Talk:Saint Blaise

Corrected links
Have added internal link to St. Blaise's Well and made a small improvement to the references.Shadygrove2007 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

st.Blaze
is the pateron sant of theroewt ilnes

St. Blazey
The village of St. Blazey in the parish of St. Blaise in Cornwall, UK is named after St. Blaise.

Deletion of a fictional character with the first name Blaise
Where do we stop? And what about the many hundreds of historical people whose first name was Blaise (to start with Blaise Pascal)? The business about St. Blaise being associated with erotic asphyxiation is patent nonsense.... The article should probably be renamed St. Blaise, and any other legitimate Blaise stuff, like the software package, get its own page. &mdash; Bill 19:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard this business about erotic asphyxiation either. Blaise 22:11, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)


 * It's been lying around here for a while, but I checked it out and I think you're both right. I can't find muchg evidence of currency for this usage outside WP.  Whether it's a hoax or just very espteric knowledge I don't know, but since three of us have failed to verify it, I've removed it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Move
There was some other uses that should go on a Disabiguation page, leaving this for the Saint Blaise. Trying to clear off some Cruft. Dominick (TALK) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please vote

 * Move Dominick (TALK) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move obviously. Dabs take precedence. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I fixed some cut and paste moves that had separated the page content of the main article from its edit history. I really don't care that much about whether the main article is at Blaise or Saint Blaise. But I think the disambiguation page should be at Saint Blaise (disambiguation) (the few items pertaining to the unmodified "Blaise" can be clarified with an inline comment). older≠wiser 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What happened is a bunch of "Blaise", plain Blaise entries popped up. They were on the Saint-Blaise page as a disambiguation. The Blaise (disambiguation) would handle all those, and the plain Blaise entries. Dominick (TALK) 13:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting one or two disambiguation pages? That is, having both Saint Blaise (disambiguation) and Blaise (disamiguation) or moving Saint Blaise (disambiguation) to Blaise (disambiguation)?  I'd be OK with the former (though, I'm not sure it's necessary). I don't agree with the latter, as most of the items on the page explicitly refer to Saint Blaise--the unmodified Blaise items almost seem an afterthought. older&ne;wiser 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely one dab page is enough? And I see there is only one: Blaise now redirects to Saint Blaise (disambiguation), and I've fixed a couple of others too. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Saint Blaise (disambiguation) to Blaise (disambiguation). I hope that was what you wanted... &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, most of the terms on the page are uses of Saint Blaise. The uses of Blaise are almost superfluous, as they do not even have articles. older&ne;wiser 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Blaise software
The link for the Blaise software products leads to a page that doesn't mention them (Statistics Netherlands). This link shows that Statistics Netherlands does indeed produce this software, so we just need somebody who knows something about it to step in and -- Ngio 11:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) add some text there (if the Blaise software is a salient part of what Stats Netherlands does), or
 * 2) make a page about this software and fix the link here (if Blaise software is important in its own right, but not a major part of what Statistics Netherlands is known for), or
 * 3) remove the link on this disambiguation page (I doubt this is the solution)

Wool-carding combs
"The similarity of these instruments of torture to wool combs led to his adoption as patron of wool combers..." But the carding combs were carding combs, not "instruments of torture" that looked like carding combs. This is so spendidly simple-minded that editing it out will raise complaints and baa baa baa...- What I, and doubtless a handful of others, really want to know, did an iconic image of Blasius bearing an item discerned as a carding-comb give rise to the etiological detail in the first place? Was Blasius a flock-protector whose emblem was transformed into an "instrument of torture"? There must be some modern publication along these lines... -Wetman (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's loose phraseology. Wool cards and wool combs are different tools designed to untangle fleece so it can be spun. Combs do a better job of straightening the staple, and so are used for worsted rather than fluffier wools. A wool card uses short wires to drag the fibres into alignment, a comb thicker and longer rods, which are normally very sharp indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.184 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Marijuana in Providence, RI
The unattestable insertion, apparently by User:60.230.44.225, seems to have been an undergraduate prank. Out.--Wetman (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aitias paragraph
What's the deal with this paragraph, the last one in the lead? I'm not able to follow it very well. Anyone know about it to clean it up a bit? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Here is the only thing I could find online that might be useful. If no-one else makes suggestions, I'll modify per this: http://www.speedylook.com/Blaise_of_Rosefish.html. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Naupactus
To what is the sentence about the Greek Orthodox and Naupactus referring in the lead? Anyone object to its removal? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Name
Any reason to arbitrarily include Turkish name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.44 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Same question for Italian, and Armenian (etc.) If Blaise was born in the 3rd century in Roman Cappadocia, he would have lived in a Greek-speaking environment. It turns out that Sebaste became part of the Armeniac Theme in the 7th century, but this is centuries later, and provides about as much motivation for treating Blaise as "Armenian" as for treating him as "Turkish". His Acts are in Greek. Perhaps there is some evidence of a particularly early tradition of veneration in the Armenian church, but if there is, the article as it stands is unaware of it. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sebastia is in Lesser Armenia, one of the 15 traditional provinces of historical Armenia, and is part of Armenian homeland. Consult Robert Hewsen's "Atlas of Armenia." Hablabar (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why are all these forms of the name given? This is English wiki and it looks cluttered. I suggest removing Greek, Latin, Albanian, Croatian, Hungarian, and Spanish. Leave the Armenian as possibly what he was originally called. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * so, any disagreement about removing the unnecessary names? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

the blessing
"In many places on the day of his feast the blessing of St. Blaise is given: two candles are consecrated." The wiki article Blessing of the Throats says "The blessing may be given by touching the throat of each person with two candles blessed on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord (February 2)." Does a wiki article constitute sufficient support to change our current article? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning this, the candles were blessed just the day before, or in places, where the blessing of St. Blaise is already given at the evening of Candlemas, in the Mass before.--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good edit. I didn't notice it last year! Another question. I have never seen it done with lit candles. The main article mentions that this is done "in Germany and other places" but the reference is inaccessible. I suggest that the word "burning" be omitted here, and addressed if necessary in the main article on the blessing. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is done in Germany this way; actually, I never saw, apart from some photographies from other countries, such a blessing done with unlit candles. HTH, --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Saint Blaise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219134152/http://www.cosca.edu.ph/?q=node/93 to http://www.cosca.edu.ph/?q=node/93

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Blasius of Caesarea
There is a link to Blasius of Caesarea, with whom St Blaise is apparently sometimes confused, but that link redirects back to here; I suspect that the article originally linked has been merged into this one. Any ideas? Philculmer (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Collin de Plancy
Hello, dear Macrakis. Maybe you agree to leave the text of Jean Plancy in the article, but at the same time hide it in any way.

I understand well your desire not to overload the article. But in my opinion, the geography associated with the cult of relics is interesting here. It is directly related to the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Wlbw68, the quoted material is related to the article, yes. And the geography associated with the cult of relics in general and the cult of St. Blaise in particular could be interesting if it were analytical. For example, if it turned out that relics of St. Blaise were concentrated in cities with major textile industries, or cities whose cathedrals had been rebuilt in the 16th century, or whatever, that is an interesting insight... but one that we will have to find in the literature.
 * But just a listing of cities with relics of St. Blaise is not particularly helpful to the reader. Moreover, Plancy's list is surely incomplete. Most of the listings are in France, Italy, and the Low Countries, with only a handful in Iberia or Germany, and none in the British Isles, Austria-Hungary, Russia, etc. Such an unrepresentative sample makes it useless for insights into the geography of the cult of relics; it is just a collection of facts without context.
 * It is generally a bad idea to use quotations as a substitute for exposition in WP's own voice. (Yes, I just added that section to the essay...)
 * What's more, the full text of Plancy is now just one click away.
 * Plancy's point that there are more relics than is physically possible is, I believe, well summarized in the current text, and the direct quotation makes Plancy's sarcastic attitude clear. --Macrakis (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Macrakis, the full text of Plancy is now just one click away. Yes it is, but this text is in French, not English. I think you will not argue with that. You will not argue that all readers of English Wikipedia know French. You can remove the text under «ref». Are you against it? Wlbw68 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true, not all readers of the English wikipedia can read French, though those who are only interested in relics in France might well be able to, and that is Plancy's focus.
 * Anyway, all the other arguments still hold. If this information is appropriate for WP (which I believe it is not), we don't need to keep Plancy's words, but can summarize them.
 * Not sure what you mean by "You can remove the text under «ref»." --Macrakis (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have summarized Plancy's list in the footnote. I still think it is a bad idea to include it, but at least there, it doesn't interfere with the flow of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Macrakis. I think your very short list can be included in the article. The reason for this is as follows: where relics appeared, there began the annual celebration in honor of the saint. There a church was built in honor of the saint or annual religious processions were organized. For example, take the first city from the list − Maratea. Do you have any objections? Wlbw68 (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do object. As I said above, Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts. Plancy is listing the relics to make a point: that it is impossible that those are all genuine relics. We have a nice quotation from him making exactly that point, and don't need to list this very biased (Francocentric) list of relics. I would hate to have every article about a saint in Wikipedia attempt to have a list of the saint's relics. It would be much better to link to some definitive source (which Plancy, by the way, is not). On the other hand, I think it would be useful to be able to find all the major churches dedicated to a given saint (as Maratea is to Blaise). --Macrakis (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Macrakis. I assume that you is either Greek or of Greek origin. And I suppose that you is a supporter of national Greek traditions. I think this is the main obstacle to making this edit. Sorry if I made a mistake and offended you. As for the large number of relics in France, in addition to their own relics, English relics were sent to France. These relics were brought from England during the time of Cromwell. You can read about it here (p. 157). Unfortunately for you the text is in Russian. But there is a link to a source in French: L. Dubech, P. d'Espezel "Histoire de Paris" p. 153. The presence of a large number of duplicate relics says only that it is impossible to separate the real ones from fake ones. Calvin wrote about this back in the 15th century. Wlbw68 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am indeed of Greek origin, but I'm not sure which national Greek traditions you're referring to -- maybe stubborness? :-)
 * You did not offend me in any way. I simply think that this information is unnecessary. There are also relics in Germany, Austria, etc. I'm familiar with Calvin's comments on relics. --Macrakis (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested that you treat the history of Greece with care, including Orthodoxy, including relics. This topic is a delicate one for many Orthodox. In Russian Wikipedia, there is terrible abuse in such topics, these topics do not allow editing neutrally and scientifically, and mercilessly ban and block those who try to do this.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ? Not sure of the relevance of this comment to this article. --Macrakis (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, I do not understand. Why don't you want every article about a saint in Wikipedia to have a list of the saint's relics? What is the reason? This is directly related to the saint. There are no obstacles in ideology as in Russian Wikipedia.Wlbw68 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about what's going on on the Russian Wikipedia or for that matter the Greek Wikipedia in relation to relics, and I don't know why you keep bring this up -- I have never mentioned them.
 * My primary objection to lists of relics is that they don't mean anything to the reader unless they are analyzed somehow. Is there a geographic pattern? Are there trade routes for relics? etc. cf. WP:IINFO:
 * To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.
 * Without that sort of analysis (found of course in a WP:RS), I consider it to be cruft: "excessive or needless information". As WP:NOTEVERYTHING says:
 * Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
 * Do we have any hope of getting a list of all relics for a given saint? Having visited the treasuries of many churches, each of which has many reliquaries, it seems highly unlikely.
 * For that matter, do we have reliable sources about the status of relics? Do we list only those which have been approved by bishops, as required by canon law (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia on this topic)? Where do we find that information? Do we flag those which have been pronounced inauthentic?
 * Not even the Catholic Encyclopedia bothers to list relics. For St. Blaise, it says simply "Numberless churches and altars were dedicated to him and many localities (Taranto, Ragusa, the Abbey of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, etc.) claimed to possess some of his relics."
 * There are lots of facts in the world. WP does not and should not try to list them all. --Macrakis (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is censorship on Russian Wikipedia. The ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church is the de facto official state ideology. And therefore, the state controls the Russian Wikipedia in articles related to Orthodoxy. I really do not want this to be on the English Wikipedia.
 * We really cannot list all the places where the relics of any saint are. But we can indicate places referring to independent sources. These are Calvin or Plancy.
 * Catholic or Orthodox encyclopedias are extremely unreliable and affiliated sources. Why? - These books are written for a certain category of persons, for Catholics or Orthodox. Therefore, the authors will not include negative information for Catholicism or Orthodoxy in books. If you write in the encyclopedia that several skulls are attributed to the saint, then you can lose part of your flock.
 * Wikipedia should be written objectively, neutrally and scientifically. Canon law of any denomination is an affiliated opinion and is not related to Wikipedia. As for the relics, the point here is very bad.
 * Duplicate relics have existed for centuries. They were prayed before and worshiped. After the Reformation of the 16th century, Catholics attempted to restore order in relics. Catholics declared part of the relics authentic without the slightest evidence through special letters. Other relics were left without a certain status. It’s impossible to restore order in old relics. There are no criteria by which this could be done.
 * Does the Relics section need such articles? - Of course. The presence of a large relic very often gave the name to a church or monastery. In honor of the relic, national holidays and traditions were established. In honor of the saints (where the relic was) children were called. Such relics were objects of mass pilgrimage in the Middle Ages. In Wikipedia, it is necessary to state the facts about the presence of relics on the map of Europe, this is a valuable history of mankind.Wlbw68 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep talking about the Russian Wikipedia. Whatever is happening there, no church is controlling or censoring the English Wikipedia.
 * Canon law is an encyclopedic topic. Reporting on it in an WP:NPOV way is completely appropriate. That means that we say what it says, but we don't adopt it as WP's position. This is just the same as in politics. We report, for example, that the People's Republic of China does not consider the Republic of China (Taiwan) to be an independent country. The PRC's position is worth reporting on. That doesn't mean that WP adopts it as its own position.
 * I certainly agree that if a churches or monastery is dedicated to a saint and has a relic of that saint, that is worth reporting on. On the other hand, the fact that the parish church of St. Bartholemew in Nowheresville claims to have a toenail clipping of St. Anthony along with 20 other assorted relics is not particularly encyclopedic, either in its own article, or in the article about St. Anthony. --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Canon law. Moreover, I myself wrote an article on this topic Canons of the Orthodox Church. Question about another. When was common canon law adopted in the Catholic Church or when did codification take place? - In 1500. You well understand that at the beginning of the 16th century it was impossible to distinguish real relics from fake relics. But if there are papal bulls regarding relics in which this separation occurred, then of course they should be mentioned in the article.
 * When I wrote about the list of relics, of course I meant large parts. Such as bodies, heads, arms and legs. Nails, hair, fingers and other trifles in reliquaries do not count. Large parts are just described on your list. Therefore, I think that it should be placed in the section of the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're converging here. Perhaps we should ask for an outside opinion. --Macrakis (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question about this text:
 * «Plancy's incomplete list: Body: Maratea, Rome, Brindisi, Ragusa, Volterra, Antwerp, Mechelen, Lisbon, Palermo. Large bones: Mende, Melun, Paris (2), Luxembourg, Maubeuge, Cambrai, Tournai, Ghent, Brages, Utrecht, Cologne (15+); Head: Naples, Saint-Maximin (Provence), Montpellier, Orbetello; Jaw: Douai, Ventimiglia, Bourbon-l'Archambault; Arms: Rome, Milan, Capua, Paris, Compostela, Dilighem in Brabant, Basse-Fontaine (Champagne), Marseille»
 * Who do you think can become an independent intermediary? Wlbw68 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a third opinion. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not know what it is.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion
Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and saw this request for a third opinion. I believe I have interacted with Wlbw68 before, but it was in a mainly clerical role, so I hope you will accept me as a neutral third opinion. If not, you are welcome to ask for another opinion. As I see it, the dispute here is the treatment of relics. I've read through this, and have a few thoughts. For one: Plancy is a pretty poor source, having been written in 1822(!). Are there no more modern treatments of the subject? Secondly, I think the relics ought be discussed. But they need not be listed out one at a time. I like the single sentence summary that currently exists, attributed to Plancy. Not sure if a quote from Plancy is needed, I think it could summarized to the effect of Plancy concludes that not all of the relics can be genuine, due to their sheer number. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Captain Eek . Not only Plancy comes to this conclusion. Here comes the more global question: the authenticity of any relics. If with Catholic relics it is more or less clear, Calvin, Plancy, Lalanne wrote about it. How are things with the Orthodox Greeks? And here we observe the following picture, Kapterev describes it:
 * "in Greece, relics and all shrines in many cases were the property of private individuals, passed by inheritance, and a private person could therefore dispose of the shrine at its discretion, as well as any other private property ...
 * the relics became among the Greeks themselves a moving value that could be freely bought, sold, mortgaged, given to the creditor for a time to secure the debt .. "(«The nature of relations between Russia and the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th centuries»/ pp. 73-75) Wlbw68 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, dear Captain Eek . There is a newer source about the relics of Blaise. This is a book of Ludovic Lalanne. It is called "Curiosities of Traditions, Customs and Legends". It was published in 1847. In this book, Blaise: Body - 4, Head - 3, Arms - 8. You are unlikely to find a book in English on this topic. In the 16th century, under Cromwell, England was cleared of relics. I wrote about this earlier. Large relics were no brought to the United States. The USA was an English colony. The United States had more Protestants than Catholics. Protestants after the Reformation and Calvin's book refused to honor relics in the 16th century. English-speaking people all know this well. In the 20th century, atheism began to spread rapidly throughout the world, thanks to the policies of the USSR (atheism in the USSR was the official ideology). Maybe that’s why the subject of relics has become irrelevant for researchers. Regarding books in English about duplicate relics, I could be wrong.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think including Lalannes book as a citation would improve the relic section, although if only to back up the current wording. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wlbw68, There are many of relics in the US, even some individual collections with over a thousand, though I don't know how many are "large". There are also relics in England, despite Cromwell.  There is still academic work on relics.
 * Thanks. It is interesting. Although there are mainly Catholic saints of the second millennium. What academic work on relics are you talking about?Wlbw68 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A more interesting question is about relics of saints of the first millennium. Calvin proposed an inventory of relics. Has there been an inventory of relics in the Catholic Church?Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But all that is irrelevant to the question at hand: how much do we want to say about the relics of St. Blaise in this article? --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am of the opinion that 2-4 sentences are sufficient. The relics section could also become a subsection of another part. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was agreeing with you. --Macrakis (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wlbw68, please don't try to intersperse commentary. It quickly becomes unreadable.
 * Also, please try to use correct indentation systematically. Indent one more level than the comment you're replying to. Note in particular that each time you start a new line, you must re-insert the colons indicating indentation . I have tried to correct some of the indentation above. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Source link for Plancy
Macrakis. I have a question for you. Why did you replace the link of Plancy's book from commons to an incomprehensible link? Wlbw68 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced with . The first is the Wikimedia mirror of the Google Books text; the second is the Google Books text -- I am surprised you're having trouble reading it.
 * I thought the Google copy was better because the Wikimedia mirror is not really suited for online reading. It doesn't support page scrolling, text search, or text scaling, and the images are of lower quality. The Google Books version allows continuous scrolling, and supports text search. Perhaps the archive.org version would be better. --Macrakis (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis. I did not know all these details. I asked you because I was afraid that your link might disappear for some reason. I believed that the link to «Commons» is the most reliable. Your link will not disappear anywhere? Sorry, I am very poorly versed in these technical issues.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "incomprehensible" link? If you click on it, does it or does it not give a useful result? --Macrakis (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now the result will be. But I do not know whether this result will be in a year or two. Can your link become empty? Link to «Commons» will always give a result.Wlbw68 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the Web. It is always possible that Google will shut down Google Books some day. I suppose we could include the Commons link as an alternative, though it's much less satisfactory as a reading experience. --Macrakis (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)