Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

If a neologism is not eligible for inclusion at Wiktionary, it is very unlikely to be a suitable Wikipedia article.

NeilN reverted "If a neologism is not eligible for inclusion at Wiktionary, it is very unlikely to be a suitable Wikipedia article" as "unneccessary instruction creep".

I disagree. It is not instruction. It is documentation of actual practice, and it is necessary for those new editors (and SPAs) who write an article on a neologism that is taken to AfD and deleted with reference to WP:NEO (here!). The text of WP:NEO is currently fluff that fails to tell the intended readership what they need to know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The existing text, "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead", tells editors to go to Wiktionary to create articles on neologisms and why they're deleted here. Also, even if the neologism is eligible for Wiktionary, it's still unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"tells editors to go to Wiktionary to create articles on neologisms"? I don't read that, and I'm not sure that it should say that explicitly. If the neologism is eligible for Wiktionary, it's still unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia is said well enough, but that is not what's needed. "If it is not eligible for Wiktionary..." is a very clear test that would help in many actual cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead" seems pretty clear to me but YMMV. And I doubt that many new editors or SPA's will take the time to determine if the neologism is suitable for Wiktionary. I'm not sure what the additional verbiage is supposed to accomplish as the current first sentence states why neologism articles are sent to AfD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also to some degree untrue. It's possible for a topic to be notable by Wikipedia's standards but "what it's called" to be non-notable by Wiktionary's. I've transferred terms over there that were unceremoniously deleted while the article on the topic (not the term) was kept here at AfD.--Father Goose (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples please? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverse innovation. Not a brilliant article, but good enough to keep and plenty of room for improvement. However the term "reverse innovation" itself probably does qualify as a neologism, so in retrospect I'm not surprised Wiktionary deleted it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheism - in violation of WP:NAD?

I'm putting this here presuming that clever folks with experience applying WP:NAD watch this page.

Debate about the introduction to Atheism has been going on for years, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the fundamental problem is that it is in violation of WP:NAD. Please see the RFC I just created about this, here.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I have an outside opinion on whether it violates WP:NAD to state something along the lines of "A has been defined as a1". "A rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral with four right angles" seems to clearly be about the concept rectangle, not the word. In this case one could certainly argue that the "defined as" could be omitted, but not because of WP:NAD but rather because of its undue wordiness. However, if a concept has several disputed competing definitions, then to observe WP:NPOV while giving each definition its fair representation without favoring or belittling any one of them, a construction such as "A has been defined as a1... and as a2... and as a3" is a possibility. I am thinking specifically of:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Notice also how the defs are not merely listed and the scope of each is also introduced. People may not "like" the style, but it conforms to MOS:BEGIN's guideline to begin with unambiguous definition, is accurate, hides neither the definitions nor the "controversy", & preserves NPOV--JimWae (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A shorter & more list-type alternative:

Atheism has been variously defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]--JimWae (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic principle makes sense. I don't see the nuanced differences, but maybe that's not a problem for the people who are most interested in atheism. Maurreen (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't have anything to do with WP:NAD. The intros you cited above are defining concepts, not defining words. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is "X refers to ..." unacceptable because it's defining a word, but "X is defined as ..." is acceptable and is not defining a word?

Concepts are not defined. Concepts are definitions of words; it's the words that are defined. For example, it's the word square (not the concept) that is defined as a polygon with four equal length sides and four right angles, though that definition of the word square serves as a description of the concept. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"X refers to..." is not unacceptable BECAUSE it is defining a word, it is unacceptable because it is ABOUT the word "X" (and should actually be written as: "X" refers to.) Words (well, most nouns) refer to things; concepts are among the things that can be referred to (by words).

You assert that concepts are not defined, then strangely that "concepts are definitions of words" as if the words originated before the conceptual scheme. Were we "defining" a word we would give its part of speech, how many syllables it has, its linguistic origins. When we define the concept (such as that of a rectangle), we give a definition that can be translated into any language and does not depend on the English word "rectangle".

True, in the sentence "X refers to Y" we can replace "refers to" with "is". (Strictly speaking, we also have to remove the quote marks around X that should have been there in the first place.) True also, in the sentence "X is defined as Y" we can omit "defined as" because it is unnecessarily wordy (not because it is about the word). But just because we can link X and Y with the same copulative "is" does not mean that we are using the symbols ("X" and X) the same way.

When there is more than one definition for a concept, it is not unnecessarily wordy to say "A has been defined as... (a1 and a2 and a3)". In that case, we are providing the additional information that more than one definition (not just more than one description) has been proposed for the concept (hence it is not unnecessarily wordy). --JimWae (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful here. 'definition' in wiktionary is "2. A statement expressing the essential nature of something." If I say a bird is defined as something that has wings and lays eggs, that's not defining the term 'bird' it's defining what that type of animal is.- Wolfkeeper 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all that. I take it you are agreeing that "Atheism has been defined as X and as Y and as Z" does not have a problem with WP:NAD, yes? --JimWae (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth remembering that we have more than one goal. An article (even one that is entirely about the word in question) should be more than just a definition. It should also (ideally) be well-written. "___ is defined as..." or "___ refers to..." is usually a lousy, unnecessarily verbose writing style, even if the subject itself is a perfectly valid, encyclopedic article. See the #Handling problems section, especially the paragraph that runs "sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Atheism, because sources disagree, cannot be given a single definition. The definition is disputed & the article & the lede must make note of the differing definitions. Thus we cannot say "Atheism is X", where X is some single (or even complex) clause. Even "Atheism is X or Y or Z" is disputed for giving equal weight to all 3, besides seeming indecisive to a reader. "Atheism has been defined as X and as Y and as Z" makes it clear that there are different definitions (which an informative NPOV article would be obliged to do somewhere anyway). When there is no dispute about definition, "A is defined as X" is just excess wordiness compared to "A is X", but when there is a dispute about definition & we actually have to give multiple definitions, then clarity, honesty, and "non-weaselness" would seem to require that we state that it is definitions that are being given. The "is" in "A is X or Y or Z" is not clearly the "is" of definition - especially since most people would not expect a bunch of "or"s in a definition. The "is" in "A is X and Y and Z" is also hard to interpret unless it is rewritten as "A has been defined as X and as Y and as Z".--JimWae (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • We certainly can make statements that begin "Atheism is X", e.g., "Atheism is a belief or philosophy that contrasts with theism." Atheism is not special, BTW: Vegetarianism has a similar number of definitions, and many broad political concepts, like conservatism and liberalism, have far more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • • Would that it were so, but 1>the absence def of atheism classifies mathematics and science as atheism, and babies (and ridiculously even worms, corpses, and rocks) as atheists - and to say rocks (or even babies) have a belief or philosophy is somewhat problematic, since they do not even have "views" nor do they take a "position". 2> theism also has multiple definitions, and some (such as Tillich) claim not to be theists but claim to believe in a deity. 3>I'd drop the absence def in my own work, but it is reliably sourced (and deeply espoused by many editors) 4>then, of course, there are the agnostics who contrast with all forms of theism, and deists, pantheists, polytheists who contrast with a specific understanding of theism--JimWae (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
          • • • • • • @WhatamIdoing: Btw, "is defined as" (as in "___ is defined as..." or "___ refers to...") was recently added to the project page by a person with a vested interest in the atheism article. It has since been removed by someone else.
                    • Whereas "refers to" has problems with WP:BRD WP:NAD, "is defined as" does not. It is (perhaps) too wordy if there is only one def. It is not "cumbersome" when it introduces disputed definitions. Replacing "A is defined as X and as Y and As Z" results in the non-syntactical "A is X and as Y and as Z" or the meaning-changed "A is X and is Y and is Z"--JimWae (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
                      • I doubt it: The optional essay, WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, doesn't address such wording at all. But perhaps you meant something much closer to, "I am misusing this page as an inappropriate forum for dispute resolution for a mainspace article, rather than confining my conversation to improvements for this page"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
                        • • I will just say "I do not follow what you said above", rather than misinterpret your comment as directing the conversation towards me. What I was saying is that someone very involved in the atheism article, had made irrelevant changes with this edit to WP:NOTDIC (after his position about "is defined as" was not supported on this talk page) to bolster his arguments at the atheism page. I think all who care about this page would want to prevent irrelevant (and counter to talk) changes done for that purpose--JimWae (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
                          • I see I put WP:BRD above, rather than WP:NAD. Now your comment makes more sense--JimWae (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
          • This may well be overreaching. The purpose of the intro is I think really to bound the topic for the reader and the other editors, you can have more precise definitions later.- Wolfkeeper 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
            • • There is no single def that is not disagreed with by somebody else. The article's lede has presented all 3 defs for 3 years now, and it was in that manner that it achieved FA status. --JimWae (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • One more point that I would like clarified: It seems to me that the expressions "A can also mean Y" and "A broader meaning of A is Z" pretty clearly are about the term "A" and not about the concept A, thus they would run afoul of WP:NAD. Further, replacing parts of "A has been defined as X and and Y and as Z" with these expressions would actually be a step TOWARDs "becoming more like a dictionary" (despite any editor's claim that "A has been defined as X and and Y and as Z" "sounds like a dictionary".) Comments please--JimWae (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• On a related but distinct point, the article human would appear to currently be having a problem not only with defining, but very much moreso with NOTDIC. Any thoughts on that? --JimWae (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The current intro is fine: "Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" Leadwind (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neologism section title

• Wikipedia does not document the usage of neologisms Really? You could've fooled me! –xeno^talk 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, documenting usages of words is not what an encyclopedia is; that's a job for a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia does soemtimes document the usage of neologisms - see Category:Neologisms. Trying to get that to change by making an obviously false statement on this policy page isn't appropriate. –xeno^talk 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I wrote that "obviously false" section title, not Wolfkeeper. There's a distinction between "usage" and "coverage/analysis". The point I was trying to convey with that section title verbiage is repeated in the section, "we need sources that are about the term/concept, not sources that merely use the term/concept". Dictionaries were traditionally compiled by documenting the usage of words, in context, on small cards, and these usage cards were used to track the meaning and etymology of a word. We don't want wikipedia articles that amount to the same thing, a synthesis based on compiling sources that merely use a term. See this or pretty much every other citation on that article for an example of the type of improper citation of usage rather than coverage that I'm talking about. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but the section header can't explain all of that and is therefore misleading. Simply "Neologisms" seems fine for a section header, but I'm willing to hear other options that aren't ambiguous. –xeno^talk 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am open minded for a new section title as well. One reason I phrased it that way was to match the other section titles that are written in the style of a thing that wikipedia is not. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a mouthful but: Wikipedia does not document neologisms that have not entered the common lexicon –xeno^talk 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro

We've had some discussions about this issue at WT:POLICY and WT:NOT; I'd like to suggest a change to the intro, in fact I've already made the change: [Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a concept, a place, an event, etc.;] "occasionally, the history of a term or the controversy surrounding it is notable enough to merit an article." [A dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history.] The question keeps coming up whether this page is saying that the history of words and phrases or the controversies surrounding them can't ever be the subjects of Wikipedia articles; since we have many such articles and they don't seem to be going away, and since the subject seems largely settled at the relevant policy page, WP:NOT, it would be helpful if the language here doesn't keep pushing that boundary. Only one editor in the discussion at WT:POLICY was against demoting this page (some were neutral), and I'm hoping that with a modest change or two, and after some time has gone by with the changes intact, we might not have to keep fighting about this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that you hope the Wikipedia will stop being an actual encyclopedia and start including entire phrase books and become an encyclopedic dictionary?- Wolfkeeper 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dank's change was a definite improvement and reflects what is already said explicitly at WP:NOT: that sometimes articles on words are acceptable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They never seem to be. It's always an underlying idea that is the real encyclopedic topic, not the term itself.- Wolfkeeper 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is never correct to have an encyclopedia article on a term. It should either be moved to Wiktionary, or rewritten to be about the underlying idea, or merged with another article, or deleted entirely. I am not exagerating when I say that I have never seen a convincing article anywhere in Wikipedia on a term that couldn't be done a different way, and the material would be better for it.- Wolfkeeper 05:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, sure, but it's not the consensus at Wikipedia, which does have articles on terms. And again, WP:NOT specifically mentions this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the consensus view. The current articles that are on terms are a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of articles, and new (and often old) articles on terms are routinely deleted without question. This is the way it's supposed to work.- Wolfkeeper 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, what are you going to do next for fuck sake, remove it as a deletion criteria? That would be the obvious move; if articles are permitted on terms, according to you they're (at the very least) 'sometimes' fine, so in practice you can't delete them because then you have to decide whether they're fine in this case or not, and you've got no idea what the criteria is. This is going to be a disaster, you haven't thought it through at all. Not even slightly.- Wolfkeeper 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile in wiktionary land, they've got all terms, they welcome terms; terms is what they do.- Wolfkeeper 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, it is never correct to have an article on a term in an encyclopedia. You have the article on the central idea, and you can mention the term as well, but if it's really about the term, that's an essay-style dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. You are well aware that there are articles on terms on Wikipedia that the community has determined are acceptable (such as craic). You are also aware that WP:NOT specifically says that sometimes article on words are acceptable; Dank's edit only says what is already at that page. You are also well aware of WP:3RR, and are advised not to perform a revert on this page again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence at hand to use the exact wording that has long been at WP:NOT. Hopefully that will be the end of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can support that as a compromise; it doesn't really define when it's okay and when it's not, but at least it gets across that it does occasionally happen. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That it does happen is beyond argument. Hopefully one day we can add in details about when it is and isn't acceptable and make this a useful policy page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you get it into your heads that having a very few alleged counter-examples for something doesn't mean we need a policy for it? You are completely unable to come up with any formula for when it is and isn't, according to you, 'okay', and that's because it never, really is OK. All you've done is managed to come up with enough votes in an AFD. Well whooop-de-do. There's no guarantee the next AFD won't get any particular example deleted, in fact the wikipedia has *lots* of examples of AFDs where things eventually get deleted.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that you can't come up with any rules for it, then it's not policy. That's what policy is.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just attempting to game the policies.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, if we can ever get you to end your frontal assault on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism, we could easily come up with a clear description of the community consensus on articles on words. What you seem to be unwilling, or unable, to accept is that articles on words and terms are already mentioned at WP:NOT. The fact that this policy page doesn't follow that one is a major problem.

As to what the wording could be, I think the community agrees on at least the following things: 1) words and terms can sometimes be an encyclopedic subject. 2)Articles on words and terms are subject to the standard notability guidelines. 3) Sources used need to describe the word itself, not merely use it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, that's four reverts in 24 hours. Do not do it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No.- Wolfkeeper 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's all about notability? Uh huh. Tell me, in your happy 'consensus' world, what kind of fucked up reference source covers all 'notable words'; well, I say all, but only nouns, and not adjectives or verbs or adverbs or ...?- Wolfkeeper 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say it's "all about notability"? I said that I think most editors would agree that articles on words are still be subject to the standard notability guidelines, and that the sources have to actually be about the words, not just use them. And that was just a response to your comment; I'm not going to continue responding to you if you continue to be so uncivil.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You said some of them are, then you mentioned notability, and then you also said that it also can't be a trivial mention (but that's part of notability anyway). That to me says it just has to be notable. You've got nothing else. And I simply pointed out that that leads us to a very weird place with respect to adjectives, nouns etc. You haven't given any other criteria, and I have no reason to think that any other criteria are possible. In effect you are deliberately removing this policy and making it about notability, and only notability. If that's what you intend, then you need to do that properly, not try to slip a few words in on the side to try to nullify a very well established policy.- Wolfkeeper 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only change I made was to copy over the wording from WP:NOT exactly, as I've reiterated several times.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this change (WP:BRD)). I see no discussion here nor consensus for a policy change, which is a very large change in meaning IMHO. Please have a proper discussion and get consensus first, as there is clearly opposition to changing this policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It may seem by a large change, but it isn't really. As I say, the wording is copied word for word from what already appeared at WP:NOT. The fact that this policy didn't mention it is a major problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Anma, you've got the wrong end of the stick, as the Brits say. The language at NOT has been more or less the same for years; for instance, at the end of 2007 it was "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." Now it's "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." There's been plenty of discussion at WT:NOT, and fairly solid consensus that we want some, a few, articles about words (although my personal take is that a better description of our policy is that we're happy with an article about the history or controversy surrounding a term, in cases where that history or controversy is notable in its own right). This page (NOTDIC) has also been around for a long time, and also been marked as policy off and on, mostly on, for many years, but that wasn't much of a problem until recently, when the wording in the lead kept lurching more in the direction of denying that we ever have or want articles about words. It never got to the point where it said that explicitly, but it got close enough that one editor who took that position started saying that that was our policy and the policy page backed him up on that. I'm not mentioning a name because I don't think the problem to be solved is a behavioral, I think the problem to be solved is to make sure everyone's agreed on what the policy is. I suggested some language, I got reverted, then another editor just copied over the wording from NOT that I just quoted, word for word, on the theory that no one can argue with a straight face that that's not our policy. That's probably the best we can do, for now. I see people have added a few extra things, and I think experimentation is a good thing, as long as we keep the exact language from NOT that's been around forever so we're all clear on the boundaries of what's possible. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Old school got removed because it was an adjective that means the same as "old fashioned" which was a disamb page for fairly obvious reasons, and pretty soon so was old school. Truthiness arguably isn't a term article anymore, and I don't think Macedonia (terminology) ever was, even though you wouldn't guess that from the name. And that's the problem. The examples are deceptive and always have been. Truthiness is notable for the stuff around the word, not the word itself.

The only clear examples of word articles here, that are particularly stable over time, are swear words, practically nobody would want to face the shit-storm that would happen if you tried to delete them. I'm often tempted to add them to the policy. That would be an accurate, but a highly unpopular change I suspect.

But it's easier just to delete the policy entirely, it's so redundant these days, dontchathink?- Wolfkeeper 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Truthiness is almost as confused as your rewrite of Anchor baby (and subsequent editwarring there). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are long lists of articles at the rfc, in the sections "#Specific words" and "#AfDs - other editors" for example, of articles on notable words which are kept-by-consensus. You seem to be completely alone in believing that Wikipedia should not cover notable words. Everyone else agrees that the policy needs refining in order to explain exactly what constitutes a "notable word" or a "more than dicdef article"; It's currently not clear. However, your extreme refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of a "notable word" that should be covered at Wikipedia, is making it much much harder. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We still have an Old school article. This is very dictionary-like as it provides a dictionary style definition and lists a variety of alternate meanings. Pages of this sort are quite common and further demonstrate the extent to which this policy is not followed. We should change the status of Wikipedia is not a dictionary to guideline as that properly indicates the fuzzy nature of the matter and the existence of numerous exceptions, such as Old school. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We dont' have an article at old school, it's a disamb page. This policy is about articles.- Wolfkeeper 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)