The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
No WP:IMDb is not a reliable source and even if it was WP:GNG requires significant coverage in secondary sources and not just a passing mention or database entry. While WP:NACTOR has some additional criteria you really should aim to establish GNG from the get go and in any case, at a minimum you will need a reliable source to establish the SNG is met. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using female pronouns to refer to starships/spaceships
I've recently found myself looking back at some of the fictional spaceship articles that I've contributed many years ago such as those for the Battlestar Galactica, SSV Normandy, Serenity, Tantive IV, Space Battleship Yamato, and White Base, and something curious that I've noticed is the seemingly occasional, liberal, or non-uniform use of "she"/"her" to refer to the topic spaceship, much like the naval tradition of referring to water-bound ships, over "it", which would normally apply to any vehicle that isn't a seagoing vessel, and thus is far more common for people to do. The various fictions and media that have spaceships also tend to be all over the place regarding this convention as well. I remember reading a possible explanation that noted how many works of fiction tend to equate space travel with naval travel, and so many habits and terms passed on from the sailing tradition instead of the aviation field (spaceships are often worded to have "bows", "sterns", "port" and "starboard" sides instead of front, back, left and right sides; they have "decks", "bridges", "superstructures", "hulls", sometimes escape pods are called "lifeboats", they can have "sister ships", and it is not uncommon for a commander of a fleet of spaceships to be called an "admiral" rather than a "marshal"). Since sailors are notoriously some of the most superstitious people in the world, it may come as little surprise if some of those superstitions (albeit changed somewhat to fit the setting) carried over to the crew of an interstellar ark; an example that comes to mind is that whole thing about seeing a vessel like a mother figure that protects and shelters her crew, so the crew must care for "her" (their vessel) in return. Aviation terms tend to be more likely inherited by small 1 or 2-man space fighter craft than large starships that hold large complements.
So for example: "The GSU Arumihsi is a fine vessel. She carries a squadron of state-of-the-art fighters and the crew is unmatched in efficiency and experience, loyal to her and her captain. The vessel is currently docked at the spaceport over Mars for her retrofitting and she is expected to return to service by the next month."
Versus: "The Nolybab-5 is a fine vessel. Although it can only carry up to 20 people, its effectiveness lies in the ability to deliver and extract troops in and out of the battlefield swiftly. As a result, soldiers like it for its reliability. The vessel is currently undergoing plans to upgrade its armour but that aside there are no plans to replace it with another model."
So what I want to ask is: Is there actually any established way to properly refer to a spaceship or interstellar craft, whether real or fictional? Does this tend to change depending on the role or relative size of a spacecraft, or whether or not the craft is inanimate or sentient in some way (e.g. an on-board AI that talks)? Is it more commonly an author or creator's preference to do this, or would it work as a literary device, e.g. having a crew of one spaceship having this trait imply higher dedication, loyalty, camaraderie, attachment, etc. compared to the crew of other spaceships (kind of like people who give their cars names)? Does this bug a lot of people, political correctness aside (since they are ships but not seafaring ones; I've yet to see this applied to "landships"), or do most people not care or notice this convention? Does it really mean anything since we are almost always talking about fictional vehicles in this sense?
I've already known the many possible reasons how the convention of female pronouns for ships came to be, but not all of those reasons can be applied to spaceships.
As an aside question, I am aware that this practice is predominantly an English convention, but are there other languages/cultures that refer to naval vessels with female pronouns, embodiments, or have something similar? Such as a language having words that mean "boat" or "ship" in feminine case? I think I've read somewhere that Russian sailors called ships by male pronouns (much like Klingons do), and amongst the Kriegsmarine the battleships Bismarck and Admiral Scheer were often spoken of with male pronouns, though this was in reference to their power, not their names. Or for example, I got high doubts that the Japanese see their ships as feminine in any way, but then again the mobile game Kantai Collection is a thing, though I get the feeling that proved popular because of anthropomorphism, rather than because of any culture surrounding the ships themselves. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to Western convention of feminine pronouns, I've worked with Turkish, Russian, and Chinese military in the distant past. They referred to ships with male pronouns when speaking English. I asked and the Turkish and Russians said that in their own language, they use male pronouns. The Chinese said that they refer to ships as simply ship or boat. They don't often use pronouns beyond me, you, us, and them. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In french the pronoun used to refer to a ship depends on the noun. The masculine pronoun would be correct if you were thinking "bateau" (boat), the feminine if you were thinking "navire" (ship). Spacecraft are generally referred to as "vaisseaux" (vessels) so if you were thinking that, you'd use the masculine pronoun, although youd still correctly use the feminine to refer to a space shuttle or rocket. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:8813:B4F1:7BBA:DE0B (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navire is masculine in French. To get a feminine term for a ship, you could use "frégate" or "caravelle" for example; in both of these cases, the ship would then be refered to in the feminine. E.g. "La frégate «Hermione» est une réplique du navire de guerre français [...] Elle réalise ensuite d'autres navigations..." --Xuxl (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct; I don't know what made me think that navire was feminine. In general speakers of languages with a grammatical gender have no problem with apparent gender incongruity or switching and really don't confuse grammatical and sexual gender : Jerry from Tom and Jerry can be referred to using the feminine to accord with mouse. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:8813:B4F1:7BBA:DE0B (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Italian battleship were traditionally feminine and so are they till today for most autors, e.g. "L'Amerigo Vespucci". Only the Marine Ministry makes them masculine since 1924 in all official writings. All large civil ships are feminine, this is consisten with the Italian word for ship, "nave", being feminine.
One of the nice things about speculative fiction is that you can make up your own linguistic conventions. I'm not sure what Clarityfiend means that spaceships are "generally" feminine; I think this depends very much on the author.
Samuel R. Delany used a convention in Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand whereby humans of either sex took feminine pronouns by default, but a speaker who was sexually interested in another person would use masculine pronouns for that person. It was surprisingly easy to follow after a while.
In German, we certainly use femalefeminine pronouns for ships - and as far as I can tell, even for the Bismarck, no matter what Sabaton (band) claims. There may be some exceptions, but they are rare. And at least on TV, it's "die Enterprise", not "der Enterprise" or "das Enterprise". A space ship is still a ship ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern scholars might also use weibliches Pronomen, but feminines Fürwort would feel very much out of date (though perfectly clear). ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks. I was just following the header without thinking. But are you sure that is a hard rule? When I do random googling, I find both variants quite frequently, and even in rather formal documents. And when I use Google ngrams, I get a 4:1 preference of "masculine pronoun" over "male pronoun" and a 3:1 for feminine vs. female. That is a clear majority, but the male/female does not seem rare enough to be just wrong. Maybe it's a local variants issue? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it works in German is you refer to the vessel with the feminine article when referring to it by its proper name. But the pronoun used depends on the gender of the previous noun, which isn’t always the name of the vessel. Here are some examples from German wiki to illustrate.70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
list showing gender treatment of ships in German
Grammatically gendered articles for types of vessels
Der Lenkwaffen-ZerstörerRommel war ein Kriegsschiff : The(masculine article) guided missile destroyer(masculine noun) Rommel was a warship
Das U-BootWilhelm Bauer liegt als Museumsboot : The(neuter article) submarine(neuter noun) Wilhelm Bauer is a museum boat
Die HubinselBarbara war eine Erprobungsplattform : The(feminine article) jack-up rig(feminine noun) Barbara was a test platform
Feminine article when referring to vessel by name
Nachdem die Rommel fertiggestellt war, wurde sie nach Boston verlegt : After the(feminine article) Rommel was completed, she was relocated to Boston
Am 27. April 1984 wurde die Wilhelm Bauer als Museum eröffnet : On April 27, 1984 the(feminine article) Wilhelm Bauer was opened as a museum
Die Barbara diente der Erprobung von Waffen der Bundesmarine : The(feminine article) Barbara tested weapons for the German navy
DieKalev ist ein 1967 gebautes Binnenminensuchboot : The(feminine article) Kalev is a minesweeper(grammatically neuter noun) built in 1967
Pronouns matching preceding noun by grammatical gender
Als Erprobungsboot diente es bis zum 28. August 1968 : It [noun in preceding sentence: the boat(grammatically neuter)] served as a test boat until August 28, 1968
Sie war der Wehrtechnischen Dienststelle 71 in Eckernförde zugeordnet : She [noun in preceding sentence: the rig(grammatically feminine)] was assigned to the Wehrtechnische Dienststelle 71 in Eckernförde
Nach knapp 28 Jahren im Einsatz wurde sie Mitte des Jahres 1995 außer Dienst gestellt : After almost 28 years in service, she [noun in preceding sentence: name of vessel] was decommissioned in mid-1995
See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Pronouns: Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neutral pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason.
I can't find anything either; however I think that even if you could find a reliable source, including it in that article represents a non sequitur and probably not appropriate; the only reason to include the information is to generate some sort of controversy over Scalia's involvement in deciding the case for the majority; and UNLESS significant reliable sources also drew such an explicit connection, it would be inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to, even by vague implication. Which is to say, unless other sources explicitly note Scalia's NRA connections and its influence over his decision, Wikipedia should not so mention it in any way either. And we don't even have any sources which say that Scalia was an NRA member, never mind that it comes up in connection with analyses of the case. Basically 1) I can't find any sources to say he was and 2) Even so, I also can't find any sources that say he was AND where those sources are primarily about the DC v. Heller case. You would need #2 to exist before the Wikipedia article on the Heller case should mention it. --Jayron3212:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When he died, the NRA (technically, the NRA-ILA) wrote a long obituary about him (here). If he was a member of the NRA at any point, you would think they would have mentioned it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, bringing it up (if true) might weaken the contention that Scalia's position on gun rights flowed forth purely from his being "a stalwart defender of the U.S. Constitution". --Lambiam06:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we should only bring it up (if true) if other reliable sources also bring it up. To bring it up (if true) in Wikipedia where such association between his not-as-yet established membership and his decision in said case, but where Wikipedia is the only place that makes such association, even by mentioning it in the article on DC v Heller, is a classic example of a novel synthesis and we should avoid that. --Jayron3212:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, the NRA–ILA bringing it up (if true) might weaken their contention that Scalia was not motivated by the interests of gun lovers. IMO, contrary to what was presumed above, the fact that the obituary by the NRA–ILA does not mention a presumed membership carries no weight against the hypothesis that he was a member – completely separate from the issue whether verified membership should be reported on here. --Lambiam19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May 14
Multiple resignations from the House of Commons (May 5)
These people are appointed directly by the monarch - ministers are not appointed by the monarch but by the prime minister so they don't have to resign. The prime minister is appointed directly by the monarch, so it's yet another reason for the current one to go. 2A00:23C5:C719:7201:99C7:CA18:EA60:58CD (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, includes Article 72, which states: "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive by post or by any other means individual parcels or collective shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies and articles of a religious, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs, including books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities." (Emphasis added.) What did the governments of the world have in mind when they said that prisoners of war should be allowed to be mailed scientific equipment? Did they think, "Hey, if we take any prisoners of war, it won't bother us if they set up a chemistry lab in the barracks. What harm could that do?" I've looked for commentary on this provision, but the most relevant thing I found was then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales saying that the provision about scientific equipment was "quaint". --Metropolitan90(talk)04:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, such equipment, like examination papers, might be considered "articles of a[n] ... educational ... character" that would allow prisoners of war "to pursue their studies". Deor (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason behind: "Ask for a new cup for refills and dispose of your used cup"
I live in North America, and the Ikea and Costco near me both have this very strange rule. Since they're chain stores, I'm assuming that these rules are common across North America (not sure though, would love to see some references on how widespread these rules are).
Both of these establishments offer free drink re-fills. Both of these establishments have posted signs saying: "Please ask employee for a new cup for refills. Please dispose of your used cup."
If I'm reading and understanding these signs correctly, I'm supposed to:
1. dispose of my used cup in the recycling bin
2. ask employee for a new cup for refills
3. fill the new cup with a fresh drink
Both of these establishments are very environmentally conscious and have eliminated disposable plastic bags in their checkout lines. I'm finding this rule strange because:
A. it's wasteful to throw away a cup that I used less than an hour ago
B. it wastes employee time to give out new cups
C. it wastes the customer's time to line up and ask for new cups
I tried brainstorming to come up with an explanation for this rule. Here's what I have so far (none of these explanations are any good):
E1. they're using the number of cups consumed to track drink consumption
E2. they're purposely wasting the customer's time so that people are less likely to get refills
E3. thieves might pay for one cup and keep using it for 100 re-fills across 100 different visits. This rule might be designed to deter that? (It clearly doesn't though.)
Yeah, it's not that they don't want you to use a cup twice; they don't want you to use the cup, pass it back to the server, and have them pass it back. It's basic common sense, and certainly the reuse of a few cups is worth preventing even one person bringing COVID back home to their grandmother, pregnant partner, or disabled relative. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these locations only use automatic drink dispensing machines. And the signs are posted on the drink dispensing machines. So this rule only makes COVID spreads more likely, not less.
Old method: finish your drink, refill at the machine
New method: finish your drink, line up for a new cup, ask employee for a new cup, refill at the machine
What you're saying makes sense. I suspect what happened was that some government bureaucrat came up with a sensible way to prevent COVID spread in sit-down restaurants, where a server re-fills your drinks. Then this suggestion this gets turned into a law/guideline in an unsensible way, which applies it to inapplicable situations and actually makes things worst. Mũeller (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Old method: finish your drink leaving covidy saliva goo all other the rim of the cup and in the dregs at the bottom, put your covidy cup in the refill machine with it touching parts of the fill equipment, dispense drink causing some of your covidy goo to further infect the machine. Next person comes along and gets some of your covidy goo. Thanks.
New method: throw your covidy goo infected cup away. Don't have it touching the machine and therefore potentially passing your covidy goo to others. Everyone stands up and applauds. Nanonic (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an audience of 10,000 flocked to Macbeth on its opening night on 14 April 1936, Welles’ production completed a 10-week run at the theatre and then toured America to sold-out, racially mixed audiences.
Any explanation of the discrepancy? Do indoor theaters with 10k seats (not counting sports arenas) even exist? Did they have amplified sound in theaters in 1936? I guess they had radio broadcasting, so amplification must have also been possible at least in principle. Thanks. Added: per the wiki article there was a large crowd outside the theater, so that might account for the 10k, but the idea of that many people converging to the outside of a sold-out performance seems perplexing. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:738F (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it seems perplexing to us, but note a sentence in our article: "A free preview two days before [the opening night] drew 3,000 more people than could be seated." Perhaps a lot of people, seeing this as a historic event, just wanted to be in the vicinity of it, just as many people sometimes congregate outside churches where an important wedding is taking place, even though they aren't invited and have no hope of getting in. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 10,000 number is also found in the Time special Franklin D. Roosevelt.[6] No source is given. This may have been lifted from an old issue, as appears to be the case for some other, similar vignettes. The book Orson Welles on Shakespeare gives half the number, an estimate of 5000, quoting The New York Herald Tribune of 15 April 1936.[7] --Lambiam07:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May 16
Oregon congressional candidate
I saw a spot on YouTube about a congressional candidate that supports the green new deal and talked of homeless teens sleeping in the forest and also supporting LGBT community. It was a White lady. She was bisexual. I don't think its Jamie Skinner either. So what is her name? I want to find out more about here. Any help? That's all I remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9758:7D90:2071:B3CD:859F:7A7E (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tina Kotek is running for Governor of Oregon. Perhaps her? There's also the current governor, Kate Brown, who is married to a man but is openly bisexual. If not one of them, this seems to be a list of Oregon congressional candidates. --Jayron3212:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Painting depicting men and women in traditional Ukraine dress outside a building perhaps in Kiev.
Just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wikipedia had an article on 'Moscow vs Kiev'. This was responding to "Which came first". You had several pictures, paintings, depicting founders and such. One painting showed men and women in very special traditional dress gathered outside a building. The depiction of some of the women was dramatic with one wearing white headdress and flowing white dress with minimal embroidery. The wide ties of her 'bonnet' draped down the front of her gown. She almost glowed.
When I went back to look again some days later the image was gone! I checked my search history to no avail. I have spent hours entering every possible combination of search criteria. I can only conclude that you removed the picture for some reason when the Russian invasion occurred. Was the image withdrawn by request or demand? I did not copy the picture when I first saw it so cannot show you what I am talking about.
If you have it in your archives, please let me at least look at it again if you can't let me copy it. I am most interested in seeing again that woman in the special traditional dress. Of course I would like to know why the picture was removed.
For some reason I think I remember the painting being about dedication of the first church in a city, such as Kiev or Moscow. (But the scene was outside in front of a building.)
Thank you for any light you can shine on this frustrating mystery.
Learner37 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't often look at the deletion log, but if I'm using it right, it says we've never deleted any article containing "Moscow" in the title. What was the actual title of the article? What style (and time period) was the painting in? For instance there are a lot of glowy ladies in pre-raphaelite art, so should we be searching late 19th century paintings? Card Zero (talk)12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion in this Quora thread, from which the conclusion is... no, though "there are a very small number of relatively unknown advocacy groups and some individuals based in the ROI that support a closer relationship between Ireland and the UK." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the Troubles tended to make Protestants in the south more nationalist rather than less... They didn't want to be associated with anti-Catholic discrimination... And they were horrified by the terrorism carried out by Protestants, as well as obviously the IRA".
Advocate is a relative term here too... It implies an active effort to make something happen; different political parties deal with the question of Northern Ireland differently. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin and Fine Gael all have different levels of advocacy on the Northern Ireland issue, they all broadly think it should happen. Per United Ireland#Political positions on a united Ireland, "Within the Oireachtas, there has traditionally been broad support for a united Ireland, with differences over the twentieth century on how it would be achieved". It's not that such parties don't generally believe that there should be a United Ireland, but in how strongly they actively work towards it. According to that article, only the relatively minor Solidarity party opposes unification with Northern Ireland, but that's because it seeks a sort of pan-European socialist state, and sees the Northern Irish reunification as a distraction from its goals. Solidarity represents a sort of "Rule 34" of politics: If you can think of it, there exists some party that has it as a political position. They are not major players in the Irish political landscape, however, they've never had more than a single TD at any one time, and I think (depending on how you understand the Irish Socialist Party (Ireland), which is a complicated melange of disunited socialist groups), only ever 3-4 TDs ever. However, broadly speaking, any anti-reunification sentiment is non-existent in the Irish political sphere, but it runs the spectrum between "Kinda believing it's a good idea eventually, but we have more important things to deal with now" to "Let's blow shit up and make this happen today". --Jayron3212:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
US Constitution
Is it correct to state that there are exactly 2 things (slavery and treason) that any ordinary citizen can do to violate the US Constitution?
So what? Reading a text, and understanding all the finer legal points inherent in it (which is a moveable feast, as adjudged by whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court at a particular point in time; for ex. the current abortion debate) - are two different things. What is it you're wanting our OP to do, and why aren't you willing to leave the question alone if you can't contribute a reference they might find useful in answering their question? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]09:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at but I don't think it can be stated that precisely. The Constitution really doesn't create any obligations binding directly on individuals other than officers of the United States. In some cases it requires that such obligations be enacted.
For example the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery, but does not in itself create an offense of slaveholding. The Treason Clause is a limitative definition of treason — it says that Congress shall have the power to fix how treason shall be punished, but not in excess of the definition given (the actual law against treason is 18 U.S. Code § 2381, not Article Three).
Similar remarks apply to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants "compulsory process" requiring witnesses to testify for them, but does not in itself impose that requirement on the witnesses. --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution doesn't really contain laws that bind citizens, it contains a framework for organizing a government; it grants powers to bodies to create and enforce laws and regulations (secondary legislation) to entities, but itself doesn't really create a whole lot of laws. WRT slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolishes the practice of slavery, but that doesn't bind individuals. Like, I can't enslave somebody, but normal laws prevent that: they prevent me from kidnapping someone and holding them against their will. That's normal laws that exist outside the constitution. The Constitution functionally makes slavery equal to kidnapping (and the like) but it doesn't set forth any punishment for kidnapping someone; that's still left to normal law-making processes. Similarly, Article Three of the United States Constitution merely defines treason as a concept; it doesn't establish any punishment for it; normal laws do that. The closest thing that came to an actual law that the Constitution had was the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that was repealed later. Even that only directed or authorized Congress to pass an actual law to deal with prohibition. The Amendment itself required the Volstead Act, an honest-to-God law, to create a mechanism for prohibiting alcohol. Without the Volstead Act, the Amendment only had the functional effect of authorizing Congress and the States to pass laws to prohibit alcohol. As noted, "The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors," but it did not define "intoxicating liquors" or provide penalties." Without penalties, a law is toothless, and without strict definitions, its scope is unknown. The Constitution doesn't contain laws that regulate people, it contains a framework for organizing a government and outlines the scope of how that government can do its job. --Jayron3212:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May 17
First federal reference to the term "Electoral College"
Hello, Im writing a paper on the electoral college. Im trying to find the first reference to the term "electoral college" as it isnt in the US constiution. Wikipedia on the article for the US electoral college says this
" It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".[42]"
But this doesnt help me, as it doesnt link to that first written reference. So can someone point me in the write direction, ive been going in circle trying to find it. - (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not by Germany but in reference to Germany. Here is such a use from 1653; there are even earlier uses in French of the term "College Electoral". These are a short translation of the German term Kurfürstenkollegium, literally "prince-electors college", now more commonly referred to as College of Electors. --Lambiam06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which areas of the world with cave paintings do not have stencils of hands? Does North America have any (stencils, specifically)? Also, there are stencils of the feet of large birds alongside human hands in both Australia and South America: are there any other sites featuring animal hands, so to speak? Card Zero (talk)12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google "San rock art" or "San petroglyphs" (images). Hands do not seem to be common. I'm not saying stencils of hands are absent but I can't recall ever seeing any myself. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
