Karađorđević dynasty is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Was Karadjordje chosen the leader on February 2nd or 14th in 1804 ? The page on First Serbian Uprising says it's February 14th. The page on Karadjordje says February 2nd. Can someone confirm the date, please ? -- PFHLai 17:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
probably both. The Julian and the Gregorian calendars differed by 12 days in 1804. Septentrionalis 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia official policy, one should title articles in Englsih transliteration, avoiding special characters. Not being Yugoslavian (nor a student of the area) I have no idea how to pronounce or reproduce the character 'đ'. I personally tend to write Japanese history articles, in which we always title articles without using 'ō' or 'ū'.. see for example Tokyo and Kyoto.
The character đ is a small Latin letter d with some junk on it (a bar). You don't get a much better idea of the pronunciation of the word with "d", "dj", or anything else really. --Joy [shallot] 00:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
And to answer the point about "use English" - none of the transliterations are actually "English", so the whole point is moot. --Joy [shallot] 01:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Karageorgevich seems to be the English form of the House name. Charles 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I support the move to Karađorđević. There's no reason to use the diacritical mark on the 'c' but omit it on the d's, especially since it gives a very misleading idea about the pronunciation. Haukur 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral on move to Karađorđević - instead use English for English Wikipedia and move to Karageorgevich. As far as the diacritical mark on the 'c' but omitted it on the d's, this seems to be the practice with South Slav toponyms in many English sources (but I'm not sure why unless there were formerly typesetting issues). AjaxSmack 07:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I get 14.900 English language Google hits for "Karađorđević" but only 712 for "Karageorgevich". Haukur 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll try Google Books too. It's pretty bad with diacritics, presumably due to scanning issues, but at least we can compare the diacriticless forms.
345 pages on Karadjordjevic
291 pages on Karageorgevich
68 pages on Karadordevic
Other forms I tried were very uncommon. Haukur 08:07, 31 May 2000 (UTC)
Google hits are not necessarily a good determiner of encyclopedic usage. Compare "fart" and flatulence."
The current title is unacceptable one way or another; ć is as English as much as đ is. It should either be fully spelled right (Karađorđević) or fully "transliterated" to diacritic-free version, but there's not established transliteration. I'm gonna put this to WP:RM. Duja 11:35, 31 May 2000 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
House of Karadjordjević → House of Karađorđević … Rationale: The current title is unacceptable. It should be either spelled correctly, with full set of diacritics, or transliterated into diacritic-free version. All the Serbia-related articles follow the first practice, and there's no established "diacritic-free" transliteration. Please share your opinion atTalk:House of Karadjordjević. Duja 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Support as per my comments above. Haukur 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
While not specifically supporting the current name (which has one diacritic), I oppose "Karađorđević" which is not the most common nor the best variant for English use. According to statistics above, the proposed version is not very common in English use. There are much more common one(s), which should be preferred. I understand that this again is one of those namings where nationalist feelings try to overcome English language, but nationalists simply should get over their POV desires. Henq 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you'll have to prove the existence the "much more common one(s)". Besides, among two nationalists above are one Croat and one Icelander. Duja 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If you read comments ABOVE, the Serbian variant got only some dozens of hits in books, whereas both Karadjordjevic and Karageorgevic are more common compared to it, having received some hundreds of hits. Besides, when reading those pages where the Serbian variant is, much of them are Serbo-Croat pages, and in English pages, that variant typically is mentioned as further information where it is, the main appellation being either Karadjordjevic or Karageorgevic. This whole survey is skewed from start, when those two were NOT offered as alternatives - this is now survey only between Karadjordjević (funnily, one diacritical but not all) ad the Serb variant. Henq 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The survey wasn' meant to be skewed. Maybe I should have reformat the survey better to explicitly include two alternatives (I felt that mentioning them in proposal was enough), but you're certainly welcome to offer another alternative. Besides, all the articles in the Category:House of Karađorđević category already have "Karađorđević", so renaming it to something else would imply that we should rename them all, then go to House of Nemanjić and House of Obrenović and repeat the process. I did't want it to be yet another pro-versus-against diacritics dispute, but IMO diacritics have already won, at least this battle. Duja 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. This being the English-language Wikipedia, titles are supposed to be presented in a way that helps the English reader be able to (a) find the article, and (b) understand it. Diacritics should be used if they aid in pronunciation or in distinguishing the topic from another one with similar transliterated spelling. The articles on Tokyo and Kyoto are located at Tokyo and Kyoto and not at 東京 and 京都 because it makes them more recognizable and comprehensible to English readers. As someone who has studied Spanish, Hebrew, and Japanese, and who knows the very basics of a few more languages, I can firmly say that I have no idea what đ is supposed to represent. Even if, as you say, "dj" is not an adequate substitute in order to render proper pronunciation, at least it gives me a hint and doesn't simply leave me out to dry confused and lost. So, again, if the inclusion of the diacritics is meant to render it into English transliteration, then do it, but if it is the actual Serbian spelling, then one should leave it out. Serbian-language article titles have as much place in the English Wikipedia as article titles like 侍, 東京, and 北京. You probably can't read those, and I can't read Karađorđević. (Particularly, as I've just noticed, you put an accent mark on the 'c'. Romance languages only ever put accents on vowels. I have no idea what to do with that.) LordAmeth 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a Wikipedia policy on diacritics. Do we have one? Because, if you remove diacritics from title of this page just because people like you don't know what diacritics are (correct me if I missunredstood your statement), then we should remove those from these also: Nicolae Ceauşescu, Lech Wałęsa, Tomáš Masaryk, Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman and Trần Đức Lương. So, your arguement that "Diacritics should be used if they aid in pronunciation or in distinguishing the topic from another one with similar transliterated spelling." is simply not met in 95% of cases (my estimation for which I'm quite confident is not farfeched). --Dijxtra 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There needs to be a Wikipedia-wide policy on diacritics; and in point of fact, whatever the consensus ends up being, I'd be happy to go along with it. But there does need to be a consensus across those working on all cultures. The Japan Wikiproject recently reached a consensus on our own use of macrons (the little lines over a 'u' or 'o', representing the long vowel sounds 'oo', 'ou' or 'uu'). Perhaps a discussion needs to be begun over at WP:MOS or somewhere else major and central. LordAmeth 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There were several attempts to establish them, but consensus was never reached, the polls always ending up around 50/50 split. And the discussions were pretty heated, also. I wouldn't repeat the arguments here, but it seems that pro-diacritics (especially due to influence of non-native speakers) have effectively "won" behing the curtains, as a majority of articles about non-English topics has them (as far as I can tell). Duja 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I feel a move to House of Karageorgevich is more appropriate. Charles
15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What nationalism? There's simply correct, incorrect, and Anglicised. Currently the title is incorrect. We can list the Anglicised version in the article, but there's no reason for it to be the title.--estavisti 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is some nationalism present if one claims that the Serbian variant is correct in English use. Above we see that voters for Serbian variant are Serbo-Croat ones and one additional voter whose own language seems to be such that their nationalists are pushing diacritical variants. There is certain nationalism present in an editor if does not see that Anglicized version could be the title. Henq 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't attack everyone who disagrees with you as a "nationalist". It won't advance your position in any way, it'll just serve to make people annoyed at you and make them not want to listen to what material arguments you have. Haukur 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please tell us, Haukur, have you elsewhere moved articles from English varianrs to diacritic-including native variants? Henq 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, Henq, do not make personal attacks. Comment on the content, not on the author. As for "serbian" variant, you do not seem to understand that House of Karađorđević is a serbian house, and therefore, promoting the serbian variant is not nationalism but sticking to the name under which the house refered to itself. See Düsseldorf. "ü" is not English. But it's in the title. See? --Dijxtra 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is an English form though, and that is the one that ought to be used. Charles 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You point out Düsseldorf as an example. But I counter with the city listed as Munich, not as München. Where there is a more recognizable, more easily understood English version, even when it is simply the native spelling but without diacritics, perhaps that it what should be used. LordAmeth 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You rightfully point Munich; we don't have Beograd either, but Belgrade. The list of names with established English transliteration is relatively short though. In many many cases, the "transliteration" comes down to "drop the Funny Foreign Squiggles". And if it does come down to that, my feeling is that we ought to do better than that. Duja 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. I would hate to be seen as one who thinks that diacritics are simply "funny foreign squiggles" as you say. I'm not really sure what I think should be done about this; I am just used to languages that are not written in Latin/English letters, and which therefore use diacritics to help aid pronunciation. LordAmeth 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is the variant Karageorgevich which is NOT "simply diacritics dropped" and it is much more common in real english works of reference than the now proposed Serbian variant. Therefore this move shuld not be accepted. Henq 10:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment We have a policy on this issue. It can be found at WP:UE: Follow the usage of English works of general reference. I believe in this case, this would be House of Karageorgevich, but I am prepared to see evidence to the contrary. Should this come up again, please write me sooner. Septentrionalis 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, fully and completely concur. Even thought this may be a Serbian royal house, Serbian usage cannot trump English usage in English. Charles 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Look, speaking for myself, I'm not in the mood of propagating agenda "implant my native spelling into English no matter what". Google book search above gives 345:291 for Karadjordjevic vs. Karageorgevich. I wouldn't dare to pronounce Karageorgevich as "established spelling" based on that. Also, we should take into account technical limitations of typography in the past, (heck, even Wikipedia didn't allow page titles in UTF-8 up to two years ago); how many, even more common, French diacritics can one locate in older books? Here's a Google book search for Thevenin, (and Google book search for Thévenin doesn't even work (!)). Yet we choose to adopt Thévenin's theorem and Léon Charles Thévenin. Maybe we shouldn't have, I don't know; but I concur with the standpoint that Wikipedia should promote the correctness (correct spelling) rather than suppress it in the name of "accessibility for English readers". Duja 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that some letters are appropriate for use in English and others are not. Modified vowels are much more frequent than modified consonants. If there is a form utilising no diacritics in English, then that is the one that ought to be used. If we go as far as to put Braunschweig (with no diacritics) as Brunswick, but should "Karađorđević" be any different? Charles 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying one more Google Books search I get 820 pages on Karageorgevitch, a variant which no-one was even fighting for. Haukur 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting; perhaps it's not as old-fashioned as I thought. Septentrionalis 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I included both forms in my vote, but I think comment was only centred around the -vich form. Charles 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a lie, the Royal House is not dependent on the SPO and the SPO has no right to facilitate their own political agenda like this. The official statement: http://www.royalfamily.org/statements/state-det/state-1438.htm says more then enough. The person who put this link here has no right to speak on behalve of the Royal House nor to damage the reputation by stating something that isn't true. SGS 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Charles, you know very well that the move is controversial, and that your view was not supported in the previous poll. While consensus can change, you're kindly invited to discuss the matter before making controversial steps and/or fill the full requested move. Duja► 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Use English does not mean that anglicized version should be used whenever possible, but the most common name. Karageorgevich has apparently fallen out of fashion.
Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place that should be used to perform potentially controversial moves, and this one is clearly marked as such.
And you apparently know everything above, having done similar things in the past. Duja► 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be less controversial to move Karađorđević to Karadjordjevic (or even Karadjordjevich)? I'm a bit hesitant of leaving accented letters in the article title. This is the English Wikipedia, after all, and having it rendered into English alphabet surely wouldn't be contested? DEVS EX MACINApray 05:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps; personally, I would be against it, as Karadjordjevic is just a "poor man's transliteration" of the original and cannonical spelling; there are redirects all over the place which help the searching. We have tons of articles containing diacritic-letter titles, and the general tendency on the WP. is to stick to the original spelling for personal names where the original language uses Latin alphabet. My main objection is the utter lack of attempt to communicate from Charles's side. Duja► 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this is about the HOUSE OF, and NOT about the rulers and some non-ruling members of the same house, why is the author, artist and son of Karadjordje's oldest son Aleksa, Prince Bojidar Karageorgevitch not included in this article as a member of the family?
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to moveMike Cline (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
House of Karađorđević → House of Karageorgevich – Looking at Google Books modern English language sources (1980-2012) this article needs to be moved to an English form of the name. Karađorđević is simply the least used form in English coming well after Karageorgevich/vitch and Karadjordjevic. I have put Karageorgevich as the destination as combined Karageorgevitch/vich have the most hits but I am open to Karadjordjevic as it is very common also. Google Book eesults are below:
This is a faulty way of meauring google results; the same technique will get 489 hits for Yugoslavia. All you are measuring is how many hits Google has chosen to store into memory; no matter how common the search phrase, you will never get more than 500. Nevertheless support Karageorgevich or Karadjordjevic as the now common forms.relisted-- JCScaliger (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: That is the proper spelling of this Serbian/Yugoslavian imperial dynasty. ApprenticeFanwork 02:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for that? JCScaliger (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I second this. And also we use the WP:Commonname for article titles, not official names or anything else. I doubt there is even a "proper spelling" and Karađorđević is not even used by the family themselves. - dwc lr (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Karageorgevich is just a phonetic spelling of Karađorđević. - Darwinek (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Bearing in mind policy (WP:Commonname) what reason or argument can you give to justify Karađorđević, the most obscure and least common form? Would you prefer Karadjordjevic which I am happy to use. - dwc lr (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
SupportKarageorgevich per the nominator's reasoning and WP:UE. Oppose Karadjordjevic which is a typographical shortcut of the current title for those sources not able to handle diacritics (i.e., not Wikipedia). — AjaxSmack 02:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The letter "đ" is at the heart of this misunderstanding. Depending on the source, especially on the date of its publication, the letter "đ" is spelled "d" or "dj". The hits for "Karađorđević" and "Karadordevic" need to be combined to get a proper reading. The sources using "Karadordevic" are obviously using the form in the current title but are simply unable to use the special letters of the Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet. "Karadjordjevic" should also probably be combined with them. "Karageorgevich" is an archaic form of the name. It is interesting to note that "Karageorgevich" is exactly how one is supposed to pronounce "Karađorđević" :). -- Director(talk) 17:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok you folks are confused as to what the "English" form is. A term isn't "non-English" simply because it uses letters you aren't familiar with. This is determined through usage in English-language sources, and WP:COMMONNAME comes out in favor of "Karađorđević". On what basis do you claim that "Karađorđević" is Serbo-Croatian and "Karageorgevich" is, by contrast, somehow English. -- Director(talk) 01:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If a native speaker of English can't read the word without having learned some Serbo-Croatian, then it's fair to say that the word is "not English". Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Um... no. Whether something is an English language term is not determined by a native speaker's ability to pronounce it correctly. Certainly not here on Wiki. First of all there is a difference between language and script. If you're learning how to correctly pronounce the Latin letter "đ" (which sounds like "g" in "george"), you're not learning anything about the Serbo-Croatian language. Second of all, it is English sources and their usage of a term that are relevant. -- Director(talk) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In English sources Karađorđević/Karadordevic is the least common name that is evident. As we have to choose the most common name, per Wikipedia policy, I am not quite sure how the current name can be justified. Not even the Karageorgevich family themselves use the spelling that we currently have on Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not think it is evident. As I said, the way the Google test above was conducted is quite faulty in more than one way. The form "Karađorđević" can be spelled "Karadordevic" or "Karadjordjevic" depending on the source's ability to represent the letter "đ" (this mostly depends on the time period the source is from). "Karađorđević" and its variants have 637 hits, "Karageorgevich" and its variants have 475 hits. -- Director(talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen someone claim two distinct versions as one before, differences (George, Dorde, Djordje etc) are important in determining what the common name is. In English the version Karadordevic is uncommon, with the version with diacritics the most obscure and uncommon. The only real options are Karageorgevich/vitch and Karadjordjevic. Would you support Karadjordjevic? - dwc lr (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am rather amazing and unique aren't I? :) You can't seriously be arguing that "Karadordevic" is a separate name than "Karađorđević"? Ours is not to blindly follow commonname but to determine which name a source supports. There are two distinct versions of this family's name, not fifteen. There is the Yugoslav form, Karađorđević, and the anglicized form, "Karageorgevich". The fact that the letter "đ" is spelled in three distinct ways in no way constitutes three separate family names, the hits for the three simply must be combined for an accurate Google test reading. -- Director(talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No I gladly accept the combined results for Karadordevic, but that is still not the common name. As I have said in the rationale I am happy for Karageorgevich or Karadjordjevic which are of similar prominence. Would you support or oppose Karadjordjevic which is a common English form? - dwc lr (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: I would consider it preferable to the less common, anglicized version. I would however, oppose a move to that title on grounds that it is the older, erroneous spelling of "Karađorđević". Its basically the pre-computer-age version, when people just did not particularly care whether they include Yugoslav characters. -- Director(talk) 20:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well not many people (outside the old Yugoslavia probably) seem to care about the characters or an "erroneous spelling" even today, not the family themselves (who use Karageorgevitch or Karadjordjevic) or the sources who on the whole do not bother to use them. And by the way the Google book results are from sources published from 1980 onwards, so the modern English common name is Karageorge of Karadjordje. - dwc lr (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No no, I don't think that's right. The name of the family comes from Karađorđe Petrović (often known simply as "Karađorđe"). Incidentally, I think "Kara" means "black" in Turkish, so that guy is Blackgeorge Petrovich :). The diminutive suffix "ić" (pronounced, and sometimes spelled "ich") is a common feature in Slavic names and indicates succession. "Karađorđević" means something like "successors of Karađorđe". I doubt that the family changed their surname to the first name used by their founder. -- Director(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep -- That is how I read the name. I thinki out convention is that article names should have theri correct diacriticals, but that there should be redirects form likely search terms without them, as accented characters are not readily accessible from the usual keyboard, designed for English-language use. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not the convention, for obvious reasons. If the diacritical titles are not readily accessible from the usual keyboard, then why should Wikipedia make itself difficult to use? Shrigley (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The spirit of the convention is not to misspell people's names for no good reason. And besides, that sounds like a non sequitur. How exactly would Wikipedia make itself difficult to use by using diacritical titles? -- Director(talk) 21:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose move Natural romanised name should be retained in the interests of encyclopaedic accuracy. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 08:12, 31 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move Clearly this form is more commonly used. Cúchullaint/c 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I oppose if this article is supposed to be about the entire royal house and not about a dynasty. Prince Paul and his children, for example, belong to the royal house but do not belong to the dynasty (a dynasty being defined as a sequence of monarchs). Moving the article would make Paul and his descendants out of its scope. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It will still be about the same royal house, that calls itself dynasty.--Zoupan 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A dynasty is not the same thing as a royal house. This article is about a royal house and not about a dynasty. Could you please tell me where exactly the site refers to the dynasty? Of course, the Karađorđević dynasty did exist, but this article includes not only kings, but their family as well. I tried searching the website, but when I came across the misspelling "descendent", I gave up. In fact, this (and other things) made me wonder if the site is a reliable source for this matter anyway. Besides, If Lady Gaga decides to call herself a lizard, it won't make her a lizard. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see the article moved to either House of Karadjordjevic or Karageorgevitch as the spelling we have now is rare in English and the family does not even use it themselves per the link given by Zoupan. - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The English one does use Karadjordjevic/Karageorgevitch, however, "Karadjordjevic" is a diacritic-free version that translates faulty as "Kah-rah-d-yor-d-yev-its" (Zoupan scientifics, haha), not correct spelling "Karađorđević" ([karadʑɔ̌ːrdʑɛʋitɕ], in unicode Serbo-Croatian), as per Romanization of Serbian. What about Árpád, Glücksburg etc? "House of Karageorgevich" has 270 GB res, "House of Karageorgevitch" has 454, "House of Karadjordjevic" has 519, not topping the -dynasty. Regular Google search has "Karadjordjevic" (About 209,000 results), "Karađorđević" (326,000 results).--Zoupan 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Question: What is the practice for other royal houses articles? Is there any MOS for royalty in wikipedia? I mean, should we move everything from House of XXx to XXx dynasty? --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are no established rules. Another definition of dynasty is "A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state", not specifying that only the reigning figures could be of the dynasty. Example of another article of a non-reigning family is Bagrationi dynasty. The choice between dynasty and house should depend on the sources. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.