Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Context labels in ELE[edit]

Version 2. Original: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE.

  • Voting on: addition of a guideline describing the intent and usage of context labels to WT:ELE (under #Definitions, between #Abbreviations and #Example sentences). Text follows:
Context labels[edit]

A context label identifies a definition which only applies in a restricted context. Such labels indicate, for example, that the following definition occurs in a limited geographic region or temporal period, or is used only by specialists in a particular field and not by the general population. Many context label templates also place an entry into a relevant category, but they must not be used merely for categorization (see category links, below).

One or more labels may be placed before the definition:

wikitext result

# {{informal}} An [[informant]] or [[snitch]].

  1. (informal) An informant or snitch.

Details in Wiktionary:Context labels.

  • Vote starts: 0:00 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote created:  Michael Z. 2009-03-30 21:37 z
  • Discussion:
    Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE
    Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2009/March#WT:ELE#Context labels
    Wikt rei-artur3.svg User talk:Mzajac
    • (I can't see any discussion of this in either of those places..) Ƿidsiþ 09:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      I've fixed the BP link to point to the archive. Dunno about the user-talk link. —RuakhTALK 13:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      Added the self-referential talk page. DAVilla 09:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Duplicated the proposal in the much simpler version 2, with abbreviated vote schedule.
  • Just want to point out a Beer Parlour discussion back in March on last year about context label ordering. Circeus 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    That sounds good, but I know of two different 9-category classifications of usage labels (Card 1984 and Landau 1991/2001), and both of those are separate from grammatical labels. So let's not put this into the guideline that requires a vote, or at least not yet. I do plan to propose subcategorizing the labels further. Michael Z. 2009-05-18 06:07 z

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DAVilla 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Bequw¢τ 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support.msh210 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 09:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Support with reservations. --Dan Polansky 09:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ƿidsiþ 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Sometimes, I think it's both more elegant and more useful to use context labels to categorise, especially in FL entries. Many many bilingual dictionaries do this, and it makes a lot of sense. Ƿidsiþ 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps in a print dictionary, where space is being conserved, it can make sense. We don't have the sapce limitations of a pocket-size dictionary. Such use of context labels can be very misleading to learners of the language, who may assume that the context label indicates usage as jargon within the indicated field. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Sometimes maybe, but sometimes obviously not. I would rather take it case by case than impose this sort of blanket restriction. Ƿidsiþ 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    An example. Looking up Italian cuore, Spanish corazón, French cœur in my print dictionaries, all use an {{anatomy}} tag. I don't believe anyone would assume it was therefore some form of anatomical jargon; rather, it's an efficient and to my mind obvious way of distinguishing the anatomical sense from the figurative senses. Ƿidsiþ 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's what {{figurative}} is for. I would rather have some policy in place (espcecially a good one), than have no policy in place on the matter. It is much easier to discuss possible exceptions to an established policy than to debate every instance in the absence of guiding policy. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    My Collins Spanish dictionary uses (Anat) for corazón to mean that it's the organ, but it also uses (Anat) for cordón to indicate a specific use as the umbillical cord. It also marks the primary sense of cordón (rope, cord) as (cuerdas) "ropes". Does that mean we should use (ropes) rope, cord? No, this is all the result of limited space in a print dictionary. We have the room to write a proper definition. --EncycloPetey 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, of course it doesn't mean that, but that example hardly disproves my point that it's sometimes a useful technique. Using Anatomy tags for both corazón and cordón makes perfect sense to me because when I see that tag I assume we are talking about ‘words for parts of the anatomy’ and not ‘words only used by anatomists’. At any rate, you have to admit there seems to be something instinctive about it, since the three words for heart I mentioned are all in the Anatomy categories on Wiktionary for their respective languages, and possibly I did the French one but I certainly didn't do the other two. Ƿidsiþ 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't say the word shouldn't be in the category, merely that it should be placed there by other means than a context tag. The fact that something is instinctive is not a good reson to do it. Children instinctively eat dirt and pick their noses; that does not mean it should be encouraged. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Hardly a fair comparison. But if you envisage these words being in Category X, I'm even more confused about why you think labelling the definition line with X is so objectionable. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Then you haven't been paying attention to the previous discussion. It's not about the use of a category, but about use of context tags which imply restrictions on usage. Categories do not imply this. Information about usage limitations are what the context tags should be used for; the meaning should be in the definition. Currently, we have the two mixed together in some cases. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I suppose that's what I dispute. To me a context label implies restriction on meaning, not restriction on usage. And I have always felt very strongly that foreign words should have translations, not definitions (where possible). Ƿidsiþ 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Lexicographers call these usage labels, meaning the term or sense is restricted to certain usages (which may include contexts, very loosely, but also time periods, mediums, dialects, etc).[1] Context in lexicography more often refers to the immediate text surrounding a word in a quotation or corpus hit.[2]
    Your translation dictionaries use label-like abbreviations for part of the definition. This is something else altogether. A compact translation dictionary gives the traveller a limited vocabulary, and doesn't give specialized words, so it can use label-like abbreviations to fit more translations into a fixed number of print pages.
    A label must represent one thing or another. If we pretend that the reader should “instinctively” know which is which when looking up an unfamiliar word, then they have no fixed meaning whatsoever. Michael Z. 2009-05-25 17:02 z
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lmaltier 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I agree that some rule should be defined (e.g. Paris should not be flagged as a term used in geography), but I disagree with used only by specialists. I would write something like technical terms used by specialists (some technical terms are very common, they are technical terms nonetheless). Anyway, the limit would be so subjective that this rule would not be very useful. But a proper definition is required in any case. Lmaltier 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    But this is usage. If it's very common, then it isn't limited to use by specialists, so it shouldn't be labelled. (By what definition of technical term can you say “they are technical terms nonetheless” when they aren't used technically?) In many cases a word means a different thing technically, so a full entry would have separate senses: DNA 1. A substance which determines the plan of an organism, and is used to identify people 2. (genetics) deoxyribonucleic acid. Michael Z. 2009-05-25 17:02 z
    Technical terms have a well-defined, very precise meaning. But technical terms may also be used by non-specialists (e.g. glacier is a technical term in geography, and it's also used by non-specialists. Or not? There is no precise limit for terms used only by specialists, but which terms have a technical meaning used by specialists is clear. Lmaltier 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree 100 percent. Technical meaning is usually prescribed by textbooks and used within a restricted context. For these reasons it is given a usage label. Non-technical meaning is determined from examination of a term's usage and has a different definition. This is defined in a separate sense, and there is no reason to label it as technical. So why oppose? Michael Z. 2009-05-25 17:32 z
    I oppose to the only by specialists. Many technical terms are used within a restricted context, and may have a less precise or different general use. But tooth is a technical term with a well-defined precise meaning in anatomy, this sense is used only in a restricted context (the body), and this technical sense is not used only by specialists. Lmaltier 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    “The body” is not a lexicographical context. The encyclopedic categories are richly elaborated in Wikipedia, and the ones relevant to teeth have been defined as w:c:human anatomy > w:c:head and neck, and w:c:animal anatomy.
    Having a well-defined, precise meaning does not make a word a technical term. Tooth in the general sense is not a technical term, and it is correctly not labelled as such.
    Subject labels[3] in dictionaries are applied to words or senses whose usage is restricted to technical use within that subject, or at least which are associated with a technical subject (viz. label). You are proposing a non-standard use of usage labels to indicate something else. Michael Z. 2009-05-25 20:02 z
    It doesn't really address your objection, but I'm thinking this should probably say primarily, not only. DAVilla 02:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose Dan Polansky 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I find the use of context labels to tag a category useful for quickly spotting the line with the sought definition. For instance, if I want to know what "act" means in law, I look for (law) at the beginning, without the need to scan the complete definitions; this is especially useful when there are many definitions. Thus, for act, I would format two of the several senses as follows:
    • (law) A product of a legislative body, a statute.
    • (theater) A division of a theatrical performance.
    which is currently not done. If I understand correctly, the proposed change would eliminate the possibility of having those tags (or "labels") in place. --Dan Polansky 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    So in your opinion, should we abandon the dictionary practice of labelling to indicate restricted usage altogether, in favour of your scheme to make it easier to skim an entry with several senses? Or should we mix the two up to take advantage of both? Michael Z. 2009-05-28 05:34 z
    I have a problem with the impact of the proposed change on the use topical context labels, not on the likes of "informal", "colloquial", "vulgar", and "British". Within the scope of topical context labels, either of the options that you have mentioned is okay with me, but I see that the latter option could be generally preferable: I admit that certain information is lost by the failure to distinguish restricted usage from usage understood by broad audience. --Dan Polansky 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with the second option is that as it has been loosely applied by some editors, it renders the identification of specialized or technical language completely impossible. Applying a label which may or may not represent restricted usage is worse than useless: it is likely to mislead a significant proportion of readers, no matter which way it is being applied. It would actually require us to remove distinctions between technical and non-technical senses, such as between the first two senses of arm. Heck, it muddies the meaning of all other usage labels, because there is no hard line between topical and other ones (for example, historical indicates something about both datedness and former vs. current usage of a word; military slang, internet slang, etc, indicate both subject and usage restriction).
    The only solution is to clarify the use of (both topical and other) usage labels as indicating usage only, and to consider introducing a second kind of visually distinctive label for indicating simple subject categorization. (But honestly, I can't envision the latter as being good for anything but cluttering up the busiest entries and making them harder to read—readers who have difficulty in dealing with the minority of entries that have a large number of senses may refer to simple.wiktionary.org.) Michael Z. 2009-05-29 00:03 z
    After having slept on it, I am taking my vote back. While I would like to see having category tags for easy skimming at the beginning of definitions, they could be applied to almost any single noun sense: "dog" could be tagged for zoology and "man" for anthropology. That is obviously neither a Wiktionary practice nor a practice in any other dictionary that I have seen. And it is unclear how to visually distinguish pure category tags from restricted usage tags. In any case, category tags for easy skimming would be a Wiktionary innovation, one that can be implemented later if there is demand. --Dan Polansky 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Reading the objections, I'm even more convinced that we need this in ELE, since context/usage restrictions are a rather important stipulation. This guarantees that we all mean the same thing when we talk about the use of these context labels. (And by the way, this is nothing new, although the discussions of it have been somewhat scattered.) DAVilla 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no clear idea of the impact of the proposed change on Wiktionary entries. Like, would the use of the template {{clothing}} be drastically reduced? If so, what other context templates are probably affected? Is {{anatomy}} to be removed from Achilles heel? What are some seven removals of context labels from entries that this proposed change is expected to bring about? --Dan Polansky 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    That sounds about right. We have the subject label {{fashion}} for terminology used in that field (like pant), but I think {{clothing}} is just a fancy replacement for typing [[Category:Clothing]]. {{anatomy}} or {{medicine}} belongs on tendo Achillis, but use of the term Achilles heel is not restricted to any special context I can think of, so placing a context label on it misleads the reader. In my opinion, shortcuts like {{clothing}} and {{birds}} don't represent topics at all, but are used either as abbreviations for definition text, or to apply encyclopedic categories of things as opposed to lexicographical classifications of words, and should probably be orphaned and deleted. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 01:06 z
    We have seen some context templates like {{star}} that would apply a different label, in this case astronomy. For instance {{clothing}} could display as fashion but also categorize as clothing. But it would have to be the case that the term is restricted to use in topics of fashion. Otherwise categorization should be explicit. In the past such templates have been converted or successfully RFDed.
    I'm not knowledgeable enough of the term to know if there's anything wrong with anatomy for Achilles heel. DAVilla 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problem is that if there's a template called “star”, then some enthusiastic novice will add it to every star name he can find. A subject template's name and text must refer to its specialized field. These templates seem so simple and obvious that they must document themselves in this way. Perhaps usage categories should also be self-documenting, like Category:Style:informal, Category:Dialect:US, and Category:Technical:astronomyMichael Z. 2009-05-30 01:47 z [edit: added missed word]
    That's an interesting proposal. If you want to delete Template:star et al. then you could propose that as well, although I wonder if there might be a way to include categorization in the definition line without generating a label, e.g. {{class|star}} {{context|astronomy|lang=und}} or something better. DAVilla 01:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    I see this proposal as the beginning of cleaning up label templates. If and when we decide what labels are, then another milestone is deciding what to do about our encyclopedic categorization. I think it's redundant and inferior to Wikipedia's categories, and we need to better reinforce the cross-linking so the two projects can take advantage of each other's strengths. But I also have no problem with someone maintaining a separate encyclopedic/thematic hierarchy, as long as the distinction can be kept clear — they may have a role to play in the neglected Wikisaurus. Such a separate template idea would be a good component of this. Michael Z. 2009-05-31 02:58 z
  • On formulation: While I now agree with the spirit of the proposal, and am going to leave my vote as supporting, I still see the particular wording as problematic, specifically "...or is used only by specialists in a particular field and not by the general population". Having come today across "gastroenterology" and thiking about more terms from medicine, I realized that I have learned to use some specialist terms found in the protocols of medical examination without being myself a medical specialist. When a non-specialist interfaces with (talks to) a specialist, he often learns the specialist terms. To fix the formulation, it should suffice to replace "only by specialists" with "primarily by specialists", "mainly by specialists" or "above all by specialists". --Dan Polansky 07:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right, “mainly by specialists” would be better. I don't mind at all if a vote to amend the wording is launched immediately. But don't worry too much, this is listed as one example in a list which is not comprehensive, so it's not strictly incorrect: there may well be words which are only used by specialists marked with some label. Michael Z. 2009-06-09 00:21 z

Abstain[edit]

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. To be quite honest, I simply can't see what harm could be done (from a user's perspective) either way. --Duncan 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    From a reader's perspective—it's important to keep in mind that we are writing something, to convey some specific meaning to someone who will read it. If we don't document labels then we are wilfully letting readers believe that a label has a different meaning from what the editor who wrote it intended. You really think there's no harm misleading our readers? I think it's disrespectful of editors' labour and readers' attention. It's shitty, lame, and bush league. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 02:15 z
    Duncan, look at the Galician entry perna (leg), which has two "anatomy" senses. One of these is the everyday "anatomical" meaning, but the other is a technical sense used strictly by anatomists. This same problem occurs in brazo (arm), and in fact applies to the English words arm and leg as well. The everyday meanings of those words are radically different from the anatomical meanings. --EncycloPetey 04:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    (Although by your reasoning, perna then has the wrong translation, since anatomists in English do not call that the ‘shin’ but the ‘leg’. So basically ‘perna’ just means ‘leg’, to everyone.) Ƿidsiþ 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, because the context/uage label should apply to the entry word's sense, not to the choice of wording in the translation. Of course, if you think it would be clearer, we can expand that second definition to "The portion of the lower appendage of a human that extends from the knee to the ankle." --EncycloPetey 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    Come on. If I am translating a Galician anatomy textbook – which, who knows, I may find myself doing someday – and I look up ‘perna’, find the anatomy sense, I'll see that it's translated as ‘shin’. Isn't that how FL entries are supposed to work? After all, we don't translate coño as ‘(vulgar slang) vulva’, instead we find a relevant English equivalent, ie a translation. This is probably tangential to the current discussion, however. Ƿidsiþ 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    So, what did you mean by saying that it "has the wrong translation"? If you agree with the translation, then why quibble over it? --EncycloPetey 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, I expressed myself badly. I disagree with the translation. I do not think there is any real context in which perna is best translated by shin. perna means leg, and the fact that legs have a specific meaning to anatomists both Galician and English does not change the fact that everyone calls it a leg. I would imagine by your usual approach that what you really need is 1. leg (limb), 2. (anatomy) leg (ie from hip to ankle). Which would seem good to me also. Ƿidsiþ 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think that misleading our readers does no harm - quite the contrary; but since this vote started I've been trying to convince myself that adding a non-disambiguating categorizing label actually may mislead the user - and I failed. I simply don't believe that, to stick to anatomy, a reader coming across, say, big toe and seeing it labelled {{anatomy}} will conclude that the term is only used by anatomists rather than being a word in everyday use (and the fact that our entry at anatomy misses the OAD sense of "Anatomical structure or organization, arrangement of the parts of the body of animals or plants." makes no difference to me). In fact it's quite the contrary - the entry at perna the way it's writen now implies to a reader who doesn't know to look up the category's description (don't forget the (many I believe) readers who don't even know about templates and categories and just see an explanatory parenthesised italicised note) the leg of a chair etc, but when applied to humans only the shin part of it, technical or non-technical speech. --Duncan 10:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    And how will these readers learn what the “explanatory” note represents, if it represents different things in different places (or even different things to different people in the same place)? Unless they identify the corresponding category at the bottom of the page, click through, find a description, and read it every single time, they may assume that, as in Category:Sports, all labels are just “related to” a topic (in some undefined degree) and interpret that in the broadest sense. So naturally they will assume that someone just forgot to add hematology, lung, blood, bleeding and cell to Category:Hematology (which lacks a description).
    If we don't determine and document the right way to apply labels, then there is no wrong way (although there are certainly several incompatible ways). Everybody loves a reference work that contradicts itself, needlessly. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 15:15 z
    What are you telling me? I went again to perna, then down to the bottom of the page (something I believe most readers would never care to do after seeing "(anatomy)" before the second sense), clicked my way to the cat's page and found the description "The following is a list of Galician words related to anatomy." How was I enlighten by this? --Duncan 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    You're the one who lamented the reader's failure “to look up the category's description.” My point is that the category descriptions are currently a hodge-podge of conflicting and missing documentation, and that that can't change until we agree and indicate what the labels and categories are supposed to represent.
    If terms and categories were labelled correctly, then you would tell from the entry that perna refers to the leg in common speech, and to just the shin in anatomy (I think medicine may be the more appropriate subject label). If you don't understand the labelling, then you should just be able to click through the label anatomy to the WT:GLOSS entry explaining this. If you want a Galician technical lexicon for anatomy, then you should be able to go to the respective Category:gl:Anatomy. The category's description should also reflect the glossary.
    But unless we agree on something, the labelling in perna may mean something, or it may be a mistake, or it may mean nothing at all. The category is a list of body parts, or a list of anatomical jargon, or, more likely both, which is to say neither, because different editors understand it in different ways. Dictionary failure. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 22:10 z
    Whether I write: {{anatomy|lang=gl}} before a definition or [[Category:gl:Anatomy]] at the bottom of the language's entry, it categorises into the same category, correct? So why should the former be all right when it disambiguates, and wrong when it doesn't? Does a word belong in a category only when it has a sense which doesn't belong there? IMHO we certainly should be agreed upon which category should contain which terms, but I can't see what this vote has to do with that. If blood doesn't belong to Category:Hematology, it should be thus labelled neither before the def nor at the entry bottom, and if thrombocytopenia does belong there, what diference does it make from where the link to the cat leads? --Duncan 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    But the former doesn't “disambiguate”. It is a dictionary label, which indicates restricted usage. This is how the OED uses it, how other dictionaries use it, and how lexicography textbooks describe it. Some dictionaries are more or less disciplined about how they use labels, but none of them use a subject label for “maybe one thing, maybe something else, or sometimes both.” Because we don't have a chief editor, and because we have editors with various independent ideas and levels of dedication and expertise, and because readers want to know what the hell something means when they see it in the dictionary, we have to pick one meaning for it, and document our choice.
    If you want to put something in a category, then put it in the category, with [[Category:X]]. If you want to convey restricted usage, then insert a usage label {{Y}}. Please don't use the lazy Y when you intend X.
    The OED doesn't put the label Anat. on entries like arm, leg, neck. They do put Anat. on neck 5. a. (“A constricted or narrow part at one end of a saccular organ or structure, . . .”) and neck 8. (“a. A narrow or constricted part of a bone . . . b. The slightly constricted junction between the crown and roots of a tooth.”). It briefly and simply explains the function of a label in its online help: “a term, . . . which gives brief information, usually in abbreviated form, on the context in which that term is used.”[4] Michael Z. 2009-05-31 00:06 z
    But even OED labels yeah as colloquial, and doesn't say that it's only colloquial "in a restricted context". According to them it's always colloquial and always means "yes", whatever the context may be, and yet they're not afraid to tell the reader so. --Duncan 00:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    Colloquial is a restricted context. The term yeah is chiefly restricted to the context of colloquial speech, rarely used in the context of formal writing. OED applies Anat. at the top of perineum the same way, indicating that it is a technical term, mainly restricted to that context.
    Here's the full explanation of label in OED's guide, in case you didn't click my link above. Colloquial would fall in with the status or level contexts:

    A label is a term, usually displayed in italics, which gives brief information, usually in abbreviated form, on the context in which that term is used. For instance, a label will give a term's regional origin (e.g. U.S., Australia), the subject area from which it derives (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Music), the status or level of language to which it belongs (e.g. slang, dialect), its grammatical function (e.g. plural, collective) and the type of meaning assigned to a word in a particular context (e.g. figurative, specific).[5]

     Michael Z. 2009-05-31 03:17 z
    I'll have to mull this over "(e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Music)". For the time being I'll just diverge to say that I wasn't as impolite as not to click on the link, but it only got me to a University of Manitoba Libraries page which wanted my (non-existent, needles to say) library ID and PIN, as did the latest. --Duncan 11:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oops, I'm logged in to OED through a proxy. I didn't think you were impolite; I'm sure there are a thousand reasons you may have missed that (like me pasting a proxy link to OED, for instance). Updated the link.[6]
    Yeah, if we approve this then I plan to clean up the labels themselves, starting with usage but eventually getting to the subject labels. Some may get deleted or reclassified. It may be appropriate to remove some labels and replace them with category links. Michael Z. 2009-05-31 19:22 z

Decision[edit]

Passes 7 for, 2 against I shall add to WT:ELE --Jackofclubs 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)