Talk:David I of Scotland/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about David I of Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
New Version
- I've uploaded a pared down version of a Master's Thesis on king David, written by Jordan Diacur (ie. me) for Prof. Elizabeth Ewan, at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and completed in February, 2006. I included any and all information I believed to be encyclopedic and biographical and attempted to give a rounded appraisal of the historiographical questions and recent interpretations. (There are also complete endnotes and a bibliography).
- I hope this will be useful; do with it what you will. SlowwwwMoses 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup
In addition to my notation regarding the quality of the scanned info, it most definitely needs to have the citations properly formatted. As it stands now, the citation numbers appear directly in the text instaed of using proper wikiformatting. Also, that whole piece needs to have wikilinks added. - CobaltBlueTony 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
New article
I've brought a new article. It is still on the long side, but that I suppose can be fixed later. There are numerous subarticles too. I've kept some of SlowwwwMoses article, where those bits were in wiki tone, but it's virtually all new. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Domina Anglorum
I enjoyed this article, especially because I didn't know much about Scottish history of this time, despite having studied this period of English history at university. I don't know if there has been new research (I haven't read Oram), but I always understood that Matilda, despite having possession of the crown, was never actually crowned, and so "David travelled to the south of England and entered Matilda's company; he was present during her coronation at Westminster Abbey" made me raise an eyebrow. I thought Matilda had fallen out with various people in London and had disregarded her advisors (including David?) and so ended up being recognised only as "Lady of the English" before being hustled out of town by Stephen's Matilda. I didn't think she was crowned at Winchester either. qp10qp 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should have said expected or aborted coronation. Thanks for spotting this ... 'tis fixed. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Neighbouring Bishops
Should the infobox at the foot of the Article not include the Bishops of Nidaros, although these were created toward the end of David's reign, the Bishops of Orkney and those of Sodor were there, submitting to either York or Trondheim. Brendandh 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Saint
I have added the saints banner to this article on the basis of the subject being named in the List of royal saints and martyrs. I cannot myself right now provide documentation of this claim, but shall try to do so over the weekend. John Carter 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- According to this source, "The PenguinDictionary of Saints:Third Edition" by Donald Attwater and Catherine Rachel John, Penguin Books, ISBN 0-140-51312-4, his feast day is May 24. I'm not sure where you would want to include it in the article though. I am adding him to the Category:Scottish saints, though. John Carter 16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Date notation
What kind of date notation is "Born 1083 x 1085"? That makes positively no sense at all. If his birth cannot be pinpointed accurately, there are two options: '1083-1085' or, preferably, "Circa 1084". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- This style is used by historians, particularly those formulating complex layers of dating. It makes sense of course if you understand it, and not if you don't. Though no-one has got around to puttin gin into the MoS yet, there have been a few discussions about it (which I looked for but couldn't find before posting this). Circa 1084 would be misleading btw to me, as it would imply there is some reason, though not proven, to believe he was born specifically in 1084. 1083-1085 implies he was continually born in the period. 1083 x 1085 means his birth, though unknown, occurred in or after 1083 but before the end of 1085, and that there are specific evidence reasons for these dates. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've not seen it before either, so I appreciate the explanation. I'll revert myself, if it hasn't been done already. Thanks! Kafka Liz (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- See you already got it. I'm usually working with canvasses or manuscripts, so the notation made me think of dimensions. Thanks again for the explanation. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes me think of that too. Look through this book (visible for a part on amazon) or this one or this one. Not sure if you are supposed to use x, X, × or whatever, and it seems to change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. I have read more than my fair share of history books and have never seen these in print. I believe it would be better to err on the side of caution and use plain English. "Between 1083 and 1085." That would remove any and all ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The downside to that is that it makes the text very clumsy. Speak to User:Pmanderson. If I remember correctly, he initially opposed this style (which is why it was expunged from Walter de Coventre and a few other articles), but came to see their light. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly why we have Circa. Per our own Wikipedia article ""Genghis Khan (c. 1162 – August 18, 1227)", suggesting that he was born in or around the year 1162." Circa is a perfectly valid and concise word to use in this context, and does not in any way imply that there is a strong reason to suspect 1084. It's why we have the word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Circa can indeed be used for this I suppose (though — can't). It still instinctively strikes me as implying there is a specific reason for believing a circa date, and you can't use it when you use a lot of these things, as you lose too much info. Or maybe you're of the opinion this info doesn't matter? I guess with David here it probably doesn't, though it is useful at least to be more specific. It's no big deal if someone wants to change it. Just keep in mind that there are many instances of it on this page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that 'circa' works in this case exactly as it's meant to, referring to the Wikipedia entry for circa. It implies that the specific date of birth is unknown, and is a much more widely understood notation for an unknown date than using 'x'. I too wondered exactly what that meant, and have to agree that due to this not being a scholarly source, but rather for the average user, it should be written with notation that is understood by the average user. To further help understanding, include a link to the 'circa' entry. It clearly indicates that the year of his birth was unknown, but that it is in and around 1084. No ambiguity or clumsy text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.157.93 (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Circa can indeed be used for this I suppose (though — can't). It still instinctively strikes me as implying there is a specific reason for believing a circa date, and you can't use it when you use a lot of these things, as you lose too much info. Or maybe you're of the opinion this info doesn't matter? I guess with David here it probably doesn't, though it is useful at least to be more specific. It's no big deal if someone wants to change it. Just keep in mind that there are many instances of it on this page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly why we have Circa. Per our own Wikipedia article ""Genghis Khan (c. 1162 – August 18, 1227)", suggesting that he was born in or around the year 1162." Circa is a perfectly valid and concise word to use in this context, and does not in any way imply that there is a strong reason to suspect 1084. It's why we have the word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The downside to that is that it makes the text very clumsy. Speak to User:Pmanderson. If I remember correctly, he initially opposed this style (which is why it was expunged from Walter de Coventre and a few other articles), but came to see their light. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. I have read more than my fair share of history books and have never seen these in print. I believe it would be better to err on the side of caution and use plain English. "Between 1083 and 1085." That would remove any and all ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes me think of that too. Look through this book (visible for a part on amazon) or this one or this one. Not sure if you are supposed to use x, X, × or whatever, and it seems to change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- See you already got it. I'm usually working with canvasses or manuscripts, so the notation made me think of dimensions. Thanks again for the explanation. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've not seen it before either, so I appreciate the explanation. I'll revert myself, if it hasn't been done already. Thanks! Kafka Liz (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The wiki entry hardly matters, as I've seen it used often enough to have the instinctive sense of what it implies. Anyway, how exactly would circa cope with, say, "x 1113–1124" (also in the article)? This is in the succession box at the bottom. There's no hard potential beginning point, so you can't average it out. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, well you clearly have strong opinions here. I'm just trying to contribute in a democratic way. All I can say is that I would wager that more than 90% of people reading today's featured article would understand circa, but would not understand 'x'. I'm calling this discussion a day now; and this a victory of arcane brevity over clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you wanna change the text you can and the fact that you are posting your opinion is an invitation for wider participation. Kafka liz or yourself should feel free to change it. I'm just pointing out why x format is good and useful. So you don't need to be quite so melodramatic and feel so resigned ... your comments are welcome and I don't actually oppose changing x to circa. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I don’t have a strong opinion on the date format. On the one hand, I believe that ‘’circa’’ works sufficiently in most instances and is more easily understood by the average reader. On the other hand, I am hesitant to change notation to one that is less precise and thus perhaps not strictly accurate. My instinct on this is to leave it in the form with which it passed WP:FAC, barring a consensus to change. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- As the above, I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do believe circa is far better that "x". I don't believe its lets precise - especially when the first sentence of the first section explains clearly. --UpDown (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
idem
From the Style recommendations: "Do not use ibid., op. cit. or similar abbreviations in footnotes." There are a lot of references that use idem. These should be changed. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Matilda or Maud?
Was his wife named Matilda or Maud (or both in different contexts)? The link says "Matilda", but it leads to an article named Maud, 2nd Countess of Huntingdon. Can anyone clarify? --Mais oui! 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's the same name. One I think is English, one French, but I can't remember which is which. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ta. I suspected it was something like that. Probably best being explained over at her article, once we have established what the situation
iswas. --Mais oui! 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ta. I suspected it was something like that. Probably best being explained over at her article, once we have established what the situation
- Matilda is simply the Norman form of the name Maud -- Maud being especially difficult to pronounce in French. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.251.230 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
- Huh? Maudire (to damn or to curse) has disappeared? My experience says it's not all that hard for people to pronounce in French. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the Middle Ages, the names Matilda and Maud were interchangeable as were Joan and Joanna, Eleanor and Alianore, Cecily and Cicily.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? Maudire (to damn or to curse) has disappeared? My experience says it's not all that hard for people to pronounce in French. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Names
Perhaps someone would like to show me the exact CONSENSUS where it is permitted to completly ignore WP:UE on this article - and related articles (like a user is claiming). And also how it is acceptable to differ how we refer to people throughout the article - as exists here now - and why it is acceptable to break links and create redirects on a page. And how it is best to have one name for the article - then a Gaelic name during the article. --UpDown (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because, roughly speaking, it is standard practice to use insular language spellings for pre-Norman biographies in the British Isles (and because most academics writing today use such forms, the argument that these names aren't in English makes no sense). Most of such biographies on wikipedia do this. Having said that, there has never been a consensus on this matter either way when it has gotten attention (so boot that out of the argument) and it's pretty unlikely there will ever be, as it has been discussed so many times; so to start a new struggle over this while it is displayed on the front page verges on disruptive, esp. as these forms have been stable for a long time, including the period it passed into becoming an FA. I know you are new this is probably not your intention though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe apparent "standard practise" trumps the clear WP:UE. You say most academics use these forms - what about most normal books, biographies etc? There was no "struggle" it was a clear-up of the page - fixing links, and standardising the names (before some were Gaelic, some English). I am not "new" - and I fail to see the relevance regardless. Where is the justification for a difference between article title and article text - and from breaking the clear MoS. If there is no "consensus" then me changing should not perhaps have been reverted so quickly - and without prior discussion.--UpDown (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a common misunderstanding about guidelines. They have no authority beyond standard practice. WP:UE isn't all that applicable anyway. The reason for piping and redirects is the avoidance of cognitive dissonance, a problem that obviously poses itself differently in different articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be difficult here, but why should I believe all you have said. There is a "common misunderstanding" you say - so guidelines are there to be ignored at your whim are they? You have provided me with no evidence that the names in the text should be in Gaelic - especially when the article title are in English. You have no explained this difference. Or indeed why in this article, David's father is referred to throughout the text in Gaelic, but David himself in English. This article should conform with WP:UE - there is no reason why not.--UpDown (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like a clear example of disregard for the guidelines at WP:UE without any consenus to the contrary. On this basis alone, I don't think that this article is of featured article quality. Greenshed (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- UpDown, just read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines carefully. The common misunderstanding is that loads of budding wikilawyers believe that guideline pages are the source of the "law" for wikipedia pages, whereas wikipedia pages are in fact the source of the authority of guideline pages, and even that is subject to the WP:CONSENSUS of individual articles and groups of them. In practice many if not most of the general assertions and principles contained in guidelines are potentially contradicted by other pages (and there's always WP:IAR). So using only one page is naive, esp. if it is very general. I mean, you're talking to me as if I'd never heard of WP:UE before. Anyway, have a tour of pre-Norman biographies in the British Isles and tell me how they look? In answer to your question, UpDown, the way the characters are referred to reflects how they are called in the main sources used, e.g. A. A. M. Duncan and Richard Oram. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not exploding to spend hours of my time repeating arguments that have been gone over so many times. @Greenshed, if you actually think that, go and try to get it unfeatured on that basis and see where you get. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I am now finding your attitude not only very unhelpful but also that you have some feeling that what you say is "consensus" (no evidence shown) should not be argued against. You seem to want me to just believe you and go away. This is not your page and I will not do so. I am not happy at all with your answers. You still for instance have not answered why it is acceptable to refer to David as David but Malcolm as the Gaelic name. Or why its acceptable to use English in the article title but Gaelic in the text. So, those sources use the Gaelic, what if I find other sources that don't? Guidelines clearly state English should be used. Quite simple.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you just have to read my responses better rather than make allegations about "my attitude". -> why it is acceptable to refer to David as David but Malcolm as the Gaelic name has been answered by me the way the characters are referred to reflects how they are called in the main sources used, e.g. A. A. M. Duncan and Richard Oram. And I have answered the question why its acceptable to use English in the article title but Gaelic in the text with The reason for piping and redirects is the avoidance of cognitive dissonance, a problem that obviously poses itself differently in different articles. To expand on that, Maelcolm mac Cinaeda might be Malcolm II in the title, but in another article with other Gaelic names that can't be angliziced for the sake of it, it looks ridiculous. The UE fundamentalism aside, you're failing to realise that the name Máel Coluim and others like it are as English as Malcolm etc, and predominate in modern sources ... so much so that the latter uses can seem archaic. Regarding consensus, I didn't claim there was consensus (actually no-one's ever made an issue of it for David I, in FAN or anywhere else), I said there was no consensus either way. I mean, I shouldn't have to be saying this ... the text is just above and can be read. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Mael Coluim" is not an English language name, and to say say so is very odd. Malcolm is an English-language name, Mael Coluim is a Gaelic name. Like Wilhelm is German, William English. There was a very long discussion before William II of Germany was moved to Wilhelm II of Germany - and yet you seem to think its quite alright to admit there is "no consensus" for Gaelic names yet you still firmly believe they should be so, despite breaking WP:UE. If there was no consensus, should you have reverted me so quickly. And just because the sources apparently used here use Gaelic, that doesn't mean most sources do. Indeed a quick Google check shows the Royal website, BBC, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Encyclopedia Britannica all use Malcolm. You also say "Gaelic names that can't be angliziced" - well, the ones I changed (Malcolm and Duncan) can, so that's not a problem. I am now going to take this to WP:UE's talk page. There clearly needs to be more discussion on this.--UpDown (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you just have to read my responses better rather than make allegations about "my attitude". -> why it is acceptable to refer to David as David but Malcolm as the Gaelic name has been answered by me the way the characters are referred to reflects how they are called in the main sources used, e.g. A. A. M. Duncan and Richard Oram. And I have answered the question why its acceptable to use English in the article title but Gaelic in the text with The reason for piping and redirects is the avoidance of cognitive dissonance, a problem that obviously poses itself differently in different articles. To expand on that, Maelcolm mac Cinaeda might be Malcolm II in the title, but in another article with other Gaelic names that can't be angliziced for the sake of it, it looks ridiculous. The UE fundamentalism aside, you're failing to realise that the name Máel Coluim and others like it are as English as Malcolm etc, and predominate in modern sources ... so much so that the latter uses can seem archaic. Regarding consensus, I didn't claim there was consensus (actually no-one's ever made an issue of it for David I, in FAN or anywhere else), I said there was no consensus either way. I mean, I shouldn't have to be saying this ... the text is just above and can be read. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I am now finding your attitude not only very unhelpful but also that you have some feeling that what you say is "consensus" (no evidence shown) should not be argued against. You seem to want me to just believe you and go away. This is not your page and I will not do so. I am not happy at all with your answers. You still for instance have not answered why it is acceptable to refer to David as David but Malcolm as the Gaelic name. Or why its acceptable to use English in the article title but Gaelic in the text. So, those sources use the Gaelic, what if I find other sources that don't? Guidelines clearly state English should be used. Quite simple.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- UpDown, just read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines carefully. The common misunderstanding is that loads of budding wikilawyers believe that guideline pages are the source of the "law" for wikipedia pages, whereas wikipedia pages are in fact the source of the authority of guideline pages, and even that is subject to the WP:CONSENSUS of individual articles and groups of them. In practice many if not most of the general assertions and principles contained in guidelines are potentially contradicted by other pages (and there's always WP:IAR). So using only one page is naive, esp. if it is very general. I mean, you're talking to me as if I'd never heard of WP:UE before. Anyway, have a tour of pre-Norman biographies in the British Isles and tell me how they look? In answer to your question, UpDown, the way the characters are referred to reflects how they are called in the main sources used, e.g. A. A. M. Duncan and Richard Oram. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not exploding to spend hours of my time repeating arguments that have been gone over so many times. @Greenshed, if you actually think that, go and try to get it unfeatured on that basis and see where you get. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like a clear example of disregard for the guidelines at WP:UE without any consenus to the contrary. On this basis alone, I don't think that this article is of featured article quality. Greenshed (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be difficult here, but why should I believe all you have said. There is a "common misunderstanding" you say - so guidelines are there to be ignored at your whim are they? You have provided me with no evidence that the names in the text should be in Gaelic - especially when the article title are in English. You have no explained this difference. Or indeed why in this article, David's father is referred to throughout the text in Gaelic, but David himself in English. This article should conform with WP:UE - there is no reason why not.--UpDown (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a common misunderstanding about guidelines. They have no authority beyond standard practice. WP:UE isn't all that applicable anyway. The reason for piping and redirects is the avoidance of cognitive dissonance, a problem that obviously poses itself differently in different articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe apparent "standard practise" trumps the clear WP:UE. You say most academics use these forms - what about most normal books, biographies etc? There was no "struggle" it was a clear-up of the page - fixing links, and standardising the names (before some were Gaelic, some English). I am not "new" - and I fail to see the relevance regardless. Where is the justification for a difference between article title and article text - and from breaking the clear MoS. If there is no "consensus" then me changing should not perhaps have been reverted so quickly - and without prior discussion.--UpDown (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because, roughly speaking, it is standard practice to use insular language spellings for pre-Norman biographies in the British Isles (and because most academics writing today use such forms, the argument that these names aren't in English makes no sense). Most of such biographies on wikipedia do this. Having said that, there has never been a consensus on this matter either way when it has gotten attention (so boot that out of the argument) and it's pretty unlikely there will ever be, as it has been discussed so many times; so to start a new struggle over this while it is displayed on the front page verges on disruptive, esp. as these forms have been stable for a long time, including the period it passed into becoming an FA. I know you are new this is probably not your intention though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have come here from the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Gaelic names. Not only is WP:UE relevant so is WP:MOS#Foreign terms both of which are guidelines, however there is also Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words which is policy and as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." Also please note what WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." In cases like this one needs to look at Wikipedia policies and the guidelines and they all harmonise along the lines of use whatever is the consensus among reliable English language sources. This is not a radical suggestion or one based on cherry picking sentences out of the guidelines, but the one that is made by all three major content policies (WP:V WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and the naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The naming conventions aren't policies and the requirements of WP:V can be at odds with the MOS/NC stuff. I seem to remember that the last time we had a discussion of Gaelic names the usage in a lately re-written Encarta article, let alone in V-recommended sources, was pooh-poohed, and that appeals to the Pears Junior Cyclopedia and the like carried the day. Strangely enough, I have never yet seen an FAC reviewer complain of Gaelic names. They're only unreadable elsewhere and elsewhen. Funny old world! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have never yet seen an FAC reviewer complain of Gaelic names. That's a strong argument against Gaelic, actually; it is rare to see a FAC reviewer discuss content at all, and with a half-dozen exceptions, even rarer to see it done competently - and I don't recall any of them, present company excluded, having any expertise in Dark Age Scotland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Naming Conventions consist of two parts the Naming Conventions themselves which are Policy (see the top Wikipedia:Naming Conventions) and guidelines (such as WP:UE) that interpret the policy in specific areas -- So the wording in the section "Use English words" in the Naming Conventions is policy for article names.
- Neither the Naming Conventions policy or MOS guideline is at odds with WP:V for example see the first section of the Naming Conventions policy "Use the most easily recognized name" it says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." and the MOS say in the foreign terms section:
- Within an article, spell a name that appears in the article title as in that title (covered in naming conventions) rather than an alternative spelling, unless there is a good reason to do so, such as may be given in Naming conventions (use English). Spell the other foreign names, phrases and words as most commonly spelled in the English-language references in an article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic. If the foreign names, phrases or words do not appear in the article's references, then use the spelling as most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias).
- (My bolding in both quotes). So both the Naming Conventions policy and the MOS state that WP:SOURCES should be used to determine spelling, they are not at odds with WP:V --PBS (talk)
- Neither the Naming Conventions policy or MOS guideline is at odds with WP:V for example see the first section of the Naming Conventions policy "Use the most easily recognized name" it says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." and the MOS say in the foreign terms section:
- The majority of sources used for this article that mention these Scottish kings call them with their Middle Gaelic forms (e.g. Mael Coluim, Donnchad, etc). WP:VER recommends using the best sources. The potential recommendation to use other encyclopedias for spellings, which in general almost never cover such obscure figures and thus leaves only a small selection of poor quality tertiary sources unrepresentative of modern secondary works, is poor; this is especially sp given the complex scholarly difficulties that surround these kings, a factor which makes writing articles about them generally too difficult for the normal writers of such articles. What this seems to argue is "Well, I know all the sources you used use Mael Coluim, but you need to check sources like Pears Junior Encyclopedia to see what forms you should use". If such an argument were used, it'd just invoke WP:IAR, which would be followed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia by nonsensical use of other guidelines. Really, until there is a guideline that cover these kings specifically, it's really all just cherry-picking wikilawyering and selective application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- As a layman, I prefer using english, rather then gaelic on all these monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- The majority of sources used for this article that mention these Scottish kings call them with their Middle Gaelic forms (e.g. Mael Coluim, Donnchad, etc). WP:VER recommends using the best sources. The potential recommendation to use other encyclopedias for spellings, which in general almost never cover such obscure figures and thus leaves only a small selection of poor quality tertiary sources unrepresentative of modern secondary works, is poor; this is especially sp given the complex scholarly difficulties that surround these kings, a factor which makes writing articles about them generally too difficult for the normal writers of such articles. What this seems to argue is "Well, I know all the sources you used use Mael Coluim, but you need to check sources like Pears Junior Encyclopedia to see what forms you should use". If such an argument were used, it'd just invoke WP:IAR, which would be followed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia by nonsensical use of other guidelines. Really, until there is a guideline that cover these kings specifically, it's really all just cherry-picking wikilawyering and selective application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
We are written for lay readers, not for specialists; that's not fundamentalism, that's principle. We should use the names intelligible to the common reader, because he will understand them. Discussion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. While naming conventions don't dictate how names should be written in text, the reasons behind them are highly persuasive. Articles are titled to be recognisable to English speakers, and so too should they be so written. As it stands, we have names written in that are unpronounceable, let alone recognisable, to most English speakers. -Rrius (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- One of the routine experiences of reading about foreign societies in the distant past are unfamiliar name forms. One masters these and grows (and in any case, only a small minority of these names can ever be anglicized). This has come up several times in the past. There is a tension between the forms you might expect from a superficial reading of UE guidelines, and those used by the reliable sources. Typically those who write articles in the era prefer the latter, while those brought in from process talk pages (like UE) prefer the former. No consensus on the matter has ever come about. The user re-starting this, GoodDay, has recently got a lot of attention for trying to start [re-]ignite pointless disputes, and I believe he is just repeating this behaviour here; so don't think it is worthwhile wasting everyone's time anymore than already wasted on account of this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- A cheap shot isn't helpful, especially as not all of the editors opposing your view are GoodDay. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so the unless the Gaelic names are almost exclusively used, we should use the anglicised version. The fact of the naming of those articles tells me that the sources are so skewed toward the Gaelic that it should be used. If there is a tension, it should be resolved in favour of using English. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't referring to posts from 2-3 years ago. 'Cheap shot'? Sorry ... don't need this. Just get consensus for any changes. I've got articles to construct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about 2 to 3 years ago for. Your cheap shot was in the post I responded to. -Rrius (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't referring to posts from 2-3 years ago. 'Cheap shot'? Sorry ... don't need this. Just get consensus for any changes. I've got articles to construct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- A cheap shot isn't helpful, especially as not all of the editors opposing your view are GoodDay. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so the unless the Gaelic names are almost exclusively used, we should use the anglicised version. The fact of the naming of those articles tells me that the sources are so skewed toward the Gaelic that it should be used. If there is a tension, it should be resolved in favour of using English. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- One of the routine experiences of reading about foreign societies in the distant past are unfamiliar name forms. One masters these and grows (and in any case, only a small minority of these names can ever be anglicized). This has come up several times in the past. There is a tension between the forms you might expect from a superficial reading of UE guidelines, and those used by the reliable sources. Typically those who write articles in the era prefer the latter, while those brought in from process talk pages (like UE) prefer the former. No consensus on the matter has ever come about. The user re-starting this, GoodDay, has recently got a lot of attention for trying to start [re-]ignite pointless disputes, and I believe he is just repeating this behaviour here; so don't think it is worthwhile wasting everyone's time anymore than already wasted on account of this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
ISBNs
There are a lot of sources that are fairly recently published books that should have ISBNs, but none of the sources include them. Is there a reason for this? —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can add them if you like. ;) It wasn't a requirement when this article passed FAC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it's still not a requirement. I thought it would have been. but Wikipedia:ISBN and Wikipedia:Citing sources both say they're optional. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- And they ought to be optional. ISBNs mark editions, not books. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's still not a requirement. I thought it would have been. but Wikipedia:ISBN and Wikipedia:Citing sources both say they're optional. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
rex Scottorum
.JPG)
Appears to be a neologism, so I put the "dubious tag" in. If there is complete solid evidence for that title, then my faut pas. I haven't come across that title in my readings. PurpleA (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reference provided. Sorry to disappoint. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not a neologism. There are scores of charters (not to mention seals) employing the title for David in the period, not to mention the hundreds for previous and later kings. Not sure a reference is even needed here to be honest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think Brian Boru had a similar title, way back then. It was "Imperator Scottorum", thus the mix. Thanks for the cite. PurpleA (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Remove the ref if need be, I'm not pushed. PurpleA (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think Brian Boru had a similar title, way back then. It was "Imperator Scottorum", thus the mix. Thanks for the cite. PurpleA (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Content & Infobox
I'm seeking comments, as to how we should show Malcolm III of Scotland & Malcolm IV of Scotland within this article's content & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- They should be displayed within this article by their primary name on Wikipedia, which is the same as their articles' titles: "Malcolm III of Scotland" and "Malcolm IV of Scotland". These are the names that they are most commonly known as, and therefore, offer the most utility to the reader. Dolovis (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This has come up several times in the past. This is the background to how it was raised. Bit bored by the topic now and desperately want to focus my wiki time on page creation (see List of Anglo-Saxon saints), but basically there is a tension between the forms you might expect from a superficial reading of UE guidelines, and those used by the reliable sources. Typically those who write articles in the era prefer the latter, while those brought in from process talk pages (like UE) prefer the former. No consensus on the matter has ever come about. Article titles are one thing. Different display titles are useful in different contexts. In monarch lists and more popular pages the anglicized names can be used without much difficulty; however using them in articles like this means departing from the forms used the in WP:RSs used to construct the article (as I can attest as the author) and creating serious issues of cognitive dissonance; compare this to using Gdansk in some eras but Danzig in others. We happened to have modern Anglicized names for Mael Coluim and a few famous kings, but most of the Scottish names used are ones like Garnait, Gille Chlerig and so where there is either no Anglicization or where it is so obscure as to be unhelpful. One of the routine experiences of reading about foreign societies in the distant past are unfamiliar name forms. One masters these and grows, and in any case I don't seriously believe the claim that 'general reader' will actually be confused. Even GoodDay was able to identify who Mael Coluim IV was. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I identified Mael Coluim IV, 'cuz I know my history of Scottish monarchs from Kenneth III to Anne. Realizing that Malcolm IV comes after David I & before William the Lion. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wish to note: These gaelic version aren't being pushed at surrounding articles, like Edgar, King of Scotland, Alexander I of Scotland or William the Lion (the 2 former, David's brothers. The latter, Malcolm IV's brother). GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Browsing my copy of the (presumably fairly authoritative) New Edinburgh History of Scotland [1] I see they mainly use the Gaelic forms for king names, but also sometimes translate them and from time to time use the English form. They also have an extensive index giving both forms. I am still studying this article, but it is true that where non-English names are used in the en-WP, we should be careful to offer meanings/translations if these exist. I'm not sure exactly what you are calling for though GoodDay - are you wanting all gaelic usages taken out? That would seem to be a counter-educational position, since we are dealing with Kings who spoke and lived in a Gaelic Scottish world. I assume you wouldn't argue that Latin words or names be taken out of articles about the Roman Empire? However with personal names it can get complicated - we don't use Hadrianus for Hadrian for example - and I assume Deacon that you wouldn't argue that we should? English-language sources on the Roman Empire proliferate - presumably one issue is that there are many fewer for something like medieval Scottish studies and those mostly written by/for academics, who are generally more comfortable with ancient forms. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's definitely nothing wrong with putting one form in brackets where the other is in use. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why we can't compromise on this. Gaelic versions in the content & English versions in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's definitely nothing wrong with putting one form in brackets where the other is in use. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Browsing my copy of the (presumably fairly authoritative) New Edinburgh History of Scotland [1] I see they mainly use the Gaelic forms for king names, but also sometimes translate them and from time to time use the English form. They also have an extensive index giving both forms. I am still studying this article, but it is true that where non-English names are used in the en-WP, we should be careful to offer meanings/translations if these exist. I'm not sure exactly what you are calling for though GoodDay - are you wanting all gaelic usages taken out? That would seem to be a counter-educational position, since we are dealing with Kings who spoke and lived in a Gaelic Scottish world. I assume you wouldn't argue that Latin words or names be taken out of articles about the Roman Empire? However with personal names it can get complicated - we don't use Hadrianus for Hadrian for example - and I assume Deacon that you wouldn't argue that we should? English-language sources on the Roman Empire proliferate - presumably one issue is that there are many fewer for something like medieval Scottish studies and those mostly written by/for academics, who are generally more comfortable with ancient forms. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can accept the gaelic usage in the content, but we should use the english versions in the infobox. Afterall, those 'linked' articles have their titles in english. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No-one ever said that was unacceptable. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I mean this way for the infobox: [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm III] & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV], period. Within the content, by all means, go with gaelic 'only' via re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- GoodDay I must object to your continued edit-warring when you've opened an RfC. And anyway it has only been a day since you violated the 3-revert rule. Please read WP:BRD. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate your attitude, Deacon. I left your edits alone on the content (per compromise) & incoporated my edits on the infobox/navigation box (per compromise). I offered meeting ya half-way & that's not enough for you? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I really must agree with Deacon - please stop messing about with the issue in the article until the RFC has completed GD. Even afterwards you should aim for consensus. I have rolled back your changes - if you persist, I intend to go to the edit-warring noticeboard with your edits of yesterday and today. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Check the page history, Deacon messed with it first 'today' - not me. I offered a compromise to Deacon, let me use english-only on the infoboxes & he use gaelic-only in the content. But apparently, 50/50 isn't good enough for him. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should all agree to not knock it about any further until we get a consensus. I assume Deacon was following what looked like a consensus above to bracket it, but it would probably be best to agree it formally before further changes to it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this inconsistancy be confusing to readers, GoodDay? The names in the article's main body should match those in the infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I really must agree with Deacon - please stop messing about with the issue in the article until the RFC has completed GD. Even afterwards you should aim for consensus. I have rolled back your changes - if you persist, I intend to go to the edit-warring noticeboard with your edits of yesterday and today. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate your attitude, Deacon. I left your edits alone on the content (per compromise) & incoporated my edits on the infobox/navigation box (per compromise). I offered meeting ya half-way & that's not enough for you? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- GoodDay I must object to your continued edit-warring when you've opened an RfC. And anyway it has only been a day since you violated the 3-revert rule. Please read WP:BRD. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I mean this way for the infobox: [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm III] & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV], period. Within the content, by all means, go with gaelic 'only' via re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No-one ever said that was unacceptable. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can accept the gaelic usage in the content, but we should use the english versions in the infobox. Afterall, those 'linked' articles have their titles in english. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If it were up to me, the content would be showing the english version, aswell. However, I can accept [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm III] (gaelic name) & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV] (gaelic name) in the infobox. [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm (gaelic name) III] & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm (gaelic name) IV] in the navigation boxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Gaelic names are written in their middle Irish forms in those recent works I have (Woolf: Pictland to Alba and Stafford(ed):(Blackwells) companion to the early middle ages), i.e. Mael Coluim, Cinaed and Áed, not Malcolm, Kenneth and Hugh. Names imported from latin are not written in their Gaelicised form however: i.e. Alexander and David, not Dabíd and Alaxandair (possible exception with Constantín). Using different forms in infobox and text seems confusing to me. If a compromise is deemed necessary, I suggest adding the Anglicised name in brackets after the first occurrence(s) in the text/infobox. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend the gaelic version go in brackets, as the linking articles are in english. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per Deacon and James, Gaelic form is more often used in text books for this period. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's not what the linked articles are, though. Also, this 'time period' isn't being reflected in the surrounding Scottish monarch articles. So why is this article so special? GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per Deacon and James, Gaelic form is more often used in text books for this period. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend the gaelic version go in brackets, as the linking articles are in english. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do yas want it as [Máel Coluim IV] (Malcolm IV), instead of [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV] (Máel Coluim IV)? for example. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Jeanne boleyn that the content should match the infobox; inconsistency will be confusing to uninitated readers. But it's also inexplicably inconsistent to use only Gaelic regnal titles on some articles and English on others. In that light, I support GoodDay's compromise of having the Gaelic translations shown in brackets, following the English versions. This could be done both in the infobox and the article body itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I also support GoodDay's compromise. Dolovis (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well? are we gonna adopt the [article title|english version] (gaelic verson) as our solution? GoodDay (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Finn Rindahl suggested doing it the other way round, which would be fine by me. As to your earlier question - "why is this article special?" - it's clearly more complete and polished than the others. It even has a nice little star to prove it, so evidently the way the names are presented was good enough for the FAC reviewers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- So that's why Deacon & Billreid were so anxious here & yet not at Edgar, King of Scotland & Alexander I of Scotland articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- We're kinda split here. Some editors prefer Deacon's compromise, while some prefer my compromise. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the editor's statement above. If Wikipedia wants to be regarded as a creditable encyclopedia then it should look to follow modern practice among historians who use the medieval Gaelic for the names of kings as they were known in their own day. I'm sure that those who come to the project to be educated would welcome this approach, rather than the maintenance of over-simplification and a general dumbing down. However I also agree with Finn's compromise.--Bill Reid | (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Ignoring the editor's statement above" was a tad rude. But anyways, the trends seems to be in favour of Finn's idea. Also as it's been pointed out to me, this is a FA (thus the intense re-actions to my minor edits, days earlier). Therefore, Finn's version is acceptable. More importantly to me, was getting the english versions mentioned, then anything else. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've implimented Finn's proposal, as its got the most support. PS, how do I close this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there's no objections, I shall close it. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
English Invasion
I think it's great the Gaelic names are used here, but it can be a little confusing to those not entirely familiar with the subject. For example, using David throughout but not Malcolm even in sentences giving English translations of Gaelic text. If real names are being used then most of the English ones should actually be in French, not William and John and Stephen etc. I don't think any King of England even spoke English until Richard III. It's important to use historical names and not English versions, but there should be some consistency within and between articles on Wiki with how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Scotland" in scare quotes, cut-off map & anachronistic England
I'm a bit surprised to see that David's principality - which by the same token must have become his kingdom when he became a king - stop at the current southern border of Scotland. We know from some of the northumbrian charter chests that at least some people in Northumbria were holding their lands of Scottish monarcsh and expressing fealty to them as monarchs for some generations to come.
David's territory (which had been actively ruled by his grandfather, who spent quite a lot of time there) also included at least a large swathe of what is now Cumberland and Westmoreland. He was born in Carlisle in, as this article should have it for the sake of consistency, "England".
Galloway was a somewhat different shape at the time, the western part of the present region, and continuing further north along the coast. But it appears to be shown on the article's map as the current county. The bottom left of the map just cuts off what was the southern part of David's realm. It included much of what is now Cumberland and Westmoreland, as well as much of current Northumberland. ie, west of the pennines as well as east.
The assumption that this area to the north & west Pennines area was "England" at this time is belied by the evidence that it was still not under the English state's control for landolding or taxes in the mid 1100s, with attempts to settle it under Norman overlords like the Meschines repeatedly failing. Fudging this by literally cutting it off the map isn't acceptable.
It is a sad characteristic of a lot of wiki articles on the British Isles in medieval times that the present borders of England are almost always anachronistically impressed upon the past, where Wales & Scotland are concerned. It would be nice to see something less partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.164.240 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, at the time in question, this border was pretty much the accurate one. It disappeared as you say during the Anarchy, moving south, but was restored by Henry II. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David I of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081006164912/http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/hexham.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/hexham.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)