Talk:Swedish heraldry/Archive 1

Private Heraldry

suitable themes could be: "Royal statute against noble shield and open helmet", first burgher arms, coats of arms of members of the Seraphim Order, the last ennoblement, etc. (Terot 00:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Done! I went with Noble arms and Burgher arms. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish Way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terot (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This image could be filled with correct Swedish terms and put into this article (Terot 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Done! Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Example
English name	Parted per fess	Parted per pale	Parted per bend sinister	Parted quarterly	Parted quarterly with a heart
Swedish name	?	?	?	?	?

Tincture	Heraldic name	Swedish name
Metals
Gold/Yellow	Or	?
Silver/White	Argent	?
Colours
Blue	Azure	?
Red	Gules	?
Black	Sable	?
Green	Vert	?

(Terot 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Swedish heraldry doesn't use French terms -- it uses Swedish words. Gold is "guld", silver is "silver", blue is "blå" etc. Further examples can be seen at sv:Wikipedia:Projekt_Heraldik#Terminologi.

Fred-J 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for a good start! Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Review request - July 2008
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per this request I've read through the article. Below are some suggestions for improvement. The lead should summarise the article; as it stands the information in the first paragraph does not appear elsewhere in the article. The same is true of a few facts later in the lead. - Good suggestion. I'll work on that. It would be nice to have some more information about the earlier Swedish heralds; we have two medieval heralds in the picture at the top, but we are only told about the current national herald. - I didn't want to get too far off the main topic in this direction, for notability concerns. I can certainly do some more research in this area though. With your Volborth reference it seems a bit strange to have four non-contiguous page references. I would suggest separate references using the relevant page number each time (unless of course all eight citations take information from all four pages) - Done. Language=English is assumed as the default in citation templates, and can be omitted. - Done. The third paragraph of the lead appears a little contractictory; the first sentence mentions that individuals arms are protected by Swedish law, but the last sentence says that private heraldry is less strictly controlled. - Done. I hope I was able to clarify this point in the lead. Wikipedia, including non-English Wikipedias, is not considered a reliable source. If those articles which you cite give references, the references should be used directly, otherwise another reliable source needs to be found. - I know. I don't like cross-referencing from Swedish WP without having reliable sources to turn to, but the thought at the time was, at least I have an indication of where I got the information from, and then I can have a little time to find a reliable source to replace those WP references. I'll work on it over the next few weeks. I'm not sure what the guidelines are on inline interwiki links, e.g. sv:Statsheraldiker. The language prefix would not necessarily have any meaning for the casual wikipedia reader. - Done. I just de-wikified it. If anybody is interested in reading the Swedish WP article, they will look it up anyway. It sounds a little odd to me to say that the National Herald is appointed by the National Archives (which makes me think of a building). Is s/he appointed by the Board of the Archives, or similar? - He/she is appointed by a bureaucratic board called "Heraldiska nämnden" (the Heraldic Board) of the National Archives. What was used as the national coat of arms before 1943? - I added some more information on this point. The first paragraph of State heraldry sounded a bit awkward to me, so I changed it. Feel free to correct it if I've changed the meaning. - Done. The description of the greater coat seems halfway between a full (English) blazon and a description in layman's terms. One or the other would be preferable. The description occurs in quotation marks, but is the English text actually a direct quote? (The reference is to a Swedish source) Words like sinisterbendwise and tasseladorned are not good English. Also the description refers to the shield being surrounded by the collar of the Order of the Seraphim, but this is not shown in the picture. - Done. I tried to bring it into conformity with standard Frenglish Blazon without straying too far from the original Swedish text (which is available on both of the cited web pages), which reads very much like a description in layman's terms with few heraldic terms. I chose to move it toward standard Blazon for clarity and accuracy, as opposed to a layman's translation which gets tricky in places. I realize that words like "sinisterbendwise" and "tasseladorned" are not good English, but they are good Blazon. Also, the picture does depart somewhat from the description because the picture is one of many legally recognized possibilities, while the description is based on the blazon written into law in 1982. I added a bit of text that I hope will help clarify this apparent discrepancy. I don't think having images of both the lesser arms, and the police version is necessary; it also squashes the text up, so I removed one. Again, change it back if it is necessary to illustrate a point. - Good call. I hesitated to do so myself, only because it seemed odd to not include the lesser CoA per se, and I definitely wanted the Polisen CoA since it's specifically mentioned. The paragraph dealing with the use of the three crowns needs clarifying/tidying up. It gives three dates for what appear to be the same thing, i.e. Albrecht or earlier, Magnus Eriksson in 1330s, and the 14th century. - The history of the three crowns is tricky to sum up. There has been a lot of controversy about that, and some of it involves states outside of Sweden (e.g. Kalmar Union), and there is controversy among and even within sources about the origins of the symbol, and when exactly did it become a symbol of Sweden. The description of Queen Silvia's arms would be enhanced by a picture. It might also be worth moving this up to the paragraph which talks about the King authorising variations of the greater coat as personal arms for members of the royal family. - I totally agree. I Wish I had the picture. It's in the Volborth book (in b&w), but I can't scan it and upload it, because I can't check it out from the reference room at the library. Can anyone else scan this? Is there a more precise date for the reform of municipalities than 1960s-1970s? - Unfortunately, no. It was done piecemeal over many years. The sentence Some new municipalities also lacked a historical background or lacked any proper cities within, and therefore created wholly new coats of arms. seems somewhat ungainly and should probably be reworded. (esp. 'proper cities', and 'historical background') - I reworded it a little. Is it clearer now? In the section on former city arms (which if I remember correctly dates from the un-improved version of the article) I would be inclined only to show those arms of heraldic significance (as opposed to the arms of cities of significance), to avoid becoming too list-y. - Maybe, I don't know how best to avoid a "my city is more notable than any of these" contest. That's why I just flagged it for discussion. Please compare this revision to the following revision. Feel free to revert if my cuts were too severe. Also, I want to try to add an image of the complete arms of Landskrona. The date for Kalmar's arms should be given in this section (it's mentioned in the lead). Also what do you mean by Kalmar (and other cities) established city arms? Were they granted them, or did they just adopt them? Also the use of established in the lead of the article should be changed, since it makes it look like the city of Klmar was established in 1247. - That, too, is tricky. Most of the very old city arms were established in the form of a seal long before they were ever made into a CoA. The best I can tell, many of them simply assumed a seal on their own, in the Middle Ages, and then were granted a coat of arms (typically based upon that seal) much later on. It seems that many of these city arms, although they were centuries old, were not "officially" recognized by the national government until the 1950s-1970s. The two examples of Other municipal arms need citations. - Thanks. I'll do that tonight. Done. Under Ecclesiastical heraldry, perhaps a sentence or two about where one might see the arms of churches etc used, if anywhere (e.g displayed in the church?) Also what about the arms of priests and other clergy; do they have any distinguishing features? A photo of the flag if it exists might be a nice touch. - Good thoughts. I'll look into it. Were noble arms protected prior to 1970? Is it the same law of 1970 which protects royal, municipal and noble arms? If so the first sentence of Noble arms could be tightened up. - Done. An illustration of Swedish noble arms showing the two helms and coronets etc would be nice - Sure would. I'll see if I can find something to include there. Why is it significant for burgher arms to be published? - Because they are not registered with the PRV, this is how burgher arms are recognized. I should probably explain that better in the article. Done. If few burgher arms were inherited, but 3000 are known today, how does the number of noble arms compare? Or is the 3000 due to lots of people assuming burger arms today? - That's the sense I got from the source. I'm assuming that the number of noble arms still remains quite small, and the implication certainly was that a significant portion of burgher arms in Scandinavia are modern arms. I would remove the entire samples section, and instead use one or two images within each relevant section Samples of military heraldry are given, but this is not mentioned in the text. - If we go with the above section, maybe we should bump those up to the "State heraldry" section. The section Terminology (which could perhaps be called blazon) needs some text. What do these tables show? Are the Swedish terms specialised jargon like in English, or are they just everyday words? - Done. Feel free to add/change or give further notes on this section. Hope these comments are useful. Dr pda (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you so much for your thorough, detailed review and your copyedit. I see a lot of great suggestions here, and I have left some initial notes (indented) above. I will go through point by point as I get time to do so. Thanks again for the help! Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Adding some more notes, since I've done some more work. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC) My new to-do list: Work on "Characteristics" section - expand and add references Work on "Terminology" section - expand and add references Replace Swedish WP crossreferencing with reliable sources Only two remain - both in the "Ecclesiastical heraldry" section Queen Silvia's arms - image? Expand "Ecclesiastical heraldry" section "Samples" section - gallery subpage? I'm thinking about restoring the other city arms to the list. Any thoughts on any specific arms/cities in that list? Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

City arms

Again, I'm still thinking of adding back in some of the old city arms I had removed, and I think dual columns helps the layout. Please see my proposed changes here and leave comments on this page. I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this, so all comments are welcome! I would also like to get some help with the Ecclesiastical heraldry section, so if anyone can help, please, help. Thanks! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the proposed page be included in it's entirety in the article? That section might then become to long. On the other hand "Samples of municipal arms of Sweden" might then be removed. Like dual columns though, but some additional white space (or horizontal lines) between CoAs might improve readability. Two text related comments: Unless I'm misremembering only the municipalities which were one of the 133 historic cities are allowed to were the mural crown (although many don't), currently the text suggests that any municipality might opt to use it. Might be worth pointing out that the last municipality to get/pick a CoA was Härryda Municipality in 2007 [1], mainly because it's only recently that all of them have CoAs.

As for Ecclesiastical heraldry I know that at least the bishop of each diocese carries a CoA (e.g. [2], [3], [4]), and that some parishes also have them (commons:Category:Coats of arms of parishes of Sweden) but far from all do.

For noble arms and Burgher arms there are some images on commons:Category:Coats of arms of families of Sweden. /Lokal_Profil 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my proposal is to replace the existing Municipal heraldry section with this one, which simply features some added city arms, some text edits (and your image updates), and twin columns. I think the columns helps the layout, but I wanted to get some feedback on that. More importantly, how long is too long? I think it should be balanced within the article. The Ecclesiastical heraldry section is sadly neglected and is too scant among the other sections—especially following after this rather large section. I will amend that bit about the mural crown, but I don't have a citable source. Can you help me find one? Thanks for the tidbit about Härryda Municipality. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking things up it seems as though I was wrong about the mural crown. The use of it is not regulated since it's not part of the blazon registered with PRV. So any municipality could use it although it's unlikely that any municipality except for those based on the old cities would use them. Some organisations such as [5] seem to use them though. Also File:Murkrona.svg seems to be the shape mural crowns are normally drawn in in Sweden (all this according to Sv:murkrona). Whilst on the theme of crowns I've uploaded a set of the heraldic crowns used to commons:Heraldic crowns of Sweden, the top set should be the most relevant. This might be relevant in the Noble arms section. /Lokal_Profil 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up on the mural crown. I've been looking into it too, and if I understand this page (Vilka kan använda kommunvapnet? section) correctly, only the municipality may use the mural crown over its arms while individuals may use the arms without the mural crown. It also seems to suggest that any municipality may use the mural crown. Or have I misunderstood? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Statensarkivet, there is no law prohibiting any municipality from using the mural crown, but it is strictly customary for only former cities to use it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold and implement the proposed changes if there aren't any objections. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Officers of Arms

With regards to the "Officers of Arms" section.
The coats of arms displayed there are those of "Svenska Vapenkollegiet" which is a part of the Swedish Heraldry Society. Unless I'm mistaken they register only Burgher arms and as such have nothing to do with what's being discussed in the "Officers of Arms" section. The illustration would however work in the "Burgher arms" section. A better illustration for the "Officers of Arms" section would be The CoA of the National Archives. /Lokal_Profil 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered what exactly was their relationship. I'll fix it. Thanks. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I sufficiently clarified their role in the registration of arms. [6] Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First GA review

First GA review - Nomination withdrawn 3 March, 2009
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Swedish heraldry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC) GA review (see here for criteria) It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS): Is it really necessary to have so many examples of municipal arms displayed in the gallery at the bottom, especially after all of the examples given of city arms in the Municipal heraldry section? The county arms samples could also use a trim. Why not try to get it down to just one row (4 images) for each type of arm (not the Crowns and helmets gallery, but the other 4 sample galleries)? I've removed some from the samples section at the bottom. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I've also cut down the municipalities, but comments request a dicussion before removal (see below). I will follow up after a couple of days. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): References to other Wikipedia articles (even in other languages) are NOT reliable. I counted at least five instances of information being referenced to articles in the Swedish WP, which need to be replaced. Hanging my head in shame. I thought I had replaced all but two of them by now. I'll go back over them ASAP (in a few weeks). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) References in English should not be marked as such. I have corrected this, although #32 is in both, so I have left it for now.- Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Please combine identical refs, such as 1 & 6 and 53 & 54. I have done one other that I saw as an example. I have done this with all I can find, including the above. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) What makes Ref #33 (Arboga) a reliable ref? I didn't realize that site was considered unreliable. It was the only place I found any particular mention of the *A* that used to appear above the eagle until the A disappeared and the stars were moved onto to eagle. If necessary, I suppose we can strike the comment, but it certainly is an interesting point on the development of the arms. I'll see if I can find a better source, but it will take me a while. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) It's now ref #31, if that makes a difference. If you cannot tell me that the publisher is a reliable one for this type of information, it would probably be better to replace it. At the moment, from the index here it looks to be just an amalgamation site with a ton of different things and no real reliability in the information they provide. What makes Refs #57 and 60 ("The Noble Grip Family") reliable? It appears to be a website self-published by an amateur genealogist. This is admittedly a less-than-ideal source, but I didn't think the threshold of reliability would be very high for supporting the statement that the arms of Bo Jonsson Grip were adopted by Södermanland. Perhaps it is unnecessary to provide an inline citation for this statement, as little research is required to suggest its veracity. Surely a better reference can be found for this if needed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) If this is a very non-controversial fact, it's probably fine to leave for now. It would be best to replace it, though, if you have another, better, ref that provides the same information. I have added a fact tag in one spot where I would like to see a reference. I thought I remembered seeing this in Fox-Davies, but I can't find it right now. My other books are already on their way to Japan, so I can't provide a reference now, but I will when I can. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): Any comments? With only a neutral vote and no commentary, I'm not sure how to improve it or if I should. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I just hadn't gotten to this section yet, as this will be reviewed at the same time that I review the prose. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Any comments? Is there anything that is suspected of being non-neutral? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Same as above. It is stable. No edit wars etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: Due to the referencing and layout issues detailed above, I have not completed a full check of the prose. I also notice that the nominator of the article is not the main editor. If the main editor wishes to continue this GA review, please let me know here on the review page. I will complete a full review of the prose when I see work being completed on the issues already listed. Overall this looks like an article with a lot of potential, and I look forward to seeing it at GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review: although I'm not the main contributor, I do know some things about the subject and have also notified him. He is on wikiholiday, have I made a mistake in nominating this at this time? I should be able to make most of the suggested edits because of WP:OWN (not that the main editor is like that) and WP:BOLD. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Just dropping in briefly, but I will be out of touch for a couple more weeks. I just want to say I deeply appreciate all the tips and feedback, and I look forward to what this article will be when we finish making the necessary improvements. While I realize that Swedish WP is not a reliable source, I added some information from Swedish WP when I was still trying to figure out how to make a more complete article, with every intention of replacing each with a reliable source or removing it. I thought I had gotten all of them except in the ecclesiastical heraldry section. I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all of the improvements I see in the current revision (I might make some further suggestions regarding the selection of examples and images included in the article). I will definitely work on eliminating the Swedish WP references ASAP. I also still feel that the ecclesiastical heraldry section is the article's major weak point, but I really can't improve it much without doing a lot more research. I have recently obtained some more heraldry research materials, so I may be able to make some more material improvements once I am finished moving. Thanks again for all your work on this, to all of you who have contributed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) My sincerest apologies for taking so long in replying. I thought I had watchlisted this page, when apparently I hadn't... :( Anyways, the work that is being done so far looks good. However, the Swedish WP references are going to be a major block for GA. Since Wilhelm meis is not going to be able to provide new sources for these for several weeks, it looks like this may not be fixed for a while. Jarry1250, is this something that you can fix? If not, I would suggest that this article be withdrawn from GA consideration until Wilhelm has time to go back through the article and replace these problem sources. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC) OK, well,I'll let User:Wilhelm Meis tell you that. It's not really something I can fix, so if he says he can't. I have to admit I don't know the process for delisting. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I can take care of the withdrawal, as long as that move has the consensus of the editors. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I am unopposed to this withdrawal. I will try to address all the issues raised here and maybe a few more as soon as I get through moving, then maybe we can do it all again next month. Hopefully it will be a better article after all. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (undent)OK, I will complete the withdrawal. This is honestly a very good article - it was probably just not a great idea to nominate it when the main contributor was in the middle of an overseas move *grin* WP:OWN and WP:BOLD notwithstanding, main contributors are normally main contributors for a reason - namely their access to sources... Anyways, I look forward to seeing this article back at GAN when the sources have been tightened up. Wilhelm meis - nice work on the article, good luck with your move, and I hope that both you and your books make it to Japan in good shape. Jarry1250 - nice work to you as well and I hope to see you and the article around GAN in the future. Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Kiruna

The GA review suggests the shortening of the municipal arms section, and I'm in favour of removing Kiruna. It lacks notability as either a place (I suggest that the cities should be known outside Sweden; I know the area fairly well and I don't know there) or as arms. Any comments? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on Kiruna are pretty much as follows. Kiruna is the northernmost (and if I remember correctly, the geographically largest and most sparsely populated) city in Sweden, and is therefor notable as a city. It also claims the territory where the world-famous Ice hotel is built, and is therefor notable outside of Sweden. Perhaps I have a slightly inflated sense of Kiruna's notability, but since I only lived in Sweden six months and I couldn't name any other places in the far north of Sweden than Kiruna and Luleå, I doubt it. It is heraldically interesting because it is an example of the relatively rare practice of incorporating alchemical symbols into a heraldic device and, if you believe the introduction of the Kiruna article, it can be considered an example of canting arms in the Sami language. (I wish I had a reliable source for that!) So if there is consensus to remove it, I will abide, but at least I have here stated my rationale for its inclusion. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that example is reflective enough of a general trend within Swedish herladry to be of use (considering the place itself isn't particularly special). Most of the audience want to take in an overview of heraldic styles in Sweden, and I just don't think it has a place. It might be worth mentionin gsomehwere else in the article, like Characteristics. Compared with the use of crowns (Sigtuna), lions (Uppsala) religious symbols (Visby (maybe Gotland in the galleries is therefore unnecessary?), Skara, Växjö), the three largest cities; the only with mantling and helm; the only one with supporters; the use of such a symbol and being the northernmost city do not seem representative, or from the other view, special. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to achieve generally, and I think the Kiruna arms do contribute to this, is to display the variety of Swedish civic heraldry, rather than to try to create a stereotype of Swedish heraldry. The arms of Sweden's cities/municipalities and counties are as widespread and diverse as the localities themselves. I have stated my reasons for including Kiruna's arms above, so I won't repeat them, but I might add that along the timeline that the list represents, this is the only city included that was not founded as a city until modern times. I will only say further that while I personally think it serves the list and the article, I will not block its removal if it is found wanting. Would any other editors care to weigh in and make comments? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am, however, entertaining the idea of removing Växjö from the list and replacing it with Mullsjö, on strictly heraldic grounds - snow crystals are as notable as saints, and how often do you see a chief indented to look like woods (a chief sylvated?). I think this would be a superior specimen to study amongst Swedish municipal arms. I have just one problem. I have not been able to find a single reliable source that discusses this coat at all. Even the municipality's web site makes no mention of the arms that I can find. Can anyone find any reliable information on the Mullsjö arms? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not called sylvated - that's just some silly off-the-cuff concoction I came up with. In fact, there is a name for it. It's officially called tree-top section in English, or kuusikoro in Finnish. [7] In addition to Mullsjö, I would also like to move Krokom up to the list. I think Växjö and Skara can go, Mullsjö and Krokom are more heraldically significant. Mullsjö because it is a good example of whole new arms where there had never been a city, and because it shows the influence of Finnish heraldry on modern Swedish heraldry, and Krokom because it looks like a rune stone (what could be more Swedish), which I have never before seen in heraldry. Pursuant to the request to discuss first and edit the list later, here is my proposal. Any thoughts? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, particularly re: WP:BB. Two slight queries: would Mullsjö go in the 'Other municipality' sction (don't need to reply to that, just do it); secondly, that would leave the gallery with 2 images, which to my mind leaves two options - get rid completely or put the arms that you remove from the main prose into the gallery. Either way, good to go. (You might wish to leave a note on my talk possibly next-time, because I normally miss this page and there aren't many other contribs.) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)