text:
Qiblih

In the Baháʼí Faith, the Qiblih (, "direction") is the location to which Baháʼís face when saying their daily obligatory prayers. The Qiblih is fixed at the Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh, near Acre, in present-day Israel; approximately at 32.94361°N, 35.09194°W.

In Bábism the Qiblih was originally identified by the Báb with "the One Whom God will make manifest", a messianic figure predicted by the Báb. Baháʼu'lláh, the Prophet-founder of the Baháʼí Faith claimed to be the figure predicted by the Báb. In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Baháʼu'lláh confirms the Báb's ordinance and further ordains his final resting-place as the Qiblih for his followers. ʻAbdu'l-Bahá describes that spot as the "luminous Shrine", "the place around which circumambulate the Concourse on High". The concept exists in other religions. Jews face Jerusalem, more specifically the site of the former Temple of Jerusalem. Muslims face the Kaaba in Mecca, which they also call the Qibla (another transliteration of Qiblih).

Baháʼís do not worship the Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh or its contents, the Qiblih is simply a focal point for the obligatory prayers. When praying obligatory prayers the members of the Baháʼí Faith face in the direction of the Qiblih. It is a fixed requirement for the recitation of an obligatory prayer, but for other prayers and devotions one may follow what is written in the Qurʼan: "Whichever way ye turn, there is the face of God."

Burial of the dead
"The dead should be buried with their face turned towards the Qiblih. This also is in accordance with what is practiced in Islam. There is also a congregational prayer to be recited. Besides this there is no other ceremony to be performed" (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 6, 1935).

title: Qiblih


text:
Allumwandlung

Allumwandlung (, German for "complete promotion", sometimes abbreviated AUW) is a chess problem theme where, at some stage in the solution, a pawn (or sometimes pawns) is promoted variously to a queen, rook, bishop, and knight. Allumwandlung's main requirement is promotion, either a white pawn or a black pawn. A Babson task may appear if both pawns are spotted in an individual problem, corresponding one another.

Example
The diagram shows a chess problem with Allumwandlung composed by Niels Høeg and first published in 1905. White to move and mate in three. The key move (White's first move) is 1.f7, and depending on how Black defends, White promotes to either a queen, a rook, a bishop or a knight on move two. The lines are:
 * 1... e4 2. f8=Q any 3. Qe7/Qf6#
 * 1... Kd6 2. f8=Q Kc6 3. Qc5#
 * 1... exf4 2. f8=R Kd6 3. Rf6#
 * 1... exd4 2. f8=B Kf6 3. Ra6#
 * 1... Kf6 2. f8=N exd4 3. Rf7#

The importance of White's underpromotions can be understood by considering what happens if White promotes to a queen no matter what Black plays:

 * After 1...exf4 or 1...exd4 2.f8=Q is stalemate, as black no longer has a legal move to play.
 * Following 1...Kf6 2.f8=Q+ Kxg6, the checkmate will take more than three moves to achieve and therefore does not meet the stated conditions of the chess problem.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Allumwandlung


text:
Talk:Gabriel Derzhaven

This article, and a few more I would like to develop, are taken from the 1907 Nutall Encyclopedia, currently being processed at Project Gutenberg's Distributed Proofreading site. In other words, it is from a public domain source. Personally, I hate it when people dump 1911 Britannica articles on Wikipedia. They are incredibly outdated, and the language is, well, antiquated. Nutall, however, is mostly stubbish articles, which are easy to update and fix up, while putting them in Wiki style. They should not be dumped here, however, they can be used as the basis for some stubbish article beginnings that hopefully will develop into full-fledged articles. Also, it is a chance to cover all sorts of topics that have been ignored until now. For now, I am only doing this one. I would like to see if anyone minds before I add a few more. So, whaddya think? Danny

 * Well, this seems like a perfectly good start to me - if the rest are like this, then go ahead and put them up, I say. --Camembert

title: Talk:Gabriel Derzhaven


text:
Coverdale–Page

Coverdale–Page (stylised as Coverdale • Page) is a collaborative studio album by English singer David Coverdale and guitarist Jimmy Page. It was released on 15 March 1993 by EMI in Europe, 16 March by Geffen Records in North America and 18 March by Sony Music Entertainment in Japan. The album's production was handled by Coverdale, Page and Mike Fraser. Following the disbandment of Coverdale's band Whitesnake and a failed reunion attempt by Page's band Led Zeppelin, John Kalodner proposed the idea to Page of the musicians working together. After meeting each other, they began writing songs, which were then recorded over the course of 1991 and 1992.

Critical reception towards Coverdale–Page was generally mixed; some music critics praised Coverdale and Page's partnership as a successful blend of both their respective bands. However, others viewed the collaboration as a second-rate Led Zeppelin, with many drawing unfavourable comparisons between Coverdale and Robert Plant. The album charted in 12 countries, including reaching number four in the UK and number five in the US. It was certified platinum in the US and Canada, respectively. Following a short Japanese tour in December 1993, Coverdale and Page parted ways. A reissue is in the works, while Coverdale and Page have also discussed a potential reunion.

Background
After completing the Liquor & Poker World Tour in September 1990, vocalist David Coverdale decided to put his band Whitesnake on indefinite hold, wanting to take a break from the music industry. Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page, meanwhile, had been working on the Led Zeppelin Remasters, which led to discussion with singer Robert Plant and bassist John Paul Jones about a potential reunion. Though initially interested, Plant decided to back out, feeling that a reunion might "put his solo career at risk". Wanting to work on new music, Page then began looking for a new collaborator. As both he and Coverdale were signed to Geffen Records, A&R executive John Kalodner suggested them working together. The idea was submitted to Coverdale and Page in January 1991. While the two had met many times in passing, they did not know each other well. Still, both parties were interested, thus a meeting was scheduled.

Coverdale and Page met at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in New York at the end of March 1991. The two got along well with one another and while on a walk in Manhattan, they apparently stopped traffic with onlookers asking if a collaboration was in the works. Coverdale and Page agreed to take the project slowly, first making sure they could actually write songs together. The two then met up for a writing session at Lake Tahoe, Coverdale's residence. Within the first day they had written "Absolution Blues" together. From there, Coverdale and Page continued writing, eventually relocating to Barbados at Page's suggestion. The two were later joined by drummer Denny Carmassi and bassist Ricky Phillips to flesh out the songs; these rehearsals lasted for several months. Coverdale and Page made their first public appearance together in May 1991, when they joined Poison onstage in Reno for a rendition of Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll" (1971).

Production and composition
Recording for Coverdale–Page began at Little Mountain Sound Studios in Vancouver, where all the rhythm tracks were recorded. From there, recording was moved to Criteria Studios in Miami, Florida, where the vocals and overdubs were done. Coverdale and Page also employed several local session musicians while in Miami. Additional recording was also done at Abbey Road Studios in London, and Highbrow Productions, Coverdale's home studio in Nevada. The recording process lasted from late 1991 to early 1992. Work was momentarily put on hold after Coverdale's mother fell ill and ultimately passed away. According to Phillips, however, it took Page approximately a year to record his guitar parts. The album was recorded using analog equipment as opposed to digital, as Coverdale and Page felt analog suited their style of music better. Initially, Coverdale and Page were set to be credited as the sole producers, but they eventually decided to give recording and mixing engineer Mike Fraser a co-production credit for his extensive work on Coverdale–Page. Mastering was handled by George Marino at Sterling Sound, while the cover art was designed by Hugh Syme. Aside from Coverdale and Page, the album features performances from Carmassi, Phillips, keyboardist Lester Mendez and backing vocalist Johnne Sambataro, among others.

Music and lyrics
Coverdale and Page's music has generally been referred to by music publications and critics as blues rock and hard rock.

The opening riff of "Shake My Tree" dates back to Led Zeppelin's 1979 album In Through the Out Door. Page had played the riff during rehearsals, but it was left unused. He later presented the riff to Paul Rodgers while playing together in the Firm, but it was again rejected. When Page presented the riff to Coverdale, he "immediately latched on to it". For "Waiting on You", Coverdale initially struggled coming up with a pre-chorus vocal melody. Eventually, he came up with a line reminiscent of Motown. As a precaution, Page had also written a vocal melody for the part, but upon hearing Coverdale's idea, he forwent his own. The verse-chorus chord progression for "Take Me for a Little While" was written by Page at Lake Tahoe. Lyrically, Coverdale described the song as a "reflective piece", inspired by personal tragedies both he and Page had gone though in their lives. In 2020, Page stated in an Instagram post that the orchestrations on "Take Me for a Little While" were done by Clare Fischer, despite his lack of credit in the liner notes.

The opening riff of "Pride and Joy" was written by Coverdale, which he then presented to Page while in Barbados. This led to the song's original working title of "Barbados Boogie". "Pride and Joy" also marked the first time Page had performed harmonica on a recording since 1965's "She Just Satisfies". He also plays a dulcimer, which he had previously done on "That's the Way" from Led Zeppelin III (1970). "Over Now" developed from another Page chord progression, which Coverdale described as sounding "dark" and "malevolent". The song's lyrics were inspired by Coverdale's divorce from Tawny Kitaen. "Feeling Hot" was described by Page as "one of those real fun rock 'n' roll numbers". It was the second song Page and Coverdale wrote together, being partly inspired by 1940s swing music. The lyrics to "Easy Does It" deal with celebrity life and its effect on a relationship. The chord progression for "Take a Look at Yourself" was written by Page at Lake Tahoe. The song was later finished in Barbados, when another section written by Coverdale was added and the tempo was changed. "Don't Leave Me This Way" was singled out by Coverdale as a particular favourite from the album. The introductory riff had been written by Coverdale many years earlier, but was left unused until presented to Page. The lyrics to "Whisper a Prayer for the Dying" deal with the Gulf War.

Additional songs were recorded, but left unused, which led Coverdale to suggest doing a double album or a second album. At least four songs remain officially unreleased from the Coverdale–Page sessions, including one titled "Saccharine" and an alternative mix of "Shake My Tree". Some of Coverdale's unused ideas were later reappropriated for Whitesnake's 1997 album Restless Heart ("Woman Trouble Blues" and "Take Me Back Again") and 2019's Flesh & Blood ("Gonna Be Alright"), as well as his 2000 solo album Into The Light ("River Song").

Release and promotion
Before settling on Coverdale–Page, working titles for the record included Legends and North and South. The album was released on 15 March 1993 in Europe by EMI, 16 March in North America by Geffen and 18 March in Japan by Sony. Coverdale–Page debuted at number four on the UK Albums Chart, and by April 1993, it had been certified silver by the BPI for sales of over 60,000 copies in the UK. In the US, the album reached number five on the Billboard 200, and was certified gold by the RIAA in June for sales of 500,000 units in the country, before eventually being certified platinum in 1995. Coverdale–Page also cracked the top 10 in Finland, Canada, Japan and Sweden. It was certified gold in Japan and platinum in Canada. Overall, the album charted in 12 countries.

Five singles were released, all of which charted. The highest-charting singles were "Pride and Joy" and "Shake My Tree", which reached numbers one and three, respectively, on the US Mainstream Rock Tracks Chart. Music videos were produced for "Pride and Joy" and "Take Me for a Little While", both directed by Andy Morahan. While "Pride and Joy" reportedly did well on MTV (also being featured on an episode of Beavis and Butt-Head ), "Take Me for a Little While" received minimal airplay according to Coverdale, as the video was deemed too gothic by the channel.

Touring
In April 1993, auditions for Coverdale and Page's touring band were held in London. Carmassi was retained from the recording sessions, while bassist Guy Pratt and keyboardist Brett Tuggle were brought on board as new members. A North American and European tour was planned, but eventually cancelled. Due to the popularity of grunge, promoters were allegedly "skeptical of [Coverdale and Page's] pulling power in a poor market for traditional heavy rock". Thus, a "financially viable" tour was not possible. This was seconded by Pratt, who stated: "It was originally meant to be an American and European tour, but it was booked as arenas and the ticket sales just weren't there." Conversely, Coverdale stated: "The whole arrangement for the Coverdale–Page project was to go directly to the theatres, to the stage, and nothing, not even a whisper, came from Jimmy's manager when the album was released." Coverdale blamed Page's manager for the lack of touring; he was allegedly unenthusiastic about the project and wouldn't commit to live dates. Pratt, meanwhile, stated that Page was content with performing in theaters, while Coverdale considered it "downsizing".

Japanese dates for December 1993 were still tentatively booked, and according to Coverdale, it wasn't until he brought the matter directly to Page that the latter agreed to do the shows. There were scheduled seven concerts and the arena tour started on 14–15 December at Nippon Budokan in Tokyo, continued at Yoyogi National Gymnasium, Osaka-jō Hall and ended on 22 December at Aichi Prefectural Gymnasium in Nagoya. Aside from Coverdale–Page material, the seven shows also featured several songs by Whitesnake ("Slide It In", "Here I Go Again", "Still of the Night") and Led Zeppelin ("Rock and Roll", "Kashmir", "In My Time of Dying", "White Summer", "Black Mountain Side", "The Ocean", "Black Dog", "Whole Lotta Love").

While Coverdale often toured in Japan, these concerts marked the first time Page had played in the country since Led Zeppelin's 1972 Japanese Tour. Despite the lack of any further touring, both Coverdale and Page intended to continue working together. However, according to Coverdale, Page's manager "insisted we call it a day", thus their work together came to an abrupt end. While rehearsing for the Japanese dates, Page was contacted by Plant's management about performing with him on MTV Unplugged. This eventually came to fruition with the "Unledded" project in 1994. Page and Plant played live in 1995 one song from the project, "Shake My Tree".

Reception
Coverdale–Page was met with mixed reviews from contemporary music critics. Rolling Stone's J. D. Considine stated: "Coverdale–Page may not be the second coming of Led Zeppelin, but it's close enough that only the most curmudgeonly would deny the band its due." He gave kudos to Page's guitar playing and Coverdale's vocals, feeling the voice had "never been put to better use" than against the guitar. Dave Lewis, writing for Record Collector, touted the record as Page's best work since the break up of Led Zeppelin, while Jörg Staude of Metal Hammer commended Coverdale for what he perceived as an improved performance compared to the previous two Whitesnake albums. Katharine Truman, for the Los Angeles Times, noted that while "not as bombastic as Whitesnake nor as excitingly diverse as Zeppelin, Coverdale–Page is nonetheless a rock-solid effort". Q magazine's staff declared the album "excellent" and wrote that it "screams classic from start to finish", while the staff of Rock Hard called the record "a successful symbiosis" of Coverdale and Page's past works.

Critic Robert Christgau rated Coverdale–Page a "Dud", which his website describes as a "bad record whose details rarely merit further thought". Entertainment Weekly's David Browne characterised the album as an "incredible, if pointless" Led Zeppelin imitation. The Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot also called the album "pointless" and a "Led Zeppelin rehash beneath Page and beyond singer David Coverdale". Several outlets were highly critical of Coverdale, whose performance many considered a poor imitation of Plant. Tom Moon, for The Philadelphia Inquirer, described Coverdale as a "raspy, bad-boy Robert Plant wannabe", who "lacks a shred individuality". Robert Philpot of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin felt that "sometimes [Coverdale's] screams eerily recall Plant", while other times he ends up sounding hoarse. Philpot described the record as "either a Whitesnake album with a really good guitar player, or a Led Zeppelin album with a really heavy-handed vocalist". L. Kent Wolgamott of the Lincoln Journal Star felt similarly, stating that the record "sounds like a good album from Whitesnake", but "Led Zeppelin it certainly is not".

Retrospective reviews have leaned slightly more positive. Music journalist Mick Wall declared Coverdale–Page "one of the best albums of both [Coverdale and Page's] respective careers", while AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine concluded his review by stating: "Coverdale–Page boils down to a guilty pleasure at its best moments, but never quite rivals the bold experimentation of Led Zeppelin." Neil Jeffries, in a piece for Classic Rock, ranked Coverdale–Page thirteenth in Coverdale's overall studio discography, concluding that the singer sounds "unsure whether to impersonate Robert Plant or be himself". He also noted that while the album sold well, "the partnership didn't last and we should probably be grateful for that". Ultimate Classic Rock included "Pride and Joy" on their list of Coverdale's top 10 songs. They also ranked it, along with "Easy Does It", among their top 10 Page songs released after his work with Led Zeppelin.

Robert Plant's commentary
The collaboration between Coverdale and Page also drew some negative comments from Plant. While Plant commented positively on Page's playing, he was critical of the pairing, stating: "I found it difficult to understand [Page's] choice of bedfellow. I just could not get it." Even before collaborating with Page, Coverdale had been accused of copying Plant, who had reportedly referred to him in interviews as "David Cover-version", among other taunts. Page called Plant's negative comments as "short-sighted ... because David's employing so many different colours and textures to his voice", while Coverdale described them as a "stab in the back", having considered Plant a friend in the past whom respected as an artist. Regarding the negative comparisons to Led Zeppelin and Whitesnake, Coverdale stated: "Comparisons are inevitable. You have David Coverdale and Jimmy Page working together, then there are bound to be similarities to former works, because that's who we are", but also did not find it relevant because the reason of their collaboration was not their past yet musicianship talent.

Legacy
Despite their project's short lifespan, both Coverdale and Page have reflected positively on the experience. In a 1993 interview with Robert Hilburn, Page commented that in comparison to his work in the 1980s, "working with David was a totally different thing. It was suddenly right back to that original spark of creativity and ideas flowing. I feel I have my heart in it again". Assessing the collaboration in retrospect, he stated: "There was no [bullshit] in any respect or in how we executed. I wanted to show that I was still alive and kicking, and in that regard it was a total success." In 2004, Page noted: "David was really good to work with. It was very short-lived, but I enjoyed working with him, believe it or not." Coverdale later commented in 2011: "If I got a call from [Page], asking if I'd work with him on a solo album or anything, I'd be there in a heartbeat." VH1's Greg Prato put forth the idea that the whole Coverdale–Page project was just a way for Page to spite Plant, who had been reluctant to reunite Led Zeppelin. Page denied this outright, calling the entire notion "pathetic".

In 2021, Coverdale revealed plans for a tentative reissue in 2023 to celebrate the album's 30th anniversary. Having procured the rights to the record from Universal, Coverdale told SiriusXM's Eddie Trunk that the reissue will potentially feature remastered and remixed versions of Coverdale–Page, four unreleased tracks, live material, as well as other bonus content. He also stated that he and Page had discussed the possibility of writing and recording together again, though their plans were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 22 November 2023, the album was reissued in Japan on analog vinyl for the first time.

Personnel
Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes.

title: Coverdale–Page


text:
Clovis II

Clovis II (633 – 657) was King of the Franks in Neustria and Burgundy, having succeeded his father Dagobert I in 639. His brother Sigebert III had been King of Austrasia since 634. He was initially under the regency of his mother Nanthild until her death in her early thirties in 642. Nanthild's death allowed Clovis to fall under the influence of the secular magnates, who reduced the royal power in their own favour; first Aega and then Erchinoald. The Burgundian mayor of the palace Flaochad used him to lure his rival, Willebad, to a battle in Autun, in which Willebad was killed.

Background
Clovis married Balthild, an Anglo-Saxon sold into slavery in Gaul. She had been owned by the Neustrian mayor of the palace, Erchinoald, but then attracted the interest of the king. They had three sons, who all became kings after his death. The eldest, Chlothar, succeeded him and his second eldest, Childeric, was placed on the Austrasian throne and eventually also succeeded in Neustria. The youngest, Theuderic, succeeded Childeric in Neustria and eventually became the sole king of the Franks.

Clovis was a minor for almost the whole of his reign. He is sometimes regarded as king of Austrasia during the interval 656–57 when Childebert the Adopted usurped the throne. Grimoald the Elder, mayor of the palace of Austrasia, was captured and later executed in Paris by Clovis II, the king of Neustria, in 657. He is often regarded as an early roi fainéant. Belgian historian Henri Pirenne stated that Clovis "died insane."

Clovis II was buried in Saint Denis Basilica, Paris.

title: Clovis II


text:
Balthild of Chelles

Balthild (c. 626 – 30 January 680) (Bealdhild, 'bold sword' or 'bold spear), also spelled Bathilda, Bauthieult or Baudour, was queen consort of Neustria and Burgundy by marriage to Clovis II, the King of Neustria and Burgundy (639–658), and regent during the minority of her son, Chlothar III. Her hagiography was intended to further her successful candidature for sainthood.

Tradition represents her as an Anglo-Saxon who was originally of noble birth, perhaps a relative of Ricberht of East Anglia, the last pagan king of East Anglia, although Pierre Fournet regards this as doubtful. Ricberht was ousted by Sigeberht, who had spent time as an exile in the Frankish court, during which he had converted to Christianity. Sigeberht was established as the rightful heir to the throne with Frankish help.

Hagiographic tradition
According to Vita S. Bathildis, Balthild was born circa 626–627. She was beautiful, intelligent, modest and attentive to the needs of others. Balthild was sold into slavery as a young girl and served in the household of Erchinoald, the mayor of the palace of Neustria to Clovis. Erchinoald, whose wife had died, was attracted to Balthild and wanted to marry her, but she did not want to marry him. She hid herself away and waited until Erchinoald had remarried. Later, possibly because of Erchinoald, Clovis noticed her and asked for her hand in marriage.

Even as queen, Balthild remained humble and modest. She is famous for her charitable service and generous donations. From her donations, the abbeys of Corbie and Chelles were founded; it is likely that others such as Jumièges, Jouarre and Luxeuil were also founded by the queen. She provided support for Claudius of Besançon and his abbey in the Jura Mountains.

Balthild bore Clovis three children, all of whom became kings: Clotaire, Childeric and Theuderic.

When Clovis died (between 655 and 658), his eldest son Clotaire succeeded to the throne. His mother Balthild acted as the queen regent. As queen, she was a capable stateswoman. She abolished the practice of trading Christian slaves and strove to free children who had been sold into slavery. Balthild and Eligius, according to Dado, "worked together on their favourite charity, the buying and freeing of slaves". After a power struggle with mayor Ebroin, Balthild withdrew to her favourite Abbey of Chelles near Paris.

Balthild died on 30 January 680 and was buried at the Abbey of Chelles, east of Paris. Her Vita was written soon after her death, probably by one of the community of Chelles. The Vita Baldechildis/Vita Bathildis reginae Francorum in Monumenta Germania Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovincarum, as with most of the vitae of royal Merovingian-era saints, provides some useful details for the historian. Her official cult began when her remains were transferred from the former abbey to a new church, in 833, under the auspices of Louis the Pious. Balthild was canonised by Pope Nicholas I, around 200 years after her death.

Other sources
Sainted Women of the Dark Ages states that Balthild "was not the first Merovingian queen to begin her career in servitude". Other Merovingian queens who arose from servile status include Fredegund, the mother of Clothaire II; Bilichild, the wife of Theudebert of Austrasia; and possibly Nanthild, the mother of Clovis II. However, research has shown that the slavery of Balthild was probably an invention and that she in fact belonged to an upper-class Anglo-Saxon family.

During the minority of Clotaire III, she had to deal with the attempted coup of Grimoald, the major domus of Austrasia, but she enjoyed the continued support of her former master Erchinoald, who became a sort of 'political mentor' to her throughout her marriage to Clovis II.

According to some historians, Balthild's creation of and involvement with monasteries was perhaps an act to "balance or even neutralize the efforts of the aristocratic opposition". By installing her supporters as bishops of different sees, she gained even greater power as a ruler.

According to the Vita Sancti Wilfrithi by Stephen of Ripon, Bathild was a ruthless ruler, in conflict with the bishops and perhaps responsible for several assassinations. However, the bishop she so famously murdered, Dalfinus, is not listed as a bishop of Lyon. The story may have been written to embellish the life of Wilfrid.

A fragment of an apron thought to have belonged to Balthild is taken by scholars as evidence for her piety and frugality. Her devotion to her faith and forsaking of luxury is evident from a cross embroidered on the apron in silk, rather than gold thread.

Balthild seal matrix

A gold seal matrix, which was originally attached to a seal-ring, was uncovered in 1999 by a metal detector in a field in Postwick, 4.5 mi east of Norwich, in Norfolk. One side shows a woman's face and her name BALDAHILDIS in Frankish lettering. The other side portrays two naked figures, a man and a woman, embracing one another beneath a cross.

In Merovingian Gaul, one side of the seal was intended to be used with official documents. The other side would have been used only for private papers. It is uncertain why the seal matrix came to East Anglia. It may have been a gift, or a representative of Balthild may have worn it as a form of identification. It has also been suggested that the seal matrix was returned to Balthild's kin after she died. Paul Fouracre of the University of Manchester speculated that the seal may belong to a different Baldahildis entirely. The seal matrix is in the keeping of the Norwich Castle Museum.

Chemise of Balthild
Balthild's ornate chemise both expresses her dedication to the church, as well as her status as a queen to Clovis II. The sleeveless tabard was likely crafted by either Balthid herself, or nuns of Chelles Abbey, and measures 84 cm wide and 117 cm tall. It intended to loosely hang over the front and back of the body over a dress, although the back portion is currently lost. The garment consists of simple linen as a gesture of humility towards the church, as linen was a fabric commonly worn by lower classes of the time. The silken details make up a large bejewelled Christian cross 17.5 cm tall, small human and bird portraits, as well as several patterned rings around the collar mimicking studded golden necklaces. These embroidered necklaces were sewn in the exact likeness of the jewellery Balthild wore during her status as queen, and were also a symbol of Balthild's devotion, trading her actual jewellery for sewn replica as a member of Chelles Abbey.

There are conflicting claims on this history of this garment, centred on whether it was ever worn by Balthild herself in life, in death, or at all. The common argument is that it was a burial shirt that followed Balthild into her tomb. This is challenged by claims that the shirt was worn frequently by Balthild during her life in service at Chelles but not during her death. These arguments have surfaced due to the dubious history of the dress and Balthild's body, which have been disturbed multiple times muddying attempts at accurate documentation. Balthild's body and dress have been relocated two documented times. The first time they were moved, they were moved behind the Chelles Abbey altar as relics in 833, likely in hopes of attracting Christians on pilgrimages. The dress was said to be found once again hidden inside a sixteenth-century reliquary in attempts of saving it from destruction during the French Revolution.

title: Balthild of Chelles


text:
Edward J. Thye

Edward John Thye (April 26, 1896 – August 28, 1969) was an American politician. A member of the Republican Party, he was the 26th governor of Minnesota from 1943 to 1947 and a United States Senator from 1947 to 1959.

Early life and education
Edward Thye was born on a farm near Frederick, South Dakota. One of nine children, he was the son of Andrew John and Bertha (née Wangan) Thye. His father, a farmer, was born in Norway and immigrated to the United States in 1872. His brother Ted Thye became a professional wrestler in the Pacific Northwest.

In 1904, Thye and his family moved to Northfield, Minnesota, where he attended local public schools. He took courses at the Tractor and Internal Combustion School in Minneapolis in 1913, and graduated from the American Business College in 1916. After the United States entered World War I, he enlisted as a private in the United States Army Air Corps in 1917. He served overseas in France, and was eventually promoted to second lieutenant.

Early career
After his military service, Thye returned to Minnesota in 1919 and was employed as a tractor expert with the Deere & Webber Company in Minneapolis, becoming a salesman in 1920. He married Hazel Ramage (daughter of Robert and Bertha (Frink) Ramage) in 1921, and the couple remained married until her death in 1936; they had one daughter, Jean Roberta. He continued to work for Deere until 1922, when he became manager and owner of a dairy farm near Northfield.

In 1925, Thye was elected to the town council of Sciota. He later served a number of years on the Sciota school board. He was president of the Dakota County Farm Bureau (1929–1931), director of Twin City Milk Producers Association (1933), and appraiser for the Federal Land Bank of Minnesota (1933–1934). He became friends with Harold Stassen, and actively supported Stassen's campaign for governor of Minnesota in 1938. He subsequently served as the Dairy and Food Commissioner of Minnesota and deputy commissioner of agriculture (1939–1942).

Governor of Minnesota
Thye was elected the 31st lieutenant governor of Minnesota in November 1942. The same month, he was remarried to Myrtle Ennor Oliver; the couple remained married until his death. On April 27, 1943, Stassen resigned to serve in the United States Navy and Thye succeeded him as the 26th governor of Minnesota. He was elected governor in November 1944 by the largest margin ever for a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate.

In the 1944 presidential election, Thye joined U.S. Senator Henrik Shipstead, an isolationist, in supporting Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey, the governor of New York. Minnesota's other senator at the time, Joseph H. Ball, refused to support Dewey and crossed party lines to back Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won Minnesota's 11 electoral votes.

During his state administration, Thye established the Department of Aeronautics, the Iron Range Rehabilitation Commission, a postwar planning commission, and a human rights commission. He also increased spending for highway construction and unemployment compensation.

U.S. Senate
Thye was elected as a United States Senator in 1946, defeating Henrik Shipstead in the Republican primary and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor nominee Theodore Jorgenson with 58.9% of the vote. He served in the Senate from January 3, 1947, to January 3, 1959, in the 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, and 85th Congresses. Thye voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He lost his 1958 reelection bid to Eugene McCarthy.

Death
Thye died on August 28, 1969, in Northfield, Minnesota, aged 73. He was buried at the Oaklawn Cemetery in Northfield.

Papers
Thye's papers, including correspondence, speeches, background materials, bills and reports, clippings, campaign literature, and related materials reflecting Thye's public and official activities as U.S. senator from Minnesota, are available for research use.

title: Edward J. Thye


text:
Eustache Deschamps

Eustache Deschamps (1346 – 1406 or 1407) was a French poet, byname Morel, in French "Nightshade".

Life and career
Deschamps was born in Vertus. He received lessons in versification from Guillaume de Machaut and later studied law at Orleans University. He then traveled through Europe as a diplomatic messenger for Charles V, being sent on missions to Bohemia, Hungary and Moravia. In 1372 he was made huissier d'armes to Charles. He received many other important offices, was bailli of Valois, and afterwards of Senlis, squire to the Dauphin, and governor of Fismes.

In 1380, Charles died, and Deschamps's estate was pillaged by the English, after which he often used the name "Brulé des Champs". In his childhood he had been an eyewitness of the English invasion of 1358, he had been present at the siege of Reims in 1360 and seen the march on Chartres, and he had witnessed the signing of the Treaty of Brétigny. In consequence he hated the English and continuously abused them in his many poems.

Works
Deschamps wrote as many as 1,175 ballades, and he is sometimes credited with inventing the form. All but one of his poems are short, and they are mostly satirical, attacking the English, whom he regards as the plunderers of his country, and against the wealthy oppressors of the poor. His satires were also directed at corrupt officials and clergy but his sharp wit may have cost him his job as Bailli of Senlis.

He was the author of a treatise on French verse entitled L'Art de dictier et de fere chansons, balades, virelais et rondeaulx, completed on 25 November 1392. Besides giving rules for the composition of the kinds of verse mentioned in the title he enunciates some theories on poetry. He divides music into music proper and poetry. Music proper he calls artificial on the ground that everyone could by dint of study become a musician; poetry he calls natural because he says it is not an art that can be acquired but a gift. He stresses the harmony of verse, because, as was the fashion of his day, he practically took it for granted that all poetry was to be sung.

His one long poetic work, Le Miroir de Mariage, is a 12,103-line satirical poem on the subject of women. This work influenced Geoffrey Chaucer who used themes from the poem in his own work. Chaucer seems to be one of the few Englishmen Deschamps liked, as he composed a ballade in his honour (n. 285, probably written sometime after 1380) praising Chaucer as a great philosopher, translator, ethicist, and poet.

He also wrote about the decline in morals of his time, and also of the worsening state of affairs during the late middle ages, mentioning war, famine and disease.

Deschamps wrote two texts upon his teacher Machaut's death in 1377. They were combined and set to music into Armes, amours/O flour des flours (Weapons, loves/O flower of flowers), a double ballade for four voices by F. Andrieu.

Deschamps translated Vitalis of Blois's Geta, a 12th-century Latin elegiac comedy, into French.

title: Eustache Deschamps


text:
Talk:Legendary creature/Archive 1

There's been talk at Talk:Role-playing bestiary about merging this article with monster and role-playing bestiary. Should they be merged, or remain distinct? and if so, what should the title of the merged article be? -- IHCOYC

On a similar note, some distinction should be made between genuinely mythical beasts (i.e. yeti, griffin, sea-monster) and those that were created for purposes of fiction (i.e. Orc, Dwarf, Warg). If we do that, merging the RPG menagerie into this article wouldn't be a problem. -Smack 23:35 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unsorted text
Best not to call legendary creatures "fictional." As article notes, some turn out to be real. Also, it's arguablly not NPOV - some people do believe in unicorns. Snowspinner

i have some questions related to Burma myth.

 * At Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, there's this birdy, beasty, and godly gargoyles:

http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html

is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design? if lore, who or what are they? (reference appreciated)

thanks.

Xah P0lyglut 16:40, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Shouldn't angels count as legendary creatures too?

I was thinking the same. --Eleassar777 07:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't one differentiate between (roughly) the two categories fabulous creatures and supernatural beings? A griffin or a sea serpent, as far as I can tell, was never believed to be anything but a very odd (and possibly very dangerous) animal living in strange and remote parts of the world, whereas beings such as fairies, nymphs or trolls are connected to folk belief and folk religion. Also, there are genuinely fictional creatures, such as ogres, whom no-one really believed to exist outside of the fairy tales. Salleman 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argentinian Legendary Creatures
The Argentinian Legendary Creatures were added in the wrong area with really bad grammar. I wasn't sure that they actually should have been on this page at all, but I wasn't sure what to do with them. So, I just cleaned it up the best I could. If someone else has a better idea of where they belong, feel free to put them there - thanks. Nortonew 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I put them at Legendary creatures of the Argentine Northwest region. Strange addition, I must say; but I found the works quoted, so it is verifiable and seemingly notable. --Salleman 19:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think angels are mythical creatures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistilarue (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism
"llama dragons pick their noses as they are also homosexual" was put in page. I'll take it out if nobody minds. -66.204.73.130

"Some creatures, such as the boob monster or the harry dick have their origin in traditional mythology" was put on here I'm changing it back to the article from 29 October 2008, if noone minds -jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.143 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just removed a reference to 'Unipolariraffe' in the lead. I'm pretty sure that was vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.82.180 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a dragon!
I've mentioned this on another page. The image of the welsh flag depicts a Griffen, not a Dragon.

Is there any way to change the caption? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tachikoma22 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I changed it now, but you can change the caption yourself by editing the article (just go to the article and click on "Edit this page") and find the correct image tag. There you can change the caption. - Wintran (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is most defiantly a Dragon. If you know anything about Wales you should know that. Check the article Flag of Wales, (etc.) if you don't believe me. --Hibernian 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template anyone?
We need one for legendary creatures. Anyone want to do it? Otherwise I'll have to try myself... Funkynusayri 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and/or antisemitism
I am going to remove the passage: "The Liger is another mythical creature. Worshiped by the Jews, the Liger was known for eating the limbs of Romans, hence why it was praised by people of Jewish faith." because it seems like vandalism and I can't find a legitimate source for it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.5.102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Magura-Schendel
Is there a source for the Magura-Schendel? I haven't heard of it, and a search doesnt provide much more than it says here. COuld it be vandalism? 98.109.128.158 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

'Space Aliens'
Should space aliens really be in the Modern Creatures' list of famous examples? The odds are astronomically high that aliens do not exist somewhere in the Universe. Perhaps this should say 'alien visitors' instead and link to the 'Alien Visitation' page which deals with claimed sightings rather than 'Extraterrestrial Life' which deals with the notion of alien life in general? Ƒϰɑϯє (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God
God 1:0 Wikipedia. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.230.1 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the references, they clearly state that gods are considered mythical creatures. Please do not edit war. Instead, discuss changes here on the talk page. Thanks.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this editing war, but I agree that god should be LEFT OFF this page. It's offensive to many. Please, be respectful of other religions, and just leave it off. Hope this helps. jjwinder9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwinder9 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will do an edit real quick to remove god(s) from the page. I will leave a note saying "If anyone has any opinions on this, please refer to the talk page. It has been removed due to great offense from many." jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"x is offensive" is not valid criteria for removal on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OFFENSE.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my addition to the article stopped the war right then and there. It should be left off this thread due to great request too. Please, can we just leave it at this? My note has been left there for future discussion. Thank you. jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to request assistance from other editors on this issue to help resolve the conflict.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

added WP:ANI notice for this dispute here.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting that reddit is just inciting an edit war in the comments here to push their personal agenda. I also don't think gods are typically thought of as legendary but rather mythological creates. However that part is purely my opinion and probably bears little weight on the discussion without further research/sources. 31.19.18.43 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature is synonymous with mythological creature (see first sentence of article), and God and gods play a big role in myths, and all of this is in the cited references. I'm trying to get reddit to help contribute to the article rather than continue to just alter it without explaining their reasons for altering the article here on the talk page--JasonMacker (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the easiest ending of this dispute would be to add another section stating EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL topics, as in God(s), Angels, Demons, Allah, etc. We then delete the God(s) part from the controversial sentence, thus ending the war while leaving both sides satisfied. We can also add a disclaimer to the "Extremely Controversial" section stating something along the terms of that the creatures listed there are not CONFIRMED real, or non-existent. Nobody knows the true answer, but people are suggesting that they should be there, or taken off. It will satisfy both sides... Hopefully. I'm not too experienced in editing, but I will do my best to make this edit to the main article, and I encourage discussion about this idea, and also editing my new section cleaning it up, citing sources, clarifying, and also organizing it better. Hopefully this experiment will end the editing war, and can be used for later discussions/wars on Wikipedia.com. Thank you for your time. jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not an easy end because it is completely unacceptable. What you consider EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL is your opinion. --Onorem♠Dil 01:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Debatable maybe as the new section heading instead?? Also, can someone else create the new section because at this time, I do not have enough time to do so right now. jjwinder9
 * "creatures listed there are not CONFIRMED real, or non-existent. Nobody knows the true answer." -That is the point of the entire article. There is no reason to make God, angels, demons a special case. --Onorem♠Dil 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * What a bunch of crap all around. When an edit is challenged or rejected either by consensus or an individual and or an edit war starts we go back to the last unchallenged version. A bunch of anonymous editors are manipulating Wikipedia policy for whatever childish reason and editors and admins are wasting time debating nonsense edits. And who cares what is being said on reddit? None of this is helpful at all. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not anonymous (well...I'm no IP and I'm not new around here...) and I don't think these are nonsense edits. --Onorem♠Dil 01:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last revert has it correct: gods would not generally be considered creatures, but creators. I cannot see any of the three references, but I seriously doubt any of the three says that gods are legendary/mythological creatures. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see definition #4, which is the definition most in line with the usage of this article. Gods and "God" (specifically, creatures such as Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Great Spirit, Ahura Mazda, and so on) are mythological creatures in that they are anthropomorphized characters within creation myths. Please read the references, which clearly recognize that gods are legendary creatures (thus, a single god would also be considered a legendary creature).--JasonMacker (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reinclude God along with the parentheses'd phrase that went along with it, as well as include Goddess. Both of these are general terms for legendary creatures that are attributed with creating the world as supreme beings in myths.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How about a new section that goes along with "Religious Legendary Creatures and Deities." You can include the Christian God and Jesus, Allah, Greek Mythology (Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, etc.), Buddha, and other Religious "Higher Beings". It would make this article longer, and provide more information. --jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed unicorns because it is an offense against my religion to imply they don't exist. No ones even providing proof that they don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this even a discussion? The editor who began this discussion and the chief person arguing in favour of including God in the list has already linked WP:OFFENSE which is extremely clear that offensive material should only be added "if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Given that the list as it stood was perfectly suitable and the list merely claims to be an example rather than comprehensive there is no valid argument that the exclusion of any deity makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for any group to try to push their dogma as these fine folks from the atheism subreddit are attempting to do. -- Masterzora (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now at NPOVN
This is an NPOV issue so I have raised it at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * We need to differentiate between legitimate efforts to improve this article and mass vandalism and edit warring from new IP editors who came here because the page was mentioned on the Reddit atheism subreddit. This page will be semi-protected as soon as an admin gets to the request, and in the meantime I have restored the page to the old revision, as edited by Addbot at 19:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC) -- last version before vandalism and edit warring. This would be a good version to revert to in response to further vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you removed sourced material and restored a nonsense image. I have returned to sourced information back to the article. Please be mindful of not just removed material without regard for improving the article.--JasonMacker (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Usually restoring the last stable version before the attack of the IP editors is a good idea, but looking more carefully, that version was awful. Thanks for undoing my change. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The references provided in the disputed edits (the quote, "I think it can be well argued as a matter of principle that, just as 'biography is about chaps', so mythology is about gods.") are inadequate to justify the inclusion of deities as they do not explicitly discuss deities as legendary creatures; in fact, none of them even mention the word "creature". The inclusion of deities as a form of legendary creature based on those references relies on editorial inference (in other words, original research). Multiple editors have objected to your additions to the article; in my opinion, you should establish consensus here on the talk page before adding them to the article. --Muchness (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Don't be silly. A creature is simply an animate being. A legendary creature is an animate mythological being. And mythology is about gods, meaning mythological beings. Check the other references, they discuss this as well. Myths are "stories about divine beings", in order words mythical creatures. This isn't original research at all, it's simply terminology. They are explicitly mentioned, because it says "mythology is about gods". "god" is the singular of "gods", so that reference is explicitly mentioning gods. The reason why so many random IPs are removing it without bothering to discuss it on the talkpage is because they find it offensive. But that is not a valid criterion for removal. This idea that some supernatural characters in myths are not legendary creatures is silly. What are they then? Is Zeus a legendary creature? How about Poseidon? Nix? Hydra? Yahweh? Allah? Ahura Mazda? Baha? Great Spirit? The correct answer is that all of these are legendary creatures. Just because some people find it offensive that their particular god is considered a legendary creature is not grounds for exclusion from an article.--JasonMacker (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Once again, even ignoring the amounts of OR you need to justify yourself and ignoring the fact that you are using Wikipedia to push your agenda in clear violation of multiple policies and guidelines, the same WP:OFFENSE that you yourself cited tells you not only that offense is a valid criterion for removal but that it is in fact necessary to remove offensive content unless the removal of such leaves the article less informative, relevant, or accurate (which it doesn't) and there is no equally suitable alternative available (and the original list was equally or moreso suitable). Take your dogma war elsewhere. -- Masterzora (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Since when were gods creatures? They are usually referred to as beings. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

the three references
I've managed to look at all of two of the references and at least part of the third. I don't see that any of the three supports the thesis that gods are legendary creatures. Bascom's oft-cited distinction between myth, legend, and folklore excludes gods from the latter two categories. The O'Flaherty quote is taken out of context, for she says further along on the same page, "Yet [the gods] are regarded by Hindus as a class of beings by definition totally different fron any other; they are symbols in a way that no human being, however 'archetypal his' life story, can ever be." I cannot read enough of the other citation to be absolutely sure of the direction it takes, but it also is largely devoted to distinguishing between myth, legend, and folklore (I presume along Bascom's lines).

The more telling problem in all of this is that the beings in this category are also often called "legendary beasts" or "mythological creatures". In legend and myth, they are non-human and non-divine; they are animals or sub-human figures. That's why they are creatures and not people or gods. The British folklore book isn't much interested in gods that I can see, and Flaherty makes a sharp distinction between gods and their creations. In Bascom's taxonomy of tales, the main issue is to split out legends from the other two categories; but one reads in vain for talk of either "beasts" or "creatures", though here and there he does talk about animals in passing. It seems to me that in his talk of gods, men, and animals, he treats this distinction as given; he does not, as far as I have read (and I'll admit not having read the whole paper systematically) address a category of legendary/mythological creatures outside the commonplace beasts.

None of these references says anything as plain as "gods are mythical/legendary creatures." there's a great deal of synthesis used to get to that point, which my reading of these references actually seems to argue against. The gods are a category unto themselves, and are not to be confused with cockatrices and trolls. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And ref 4 is to which has used content from this article "Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation." so it needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to mention for instance Greek Gods, I assume not many people will be offended by that. Those who see Gods as mythical creatures, will just see them as an example of a God, while Christians/Muslims etc. will most likely not identify their God with those mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.30.254 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it is not a question of who may or may not be offended. it is a question of the article representing the mainstream (primarily academic, but also popular) conception of "legendary creatures" and then also presenting other notable views in appropriate proportion. The question is, how to determine what those are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not working with the definition?
The article says: "A legendary creature is an animal, especially a nonhuman, whose life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometime involve the supernatural.". God is not an animal, but many of the legendary creatures listed in the list article are not animals as well. One can easily see that the other criteria do fit. We don't need any literature to verify this. As half of the world's population believes in god(s), it must be included as an example. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly because various people have dumped every class of being they consider unscientific into the article regardless of whether they are animals. If we stick with the definition we can (and should) strip out all the spirits (e.g. angels and demons) and stick to the animals. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Manoe. Also, remember that the article never claims to be a comprehensive list of legendary creatures at any point.  Given that we can use plenty of uncontroversial examples without harming the article's accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability (in fact, so far it would help verifiability) it just seems unnecessary to the point of agenda-pushing to list anything controversial. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also find Mangoe's argument plausible, but if non-animals would be included in the definition, then how could it weaken the article's accuracy, informativeness, quality or verifiability to mention the most popular mythological creature? Wouldn't it greatly improve them?
 * Furthermore, the fact that the definition of a legendary creature would fit for god if it was not required to be an animal, is not controversial, but can be easily checked: 1) god is a nonhuman 2) god's life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometime involve the supernatural. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * until you begin supplying reliably published sources and can make a plausible argument that they represent the mainstream academic view of "legendary creatures" you are simply wasting your pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At what point did I say it would weaken accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability? I said we could safely exclude "God" and "gods" without harming these things, and this is true.  Until the article claims to be a comprehensive list those entries simply do not add anything to the article except for offending some people and making others feel smug.  While offense is not inherently grounds for exclusion (and, for that matter, neither is smugness), adding offensive or controversial (which doesn't mean untrue, by the way) content should only be done if it is necessary for reasons of accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability (per common sense and WP:OFFENSE).  Until this article claims to be a comprehensive list OR verifiable sources make significant discussion about God or gods as legendary creatures ("significant discussion" meaning more than "saying they are included in the category" though sources seem to be missing for even that) there is simply no good reason to add it except POV. -- Masterzora (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is only your own opinion that these additions would not harm things. You haven't shown any real evidence to support it. Also, there is the question of the use of the word "creature" to describe the monotheistic god, who is generally counted as the "creator", an extremely different philosophical matter, and one which should certainly be addressed first. There is also the point as to whether "god" exists more or less exclusively in myth. The evidence of philosophy in general clearly disagrees, so limiting "god" or "gods" to only myth would itself be not supported by the evidence. I very strongly suggest first that you read WP:POV, WP:OR (considering you haven't really establish the mythical nature of god yet), and WP:SYNTH, which is closely related to it. Second, Lastly, there seem to be several reference books extant regarding the topic of "legendary cratures" (as per here) and "mythical creatures" (as per here). I would suggest that those sources be consulted. Yeah, several of them are for younger audiences, but they can possibly still be used to meet WP:BURDEN, which I also suggest you read. I can and will try in the next few weeks to go through the reference/encyclopedic sources on this topic available to me here, but I have a rather long list of pending books already and I might not get to it in less than a few weeks or months. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that your comment may have been added at the wrong indent level? I do not understand how it applies in reference to my own.  If this was not an error, I think I may require further explanation from you but if it was an error you should rectify this (and delete this comment, since it will then be irrelevant) so as to better facilitate proper discussion. -- Masterzora (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "There is also the point as to whether "god" exists more or less exclusively in myth. The evidence of philosophy in general clearly disagrees" - Are you telling me that you have evidence for god's existence? And that philosophers in general think that god is more than a legendary creature? I would like to see (trustworthy) sources for that. By the way, there are many verifiable sources on that topic, for example Richard Dawkins. He describes the phenomenon of god with respect to reason and evidence, which should be the aim of an encyclopedia too. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a reminder this is NOT a soapbox. It is for discussing what the reliable sources say about the subject of the article and how we can accurately represent them. Any discussion that is not based on actually provided sources can and will be immediately removed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Are you telling me that you have evidence for god's existence?" I don't even see how that's relevant, anyway.  The exclusion of God or gods as an example is in no way a statement of positive existence or, for that matter, a statement of anything.  You do not require sources to not have something on the page; that would be lunacy.  Really, the end-of-the-day thing is this: excluding these examples does not make a statement; including them does make a statement.  Making said statement does not add anything to the article and not making it does not detract from the article.  No sources have been provided to back the statement.  Even if said sources were provided, nobody has put forth any explanation of what said examples add that offset the problems of including the examples. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article scope
The previous inclusion criteria for this article -- "A legendary creature is a mythological or folkloric creature." -- was unclear. Between legend, which distinguishes legends from fables and myths by requiring the legend stories to be about a life ("Legend originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint") and creature, animal, especially a nonhuman, and reliable source common usage of the term "legendary creature", e.g., Professor Going After Legendary Creature, [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/37930736.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+9%2C+1999&author=ARIZONA+REPUBLIC%3BThomas+Ropp&pub=The+Sun&desc=In+pursuit+of+legendary+creatures%3B+Cryptozoology%3A+Researchers+devote+their+careers+to+discovering+--+or+rediscovering+--+storied+species+from+around+the+world. In pursuit of legendary creatures; Cryptozoology: Researchers devote their careers to discovering -- or rediscovering -- storied species from around the world], Americans begin expedition to find legendary creature, the following is an appropriate lead sentence for the article: "A legendary creature is an animal, especially a nonhuman, whose life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometimes involve the supernatural and are handed down by tradition from earlier times."

-- Jreferee (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Handed down by tradition from earlier times" removal - The article on Bigfoot notes "Wildmen stories are found among the indigenous population of the Pacific Northwest" and the article on Nessie notes that it dates back to Saint Columba (6th century), so both of these are based on information handed down by tradition from earlier times. In any event, the article is about "legendary creature", not the broader "storied creature," so there needs to be some originating time element to the life story and the phrase "and are handed down by tradition from earlier times" seems reasonable. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * as a temporary measure, but what we really need to do is determine what the least WP:ASTONISHing application of the term "legendary creature" refers to and create a lead sentence that reflects the majority of academics position, and then present the other views in appropriate proportion and refer readers to other Wikipedia articles which may better meet their information needs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

the only definition that dictionary.com finds is:  noun  - a monster that is unverifiable but popularly accepted as possibly factual (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. ) " That would significantly change the scope of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC) and here is what Roget's considers " legendary creatures" - it includes King Kong. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename article to "mythical creatures" so that we can avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR.
The article's scope right now has several problems:

 * Defining legendary creatures explicitly as being animals. This ignores the issue that many legendary creatures are NOT animals, see for example List_of_fictional_plants and Liminal being.

 * Not having sources that actually refer to "legendary creatures". Revamp entirely to include cryptids and deities, by moving the article to Mythical creature. Check out this, which explicitly states "What are mythical creatures?" and answers the question with "magical and menacing animals, monsters, spirits, and gods". This source allows us to have a completely sourced lead sentence, as such:

Mythical creatures or legendary beings are magical animals, monsters, spirits, and gods[1]... blah blah blah...

Requested move

 * 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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature → Mythical creature – My reasons listed in the section above JasonMacker (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose As the source above is being misrepresented. The one line which says "magical and menacing animals, monsters, spirits, and gods". is preceded by "Human imagination has populated the world with a marvelous variety of"
 * Also, do we really think this author a good source? Given her other gems such as Atlas of Lost Cities: Legendary Cities Rediscovered Mermaid Wisdom: Enrich Your Life with Insights from the Deep but see for yourselves Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * the new name does not appear to solve the purported issue. the proposer in the section above cites the fact that "legendary plants" are not technically covered under the current name. They would also be technically excluded from the proposed name, hence, no benefit from the name change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) After extended discussion and lack of evidence that this move will help solve the issues identified,~formally noting my  oppose --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c)but I will agree that "legendary creature" does not appear to be a term that is widely used with a consistent criteria/definition in any academic or even popular published content - and that may be reflective of why the article is in such poor shape. A rename to something that has a more broadly agreed upon usage/definition could very well be helpful. I am just not convinced that Mythical creature is any more consistently defined or less problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Check out this and this, which clearly show that there is an order of magnitude more writing about "mythical creature" as opposed to "legendary creature" (as well as their plurals). I pulled the source from Google Scholar. Most of the other hits on Google Scholar are passing references, or references to specific creatures such as Dragons, Griffins, Bigfoot, and so on as being "mythical creatures" or "legendary creatures". Do you have some sources that I may have missed? As for the new name missing out on plants, that is somewhat true. However, plants can be included under monsters, considering this.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Any ideas then, about what article name we can have besides the current one and my proposal?--JasonMacker (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose with a motion to reconsider at a later date . This page is currently the target of vandalism by an external invasion pushing an agenda.  In fact, the proposer of this change is a member of said invasion who is blatantly disregarding (and even abusing) policies, rules, and guidelines in an attempt to fight a political war that does not belong on Wikipedia and without regard to article quality or accuracy.  This proposal itself is transparently an attempt to name the page in such a way to try to make it acceptable to list "God" and/or "gods" under a term that suggests, but does not mandate, fictionality.  I will not pretend that a biased source cannot propose a good change, which is why this should be reconsidered later, but if it is to be considered it should be done so absent a strong, politically-charged invasion force and it needs to be only considered in terms of article accuracy, quality, and verifiability. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment The article is no longer being targeted for vandalism. But if you look at the article's history, it's clear that those who kept removing sourced information mentioning gods were the vandals. And I'm not a "member of said invasion", in fact I'm the one that sought assistance from WP:ANI to help stop the vandalism in the first place and instead begin the collaborative process of getting input from other users right here on the talk page. Please don't accuse me of "blatantly disregarding (and even abusing) policies, rules, and guidelines...". I'm right here, you know? It's a little rude to say such things. And I am trying to get the input of other editors so that this article can get better. This sort of personal attack where you accuse me of having ulterior motives and bad faith is really unnecessary. In any case, this idea that it should simply be reconsidered at a later date is silly. Why wait until interest in improving the article has died down before improving the article? I don't see what's wrong with striking while the iron is hot.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it hasnt been the target of vandalism if you only consider the last 20 minutes (and I bet that time frame for being vandal free is only because of the protected status). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, perhaps it is better to say that it is no longer being targeted for vandalism on the same scale as it was yesterday. Even so, it's a good thing it's been protected.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you came here from the Reddit thread with the same agenda as those on the Reddit thread and posted in the Reddit thread with a tip on how to further that agenda. Short of an actual confession, that is as close to proof of you being part of the invading force as can exist.  Your edit to add regarding gods and its relevant "sources" were in violation of WP:NPOV, your sources did not support the edit you were trying to make, failing WP:V, and your attempts to hide behind the same sources with selective interpretation and claim people couldn't remove sourced material was, quite frankly, an abuse of WP:V that the comment you just made is continuing.  Further, you attempted to hide behind WP:OFFENSE despite that same guideline actually supporting the notion that your edit did not belong here.  You claim that I assume bad faith and am am attacking you personally but this is simply untrue.  I assumed good faith until it was evident you were in violation, which is perfectly in line with that policy and, while I will admit my presentation to be imperfect, my claims against you are not without evidence and as such do not constitute a personal attack.  Your violating edits are clearly in the main page's edit history, your other violating statements are on this page.  I have twice pointed out (and twice been ignored) that your attempted defense with WP:OFFENSE worked against you as the policy said the opposite of what you stated, others have already listed the problems with your sources, and the WP:NPOV issue is clear.  I will admit that my statement about your transparent motivations for the name change does not have any explicit evidence in its favour but with your bad faith already established I do not feel that statement to be out of line.  You are correct that, ideally, we would not have to wait to consider this change but given that the "interest for improving the article" is largely coming from and being led by an invasion force with an agenda the wait is appropriate. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't "come here" from the reddit thread. I've already been at Wikipedia for quite some time. And I don't have some "agenda" beyond wanting to improve Wikipedia articles with adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines for writing articles. In any case, all of this speculation on your part regarding my motives and intentions has nothing to do with the subject at hand. How does anything you said provide useful information for improving the article? If you have a problem with me personally then take it up to WP:AN on one of the noticeboards whose purpose is to discuss editors, not here on this article's talk page, which is intended for discussion of the article. You don't see me looking up where you come from and all the previous articles you've edited and speculating on what "agenda" you are pushing, do you? The answer is because I don't care about users, I care about content. And this is a content-dispute. Please contribute to the subject at hand.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were already a member of Wikipedia, yes, but you came to this page from the Reddit thread. Don't hide behind semantics.  While I do care about the content, it is undeniable that your agenda is relevant to the case at hand.  You provide only two arguments in favour of the move.  First is that the new name has "an order of magnitude more hits" (which is already misleading; I get 2.8 mil for "legendary creature" and 2.4 mil for "legendary creatures" for a total of 5.2 mil and 4.8 mil for "mythical creatures" and 3 mil for "mythical creature" for a total of 7.8 mil) and the second is that you want the lead to be "Mythical creatures or legendary beings are magical animals, monsters, spirits, and gods[1]... blah blah blah..."  Per this second it is clear that your established agenda is relevant to the discussion and hence why I bring it up.  This is also interesting since the source  that you provide as an attempt to source the new lead does not support your statement.  You selectively quoted in a manner unsupported by the text and actually grepping through the source for "god" fails to show any gods being listed as mythical creatures.  You did mention the issue of the current definition involving animals but that is not an issue with the name.  In light of the lack of compelling reasons for moving the article in addition to your established agenda there is no possible response to this but to oppose.  -- Masterzora (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) it is not just a content dispute. Masterzora raised a process question about whether under conditions that are less than ideal it is appropriate to attempt to move the article to a name that would seem to be one that would benefit people who have been vandalizing the article. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual proof that I came from the reddit thread? Because in fact it's the opposite. I was viewing Special:RecentChanges and I saw a lot of activity on Legendary creatures. I was also simultaneously browsing reddit and I found out about the thread that linked here. So in fact, I began here at Wikipedia and ended up at the reddit thread. And once again you mention my "agenda" without explaining that you are simply speculating on my motives rather than actually referencing something tangible or factual. As for the ghits in particular, I'm afraid that you aren't including the quotation marks in your google searches. Case in point: "Legendary creature" gives About 973,000 results and "legendary creatures" gives About 437,000 results, while Mythical creature gives About 1,400,000 results and Mythical creatures gives About 2,380,000 results. I'm sorry, but just because I disagree with you on content doesn't mean that I suddenly have an agenda. Using your definition of agenda, then it's clear that you have an agenda too. But again, none of this speculation regarding so-called agendas is relevant to improving this article.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * google hits are generally an irrelevant measure. there is no way to determine how many of them are actually using the phrase in a manner that is appropriate to the discussion at hand, it just shows two words sitting next to each other. Of those thousands of hits can you provide say 5 that all have a consistent definition and application of the phrase so that there is some evidence that there is actually something to be gained by changing? (ie we have evidence that the academic criteria for the use of "mythological creatures" is a standard that we will be able use to build a decent consistent article criteria around.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that mythical creatures very obviously has more usage than legendary creatures. The argument you are using here can also be used against the current situation in the article. So what do the reliable sources say? Well, most of them use "mythical creatures" to refer to things, so that's what we should go by.--JasonMacker (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * again, the hits on a search mean nothing. I have had very specific and unusual combinations of words and phrases that resulted in hundreds of hits from google books that made me think "oh great, this will be easy" and then when I look at the actual content, none of the hits provide any actually useful encyclopedic content about the subject of the article. I am simply asking you to WP:PROVEIT that the name change will solve any of the issues. given the first two sentences from the Bascom source and the introduction to that piece, I am highly doubtful and will not be convinced by counts of google hits, you will need to provide actual sourcing examples.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's just look at this by facts. 1. You are an active user of multiple atheist subreddits.  2. Regardless of whether you came to this article from reddit or came to this article and independently went to reddit, you edited this article in line with the other vandals from the invasion and left a comment on reddit giving others a bad tip as to how to make the vandalism stick.  3. Without regard to improving the quality or accuracy of the article you changed the article in violation of WP:NPOV 4. You added "sources" that did not support your edit and claimed that they gave your edit some form of immunity from editing because of your own WP:SYNTH 5. You flagrantly violated WP:3RR in attempting to maintain your edit 6. You erroneously cited WP:OFFENSE in your defense when it actually argues against your edit 7. After your violations were pointed out you continued to violate them 8. Your proposal for name change explicitly cited the ability to include the edit you've been trying to make 9. The edit in your proposal is once again built on a source that does not support it in any fashion.  Between the circumstances of your reddit activity, your flagrant disregard of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and rules despite having a long enough history on Wikipedia to know better, and your repeated misuse of sources the only way a case of your agenda could be any more solid is with a direct confession.  As far as the ghits go, despite the fact that they are not a proper measure, your 3.8 million "mythical creature(s)" vs 1.4 million "legendary creature(s)" still does not represent an order of magnitude except in the most pedantic, though misleading, way under which basically any two numbers could represent an order of magnitude difference.  Which brings me back to the point I already made: your agenda is very relevant here not only because of the conflict of interest but also because it represents half of the arguments you made in favour of the move.  With the other half being ghits, which we've already discussed, there is no valid reason presented to move this article. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2013 (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.

title: Talk:Legendary creature/Archive 1


text:
John Hopkinson

John Hopkinson, FRS, (27 July 1849 – 27 August 1898) was a British physicist, electrical engineer, Fellow of the Royal Society and President of the IEE (now the IET) twice in 1890 and 1896. He invented the three-wire (three-phase) system for the distribution of electrical power, for which he was granted a patent in 1882. He also worked in many areas of electromagnetism and electrostatics, and in 1890 was appointed professor of electrical engineering at King's College London, where he was also director of the Siemens Laboratory. Hopkinson's law, the magnetic counterpart to Ohm's law, is named after him.

Life and career
John Hopkinson was born in Manchester, the eldest of 5 children. His father, also called John, was a mechanical engineer. He was educated at Queenwood School in Hampshire and Owens College in Manchester. He won a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1867 and graduated in 1871 as Senior Wrangler, having placed first in the demanding Cambridge Mathematical Tripos examination. During this time he also studied for and passed the examination for a BSc from the University of London. Hopkinson could have followed a purely academic career but instead chose engineering as his vocation. He was a Cambridge Apostle.

After working first in his father's engineering works, Hopkinson took a position in 1872 as an engineering manager in the lighthouse engineering department of Chance Brothers and Company in Smethwick. In 1877 Hopkinson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in recognition of his application of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism to problems of electrostatic capacity and residual charge. In 1878 he moved to London to work as a consulting engineer, focusing particularly on developing his ideas about how to improve the design and efficiency of dynamos. Hopkinson's most important contribution was his three-wire distribution system, patented in 1882. In 1883 Hopkinson showed mathematically that it was possible to connect two alternating current dynamos in parallel-—a problem that had long bedevilled electrical engineers. He also studied magnetic permeability at high temperature, and discovered what was later called the Hopkinson peak effect.

The series-parallel method of electric motor control, for which Hopkinson was granted a British patent in 1881, would prove to be an important advance in the development of electric railways. He applied for a US patent in 1892, triggering an interference proceeding against American inventor Rudolph M Hunter, who had been granted a US patent for the method in 1888. The US Patent Office affirmed Hopkinson's claim to priority of invention, but his British patent expired before the case was resolved, rendering him ineligible for a US patent (his US patent, had one been issued, would have expired concurrently with his British patent).

Hopkinson twice held the office of President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. During his second term, Hopkinson proposed that the Institution should make available the technical knowledge of electrical engineers for the defence of the country. In 1897 the Volunteer Corps of Electrical Engineers was formed and Hopkinson became major in command of the corps.

Personal life and legacy
On 27 August 1898, Hopkinson and three of his six children, John Gustave, Alice and Lina Evelyn, were killed in a mountaineering accident on the Petite Dent de Veisivi, Val d'Hérens, in the Pennine Alps, Switzerland.

As a memorial to John Hopkinson and his son, the 1899 extension to the Engineering Laboratory in the New Museums Site of the University of Cambridge was named after him. A plaque commemorating this is fixed to the wall in Free School Lane. The Hopkinson and Imperial Chemical Industries Professorship of Applied Thermodynamics is named in his honour.

There is a memorial sundial to Alice Hopkinson in the gardens of Newnham College, Cambridge from which she had recently graduated; the Lina Evelyn Hopkinson Scholarship is awarded to pupils at Wimbledon High School for English Literature.

At the Victoria University of Manchester the Electro-technical Laboratory (1912) in Coupland Street was named after him.

His sons Bertram and Cecil, wife Evelyn and daughter Ellen (married James Alfred Ewing in 1912) are buried in the Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge; the rest of the family are interred in Switzerland.

title: John Hopkinson


text:
Programme Delivery Control

Programme delivery control (PDC) is specified by the standard ETS 300 231 (ETSI EN 300 231), published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). This specifies the signals sent as hidden codes in the teletext service, indicating when transmission of a programme starts and finishes.

PDC (also known as Enhanced Teletext Packet 8/30 Format 2) is often used together with StarText, enabling the user to select a programme to record using specially coded teletext programme listings. The combination of features is often called PDC/StarText.

In Germany and some other European countries, the older standard video programming system (VPS) is in use also known as format 2. Effectively, the two systems do the same thing and most modern VCRs and stand-alone DVD recorders work with both signals.

In digital TV (see Freeview+), the feature Accurate Recording (AR) that was based on the PDC specification for analogue recording devices is now used for a DVB-SI event based scheduling system. This was due to the BBC discontinuing the Ceefax service.

PDC Packets
PDC is transmitted once a second in special packets addressed as magazine 8 and text row 30. Since this row is not displayable it does not interfere with normal pages. Packet 8/30 has various formats specified by ETSI and PDC is format 2. Each packet 8/30 format 2 also has a label number and there can be up to four labels transmitted at a time. Each label contains the scheduled start time and date for a programme and flags to indicate the state. Each programme is assigned a label and in general a label will follow this sequence.
 * PRF Set – Prepare for Record. This will tell a VCR to wake up and get ready. This happens about 40 seconds before the programme is active.
 * PRF Clear – The VCR should be recording.
 * RTI – Record Terminate/Interrupt – Tells the VCR to stop recording. This label is held for 30 seconds after the programme ends.

There are complicated rules for the case where a programme is interrupted by another one as in the case of a film with a break for news in the middle.

There is also a TIMER flag that indicates that there is no valid PDC and that the VCR should use its own timer.

title: Programme Delivery Control


text:
Sarre

Sarre can refer to:

 * Saarland or Sarre, a German state
 * Sarre (département), a former French département, now part of Germany
 * Sarre, Aosta Valley, a town in Italy
 * Sarre, Kent, a village in the United Kingdom
 * Sarre river or Saar, a river in France and Germany
 * Sarre (Bode), a river of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, tributary of the Bode
 * La Sarre, a town in Quebec, Canada

People with that surname

 * Friedrich Sarre (1865–1945), German Orientalist, archaeologist and art historian
 * Georges Sarre (1935–2019), French politician
 * Ronald Sarre (1932–2009), Australian cricketer
 * Tony Sarre, Australian filmmaker

title: Sarre