duke Edward". Thus, making "18" part of his sort key is logical; the "3" comes from the fact that the dukedom has been created three times - he's in direct descent from the third man to bear the title "first duke of Norfolk". So, within Category:Dukes of Norfolk, a sort key of "318" is logical.
- By contrast, when "the Queen" or "the King" is insufficient, kings and queens are invariably known by their given names, suffixed either with a regnal number or an epithet when necessary to further distinguish them. So Henry III of England would have been known as "King Henry" within his own lifetime, and is known to history as the third English king named Henry; but without the name Henry, the number III is meaningless: he wasn't the third king of England. Within Category:English monarchs his sort key should therefore be "Henry 3". Choosing a sort key such as 306, 904 or 304 has no relation to common usage, so it must have been entirely made up, so yes, I am saying that making up those particular sort keys is WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The British dukes all have three-digit sort keys, which is where I got the idea from. It makes at least as much sense to number U.S. presidents as dukes. A sort key is OR? Are you serious? Kauffner (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are restating JohnBlackburne’s argument, so I am going have to sound like a broken record here. I interpret NAMESORT as a section about sorting by name, which is a straightforward interpretation of the title of this section. Initially, I was a accused of a “violation of WP:SORTKEY”, which is what I assume the uproar was all about. After I debunked that argument, then people started searching for some obscure guideline somewhere that I might have violated. There is a generally accepted numbering system for presidents of the United States, and it’s very common to refer to Obama as 44th president. So the situation is analogous to the symphony example given in WP:SORT. Dukes have numbering systems as well. PEERS just says that that British peers should be sorted by title, so I don’t see how that is relevant. (It certainly wouldn’t apply to "Category:Dukes of Normandy", which is the only peer category involved in this dispute.). If English monarchs are considered a subset of peers, that would imply that they should be sorted by title, which makes no sense. Isn’t is it supposed to be about improving the category, improving the encyclopedia? The revert removed Æthelstan and other monarchs from this category. Kauffner (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This is getting really silly. A sort key is internal. It's only significance for a reader how it gets a category to sort. You might as well call text markup or computer code OR. Why is the picture size 250px instead 350px? Must be OR. Kauffner (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is silly. If you wish to push the point-of-view that categories of presidents and kings should be sorted chronologically and not by name, then I suggest you obtain consensus from all interested WikiProjects first. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England
Why are you removing this category? Please stop. This needs to be discussed. Tryde (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Each duke is (or should be) in a "Dukes of XYZ" category. This category is in turn under the category "Dukes in the Peerage of England." So everyone is still in Peerage. There are currently too many entries in Peerage. The individual dukes alphabetize under their titles, so their listings are redundant with the title subcategory listings. Kauffner (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before and no consensus was reached. The peerage articles fill the function of listing holders of a certain peerage. The category section give a good overview of peers of a certain rank in a certain peerage. You are now about to destroy this. Please stop and open up a discussion at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Tryde (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have now opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Are you aware that some of your new categories will contain only one article, such as Category:Dukes of Shrewsbury and Category:Dukes of Ireland. Is there any point in having categories with only one article in them? Tryde (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Article moves
I just saw that you moved some articles about titles in the Spanish nobility, such as Dukes of Huéscar and Dukes of Plasencia. I didn't like the previous name of dukedom, which I badly chose because in the Spanish wikipedia they are named as Ducado (duchy or dukedom). I understand that Duchy/Dukedom should be kept for territorial domains of a Duke. For some time, I have been thinking about moving them, but rather to Duke of XXX than to Dukes of XXX, as this is the form used for English peerages ,which are the best nobility articles in all the wikipedias (e.g. Duke of Northumberland, Marquess of Salisbury). Would you mind if a move them in this way? Thanks --Paliano (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think all the Spanish dukedom articles are now in the form "Dukes of Foo". See Category:Dukedoms of Spain. To me, "Duke of Foo" implies an article about an individual. "Duchy" implies a territorial domain, while "dukedom" implies that there is no such domain. I used "Dukes of Foo" so I could put all these articles at accurate names without my having research each case separately to see if there was a territorial domain or not. If you know which are which, I'm fine with "Dukedom of Foo." Kauffner (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Barons
Thanks re message about afd for 9th Baron of Parham. Will respond on page.--PL.-Snr (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Abortion lede
I invite you to take a look at abortion.71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)