text:
Talk:Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond

Marriage Date?
Can anybody help me find out when exactly (year would be enough) Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor? Hints appreciated!

-- NicApicella; 27/May/2005

Arms
As I asked in Jasper Tudor, if Tudor's father's arms were as shown in Owen Tudor how did Owen's sons use "the arms of the kingdom..."? Avalon (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"brought them to Henry VI's notice"
I don't quite get this line-why would Edmund and Jasper Tudor need to be brought to Henry VI's notice considering that they were Henry's half brothers? Its not like Henry would not have known his mother had other kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
Where does Edmund's precise date of birth come from? The ODNB only gives "c.1430". – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know the answer to this as well. History Lunatic (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Assessment
This was on the list of open tasks and I've assessed it as C, largely because it only uses one reference source; I also think the language is clunky and it could be substantially shorter and equally useful. I'm not suggesting the detail is irrelevant but this is an encyclopaedia - so sometimes less is more :).

eg ''Both Edmund and Jasper were among a small group of personal advisers to the King by 1452, representing the only blood relations in court.[4] However, neither was skilled at matters of state within England, and instead they were primarily given the task of ensuring the authority of the King within Wales.[5] This resulted in a long held affection for the family in that country.[4] The formal investiture of the duo took place in the Tower of London on 5 January 1453. Later that year on 6 March, they took their seats in the Parliament of England as the head of all the Earls in the court. After a petition by the House of Commons of England, both Jasper and Edmund were recognised officially as legitimate half-brothers of the King and the statutory disabilities attributed with being considered Welsh were removed. Throughout 1452 and 1453, they were given large monetary grants from the King, while Edmund was also given property in Westmorland and Lancashire. Edmund ran a profitable estate and invested in the wool industry based out of Boston, Lincolnshire. The King also granted him the medieval palace of Baynard's Castle, near to the Thames river in London.[6]''

Replace with; By 1452, Edmund and Jasper formed part of the small group of advisors around the King, with primary responsibility for Royal policy in Wales. They were legally recognised as Henry's half-brothers, ranked first among all other Earls and received substantial grants of money and land. Edmund himself was given lands in Westmorland and Lancashire, as well as Baynard's Castle, a substantial property on the Thames in London.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree this passage appears wordy, but its details as written are important to this subject; they would be less so in the Henry VI article. The Tudor brother were the only blood relatives left at court by 1452, all royal family of Henry VI (English and French) were dead or abroad by that time. The fact that their appointment to oversee Wales and the affection their rule engendered is important for understanding why Wales followed the Tudors so absolutely in the Wars of the Roses. The January date of investiture seems to contradict the previous section, so that needs to be nailed down.

 * But the following sentence is important as the Welsh were treated legally as less than the English - almost like foreign nationals while under English authority; Owen Tudor as well was eventually granted rights as an Englishman to counteract this and legally this was a major concession, comparable to American former slaves being given the right to vote. It was also a first step towards potential plans to make these uterine brothers Henry VI's heirs in case his queen remained barren, and was much resented in certain quarters, not least by Margaret of Anjou herself.

 * Some of this paragraph are facts repeated elsewhere in this article but including important detail that should not be missed. Perhaps a better solution would be to rewrite/combine this with the previous section and include the details here.  Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

"remarried to Edmund"
Edmun had the wardship of nine-year-old Margaret Beaufort. Thus the annullment of her Beaufort marriage "enable[d] her to be [married] to Edmund" not remarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.110.36 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Title should be changed to 'Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond'
He was not the first Earl of Richmond. He was the first earl of the seventh creation of the title. See the wikipedia article Earl of Richmond. The current title is misleading. Gwedi elwch (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions for British peers can be found here: WP:NCBRITPEER. Personally, I'd find crowding the article names more confusing but if it needs discussion that's the place since if we change one such case, we'd need to change them all for consistency's sake.

 * Contemporary resources are often far worse. Most of the time you just see "Richmond" with no christian name, no surname, just the title with no numerical distinction. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic

Many thanks for the link to the naming conventions for British peers. The relevant passage I think is this :

"The use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... Earl or Baron is a matter of convenience. It is often useful disambiguation (for example, Archibald Kennedy, Marquess of Ailsa could be six of the eight holders of the title); it sometimes identifies a single peer who is called by different first names. When, however, as with some very early earldoms, the numbering is disputed (in the case of the first Scots earldoms, it is artificial) it is acceptable to omit the number or disambiguate by other means. In such cases, redirects or disambiguations from forms with any frequently used numberings are encouraged."

The disambiguation reason for using 1st, 2nd etc applies when a title has been held by two or more people of the same name - an example would be William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke - the title was held by the father and the son of that name : here disambiguation requires use of '1st' and '2nd'.

In the case of Edmund Tudor there is no reason to use 1st for disambiguation purposes - he was the only Edmund Tudor to be Earl of Richmond. The only other Tudor to be Earl of Richmond was his son Henry Tudor, and when Henry became king in 1485 the Tudor Earldom of Richmond merged in the crown. There has been no further creation of the earldom of Pembroke since 1485 - it has been replaced by the title Duke of Richmond which has itself been created 4 times. There is no need to disambiguate any of these Dukes of Richmond from Edmund Tudor.

What I think we are left with is (1) there is no need to use '1st' to disambiguate but (2) using '1st' is very likely to mislead. Some readers will very probably think it means that Edmund Tudor was the 'very first' Earl of Richmond - that, after all, is the ordinary English language meaning of the word.

I agree with you that '1st Earl of the seventh creation' is appallingly cumbersome in an article title. Or even, probably, in the first paragraph / introduction. It could possibly be added as a minor sentence in the text, but I don't feel there is any need - the cross link to the article on 'Earl of Richmond' will be useful for anyone who actually does know the title was created a number of times and wants to explore that issue.

I think the title of this article, to avoid misleading, should be "Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond".

Or possibly just "Edmund Tudor"? That would parallel his brother Jasper Tudor - neither of Jasper's titles (Earl of Pembroke, Duke of Bedford) are (now)in the title of the wikipedia article on him.

But there is one disambiguation reason for keeping 'Earl of Richmond' in the title of the article on Edmund Tudor. There is another (much less well known Edmund Tudor) - Edmund Tudor, the sixth child of Henry VII, who died aged about 16 months (he was a grandson of our Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond). The wikipedia article on him is headed Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset. There is some disambiguation merit in heading one article 'Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond' and the other 'Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset'. Gwedi elwch (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Birth background paragraph
After doing some research on the interesting background of his birth, would other users be happy to include the following paragraph that I drafted? Thanks

"After the death of Henry V, Queen dowager Catherine of Valois had an affair in 1427 with Edmund Beaufort. This led to a parliamentary statute to regulate the remarriage of queens of England. Catherine then secretly married Owen Tudor to avoid breaking the statutes of 1227/8. Her relationship with Beaufort thus came to an end, although it is possible that Edmund Tudor was the biological son of Beaufort. The exact dates of Edmund Tudor's birth and marriage of Catherine and Owen are not known. Some historians have suggested that Edmund Tudor was named after Edmund Beaufort and historian John Ashton-Hill states that the coat of arms later used by Edmund and Jasper Tudor were in fact derived from that of Edmund Beaufort. "

References Titus Gold (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond


text:
Category:Welsh folklore

This page lists articles categorised as relevant to the folklore of Wales.

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

title: Category:Welsh folklore


text:
User talk:Uuuuugggggghhhhhh

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 01:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind adding or  to the image you uploaded to indicate that you want to license it under  GFDL or into the public domain. OTherwise it will have to be deleted. Thanks! BrokenSegue 02:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Uuuuugggggghhhhhh


text:
Playing company

In Renaissance-era London, playing company was the usual term for a company of actors. These companies were organised around a group of ten or so shareholders (or "sharers"), who performed in the plays but were also responsible for management. The sharers employed "hired men" – that is, the minor actors and the workers behind the scenes. The major companies were based at specific theatres in London; the most successful of them, William Shakespeare's company the King's Men, had the open-air Globe Theatre for summer seasons and the enclosed Blackfriars Theatre in the winters. The Admiral's Men occupied the Rose Theatre in the 1590s, and the Fortune Theatre in the early 17th century.

Less fortunate companies spent most of their existences touring the provinces; when Worcester's Men gained official permission to perform in London in 1602, they were, in a manner of speaking, "coming in from the cold" of a life of constant touring.

Origins
The development of theatre in England in the 16th and 17th centuries was not an isolated phenomenon; similar developments occurred simultaneously in other European countries, to greater or lesser degrees. The same broad factors influenced English actors as those that affected actors in neighboring countries, especially Scotland, France, Denmark, and states in northern Germany like Saxony and the Rhineland Palatinate. Yet conditions in other societies also differed significantly from those in England; the following discussion applies specifically to England in the 16th century and 17th century.

In the later Medieval and early Renaissance periods, wealthy and powerful English noble houses sometimes maintained a troupe of half a dozen "players", just as noblemen kept jesters or jugglers for entertainment. English theatre benefited greatly from the predilection for theatricality displayed by the Tudors. Henry VII kept a company of players called the "Lusores Regis", which probably consisted of four men and a boy who were used to swift costume changes and multiple roles. In the early period the difference between players, acrobats and other entertainers was not hard and fast. A troupe of players, however, was more costly to keep than a jester; players (who usually had other household duties as well) could defray expenses by touring to various cities and performing for profit – a practice that began the evolution away from the medieval model of noble patronage and toward the commercial and capitalistic model of modern entertainment. It is from the scattered records of such touring, and from occasional performances at the English Royal Court, that our very limited knowledge of English Renaissance theatre in the early and middle 16th century derives.

One curious development of this era was the development of companies of pre-pubescent boy actors. The use of the boy player in companies of adult actors to play female parts can be traced far back in the history of medieval theatre, in the famous mystery plays and moralities; the employment of casts of boys for entire dramatic productions began in the early 16th century, which utilized the boys' choirs connected with cathedrals, churches, and schools. In time the practice took on a professional aspect and companies of child actors would play an important role in the development of drama through the Elizabethan era and into the Jacobean and Caroline periods that followed. (See: Children of the Chapel; Children of Paul's; Beeston's Boys; King's Revels Children.)

Costs
The playing companies did not need to spend money on scenery, and their stage props were often basic (necessarily, since every company made a substantial portion of its income by touring, and some companies toured consistently with no home theatre). Their costs in costumes, however, were high: actors playing kings, cardinals, princes, and noblemen had to look the part. Companies had hundreds of pounds of value invested in their costumes, in "glaring satin suits" and "sumptuous dresses" –  "cloaks in scarlet with gold laces and buttons, and in purple satin adorned with silver;" doublets of "carnation velvet, flame, ginger, red and green; and women's gowns in white satin and cloth of gold." In 1605, Edward Alleyn estimated that his share in the "apparell" of the Admiral's Men was worth £100 – and Alleyn was one of nine sharers in the company at the time. When a company got itself into financial difficulties, the members sometimes had to pawn their costumes, as Pembroke's Men did in the plague year of 1593.

In 1605 the actor Augustine Phillips left specific pieces of his wardrobe to an apprentice in his last will and testament – including his "mouse-colored" velvet hose, purple cloak, white taffeta doublet, and black taffeta suit. To a modern sensibility, this may sound quaint and odd; but when "a doublet and hose of seawater green satin cost £3", the monetary value of Phillips' items was not negligible. Actors could face serious penalties for appropriating the costumes of their companies. [See Robert Dawes for an example.] (The players could defray some of their costs in the used clothing market. As an example, the King's Men bought discarded items of Gondomar's wardrobe for the actor playing the Black Knight in A Game at Chess. Often, "eminent lords and knights at their decease" would leave articles of their finery to their servants – much of it "unseemly" for servingmen and women to wear. Such garments would end up the property of the actors.)

A second major cost lay in play scripts. In the years around 1600, playwrights could be paid as little as £6 to £7 per play (or about the price of two suits). Yet since the companies acted a constantly changing repertory, they needed an abundant supply of plays. Philip Henslowe's Diary records dozens of titles for the 1597–1603 period; when Worcester's Men were setting up for their first London season in 1602, they purchased a dozen new plays from Henslowe's stable of house playwrights, to supplement their existing stock.

The sharers in the company also paid wages to their hired men and boys. Wages differed somewhat over time and from company to company and case to case; but the general average minimum was 1 shilling per man per day, the same wage as that of an artisan worker. Boys cost perhaps half as much, though they were often maintained under some version of an apprenticeship arrangement, which could vary widely in details.

Scheduling
Performances at the public theatres were generally allowed six days per week; the theatres were closed on Sundays and major religious holidays like Good Friday. Other restrictions were laid upon the players, some of which they evaded as consistently as they could. They were supposed to cease playing entirely during Lent – but violated this stricture regularly. In the spring of 1592, for example, the Lord Strange's Men played daily at the Rose Theatre right through Lent. After 1623, companies circumvented the Lenten restriction through the simple expedient of paying bribes to Sir Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels.

One restriction that the players observed, one that was too serious to violate, was the prohibition enforced whenever bubonic plague rose from endemic to epidemic levels. Through much of the English Renaissance period, the theatres were shut down when the death figures in the plague bill (the weekly mortality report for London and some suburban parishes) rose above a certain level. In 1604 that cut-off number was set at 30 per week; in 1607 it was raised to 40. A serious epidemic closed the theatres almost entirely from June 1592 through April 1594; 11,000 Londoners died of plague in 1593. (The plague tended to abate in the colder weather of winter; the theatres opened for short seasons during the winter months of those years.) 1603 was another bad plague year, with 30,000 deaths in London; the theatres were closed from March 1603 to perhaps April 1604.

Other serious epidemics caused theatre closures in 1625 (for eight months, to October) and from May 1636 to October 1637. These periods of closure were always traumatically difficult for the acting troupes; some survived by touring cities and towns outside London...and some didn't survive at all.

The Elizabethan Age
The explosion of popular drama that began when James Burbage built the first fixed and permanent venue for drama, The Theatre, in 1576 was the one great step away from the medieval organizational model and toward the commercial theatre; but that evolution was, at best, a "work in progress" throughout the English Renaissance. Throughout this period, troupes of actors needed to maintain the patronage of a noble household. The prevailing legal system in England defined "masterless men" who traveled about the country as vagabonds, and subjected them to treatments of varying harshness. Local authorities tended to be more hostile than welcoming toward players; the Corporation of London, from the Lord Mayor and aldermen down, was famously hostile to acting troupes, as were the Puritans. Noble patronage was, at the very least, the legal fig leaf that allowed professional players to function in society.

In some cases, more so toward the end of the period, noble patronage was nothing more than that legal fig leaf; a company of actors was an independent entity, financially and otherwise. Conversely, some noblemen were beneficent patrons of their players. The Lords Hunsdon – Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon (c. 1524–96), and his son George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon (1547–1603) –  were valuable protectors of their own company, and, when they served in the office of Lord Chamberlain (1585–96 and 1597–1603 respectively), of English drama as a whole.

That company of Hunsdon's, known to posterity as The Lord Chamberlain's Men, was organized somewhat like a modern joint-stock commercial company (the concept of which was just beginning to evolve in this era) at its re-formation in 1594, after the long plague closure. The company had a small number of partners or shareholders, who pooled their funds to pay expenses and in turn shared the profits, in what was largely a de facto democratic way (at least for the sharers, if not for the hired men and apprentices they employed). Their main rivals, the Admiral's Men, suffered in contrast under a less ideal version of capitalist organization: Philip Henslowe functioned more like a blend of big-business autocrat, landlord, and loan shark. He managed multiple companies of actors and built and owned several theatres, and controlled players (sharers included) and playwrights by doling out payments and loans. (The silver lining in this cloud is that Henslowe's surviving financial records provide a wealth of detailed knowledge about the theatre conditions in his era that is unparalleled by any other source.) Other companies varied between these extremes of organization. (Francis Langley, builder of the Swan Theatre, operated much as Henslowe did, though less successfully, and for a shorter time.)

Drama in the age of Elizabeth was at best an organized disorder; suppression of individual companies, and even the profession as a whole, for political reasons was not unknown. [See: The Isle of Dogs.] Local residents sometimes opposed theatres in their neighborhoods. Individual companies of actors struggled and failed and recombined; tracking the changes has been the obsession of scholars and the bane of students.

Yet the drama was also enormously popular, from the Queen and Court down to the commonest of the common people; indeed, the odd polarity of the theatre audience in this period, with the High and the Low favoring the drama, and the middle class generally more hostile with the growth of Puritan sentiments, is a surprising and intriguing phenomenon. Theatres proliferated, especially (though not exclusively) in neighborhoods outside the city's walls and the Corporation's control – in Shoreditch to the north, or the Bankside and Paris Garden in Southwark, on the southern bank of the River Thames: the Curtain, the Rose, the Swan, the Fortune, the Globe, the Blackfrairs –  a famous roster.

The Jacobean and Caroline Eras
King James, "VI and I", was passionately fond of drama; and theatrical activity at Court accelerated from the start of his reign. Consider the following figures.

In roughly the last decade of Elizabeth's reign, 1594–1603, there were 64 theatrical performances at Court, for an average of 6 or 7 a year:

Compare a total of 299 for a somewhat longer period in the first portion of James' reign, 1603–16, an average of more than 20 per year:

The major companies acquired royal patronage: the Lord Chamberlain's Men became the King's Men, and the Admiral's Men became Prince Henry's Men, under the patronage of the King's eldest son. A company of Queen Anne's Men was built out of the pre-existent Oxford's and Pembroke's Men, companies that were largely devoted to touring the provinces in the previous reign. In 1608 a company was organized under the title of the King's second son, the eight-year-old Charles; this company, the Duke of York's Men, was called Prince Charles's Men after Prince Henry unexpectedly died in 1612.

Companies continued to form, evolve, and dissolve in the early Jacobean era – the King's Revels Children, the Lady Elizabeth's Men; but by the midpoint of James' reign, around the time of Shakespeare's death in 1616, the dramatic scene had generally stabilized into four important companies. These were: the King's Men, at the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres; Palsgrave's Men (formerly the Admiral's and Prince Henry's Men), at the Fortune; Prince Charles's Men, at the Hope; and Queen Anne's Men, at the Red Bull Theatre.

Theatrical evolution continued, sometimes tied to the lives and deaths of royal patrons. Queen Anne's Men disbanded with the death of Anne of Denmark in 1619; the accession of a new queen in 1625 saw the creation of Queen Henrietta's Men. Occasionally there were other new companies like Beeston's Boys, and new theatres like the Salisbury Court. The two prolonged closings of the London theatres due to plague, in 1625 and 1636–37, caused significant disruption in the acting profession, with companies breaking apart, combining and re-combining, and switching theatres, in a dizzying confusion. (Only the King's Men were exempt.) Political suppressions also came along in the Stuart era, though they affected only single offending companies – until a general political suppression closed the theatres from 1642 to 1660, and brought the age of English Renaissance theatre to its end.

title: Playing company


text:
User:Davidjacobchemla

Hello world,

I am new at wikipedia.

I hope you do not mind.

I speak French, Italian, English, and some Spanish, Portughese, German, Hebrew and Interlingua.

I am working on the European English project.

I hope that this article will not be withdrawn from Wikipedia.

European English does exist.

I have been working in many international IT projects in Europe. And I have noticed that Europeans speaking English do it in a European way, with a not very proper English, not defined in Oxford, or in New York.

If you are a native English speaker you will respond that we European should just study and improve our English language skills. But please, make an effort, it is not only a poor English, it is a European English.

For example if we often use the words "respond / response" instead of "answer" it is not because our English language skills are poor it is also because is is "réponse" in French, "respuesta" in Spanish, and "risposta" in Italian.

So please support the European English project, so all European, but also north and south americans have a chance to communicate all together.

title: User:Davidjacobchemla


text:
Talk:Mammalian embryogenesis

When couples at fertility clinics freeze "embryos" for later use, what stage are these embryos in? Are they morula? blastocyst? embryoblast? other? Thanks! :-)

Embryos are frozen at the 6-8 cell stage (morula) stage--nixie 00:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What's it called between the ages of 9-49 cells? And when - exactly - does it become a human 'embryo proper' rather than merely a 'blastocyst'? Is this at 151 cells? Maybe 152? This 'blastocyst' label is a smokescreen used to cloud the issue and justify controversial experiments.--CJ 4 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

The terminology has been around alot longer than the stem cell debate.--nixie 5 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

Has it Nixie? For how long? Can you answer my questions that i asked earlier regarding the precise stages of the embryo? If you read Michael Mulkay's The Embryo Research Debate (1997) it documents the rise of terms such as 'pre-embryo' and 'blastocyst' as being particular products of the IVF debate. If you would like to disagree with this then please feel free to provide references.--CJ 5 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

 * Yes, it has, I can find papers if you want. I mean zygote, morula and blastocyst, I have never heard about "pre-embryo" (what would it be?). One cell embryo (and it is embryo already, not pre-anything) is a zygote, later morula and then blastocyst (blastocyst stage starts when a cavity appears among cells). Blastocyst is "embryo proper" as well as morula is. Look at the entry below "4-16 cells" 69.86.188.219 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)an

stem cell question
From where does the term "stem cell" actually derive?
 * Not sure about that. It's a good question though! Can anyone provide an answer? Just a little note to the questioner, it's customary for users to sign their posts on the discussion page. This makes it easier to read the flow of the discussion.--Nicholas 15:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

4 to 16 cells
I thought at 4 to 16 cells it was still a blastula?

Hi there, Blastula is a term used for non-mammalian embryos and represents the stage when an embryo form a hollow sphere. The blastocyst is the mammalian equivalent to that stage. Up to the 8 cell stage, the stage of the embryo is usually defined by the number of cells (e.g. 4-cell-stage. The stages when the embryo is a "ball of cells" are referred to as Morula. Around the 8 cell stage, cells of the mammalian embryo upregulate expression of adhesion proteins on the cell surface which leads to a compaction of the 8-cell-embryo (now called: compacted morula). After division of the cells of the compacted morula, some cells end up in the entre of this compacted ball whereas some cells form the outer layer. The cells of the outer layer (called trophectoderm) seal of the inside of the ball. Pump-like proteins in the trophectoderm facilitate the the expansion of an inner cavity (called blastocoel). The appearance of the blastocoel marks the blastocyst stage.

CG

Beyond the cavity formation
The article suddenly stops at the formation of the amniotic and yolk sacs it would seem... is there a reason for this or has no one gotten around to writing about the trilaminar embryo, folding and preliminary organogenesis? I have just started writing the trilaminar embry page and realized there is no article (that I can find) which explains how an embryo comes to be three-layered. I also noticed there is no Human Embryogenesis article, which would make a perfect resting place for this sort of information. Anyone interested in helping with such an article should head over to the page for discussion, cheers -- Serephine / talk - 08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: "Invading" the endometrium
Is "invade" the verb used in technical scientific discussions? Thank you. --Dpr 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging
Mammalian embryogenesis is already well covered in Embryogenesis - this page adds nothing and its inclusion is unnecessary Shall merge Iztwoz (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mammalian embryogenesis


text:
User:Zntrip

 * }

Hello. I am a male and I live in and around Los Angeles, California.

This page has been vandalized 74 times. To vandalize this page click here!

Subpages
My active subpages are:
 * ADX Florence – a list of notable inmates incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Florence ADX
 * Awards – vanity
 * Future currency changes – a list of currency changes scheduled to take place
 * International criminal law – a list of individuals indicted in international criminal tribunals
 * United Nations Security Council subsidiary organs – a list of subsidiary bodies created by the United Nations Security Council (under construction)

title: User:Zntrip


text:
Template talk:Infobox court case

New version
I created a new version of this template based on Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, which had previously been used as a base to build dozens of other court case templates, like Template:Infobox Kansas Supreme Court case and Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case. If the change is implemented, all parameters from the current version of this template will continue to work, and at the same time it will be possible to use a single infobox for most other articles about court cases. A few test cases of this version can be seen here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , (top contributors) for an opinion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked closely at it yet, but perhaps it is be slightly too US-centric? Nonetheless, I suppose editors can ignore parameters that are not applicable to the jurisdictions they are working on. Also, I think the trend is to avoid CamelCase and render parameters "like_this" rather than "LikeThis". Finally, could you put an example of the sandboxed template at "Template:Infobox court case/testcases" with as many of the parameters used as possible so we can see what it looks like? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of your arguments, many parameters are too focused on the US and camel case for field names should be avoided. They are only included in the template to make it compatible with other court case infoboxes and their use should definitely be discouraged. I added a testcase with all the parameters imported from the SCOTUS template, but several of them are probably not being used by any article and could be removed (like Seriatim5, Dissent4 etc.).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I created a few more testcases and added the whole blank syntax of the template to the sandbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitals in labels
I have made 4 changes in the sand-box, namely

 * Opinion Announcement => Opinion announcement
 * Chief Judge => Chief judge
 * Associated Judges => Associated judges
 * Area of Law => Area of law

Diff

Any problems with these? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

 * Seems fine to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

These capitalizations are still in place. Can we please get them fixed? Hairy Dude (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ECLI
What about a ECLI-entry in the infobox? Maybe with a switch per European country. Stratoprutser (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a way to cite cases, can't you simply use the citations parameter? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, just noticed what you've been working on in the sandbox. Sure, I have no objection to that. I would suggest that you shift the parameter up so that it is just below citations, since it is a type of citation. Also, see the discussion at "Capitals in labels" above – only the first word of labels should be capitalized, unless the other words are proper nouns or parts of proper nouns. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See for working a working template-code Template:ECLI. I hesitate to propose here a to be pasted code, as I can't test edit. Stratoprutser (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added an ECLI parameter. Is ECLI ready for use yet? If so, the template documentation here can be updated to inform editors that they can use ECLI. (By the way, what do you mean by you "can't test edit"?) — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Templates calling Infobox court case
I'm not sure where the category Category:Templates calling Infobox court case is coming from. I don't think it's from the templates themselves as they are just a wrapper for this one but the category seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson
can we make this template work for Death of Ian Tomlinson? if there are no objections, I will add some new parameters for that article. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What new parameters do you plan to add? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SMUconlaw, the parameters used in Death of Ian Tomlinson. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That extends the function of the infobox from judgments of cases to trials as well, but I think that should be fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done, feel free to rearrange the placement of the fields. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2016
A trivial issue: This template inappropriately italicizes the title of its own page. I propose changing line 2 from:

to:

Rebbing   talk   21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the idea, but your solution would not actually have fixed it. ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Searching for criterion use
I know that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_court_case can tel us which articles use this template, but does anyone know if there is a way to get more specific, such as to limit the list to only showing those which fill out a field like 'keywords' so I can find examples of that in action without checking all of them? Ranze (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You would have to add a tracking category to the template. I can help with this if you explain in more detail what you want to achieve. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * results from database dumps, you can use de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Vorlagenauswertung/en. or, you can also try using an insource regular expression search ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=insource%3A%2FECLI%5B+%5D*%3D%2F&searchToken=ecrpmtvxfmw0850v85fgakpcr for example]). Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Should "name" and "citations" be wikified to Case citation?
Apokrif (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Can you explain further? — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (to help the reader to understand obscure abbreviations). Apokrif (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Either this template needs to be fixed or the infobox for California Supreme Court cases needs to be disconnected from this
I recently noticed that Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case was significantly revised at this edit on 30 December 2013 by User:Underlying lk so that it was based on this infobox. That was most unwise because this infobox is poorly designed and fails to include sufficient flexibility to reflect that the vast majority of state supreme court judges in the United States are formally titled "Justices." New York and Maryland use the title "Judge" to refer to their state supreme court judges, but they are the rare exception.

It is very sloppy to use the wrong title. It is comparable to creating an infobox for listing current officials of a government that is so inflexible that it can only use the term "Prime Minister" to describe the head of government, which clearly makes no sense as applied to presidential systems of government. Indeed, at most midsize and large U.S. law firms, an attorney who used the wrong title for an appellate judge in an appellate brief would be severely reprimanded; if combined with other errors, that error could be used as grounds for termination.

Is there any way to re-engineer this infobox to include some kind of switch so that all mentions of "Judges" become "Justices?" If not, I am proposing to revert the California Supreme Court case infobox back to the previous version prior to 30 December 2013. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the  and   fields to the sandbox page so that the title can be changed in the wrapper templates where appropriate. This should fix the issue if implemented in the live version. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Counsel in Appeal and SCOTUS cases
Question from a newbie.

When I use Infobox United States District Court case I have the opportunity to record and display counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

When I use Infobox SCOTUS case There is no field for counsel for petitioner and respondent or at least who made oral arguments, nor can I add one (that I know of). In every case since Samuel Sloan argued pro se in 1978, the petitioners have been represented. How do I fit them in the infobox? Thanks in advance Rhadow (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It might be better to ask this question at "Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sentenced tab introduced
I would like to propose that you introduce a parameter known as Sentence. That parameter must always be placed following the verdict. J4lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 May 2019 (Comma-formatting issue)
Line 163 (aka data66): Change  to

Line 187 (aka data74): Change  to

These fixes an issue where a space inappropriately appears before the comma; e.g. the (hypothetical) incorrectly-formatted "Bob Smith, joined by Henry Black, Jane Green, Sarah Saxby" will be become the correctly-formatted "Bob Smith, joined by Henry Black, Jane Green, Sarah Saxby" if this change is implemented

See People v. Diaz (concur/dissent) for an example of the incorrect formatting issue occurring. ROADKILL (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – bradv 🍁  00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit removed valid parameters, breaking existing infoboxes. I have implemented what appears to be a better fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2019
Add the background color #99c0ff to the major headers of the template, such as "Holding" and "Court membership", to match those used by the Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. This will allow the various blocks of the template to navigated more easily. Rougher07 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — JJMC89  (T·C) 04:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2019
Replace the current image  with. The image is more up-to-date, prettier, colours more accurate. 13:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Concurrence and Concur/dissent templates not working in articles, need fix
I noticed Concur/dissent is not showing up for Silberman in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) and Concurrence isn't showing up for Graber in Peruta v. San Diego County. Please fix this because I am not authorized to edit the "Infobox court case" template. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done See my response to the May 24 edit request above. Valid parameters, including the ones this request mentions, were removed in the edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of period after per curiam in opinions
Should the period after per curiam in the template be removed in the case opinions section? I think it should be. If so, please remove it. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
Please add the line Supreme Court of Texas = Seal of the Supreme Court of Texas.png. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing the full title issue
I had to override the template to get Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue) italicized correctly. "force" (nor "all") worked in the template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * not really understanding what problem you encountered. Could you explain further? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That title needs to be entirely in italics (including the parenthetical part). The template wouldn't do so, with either "italic title = force" or "italic title = all". I had to override it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Hmmm, not sure what to do about that, as it's an issue with Infobox and Module:infobox, which I do not how to edit. Essentially, there needs to be some way to pass the yes parameter of Italic title to the module. Perhaps someone else can look into it. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Could an admin/template editor add a merge tag per Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 17?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * @Bait30 sure - can you supply the wikitext that should be added? DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * or anyone else who reads this first: . I believe this is correct per WP:TFDHOWTO.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding parameters for merge
For a merge of Infobox United States District Court case (TfD), the following parameters are required to be added to this template:

 * Docket (distinct from citations), we already have ECLI so this is similar

Further changes:
 * Defense (US spelling) should be permitted as an alternative parameter to defence
 * Need alternative parameters plaintiff in place of prosecution

Any objections? Could be argued that defense/plaintiff shouldn't be in the infobox for many of these cases (eg National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System)?

Clarification needed (multiple params not documented):
 * Is the purpose of defence the defence (ie argument) of the defendant (eg "my wife was giving birth so I ran the red light"), or the counsel (individuals/firm) for the defendant?

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently one of our most viewed articles, State v. Chauvin, is using the Commonwealth spelling instead of the American spelling in its infobox. I've added an EngVar defence/defense option to the sandbox (diff; testcase). Either spelling would be accepted as a parameter, and that would determine the spelling used in the label.

Pinging as the one who raised this last year. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 02:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pppery: Thanks! But actually, I just noticed that I made a small mistake in my logic, which results in this always using GenAm spelling. I'd forgotten that  would default to true without a pipe at the end. Should be   (sandbox diff). Sorry for the mix-up!  -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * * Pppery * it has begun... 14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Substituting 'opinion' with 'judgment'
A court or judge giving an 'opinion' is not common in Australian and English legal parlance. Courts write and deliver judgments, not opinions. Although obviously ubiquitous in the US, it does not seem apt in some other contexts, where judgments or decisions would be more applicable. In my view, the infobox should permit this terminology in lieu of opinion where context calls for it. Does anyone have any thoughts? Local Variable (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)\
 * This is likely an issue that has considerable variation in different countries, so it may be better to add more parameters than simply substitute. For example, in Canada, the "judgment" is the formal order of the court, deciding the matter before it.  The judge or judges give "reasons for judgment".  This distinction is important for appeals:  an appeal is from the judgment, not the reasons for judgment. "Opinion" is sometimes used in stead of "reasons".  "Judgment" to mean the reasons for the decision is not accurate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great points, agreed entirely. Just to clarify, I did not mean replacing 'opinion' with 'judgment' universally (which the Americans would no doubt oppose), it was allowing the possibility of varying the terminology used within a particular infobox. Based on what you've said, additional parameters may well be the most sound way of achieving that. Thanks for the reply. Local Variable (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have since had a look at the template source code, and it would appear that the following are already permissible as options: I would actually prefer an option for 'Held', which would be the most applicable option in an Australian context. Local Variable (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Decision by
 * Outcome
 * Questions presented
 * Holding
 * Ruling
 * Case opinions

Insignia
Currently the infobox displays the right insignia for the country, but not for the time. The page for Dr. Bonham's Case, for example, shows the coat of arms of the United Kingdom since 1952 even though the case occurred in the Kingdom of England in 1610. Infobox UK legislation has a device to display the correct symbols for the time period, but I don't know how to replicate it here. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Until this is resolved properly I will attempt to manually change each one.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2021
Please replace File:California-southern.gif with the more recent, less cringy seal at File:Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.png, as seen on United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Thank you!

– Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation?
Is the vast amount of deprecated fields in the TemplateData (e.g. judges) correct? Dat GuyTalkContribs 02:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no clue, but it is extremely silly and should be undone. Carolina2k22 • (talk)  •  (edits)  04:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

British Court Logos
At present the UK Supreme Court template uses a photograph of Middlesex Guildhall. I know that the principal badge of the court is non-free, but we have a free illustration of the Blake emblem as used on the carpet. Could that be used instead? It's certainly distinctive enough.

Additionally, cases in nearly all of the English & Welsh judiciary are illustrated with the full royal heraldic achievement with helm and crest, but most actual court documents that I've seen prefer the smaller version. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Linting errors in Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case template
I've been working through the list of linting errors and Strauss_v._Horton has been flagged has having an issue with missing italics tags. I've come across similar errors, usually with editors putting  et al.  in a field that is already marked as italics by the template, but the linting problem with this page seems to be the amount of text in the 'FullName' field. As with many templates, if there are line breaks it will not put individual lines of text in italics. I could fix this by removing the line breaks, but that will make the field look messy. I have no expertise with legal templates and didn't want to fix the linting error but leave the page messy. Can anyone advise the best way to proceed, please? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2023
Please remove the equals signs after the first two entries for New Zealand. This allows them to display the NZ coat of arms as well, where they currently (incorrectly) display nothing. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 07:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch!  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'r there 22:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Add witness parameter
I have template editor permissions, but I'm not confident with this aspect of template syntax. My suggestion is to put below |label16 =Defense

| label17     =
 * data17      =

I think this is the correct syntax, but not entirely sure.

Motivation is to be able to add List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal to the infobox at Nuremberg trials. (t · c)  buidhe  07:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Added to sandbox. Please check Template:Infobox court case/testcases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I wanted. Thank you. (t · c)  buidhe  21:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to make case-insensitive parameters
Is it possible to either tweak the template parameters so that they're case-insensitive, or add aliases that would effectively do the same thing? It'd help reduce the need for edits like this, where the infobox treated it as an unknown parameter solely because it wasn't capitalized. – Galactic-Radiance (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 * There isn't an easy way that I know. You would have to think of every conceivable capitalisation that might be used and include them all as aliases. It would be more feasible with a lua module. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Vector vs Raster at ICJ
Regretfully, the SVG version of ICJ's seal, created by a Commons user on the basis of a raster version and added to this template, appears to be inferior to the  original raster image as seen on ICJ's website. May I ask a template editor to replace these images in this template? Thanks. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 6 February 2024
Description of suggested change: Please update the seal of the International Court of Justice in Template:Infobox court case/images as described in the above section.

Diff: — kashmīrī  TALK  00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 02:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — kashmīrī  TALK  15:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 8 March 2024
Would it be possible to add an image for the Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa) and Appellate Division (South Africa) to the template? (They shared the same building so can have the same image.) This one is on the commons: Thanks! Jlalbion (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * .  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be two "date decided" parameters
Just pointing this out so someone more experienced can fix this if it is unintentional. Safes007 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Do you mean in the TemplateData table? That isn’t intentional, and fyi, you are able to edit that whole block, as it is not part of the template, but the template documentation, and exists here: Template:Infobox court case/doc. — HTGS (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 June 2024: Pluralize from text
Please implement Pluralize from text for, per the current sandbox.

Diff: Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Followup edit request for remaining (s) labels
Please update from the current sandbox, to implement Pluralize from text for all remaining labels which currently display (s).

Thank you! <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It looks like this would pluralize "Counsel for plaintiffs" when there are multiple lawyers listed rather than multiple plaintiffs. That one should be . SilverLocust 💬 06:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. I have changed that in the sandbox, and have added the plural for potential “Counsels for plaintiffs” as well, although if others find that too antiquated sounding, I’m happy to remove it. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The plural version of "counsel" (lawyer) is still "counsel" (lawyers). See counsel. SilverLocust 💬 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have certainly seen “counsels for ..” in the wild, so at this point, without more detail, that wiktionary advice is wrong. The exact use is a little difficult to get one’s head around, because ‘counsel’ is used differently in a good handful of similar cases. But again, if we want to say our house style doesn’t use it, that’s fine by me. And it may well be a geographic thing—I have just done a couple of quick Googles and it appears far more common in America than the UK.  In any case, the singular works without feeling odd (imo), and it can easily be re-addressed later, so I’ve taken it off the sandbox for now. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See Oxford English Dictionary ("Usually as a collective noun with plural agreement") and Merriam Webster ("plural counsel"). SilverLocust 💬 09:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. SilverLocust 💬 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Issue with italic title = no?
I am trying to override the italic title on Bank Nationalisation Case using |italic title=no in this edit, but it appears the title is still italicized, I've tried purging the page cache as well. Am I doing something wrong or is there a bug with this param? Thanks! ASUKITE 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 * To remove the italic title, you'd need to add  to both of the infoboxes in this article.
 * But I believe this title should be italicized. That's what I mostly see when searching for  . And MOS:LAW says that "Legal case names are always italicized". If this were an American case, I would say with more confidence that it is generally correct to italicize a common name (such as the Civil Rights Cases). SilverLocust 💬 05:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! I didn't notice the second infobox, and I'm not entirely sure on the italics either so I will leave it for now. ASUKITE  13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Infobox court case


text:
File:AtariBasicError.png

Screenshot of what happens in Atari BASIC when the user enters a line containing a syntax error. After the line number, the string " " is inserted and the first character of the token following the erroneous token is displayed with the foreground and background colours swapped.

Screenshot was created myself using the Atari800Win PLus Atari 8-bit Emulator.

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: File:AtariBasicError.png


text:
Matthew 3:5

Matthew 3:5 is the fifth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. The verse occurs in the section introducing John the Baptist with this verse describing his popularity in the region.

Content
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
 * Then went out to him Jerusalem, and
 * all Judaea, and all the region
 * round about Jordan.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:
 * Then people from Jerusalem,
 * all of Judea, and all the region
 * around the Jordan went out to him.

The 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text is:
 * τοτε εξεπορευετο προς αυτον ιεροσολυμα
 * και πασα η ιουδαια
 * και πασα η περιχωρος του ιορδανου

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub Matthew 3:5.

Analysis
This verse describes Jews coming from Jerusalem all of Judea and the areas around the Jordan River to hear John the Baptist preach. It is a slight rewording of . While Matthew 3:1 placed John in the wilderness, he was only about 20 miles from Jerusalem and it would have been very possible for pilgrims to make the journey. This description is considered historically credible as it is backed up by Josephus (37–100). An account of John the Baptist is found in all extant manuscripts of his Antiquities of the Jews (book 18, chapter 5, 2) where he says of John the Baptist that the "others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved by hearing his words". In fact at the time Josephus was writing, around 97 AD, John the Baptist seems to still be a far better-known figure than Jesus, to whom Josephus only makes two much disputed references.

Commentary from the Church Fathers
Pseudo-Chrysostom: Having described the preaching of John, he goes on to say, There went out to him, for his severe life preached yet more loudly in the desert than the voice of his crying.

Chrysostom: For it was wonderful to see such fortitude in a human body; this it was that chiefly attracted the Jews, seeing in him the great Elias. It also contributed to fill them with wonder that the grace of Prophecy had long failed among them, and now seemed to have at length revived. Also the manner of his preaching being other than that of the old prophets had much effect; for now they heard not such things as they were wont to hear, such as wars, and conquests of the king of Babylon, or of Persia; but of Heaven and the Kingdom there, and the punishment of hell.

title: Matthew 3:5