From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I, being Icelandic and having read loads of stuff about draugar, don't agree with most of what is said here. Not all draugar are able to increase their size. I haven't read one draugasaga with a sizealtering draugur. Sorry. 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possible etymology[edit]

According to Eric V. Gordon's Introduction to Old Norse, the word draugr can also mean "log". The Völuspá ("Seer's Prophecy", a poem in the Elder Edda) includes a creation story in which the gods create the first humans from trees; Norse poetry also uses many tree-related kennings for people in general. Comparing a log (a fallen tree) to a corpse (a fallen body) makes sense, given those beliefs and practices; even though some unknown power animates a draugr, it usually remains in the grave like other fallen bodies. ISNorden 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe in that work it implied 'draugr' was a poetic term for a "stump" as in tree stump; a felled object, dead, but still remaining without much deterioration. This was probably simply the common teutonic practice of poetically refering to something as something seperate but of the same properties, in this case a tree stump being called a 'zombie'. Rather than having the actual meaning of "log" or felled tree. Nagelfar 07:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


There is no reason to have two articles on the subject. Consequently Draug should be merged into this article.--Berig 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objects, I will merge Draug into the folklore section of Draugr, today.--Berig 09:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is stated that the "Duergar"(Not deurgar) from the D&D game resembles draugar. How so? Duergar are just a different way of spelling dvergar (dwarfs in norwegian), the pronunciation is the same, they are dwarfs and not draugar. Anyhow, I don't really see any reason for it's inclusion here, right or wrong. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other translations of Hel-blár[edit]

If you check your Icelandic dictionaries, you will find 'blár' can be translated as blue or black. And 'hel' means Hell, not death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Concerning blár: Well, blár may have meant both "blue" and "black", but the use of common sense meant that people did not expect a medieval nobleman like Joar Blå to be bluish in colour. Rather it referred to the fact that he stood out with his unusual black hair. Since people are usually not bluish in colour, the translation "black" looks like the most natural interpretation, even if the draugar were supernatural.--Berig (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerning hel: The name hel was used in referring to death, hence the modern Swedish expression i hjäl which means "to death".--Berig (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite kosher[edit]

"Some draugar are immune to weapons. Only a hero has the strength and courage needed to stand up to so formidable an opponent. In legends the hero would often have to wrestle the draugr back to his grave, thereby defeating him, since weapons would do no good. A good example of this kind of fight is found in Hrómundar saga Gripssonar."
It is never suggested that Þráinn, the draugr in Hrómundr saga Gripssonar is immune to weapons - in fact, Þráinn complains that Hrómundr is not playing fair, and should put his (stolen) sword down. Only when Hrómundr has put down the weapon does the draugr agree to grapple with the hero. Hrómundr doesn't wrestle him back to his grave either - Þráinn is already in his grave. Needs some serious revision. Parallels have often been suggested between Hrómundr saga Gripssonar and Beowulf's battles against the Grendel-kin. This is perhaps where our author is getting the whole sword-immunity thing from. Fellow in the cellarage (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The the description at (to which a link is already provided) provides an extensive and scholarly discussion of draugar. It would be a useful starting place for improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellow in the cellarage (talkcontribs) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that most of the "Traits" section has already been stolen verbatim from that very site. The thief has had the "grace" to convert that site's inline citations into proper wiki format, but not intelligently: he references "Kershaw p.68" several times as does Viking Answer Lady, but without ever actually giving the complete Kershaw citation (which is given in the Viking Answer Lady original). The section needs a rewrite from an expert in the subject. Placing template to that effect. (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Over-zealous [Citation Needed]s[edit]

There are some weird Citation Needed tags in this article. In more than one place the article expresses doubt or uncertainty about a point, and we've got the CN tag in there, effectively asking for proof of information that's not there. The editor in question seems to be asking for every -- for example -- reference to a draugr in which the draugr's eyes are not mentioned, which is patently absurd. I'd suggest removing some of these redundant tags. (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:DraugStory.pdf Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:DraugStory.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Not sure if this is intended as a joke: 'In Norway "vampires" is translated as "Bloodsucker-draugar".'

The Norwegian translation of 'vampire' is 'vampyr'. Since there are a lot of "local" words in Norwegian dialects, I will accept the possibility that "bloodsucker-draugar" (would be 'blodsugerdrauger' in Norwegian) could be a rare term used in some dialects, but it is certainly not a common translation of vampire (this is the first time I have ever heard of it). Maitreya (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Norwegian page, except there the context is given: Ola Raknes gave "blodsuger-draug" as a possible translation of vampire in his Nynorsk dictionary, apparently. A more appropriate wording would be that draug can mean simply "undead" in nynorsk. Riagu (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the name of the page[edit]

I strongly mean that the english name for this seacreature is not "Draugr" and "Draugar". These are merely the old norse names popularized by games like Skyrim, where the creatures don't share any resemblance to the ones from scandinavian folklore. The correct english term should be just like the current scandinavian, "Draug" and plural "Draugs". KnutfAen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this so far i'm just going to assume everybody's ok with it. KnutfAen (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to perform the move, but to preserve the discussion that was previously at the Draug talk page, I'll copy and paste it in the below section. -- Atama 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Had this been advertised anywhere I looked, I would have objected. Old Norse is the academic lingua franca for discussing ancient and medieval Scandinavian matters in English; in academic contexts, neither the modern continental Scandinavian forms (which drop final -r) nor the modern Icelandic (which changes it to -ur) are usually used. The usage in gaming is tangential; as noted above, in this instance they don't even resemble the Old Norse draugar. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I also would have objected to this. The article needs to be moved back. There is no "English name". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Old discussion from Draug talk page[edit]

I`m referring to the existing article of the norvegian creature Draug.

I suggest that the articles of Draug and Draugr be merged, because I think it makes little sense to keep them apart as separate creatures. In fact, the only thing parting them is the letter -r at the end of the word, suggesting a norse nominative case. The Draug without the -r, suggest a norse accusative, so the difference is that big.

Futher on: If the writer had referred solely to the icelandic creature, and not the norse, the form would have been Draugur, as in modern icelandic. That`s linguistics for you.

As older nynorsk literature differs between sea-draugs and land-draugs (Garborg), and the nynorsk stated that draug meant ghost all the way up to the newer lexica and wordbooks, it makes little sense to keep the two articles separated.

Eilev G. Myhren

I agree. Feel free to go ahead with a merge. Haukur 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Draug and Draugr articles should be merged. It is true that there is no difference between the two, aside from being the accusative versus nominative form of the name. LuskeLoke 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Old page history[edit]

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Draug" is now at Talk:Draug/Old history. The text of the corresponding talk page is at the section entitled Old discussion from Draug talk page, and its history can be found in the early edits to this talk page. Graham87 07:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DraugDraugr – The administrator who moved the page from Draugr to Draug based on the above very brief discussion declines to revert the move, and I am accordingly beginning a new discussion. English-language scholarship uses the Old Norse names for almost all elements of Scandinavian mythology and Old Norse literature, rather than either the modern Icelandic names (that usually vary by having final -ur instead of -r) or the modern continental Scandinavian names (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish; these do not have the final -r). Since this article is primarily about the Old Norse draugar (plural form of draugr), it was appropriately located at that spelling rather than at modern Icelandic draugur or modern Norwegian/Danish/Swedish draug when the article on the later continental folklore was merged into it. There is no reason in scholarship to overturn this consensus; the form without final -r is not an anglicization, but a foreign-language form, and while it is appropriate to use it in sections of the article about Norwegian folklore, it is not the common term for the draugar in the sagas, nor the term used in English-language scholarship. The move should therefore be reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as proposer. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; I second that. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per policy. Haukur (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A draug is much more a character of folklore than a beeing in norse mythology. trolls and nøkks are not spelled in their old norse form and neither should draug. On the internett the term draug is far more used, both in general and scholar articles, and is so as well in every day vocabulary, which clearly shows that even if the "expert" opinion is that this word should be written in a foreign form, the term most used is draug. How is adding ar at the end instead of s english? I also notice a lot of you people here are icelandic, and therefore not as familiar with the english naming. A draug is folklore, not mythology, and therefore not written with an r.KnutfAen (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I totally agree. As a scolar of germanic culture i have never heard that expression with the r ending before. Why was this even proposed?!BrianAdam753 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a linguistics expert i can clearly state that ALL english nouns uses the plural "-s" form, Even lingua francas like latin and greek. It appears most people here are basing their conclusion on their own oppinions. I doubt anyone here supporting the proposed namechange are specialized in the area. Sheffieldguy (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got to point out that the above three responses are just patent nonsense. They're probably the work of a single user. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yngvadottir's reasons for sticking with the Old Norse spelling makes sense to me. Also with the advent of Skyrim [1], the draugr form has become the common English form of the name, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support such sensibly laid out reasoning. The alternative page remains a redirect, so no user is getting left behind.--Wetman (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I completely agree with the supporting reasons listed above. Especially when prominently talking about the draugr from the sagas. Also, the oppositional reasons don't really make any sense, to me, and I'd point out my arguents, but this being a survey, I'll keep it terse. Yngvadottir makes a good case.Wordsmythologic (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Much as I respect Brian Adams, I respect some supporters more. As I understand wiki policy in these cases, the original spelling makes better sense. --Svartalf (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Has anyone actually looked for what is prevalent in English literature, per the common name policy? Draug gets far more hits in Google scholar and books, so the argument presented above seems invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Google scholar and books give fewer hits for draug Norse than draugr Norse. Not all results without "Norse" are directly relevant. Further, not all results are in English. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, "draug mythology" has far more hits in scholar than "draugr mythology". FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A better search is "draugr sagas", since draugar occur in the sagas rather than in Eddic poetry or the Prose Edda. I note that some of the Google scholar hits on "draug sagas" are on the possessive "draug's" or on forms indicating what the plural is, like "draug [a] r". Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that before the article was moved to Draug, the editor proposing the move had already changed the usage throughout the article, notably in this edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that i gave you almost a full two weeks to object to this change. The only reason that i edited the text prior to the namechange was that i was unaware of the difficulties that were due to the original page that was now a redirect and that i believe has nothing to do what so ever with this. As you can see a lot of people share my opinion, and as previously stated a lot of you are icelandic and probably just don't want the scandinavian name to be the correct one, even though it is the one most widely used and in general the only correct one.KnutfAen (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Iceland definitely speaks a Scandinavian language, and I would also count it part of Scandinavia, but all speculations about editors' identities apart, the conflict between modern Icelandic and continental Germanic forms is one of the reasons the Old Norse forms are used in English-language scholarship. As to the previous move discussion, you apparently did not realize it would be controversial and thus failed to notify either the relevant wikiprojects or previous editors of the article. Thus no discussion took place, and here we are. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like there may be a sockpuppet in here somewhere. I noticed that Sheffieldguy`s account was created and then he went straight to this page (and for his first edit) immediately voted Oppose. What do you guys think? With all due respect and trying to assume good faith, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The same with BrianAdam753. I've assumed good faith and welcomed them both. It's possible that they previously edited the article as IPs. Off-wiki canvassing is another possibility. Here's the policy for reference; sometimes editors don't realize we frown on anything but neutral notifications (which I hope mine were, and please feel free to similarly notify anyone you feel I left out; I tried to notify anyone who had spoken up above regarding either the merger or the move, and anyone who had made substantial edits to the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To begin with i can clarify that BrianAdam753 and Sheffieldguy are friends of mine that i contacted because of their expertice in this fields. I guess they didn't have a wikipedia account then. I see your point about the conflict between icelandic and scandinavian. and i weren't trying to make a big deal out of that, but i fail to see how it is a conflict when there are about 20 000 000 scandinavians as opposed to roughly 300 000 icelanders. I do however know for a fact that there are a majority of people in the english speaking world using draug instead of draugr. As it was prevously noted old norse is perhaps in some cases the lingua franca of norse mythology. A draug is however more of a folkloric being and that definition is therefore not valid to this word. I certanly believe that most scholary articles about mythology use draugr. Not all, but probably most. And that is okay, but i strongly believe this wikipedia article should focus on the folkloric character.KnutfAen (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am extremely suspicious of this... ...Perhaps I should Get a Checkuser to check the IP they came from. I feel that this Is a definite case of Possible sockpuppetry to get into and maybe launch an SPI investigation on. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit weird to get friends to make accounts just for this. And as for nationality, shouldn't make a difference, I'm of Faroese descent myself, but I still think the English common name is more appropriate on the English Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the combined weight of scholarship on the topic throughout time and its most famous pop culture appearance (Skyrim's draugr) easily dwarf any extension of it, diachronically or synchronically. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering, What is everybody's take on starting a SPI investigation? Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably takes an average of 20 seconds to make an account though, but if anybody wants to check it i don't mind. It's just more work for you then :)KnutfAen (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
KnutfAen, what you're saying you did is inappropriate canvassing. Please read the policy page I linked to. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe i get what you are saying. I'm not saying anything. I'm responding to FunkMonk saying it was weird to make a wikipedia article only because of this. I was saying how they probably did not mind doing so in order to give their oppinion on the matter.KnutfAen (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have launched a SPI for KuntfAen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnutfAen. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They are indeed my friends that i contacted to get their opinion on the matter, but we all used the same computer in order to do so. Since they did not have a wikipedia user they created one then before commenting. Sorry for only pointing this out now, but i was unaware of what an IP adress actually was. KnutfAen (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked both BrianAdam753 and Sheffieldguy as meatpuppets of KnutfAen. Per his own admission that is essentially what they are. I don't believe that this was done out of malice, but out of an unfamiliarity of both WP:SOCK and WP:CANVASS. I have struck their comments above, but have taken no action against KnutfAen for now. I don't want this incident to distract from the discussion about the move itself. -- Atama 19:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
has anyone even red my comment above? How is sockpuppetry when the reason the ip adress was the same was that we all wrote on the same computer? KnutfAen (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
See above, "meatpuppets" were specifically mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not make them do it. I simply notified them of this ongoing discussion because i thought it would be of interrest to them. KnutfAen (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
And that is not allowed. As I said on your user talk page, I'm having more trouble assuming good faith on your part. I've already explained, in detail, how you violated our canvassing policy, and quoted to you exactly where our meatpuppetry policy prohibits exactly what you did. Your response is to just say "all I did was notify them". Your suggestion that you didn't know that they had to create accounts is also more flimsy. My hope was that this discussion could move on, and everyone could just forget your disruption of the discussion and no longer be side-tracked, but you keep sabotaging that. -- Atama 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, removing other editors' comments like this is against policy per WP:TPO. Don't do it again. -- Atama 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for not understanding that simply notifying other people is against wikipedia guidelines. I was trying to explain why i thought it was not the fact in this incident and even asked questions on the definition and why that was canvassing. I feel however that these questions were not answered which left me unaware of the seriousness of the problem. Believing i had explained the misunderstanding leaving me free of any accusations i went ahead and deleted the comment under my friends stating how the above was a case of meatpuppetry. This case was a simple misunderstanding which will not happen again as i now am aware of the different defenitions. Due to the fact that i on this page will probably not be taken seriously again, i will not post any more on this talk page, i do however suggest that the discussion should be continued below, preferiably in a new section, and that this incident should not be further commented. I do want you to keep in mind the arguments that i have made, being generally:

-a draug is folklore, not mythology. The lingua franca of norse mythology should therefore not be used here.

-the scholars may use the r ending, but normally most english people that have heard of it do not use this. This raises an important point on what actually is the english term. The one used by experts or the one used by the majority?

I hope this helped sort things out :)KnutfAen (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to let everyone know that if anyone still needs to comment on the SPI, to do so on the SPI investigation, Right here==> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnutfAen Thanks, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've marked the SPI for closure. I don't think there's any need for further comment on the SPI, it has gone as far as it needs to go since we've even had CheckUser verification of accounts. Unless there are any new accounts created that are suspected to be meat- or sockpuppets of KnutfAen, the case should be closed. (If any do pop up, and I sincerely hope they don't, a new SPI can be filed that will be archived with the old one when closed.) KnutfAen has apologized for their behavior and has withdrawn from this discussion, so I don't think any further action is required until more disruption occurs, which I think is unlikely here. I'd have rather had KnutfAen continue to participate at this discussion, since they were (essentially) the sole dissenting voice thus far in this debate, but participation in this discussion is voluntary and I don't blame them for wanting to put all of this behind them.
At this point, I'd really like for people to focus any further comments on the article and their thoughts on the move. Just a personal appeal so that this discussion can be closed as cleanly as possible without further drama. -- Atama 15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

draugr, dreag, and potential Celtic derivatives thereof[edit]

I removed mention of the supposed Old English dréag ('apparition') and its or Old Norse draugr's apparent spawning of the Irish terms dréag (mentioned in the cited dictionary and the book the cited book review covered as drèag, with a grave rather than an acute) and driug in this edit.

The cited book review of George Henderson's The Norse Influence on Celtic Scotland (1910), written by a W. A. Craigie (who appears to be this fellow), explicitly states (on page 380) that there is no such term dréag in Old English with the meaning of apparition; I myself could not find it in Bosworth–Toller or in the 2007 release of the Dictionary of Old English: A to G from the University of Toronto.1 The book that the book review covers states (on page 106) that the Scottish Gaelic equivalent cannot have come from Old Norse draugr since the ON g would have yielded gh in the Scottish term (therefore *drōgh) and so it, it states, it had to have come from the supposed OE dréag, but the review states that the OE g also would have yielded gh therein.

I failed to note before that Henderson's note had more to do with the Scottish Gaelic terms (seemingly: dreag, driug along with the following forms from the work of someone simply mentioned as "Armstrong", perhaps Robert Archibald Armstrong: dreug, dreige2; all from page 105) than with the aforementioned Irish Gaelic terms, and so I perhaps hastily removed mention of those. Though, I now notice that Henderson mentions the same etymology that was in the article and from the dictionary cited before (on page 106): "M'Bain [sic] gives the variants dreag, drèag, driug, 'from the Ag. S. dréag, apparition, Norse draugr, ghost,'—rightly." I do not know how the g of the supposed OE dréag or the g of ON draugr would appear in Irish Gaelic or how the differing diphthongs would be rendered therein, but if MacBain believes they came from OE term rather than from the ON term directly (possible, I suppose, but I am not exactly sure), then I believe the removal was completely fine.

What do you guys think?


  • 1 I did, however, encounter it in the second edition of A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1916), only with the definitions and with symbols suggesting: that it is only found in poetic texts, that it may occur with ge- prefixed thereto, and that it can occur with long /æ/ instead of long /æɑ/. I do not know if it occurs in the first edition, and there is no indication of where in the Old English corpus it supposedly occurs.
  • 2 They, along with what Henderson deems to be an erroneous etymology thereof (the contraction of a term that means "a druid's death"), appear in A Gaelic Dictionary, in two parts, one of Robert Archibald Armstrong's works


Espreon (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Added a vag Vogt story[edit]

Dreegh not Draugr, but almost certinaly he took the name from Nordic traditions.--GwydionM (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)