Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) |
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
Birnam has potential for expansion, indeed. The fact that it is not expanded should not impinge on another article. Dunkeld is not Birnam. Birnam is not Dunkeld. They are close in geographical terms but nobody ever refers to them as a combined entity. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish</FONT>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<FONT COLOR="#313F33">Jim</FONT>]]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
Birnam has potential for expansion, indeed. The fact that it is not expanded should not impinge on another article. Dunkeld is not Birnam. Birnam is not Dunkeld. They are close in geographical terms but nobody ever refers to them as a combined entity. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish</FONT>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<FONT COLOR="#313F33">Jim</FONT>]]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Nobody ever does, apart from when they do. To repeat from above: they are classified as a single census locality. They have a joint community council area. The local tourist association refer to them together as "a historic town". The merge didn't create a "Dunkeld and Birnam" article, one already existed even when each settlement had its own article as well. You can prefer separate articles, sure, but don't pretend they aren't sometimes grouped together by officialdom and sources. [[User:Jellyman|Jellyman]] ([[User talk:Jellyman|talk]]) 22:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
:Nobody ever does, apart from when they do. To repeat from above: they are classified as a single census locality. They have a joint community council area. The local tourist association refer to them together as "a historic town". The merge didn't create a "Dunkeld and Birnam" article, one already existed even when each settlement had its own article as well. You can prefer separate articles, sure, but don't pretend they aren't sometimes grouped together by officialdom and sources. [[User:Jellyman|Jellyman]] ([[User talk:Jellyman|talk]]) 22:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::In D&B's case I suspect more people think Birnam is district of Dunkeld than a union between two settlements, as inaccurate as that might be. |
::In D&B's case I suspect more people think Birnam is district of Dunkeld than a union between two settlements, as inaccurate as that might be. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 13:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Everyone seems to agree that the settlements should have separate articles, though no-one seems to object to the idea that 'Dunkeld and Birnam' should be retained as a distinct article. The case for restoring the articles for Rattray and Blairgowrie seems pretty straightforward too. As WikiProject Scotland we don't really have any competence for the others that Crouch, Swale kindly brought to our attention, but that's not to say we accept them--though note that one of them, [[Shaw and Crompton]] is an FA and in that instance it would obviously not be wise or beneficial to do anything. Anyone disagree here? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 13:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
:Everyone seems to agree that the settlements should have separate articles, though no-one seems to object to the idea that 'Dunkeld and Birnam' should be retained as a distinct article. The case for restoring the articles for Rattray and Blairgowrie seems pretty straightforward too. As WikiProject Scotland we don't really have any competence for the others that Crouch, Swale kindly brought to our attention, but that's not to say we accept them--though note that one of them, [[Shaw and Crompton]] is an FA and in that instance it would obviously not be wise or beneficial to do anything. Anyone disagree here? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 13:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 15 February 2019
Scotland Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Scots v. Scotch
There is a topic on the page Category_Talk:American People of Scotch-Irish descent entitled 'Pejorative.' As it is the only topic on the page, and as I have been previously instructed that 'cat_talk' pages receive minimal-to-zero traffic (witness this 8+ year conversation with zero results), and as the topic is of considerable concern to persons of Scottish derivation, I felt it appropriate to raise the issue here. I see the term 'Scots' in various places on this project. I would not think an RfC would be necessary for this issue. rags (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- The link you have added is broken (is Category_talk:American_people_of_Scotch-Irish_descent intended?) and I'm not entirely clear as to your point or question. Are you concerned as to whether the category should use the term Scotch-Irish or, say, Scots-Irish? The Scotch (adjective) article is not great and requires some work but it might give you some background. The term "Scotch" has largely fallen out of use in Scotland, except in its specific application to, say, Scotch Whisky, and Scots who are unaware of its continuing currency outside of Scotland may be surprised when they encounter this usage and regard it as somehow "incorrect". I guess some of us may misinterpret the usage as pejorative but that is no more reason to change terms such as Scotch-Irish, which is the term employed, as it would be to impose the "correction" "Scots Whisky" or "Scots Beef", which are never employed, to my knowledge. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Noss
There's a proposal to rename Noss to Isle of Noss. Clearly nobody thought to notify this project. Please comment at Talk:Noss --Deskford (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Guide to creating new Scottish settlement articles
Hi I am an Australian editor with a lot of experience creating Australian place articles and am familiar with interactimg with a pool of local editors approximately the same size as implied by the WP:SCO participants list. I really want to start helping fill the gaps in Scotland and am trying to educate myself. My underlying inspiration is that so many of my ancestors were born in Scotland (typically places like Jedburgh or Dunbar or Montrose but often tiny villages for which an article doesn't exist like Ballygown or Kilninian on Mull or Ferryden south of Montrose). Also, plenty of South Australian place names are for now-obscure places in Scotland which is a shame when trying to put links when writing etymologies. I've read all the advice I could find at WP:UKGEO but I still have a few questions:
- Any info about the threshold/guide for notability for a place to have an article all of its own? Or, if not, how to add that information to a parent town/island/parish article?
- What is the encyclopaedic value of knowing about civil parishes? Or is it better to think about council areas in Scotland? Assuming parish information is valuable, why doesn't the Angus article have a list of civil parishes contained therein? How do you find out which civil parish a villages is in? I tried to figure out which one Ferryden was in but Craig, Angus redirects to the Barony of Craigie article which doesn't appear to be an article about a civil parish at all? And, related to that, how do you find out all the features/villages contained within the borders of a single civil parish in case you wanted to know?
Thank you so much for any help or advice. Donama (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I'd at least start to reply to your questions though there will be others who have far more experience than I have on articles about Scottish settlements. I know some people who have lived in Calgary, Alberta and the contrast with Calgary, Mull is very great indeed. First, as worldwide, by WP:NPLACE, villages are generally kept as whole articles as indeed are uninhabited islands, etc. provided there are a couple of references. Scotland is pretty well documented so references are rarely a problem. Civil parishes in Scotland are administratively obsolete, unlike in England/Wales – there has been discussion, sometimes acrimonious, in Template talk:Infobox UK place and its archives. I'd suggest forgetting about civil parishes for Scotland – community councils are the smallest administrative areas but they have no power and little influence. Council areas count for a lot, see Subdivisions of Scotland, lower down are the committee areas. Less administratively dry are the (obsolete but still much used) Shires of Scotland. How you find out where a place is in the administrative/geographical/census hierarchy I don't know, but I suggest looking at https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/ and, in particular, https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/places for a start. I expect https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/ and https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ may help too. Best wishes. There are many settlements near where I live with nothing at all on WP! Thincat (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- PS, in my experience Geograph is an excellent source of photographs and I find the Ordnance Survey maps on https://streetmap.co.uk the best to use. Thincat (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would echo most of what Thincat has said above. On the subject of notability, we seem to accept articles on more or less any named place, however small. I think sometimes an editor sees a cluster of buildings on a map, creates an article calling it a village even though in reality it is no more than a farm with outbuildings and perhaps a few cottages, and the article sticks. There are countless examples where I doubt the notability – see for example Ardonald, Auchallater, Bainshole and Bonnyton, Aberdeenshire just to explore the first two letters of the alphabet in Aberdeenshire alone – but mine seems to be a minority view. Sometimes there may be a case for notability – Skaw, Unst is just a single house (the article euphemistically calls it a "tiny settlement") but it is the most northerly inhabited place in the UK, and there were once other dwellings around it. And I well remember the case of Ardtalla, when one editor questioned the notability and another editor built it up into quite a respectable article (see User talk:Hadrianheugh#Ardtalla).
- And as for administrative divisions, the council areas are what counts – these are the ones that determine the provision of most services, and the names that are most apparent on the ground. Council area boundaries are clearly marked on Ordnance Survey maps, which can be viewed online through several providers, so it is usually easy to see which council area covers a particular location, and most councils have useful websites. The larger council areas geographically speaking are subdivided into committee areas, and these are sometimes used here. It's true that some older people harbour an attachment to the counties that became obsolete over 40 years ago, and so they make claims for obscure geographical divisions like lieutenancy areas and land registration areas because they are more closely connected to the old counties, but in practice these serve very limited purposes and it would be difficult to find the appropriate area for any given location. Younger people are often confused by the old county names, and even in Scotland most people wouldn't be able to identify many of them on a map.
- I'm sure your contributions here will be very welcome – we have lost many of our most active Scottish editors in recent years, often over badly handled acrimonious disputes over place names I think – so it's good to see someone new taking an interest! --Deskford (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, both. Very helpful. I hear what you're saying about the civil parishes and counties being obsolete. Just that they are mentioned in almost every Scottish village article, normally without any definitive sourcing, so obviously this information is useful and meaningful to locals at least. Certainly if you're tracing family history the parish information is likely to be very useful because you can try and trace back to the church parish where records might be kept. I imagine there would be a similar argument for the value of county information - albeit historical. Donama (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
File:ICT6012.jpg
Can anybody identify this castle? Agathoclea (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is the Governor's House, Edinburgh and the Political Martyrs' Monument. File:PoliticalMartyrs.jpg is a photo from a similar viewpoint. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Glims Holm or Glimps Holm?
Expert input needed at Talk:Glims Holm#Requested_move_14_January_2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- And Talk:Point (Outer Hebrides)#Requested move 14 January 2019. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
St Mary's Wynd, Stirling
The text says: "The major street leading down the castle hill from the royal residences in Stirling Castle to the abbey was called St. Mary's Wynd, a name it retains." Ahem.... schoolboy Geography... St Mary's Wynd leads AWAY from the Abbey so the statement as it stands is crass. I don't know enough about this to suggest what is wrong. Perhaps the wynd did lead to an old eg St Mary's Church long since replaced (eg when the abbey was built) - but that is pure guess. Freuchie (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation of council areas
There is a discussion over at Commons, see Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Highland (council area). Over there other than the main Commons:Category:Highland (council area) the other categories use "Foo council area", not "Foo (council area)". Should this be done here per WP:NATURAL? "Highland council area" doesn't get many results on Google (76,400, compared to 44,100,000 without quotes) so this may show that even though the term without brackets may be an obvious was to refer to the council area, it isn't used much by reliable sources. The OS just uses "Highland" (although that's the case for Warwick to). Also wouldn't "Highland Council Area" be the correct title here, if its part of the name, similar to Warwick District for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- One problem with the name is something I have highlighted on the relevant talk pages: there currently exists both an article on the geographical extent of the local authority (Highland (council area)) and one on its political composition (The Highland Council), in addition to the more generalised article on the Scottish Highlands and one on the Politics of the Highland council area. Please see the merge discussion I started there, rather than me clogging this post. In relevance to the article names, it can be seen that the term The Highland Council is possibly contributing to the naming of Highland (council area) as it has been due to the closeness with Highland Council. However, the naming standards differ: we have Stirling (council area) but Falkirk Council, and while Orkney Islands Council and Fife Council exist, these refer only to the modern local political aspects while contemporary geographical and historical aspects remain with the Fife and Orkney articles due to the old county boundaries and those of the new local authority being the same, unlike the Highlands (if a clear definition of its area ever did exist). Not an easy issue to resolve. Crowsus (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"Fife"
There is a proposal at Talk:Fife (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 February 2019 requesting to disambiguate the council area to Fife, Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Kingston, Glasgow
Please see discussion at Draft talk:Kingston, Glasgow regarding whether the draft should become a mainspace article about the neighbourhood of Kingston, or whether it should be merged into Govan based on WP:NPLACE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Could an admin maybe have a look and consider moving the articles? Gowkthrapple (Wishaw) seems an unnecessary distinction given that the only alternative in the disambiguation page (which has existed since 2005) is for a fictional character in a novel which has since been deemed non-notable? Crowsus (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed: disambiguation is not required, and Gowkthrapple (Wishaw) should be at the base name. I note that neither Gowkthrapple nor Goukthrapple are even mentioned in the article on the novel. --Deskford (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Dunkeld and Birnam
I just saw that Dunkeld no longer has an article and has been merged into a 'Dunkeld and Birnam' settlement article. Is this really the will of the community, it's absolutely mad?! Dunkeld has a long and distinct history and was not the same 'settlement' as Birnam until recently, it is the site of an ancient hill fort and a cathedral and has countless other claims to historic importance distinct from the fact that Dunkeld and the Victorian village of Birnam are connected today by a bridge. Are we to merge urban districts like Broomhill and Jordanhill because they are adjacent?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is discussion at Talk:Dunkeld and Birnam#Merger proposal (and objection in the next section). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Never seen anything like this in Wikipedia. There are still multiple Wikipedia pages about Dunkeld in 12 other languages, but not on en.wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was the original proposer of the discussion mentioned above, which was open for four months without attracting a single comment either way, so I went ahead with the merge. My rationale can be read on the talk page. The objection referred to above — the only time anyone bothered to respond until now — occurred almost a year later, and consists of the only two edits from an account apparently of some local residents who signed up solely to make this objection. Jellyman (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Every instinct tells me they should have remained separate articles. The problem is editors were obviously just to thin on the ground to address the proposal. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all that some locals noticed the Wikipedia article had changed and finally decided they'd need to sign up to get involved. Their opinion still ought to count. I'm new to the Scotland Project, so perhaps I missed it - did you post about the proposed merge here? Donama (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- At Jellyman, yes, fair enough. I'm guessing the issue is that the proposal was not publicized, so people with wider knowledge and interest in Wikipedia's norms or Scottish place articles were not aware of the proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- If a significant number of sources refer to "Dunkeld and Birnam" as a single entity, then we should have an article about that place. That may be the case as for example, as the census data is for "Dunkeld and Birnam" and its tourist association says "Dunkeld and Birnam is one ... historic town", but those appear to be the only references to a single combined unit. That's different to things like Dunkeld & Birnam railway station, where the two names are merely combined. I note that Dunkeld and Birnam is a community council area.
- There is clearly plenty to say about both Birnam and Dunkeld independently, so we should have articles about the two places separately. There is significant history (especially for Dunkeld) and continuing distinct identities for both.
- IMO there is a need for three articles here - one about Dunkeld, one about Birnam and one about Dunkeld and Birnam. The content of the first two is obvious, while the third should cover the entire community council area which also includes places like Glen Quaich and Loch of the Lowes (and so a short stub can be avoided).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering 3 editors have objected to the merge, is it worth proposing a split? I would also note Blairgowrie and Rattray, Redenhall with Harleston, Shaw and Crompton and Totton and Eling also are similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- These need to be split also I think. Historic settlements don't lose their identify because of obscure, short-term bureaucratic classifications--or, at least, they usually don't elsewhere on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if people prefer separate articles, fair enough. In hindsight, I could have sought wider opinions, such as from this project; but my personal opinion remains that, where a natural and logical link exists, there are advantages to having one comprehensive article rather than a string of poorly-developed ones, such as Birnam as it was in 2017 pre-merger. Not a great article to have developed over its decade of existence, was it? I find people will make vague assertions of "potential for expansion" or express a willingness to expand articles themselves, only for nothing concrete to ever materialise. I note also the recommendation in the WP:UKTOWNS guidelines for writing about small settlements that suggests dealing with them under a larger area such as civil parish, community council area etc when appropriate. None of this is to denigrate such places, or somehow deny their identity. It doesn't mean useful material should be deleted. I'm not saying that these individual settlements aren't significant or notable. I believe that all notable topics deserve coverage on Wikipedia, I just don't agree that in every case that is best served by giving every notable person / place / concept its own article. Jellyman (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you - developed articles are better than a series of stubs. UKTOWNS states when there is no likelihood of expansion, to describe the place in a larger notable area. IMO the error here was removing the article on Dunkeld - that was a mature article on a notable subject and shouldn't have been removed because of the poor state of articles on different subjects. Both of the other articles could be improved: Birnam by finding additional information, and the stub on the combined entity by appropriate summarising of the other articles and inclusion of rural details.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd note for example that there is Nedging-with-Naughton which was formed from Nedging and Naughton parishes. WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP are clear that just because a place is no longer a legal entity doesn't mean that it has to be merged with the current one (as long as the names and boundaries are distinct). However neither of those settlements appear to be legally recognized, other than being on an OS map (or like Nedging and Naughton formerly were) however it looks like there is quite a bit of info on Dunkeld (it was a market town) so maybe that should be split again (and summarized per Nilfanion in the Dunkeld and Birnam article) but there seems to be less on Birnam, however as noted with Shaw/Shaw and Crompton even Dunkeld may end up as a bit of a content fork. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you - developed articles are better than a series of stubs. UKTOWNS states when there is no likelihood of expansion, to describe the place in a larger notable area. IMO the error here was removing the article on Dunkeld - that was a mature article on a notable subject and shouldn't have been removed because of the poor state of articles on different subjects. Both of the other articles could be improved: Birnam by finding additional information, and the stub on the combined entity by appropriate summarising of the other articles and inclusion of rural details.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if people prefer separate articles, fair enough. In hindsight, I could have sought wider opinions, such as from this project; but my personal opinion remains that, where a natural and logical link exists, there are advantages to having one comprehensive article rather than a string of poorly-developed ones, such as Birnam as it was in 2017 pre-merger. Not a great article to have developed over its decade of existence, was it? I find people will make vague assertions of "potential for expansion" or express a willingness to expand articles themselves, only for nothing concrete to ever materialise. I note also the recommendation in the WP:UKTOWNS guidelines for writing about small settlements that suggests dealing with them under a larger area such as civil parish, community council area etc when appropriate. None of this is to denigrate such places, or somehow deny their identity. It doesn't mean useful material should be deleted. I'm not saying that these individual settlements aren't significant or notable. I believe that all notable topics deserve coverage on Wikipedia, I just don't agree that in every case that is best served by giving every notable person / place / concept its own article. Jellyman (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- These need to be split also I think. Historic settlements don't lose their identify because of obscure, short-term bureaucratic classifications--or, at least, they usually don't elsewhere on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering 3 editors have objected to the merge, is it worth proposing a split? I would also note Blairgowrie and Rattray, Redenhall with Harleston, Shaw and Crompton and Totton and Eling also are similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Every instinct tells me they should have remained separate articles. The problem is editors were obviously just to thin on the ground to address the proposal. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all that some locals noticed the Wikipedia article had changed and finally decided they'd need to sign up to get involved. Their opinion still ought to count. I'm new to the Scotland Project, so perhaps I missed it - did you post about the proposed merge here? Donama (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was the original proposer of the discussion mentioned above, which was open for four months without attracting a single comment either way, so I went ahead with the merge. My rationale can be read on the talk page. The objection referred to above — the only time anyone bothered to respond until now — occurred almost a year later, and consists of the only two edits from an account apparently of some local residents who signed up solely to make this objection. Jellyman (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Never seen anything like this in Wikipedia. There are still multiple Wikipedia pages about Dunkeld in 12 other languages, but not on en.wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Birnam has potential for expansion, indeed. The fact that it is not expanded should not impinge on another article. Dunkeld is not Birnam. Birnam is not Dunkeld. They are close in geographical terms but nobody ever refers to them as a combined entity. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody ever does, apart from when they do. To repeat from above: they are classified as a single census locality. They have a joint community council area. The local tourist association refer to them together as "a historic town". The merge didn't create a "Dunkeld and Birnam" article, one already existed even when each settlement had its own article as well. You can prefer separate articles, sure, but don't pretend they aren't sometimes grouped together by officialdom and sources. Jellyman (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- In D&B's case I suspect more people think Birnam is district of Dunkeld than a union between two settlements, as inaccurate as that might be. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to agree that the settlements should have separate articles, though no-one seems to object to the idea that 'Dunkeld and Birnam' should be retained as a distinct article. The case for restoring the articles for Rattray and Blairgowrie seems pretty straightforward too. As WikiProject Scotland we don't really have any competence for the others that Crouch, Swale kindly brought to our attention, but that's not to say we accept them--though note that one of them, Shaw and Crompton is an FA and in that instance it would obviously not be wise or beneficial to do anything. Anyone disagree here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)