Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

Proposal
Since the main problem I see here is that we don't have any easily identifiable criteria for inclusion, making the list possibly endless, the solution seems to me to be to rename the article to List of people who prefer bow ties to neckties and people can only make the list if there is a published statement somewhere to that effect. I mean, currently there are people included because they simply have photos of them wearing bow ties (see footnote 51: "Photos of him always include a bow tie"). What do we think of this?  howcheng  {chat} 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * not much.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I'd be happy with that. An article which included statements of his bow tie wearing fetish, and how it's important, would be perfect. I'd want to keep things like cartoon characters out unless there's a reason they wear a bow tie often, but I'd be willing to bow to consensus on that point. However, we do definitely need a set of inclusion criteria that aren't quite open enough to let everyone in. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The criterion I assumed we were using is the one I mentioned above: a preference for bow ties over neckties is too strong a requirement; similarly, it has never been meant to be a list of notable people who wear bow ties; rather, as is pretty clearly put in the article, it is a list of people who notably wear bow ties, i.e. make it a part of their image. The article is clear on this already, and the title is the obvious one, not currently misleading. —Kan8eDie (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as it calls for OR, mindreading, or both. The standard for inclusion is that the person is notable (as defined by Wikipedia) and wears bow ties (other than at black-tie or white-tie functions) often enough that it's considered by others to be a behavior person has. Finding RS that they have stated that they prefer bowties would be almost impossible. Their public actions, when wearing a bow tie is optional, should suffice. htom (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article already states clear criteria which fit well within WP:N. Additionally, AfD is not the place for a discussion of this sort - I suggest it should go to the article's talk page. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with modifications - I think there are two issues: should the article be renamed, and if so, to what?  As to the first, I believe that if this list is not renamed, we'll be back here again in no name, because it doesn't seem like folks take the time to review (or even become aware of) prior nominations when making a new one, and the vagueness in the title just begs for that next nomination.  As to the second, I would suggest "List of people who notably wear bowties", per Kan8eDie's comments.  Not every person on a list needs to be notable themselves, and there are good arguments here against using "prefer" as a criterion.
 * I removed Michael's suggestion to move the discussion here, as it's already here and annoying for formatting reasons.--otherlleft (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having read Dennis Brown's argument below, I have to oppose. What the article needs is a rewrite of the lead.  It does lay out the specific criteria, and that's what's required.  I'll try to do that later today.--otherlleft (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: On the article's talk page there is a delightfully cogent discussion about renaming the article, as even the use of the word "list" in an article title evokes all kinds of dissention. Since the article itself is far more than a haphazzard list... being a well written and well sourced article that then includes several different and related lists in its body, a renaming should be seriously considered. Let the word "list" be used in the article's sections, but not in the title.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose How do we know they prefer bow ties without violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? We know they wear them, but maybe a few have to for religious/medical/fashion/philosophical/lost a bet/ or any other reason but they would really rather wear a bola tie?   I appreciate the efforts of the admin who proposed the idea, but I think this would cause more problems than solutions.  In my opinion, the current list is well understood and is not indiscriminate in any way.  In this circumstance, the problem isn't the name of the article.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But equally sir, how do we include everyone who has ever worn a bow tie without being indiscriminate? And if the list is not of everyone who has ever worn one, how are you justifying inclusion of people like Peter Eisenman without violating WP:SYNTH or WP:PSTS? The source for his inclusion was "Eisenman is shown wearing a yellow bow tie in the photo illustrating his article in 'Archinect'". Surely, through that, you are advancing the idea that because he has worn a bow tie in one photo, he often does it. In short, what are the criteria for inclusion? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I invite you to use google images to search for photos of Peter Eisenman. He has been photographed wearing several different bow ties, and I didn't count those in with formal wear. He mostly wears no tie, it seems, but he wears bows more often than other styles. The yellow bow tie, in particular, is rather tame -- for him! htom (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apprently and from the article itself, one of the criteria for inclusion is an individual notability of the person wearing the bow tie. I do not recall seeing a name in that article of someone who was non-notable. Further, I see no indication or encouragement in the article itself to start tossing in names of total unknowns who might have worn a bow tie. So with respects, your repeated WP:WAX arguments seems a little thin.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That someone is "notable" is an implied criteria of any list of this sort. See Lists which explains this.  As for verifying that someone in the list is a bow tie wearer, this is covered under WP:V, which seems adequate for the task.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just having a look at the photo and say: This guy wears a bow tie on several photos thus he should be on the list! is pretty much original research. And this leads to references such as Wikipedia article for Tom and Jerry shows the title card (Image:Tom Jerry Show.jpg) for the "Tom and Jerry Show" in 1975 with red bow tie on Jerry and cites three overall sources in the References section of the article: Adams, T.R. (1991); Tom and Jerry: Fifty Years of Cat and Mouse Crescent Books; Barrier, Michael (1999) Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press); Maltin, Leonard (1980, updated 1987). Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-452-25993-2. This is not even a proper reference! --Tone 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember saying that a photo was enough to satisfy wp:v, so I am not sure why you are replying to me with this argument.   D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C)  14:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have posted this to the nomination, not the talk... --Tone 14:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dennis, when I removed the Tom and Jerry show citation, and removed the characters because of it, they were re-added. Do you know why? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Honest reply It would have easier if you had left diffs, but based on what I can see, removing images because the image isn't wp:v is misunderstanding the policy. Did you try to find sources that Tom and Jerry wear bow ties?  If you did, and there were none to be found, then removing is at least in good faith.  wp:v says it must be verifiable, not already verified.  Photos are used only to illustrate things anyway, so wp:v isn't relevant if the textual claim is verifiable.  When I searched "Tom and Jerry" bow tie I found some interesting stuff. (including the fact that Jerry used to wear a yellow bow tie, but some stuff it is red) If you didn't search, then you probably shouldn't have deleted it as that can be seen as not making a good faith effort on your part, or it might look like you are trying to make a WP:POINT, no matter how honorable your intent.  This is compounded by the fact that the article history shows that every time you edited the article, it got smaller yet your name is nowhere to be found on the talk page.  I may have reverted it as well.  Tom and Jerry predate the internet by many decades, and the possibility of sources that are not online are also very real, plus there may be online references as well.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  03:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose rename to List of people who prefer bow ties to neckties. The article is not, and never was, about the preferences or opinions of the people in the list. This is a list of people whose bow-tie-wearing behavior has been remarked upon by others. There are numerous third-party sources identifying these men with bow-tie-wearing, but very few third-party sources tell whether these men actually prefer bow ties. Furthermore, it would be absurd to ask for a third-party source on the sartorial opinions of fictional characters who are associated with bow-tie-wearing (such as the Pee-Wee Herman character). The current scope is factual and verifiable, but the proposed rename would create a different scope that would venture into the realm of pure speculation. --Orlady (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Claiming a preference would be OR or SYNTH. Other arguments per Orlady. McWomble (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that is the case. All we have to do is look for published statements where they say they prefer bow ties.  howcheng  {chat} 06:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see how preferring bow ties is better than the original list, if anything its worse. Most concerns of the deletes are about how its arbitrary. Preferring bowties is even more arbitrary than notable people who notably wear bow ties.  --Banime (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2
OK, so maybe "List of people who prefer bow ties to neckties" is not so great. The whole idea here is to find some way of making this list without resorting to OR or having an indiscriminate list (both of which are case in the present state). List of people who wear bow ties as a fashion statement? List of people who are known for wearing bow ties? Any other suggestions?  howcheng  {chat} 06:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is an indiscriminate list.  Rebranding it under another name won't change that.  Xihr  07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to at least set the defining criteria within the title itself.  howcheng  {chat} 08:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The second suggestion is unacceptable for the same reason that other "known for" lists have been deleted or renamed. The people on this list are all notable for something other than bow-tie-wearing, so the words "known for" would be misleading and possibly even slightly insulting. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose both. I do not consider the first of these to be a serious constructive proposal. List of people who wear bow ties as a fashion statement would be purely original research and would limit this list to only a few members by requiring a motive that most would not ascribe to (not to mention that it would exclude all nonliving people).


 * Oppose Same reasons as above. How would you know when someone wore it as a statement or were known simply for that fact, etc.  It's fine the way it is. --Banime (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above See my rationale above, as we can't say WHY they wear them, but we can verify that they do. If it was going to be changed, it would be List of people who wear bow ties for WP:MOS type reasons only (actually, that is what the title should be...but I digress).  It wouldn't change the scope in any way but that makes too much sense, so I am confident everyone will hate the idea.  I think most people here are clearly against changing the title in a way that changes the scope, AND changing the title in a way that doesn't change the scope is for the talk page of the article, not AFD.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it would undeniably be better use of the English language, the trouble with List of people who wear bow ties is that (1) the use of the present tense incorrectly indicates that all of the listed people are alive and currently wear bow ties and (2) the use of "people" incorrectly indicates that all of the listees are people. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are absolutely correct, 100%. I struck that idea above.  How about List of people or things, real or imaginary, who previous have, or still do, wear bow ties for reasons of religion, personal, fashion, political, lost a bet, or for other unfathomable purposes, or simply because they can't tie a proper Windsor knot?  Or is that too Monty Python sounding? ;)  You explanation does explain exactly why the title is exactly what it is. I have also accidently discovered that there is a limit to how many characters you can have in a title on Wikipedia, which is just north of this title.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No improvement over the current configuration. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Per several very cogent and not WP:WAX comments here and at the AfD discussions, we are speaking about a well written, humorous, well conceieved, and well sourced article about notable individuals or characters who wear bow ties as part of their persona. However, it is much more than a simple "list" per WP:LIST and can easily stand alone by itself without being a sub-article linked from a main article. This is not like an article about the Olympics having an extensive seperate list {sub-article) of athletes who participated. The article on Bow ties is an article on Bow Ties. Simple. This article is different, and related only in that these notables wear/wore bow ties. It has become obvious that it is the use of the word "list" in its title that 4 times now has drawn the attention of editors who do not like lists, and then challenge it as a "list" that does not specify parameters that qualify inclusion. Fine. Let it stand alone as a artcle about notables who wear bow ties. If the word "list" is in the title, it will be returned to AfD over and over until a conensus to delete is found. Can we agree that this is the root problem? That this is much more than a "list"? Can we then consider titles that do not include that word? As examples, I offer for consideration The bow tie as an affectation and Bow ties in politics and entertainment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're to get rid of the word "list" then why not use the simple title "Bow tie wearers"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me if you have a qualifier that eliminates my neighbor or that guy who runs the copy service... else we'll have more continued shots of "indiscriminate".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need a qualifier. See Lists.  Notability is a criteria to be included in all lists, which is why you don't see "notable" used in the names of lists.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bow tie wearing in popular culture would cause as many problems as it solves. I think either of your original suggestions above would be just fine, Michael. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see it now, the first article edit summary after the name change: Summary: Trimming out all these less notable names. This is an article about the persona of wearing a bow tie, it isn't a 'list of' article.  That said, I think your idea is the best so far, and I think you are likely very correct in that some people have an instant aversion to all "list of" articles.  I still feel that the problem isn't the name of the article, it is a lack of imagination.  Phil's idea is a bit interesting, however.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with you... but as the AfD is now longer than the article itself, and our being unable to address the lack of imagination in others, and in our being unable to instill a sense of humour where none exists... if we find some way to simply remove that onus word "list" from the title, the deletists have one less resaon to gripe.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, how about Notable bow tie wearers? Frank  |  talk  20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better. Less indescriminate. On the right track. Looking at the current article as a whole, what can be best determined from the names? That they wear/wore bow ties? Yes. That they were notable in other ways? Yes. That their use of a bow tie became part or public perception of these personae? Yes. What else? Let's create a name that is a bit more specific to the article, for as long as the article is MORE than a simple list, it deserves to be recognized as such.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not bad, but it doesn't get around the point that the list is of people who both are notable themselves, and notably wear/wore bow ties. 'Notable bow tie wearers' leaves the door open for the pointless inclusion of J Random Notable because there's a picture of him wearing a box tie with his tux at an awards ceremony. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't use notable in the title. See Lists.   <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Having looked at this debate, and at Lists, I think Bow tie wearers with a well-written lead would be just fine. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, but if we can make the title a tad more specifc to why someone in is the article, we can stave off repeated returns to AfD (hopefully). My point was to not use list naming. Let's consider article naming. However, I do agree with you. Just hate another strident AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you name articles, you still don't use the word notable as a qualifier, it is implied. I know because I have made the mistake of doing so when a young Wikirookie, and it was rightfully changed.  Notable is automatically implied in everything we do, for if they are not notable, they are not included.  Using another word similar to notable is just as big of a no-no.  Not "famous", not "important", not "well known".  None of those, for similar reasons. <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My point in using notable in the title - perhaps an unintentional application of WP:IAR - is that it limits the content of the article to people who would otherwise be considered notable. This specifically excludes listing just anyone who happens to wear a bowtie that can be reliably cited. I can see there are policies that state otherwise...and in fact I have expressed a delete opinion for this content in the first place, but...I don't see it going away so I'm looking for something appropriate to do with it. Frank |  talk  02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank, the guidelines for lists have been linked here ad nauseum so I won't bother, but they really do explain, quite clearly, that the criteria for inclusion in a list are to be enumerated in the lead paragraph. I didn't know this at the beginning of this AfD, but now I realize that the name is fine.  --otherlleft (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Move that we close all debate on any name change
The more I look at the arguments, the more I realize that ANY name change would attract the same reasons to delete. No one voting to delete is saying "the name is bad", so this is just defensive posturing. There just simply isn't a consensus on keeping or deleting List of articles in general. If not for this AFD, no one would be asking to change the name of this article, so I think this means that objectively, the current title is fine. The problem is when we treat AFD like a magic 8 ball, and shake it until we get the answer we want. The nom was made in good faith (but bad judgement) and I just don't see a reason to continue debating a new name when the name is NOT the problem. We have considered several different names, all have been soundly shot down, in the end because the current name (while not perfect) is the best solution as it is. I would vote to end debate on changing the name, and instead focus on the content of the AFD and article. I would also add that the name is irrelevant in an AFD, and really, really should be a topic on the talk page of the article, not here. If this was an AFD, I would close it as no consensus and it isn't likely one will be reached. <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C)  20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Banime (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for the well-articulated reasons of User:Dennis Brown Shirulashem (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The exact name of the title was never the issue; it's the list itself that's the problem.  Xihr  00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support changing the name does not substantively affect anyone's argument in the debate (imo, feel free to say if it does affect your argument). Even if consensus was reached to change the name it does not move the AfD forward one iota.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  01:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support agree with Dennis Brown. And the article talk page is the proper forum, not this page. Any restrictions on the list can be discussed on the article talk page and applied to the list. -- Noroton (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support although I was offering options... and myself brought this "proposal page" to here raher than have it burden the AfD itself. I am in complete agreement that the nom is incorrect in his continued claims the the list is "indiscriminate", as pretty much everyone on the list has the proven notability shown by their own articles on Wiki, and inclusion in that list is NOT open to Joe the barber or Sam the plumber unless they have individual and sourced notability per guideline. If J.Ransom Notable had an article, he'd qualify too.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
What happens to this discussion at the end of the AfD? Would it serve to move it to the article's talk page?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. It just stays here. If you want, you can make a link on the talk page of the main article, which would be fine.  A rename discussion should take longer than the 5 days given to an AFD anyway.  If you still want to rename, you should start a new discussion on the talk page after the AFD, not move this over.  I would leave the discussion open at least a month or three.  <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  11:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename? No... I'm not fighting for that... and only offered my proposal to this discussion because 1) other "list" names as offered were not acceptable, and 2) many editors see the word "list" and begin to bristle. When I read the article, I can easily see that it is much more than a mere list... being a well conceived article that should not be stripped and merged to some other lessor article. In remembering that we are encouraged to Ignore All Rules if it serves to inprove wiki, I gotta say that I like the idea of an article titled "List" that is really so very, very much more. When seeing the depth and value of this one "list" in service to Wikipedia, its very existance might perhaps cause other editors to reflect upon how staid and boring most simple lists of names of facts can be. WP:IAR almost mandates that an article not put a reader to sleep. Improve Wiki! And if that means someone can read something and smile while they are learning, I say Go For It!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tally
Please correct me if I counted wrong... and yes, an AfD is not a vote... but it seems we had 38 keeps, 5 merges, and 30 deletes... and lots and lots and lots of discussion. I might have expected the AFD to be a "keep" per consensus... or even a "kept as no consensus" because it was close... but a delete? Nah. The closing Admin, with respects, ignored consensus and went with personal opinion. Wrong call. See you all at the DRV.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll check the tally. Obviously, there was no consensus. Obviously, the policy arguments were with the Keep side. I'll check the tally, and I'm taking it to DRV if nobody else has yet. -- Noroton (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Obviously, the policy arguments were with the Keep side."


 * And so were you. :-O!!!! Who'd have guessed?...-- Koji †  01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy arguments?! Much of the 'keep' votes were because the article was sent up for deletion two weeks ago.  That alone isn't an argument to keep.  If it kept two weeks ago, why was it much closer this time?  Wouldn't the expanded discussion signify that the consensus here is more reliable than before?  The 'delete' votes were much more varied and policy-based than the ILIKEIT votes of the inclusionists. Themfromspace (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And naturally none of the 'delete' votes were WP:UGH and naturally none of the 'delete' concerns were addressed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it,l but policy does always override consensus. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... and 3 times previously policy kept the article, twice as a no-consensus default-to-keep and once as a resounding 'keep'. Or did policy change in the last two weeks, just in time for your nomination?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That looked like a no consensus to me. --Banime (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a sound delete closure to me. JBsupreme (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In what universe is 30 greater than 37?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We're all in the same universe. This was never a vote.  Perhaps you forgot.  JBsupreme (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. So to be 100% accurate, it looks like it was a sound consensus to 'keep', and the delete closure was flawed, having ignored the consensus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than navel gazing, something I'm not very good at, maybe you could propose this on WP:DRV? I feel that it is the administrator's position to interpret the outcome based on consensus and policy, and in certain situations there can be varying shades of grey.  JBsupreme (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just to prevent supporters of the article from falling into the same mistakes as those advocating deletion, it is quite clear that 37:30 is not a "sound consensus". It this were a vote, then it would be clearly insufficient, but in any case this is not vote.  We advance our position far more by making constructive policy arguments than by claiming that any consensus was achieved in the face of a marginal tally. In the absence of consensus, we keep the article unless policy considerations say otherwise; pointing this out and demonstrating the lack of consensus, and groundless policy arguments against the article, should be your priority if you hope to resurrect the article (incidentally, I hope someone saved it to their userspace before it went). —Kan8eDie (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who have not yet found it, the DRV discussion is at Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19 --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)