text:
User:Josh Meidl/sandbox

-- Insert Lead --

Characteristics
[Josh]

-define characteristics of a "carfree city"

-Explain differences/nuances for pure carfree city vs carfree zones

Motivations
[Frankie]

-Motivations for a city to transition to carfree

Processes
[Will]

-How to build carfree city

-How to convert to carfree

Impacts
[Frankie]

-how does going "carfree" impact a city

Examples
[Josh]

-subheader for each city example

title: User:Josh Meidl/sandbox


text:
Malaysia at the 2017 ASEAN Para Games

Malaysia participated in the 2017 ASEAN Para Games from 17 to 23 September 2017 as the host nation of the 9th edition of the Games. The Malaysian contingent was represented by 326 athletes and 167 officials. In all, Malaysian contingents collected a haul of 90 gold medals, below than the targeted 103 gold medals. They also been awarded with 85 silver and 83 bronze medals, concluding the Games as second ranked nation.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Malaysia at the 2017 ASEAN Para Games


text:
Freddie Owen

Frederick 'Freddie' Gerard Owen (born 25 September 1985) is an English former first-class cricketer.

Owen was born at Chester in September 1985. He was educated at King's School, Chester before going up to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. While studying at Cambridge, he played first-class cricket for Cambridge University from 2006–10, making four appearances against Oxford University in The University Match. He scored 116 runs in his four matches against Oxford, averaging 16.57 and making a high score of 42. In addition to playing for Cambridge University, he also made a single first-class appearance for Cambridge UCCE against Warwickshire at Fenner's in 2008, recording a half century in the match with a score of exactly 50.

title: Freddie Owen


text:
Talk:David Bedford (athlete)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bedford (athlete). 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/20150722175759/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/be/dave-bedford-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/be/dave-bedford-1.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Bedford (athlete)


text:
Category talk:User ru-N

Mishae
Why was Mishae removed from this category when he was banned indefinitely? -Cupper52 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Category talk:User ru-N


text:
Khon Kaen Hospital

Khon Kaen Hospital (โรงพยาบาลขอนแก่น) is the main hospital of Khon Kaen Province, Thailand and is classified under the Ministry of Public Health as a regional hospital. It has a CPIRD Medical Education Center which trains doctors for the Faculty of Medicine of Khon Kaen University.

History
Khon Kaen Hospital was constructed in 1947 and was opened on 1 January 1951, as 3 one-storey wooden buildings. Between 1957 and 1967, the hospital was further expanded due to high popularity within the area. The hospital was involved in sending medical personnel to the Princess Mother's Volunteer Doctors and psychologists to combat the Communist Insurgency in the 1960s-80s. In the same time, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) funded an ambulance service for the hospital and helped set up the first trauma registry of the Ministry of Public Health at Khon Kaen.

title: Khon Kaen Hospital


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Punic War/archive1

First Punic War

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As a finale to my series of articles on the First Punic War, I offer you the article on the War itself. 23 years of war boiled down to less than 6,000 words – so there is a discussion point right there. The article has been through GA and ACR and I hope that you will enjoy both reading and reviewing it; if not, here is the place to so note. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm
I'll give this a look. Apparently I was the GA reviewer back in March, although I don't entirely remember that review much. Standard disclaimers apply: I'll probably claim this for the WikiCup, I don't know a whole lot about this subject matter, and I'm willing to discuss everything. This is also liable to be done in several chunks, rather than all at once. Hog Farm Bacon 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Primary sources
 * Open question, I don't quite know the answer myself. In "His works include a now lost manual on military tactics," should it be now-lost, since it's an adjective?
 * I have no idea. I usually leave a saucer of milk out for the hyphen brownies to tidy such things up for me. Done.

 * Armies
 * "Adult male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, most would serve as infantry with the wealthier minority providing a cavalry component" - Semicolon, not comma, right?
 * Done.

 * " with a similarly sized and" - Should similarly sized be similarly-sized, or is this an engvar thing? I'm still learing BE conventions; I speak a rural form of AE, so there's some big differences in grammar/phrasing
 * Google gives 1.7 mn examples, so it can't be that uncommon. Eg see the title of this scientific paper.
 * PS I have brooded on this and decided that you are correct, and changed it.

 * Lead
 * "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed; the base on Corsica was then lost" - Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not finding where the loss of the base on Corsica is mentioned in the body.
 * Nicely spotted - thank you. I had managed to write straight past that. Now added.

Ready for Rome builds a fleet, gonna take a break at that point. Hog Farm Bacon 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Invasion of Africa
 * "a brief siege" - Like with the Treaty of Lutatius article, expand the piped link to all three word to avoid a minor MOS:EGG.
 * But I didn't change it in Treaty of Lutatius. As I said then"I'm not seeing this. You would expect "hard fought battle" to send you to a battle, which it does; so why is it EGGy? It is not normal practice to include definite or indefinite articles within pipes. Eg The Battle of the Aegates and not the Battle of the Aegates. It is so universal that I would guess that there is a policy on it somewhere."

 * Okay, I guess we just have a minor stylistic disagreement there.

 * "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum off Africa, the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured" - This doesn't make a whole lot of sense without a statement indicating how the Carthaginian fleet made contact
 * Fair point. I have changed it to "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors. It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured." How's that read?
 * That works much better. The statement about the interception makes it much clearer.

 * References
 * Ref 153 we need a page number for Miles, I do believe
 * Nice spot. I had P instead of p. Fixed.

 * I guess Pulcher and the chicken incident is out of scope; I get why, but I personally thought that whole saga was hilarious in a sad way.
 * Sadly I can't think of a legitimate way of working it in.

That's all from me. Hog Farm Bacon 01:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Many thanks Hog Farm. You are very busy with reviews and seem to have a keen eye, I appreciate both of them. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely helps that I have way too much freetime on my hands as a bored university student. Supporting, your usual nice work. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review

 * Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
 * Several scaled up.

 * I see the "Continued Roman advance" map has a legend showing what the colours mean, but the symbols should also be explained
 * Done.

 * File:Stele_des_Polybios.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work
 * D'oh! Done.

 * File:Carthage-1958-PortsPuniques.jpg: when/where was this first published?
 * While researching this I came across a better image - File:Carthage view.jpg - and swapped it in, it also has a simpler USGov-Military PD rationale.
 * I'm assuming that licensing is derived from a credit in the source? Is there any further detail with regards to attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * File:Romanadvance_(cropped).JPG is tagged as lacking description.
 * Added.

Ditto File:Attacksrenewed_(cropped).JPG,
 * Added.

File:Attacksrenewed2_(cropped).JPG,
 * Added.

File:RomeWins_(cropped).jpg.
 * No longer in the article.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, all of your issues have now been addressed. Thanks for looking this over and picking those up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Looks like File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg has been added - should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Gah! Of course it should. Sorry, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by No Great Shaker
I'm interested in the subject and will read this over the next few days. I might add comments on a section by section basis but will see how it goes. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks No Great Shaker, looking forward to it. And good to see that this has tempted you into your second FAC review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Thanks for the kind words, Gog the Mild. I've focused on the lead for the moment but I'd like to add that an RPS of 35 kB (5,796 words) is excellent for such a broad subject. The lead is a good summary of the war and adequately fills the scope. I've just two small points which are:
 * In the opening sentence, suggest unpiping Roman Republic to make clear that it was the republic and not the empire involved in the Punic Wars.
 * I would much rather not. It seems to me that readers are either unaware of the distinction, in which case no harm done; or aware of it, in which case they are unlikely to think that the Empire had already come into existance in the 3rd C BC. It seems to me that those falling into neither grou[p are likely to be very few indeed.

 * Specify Akragas (modern Agrigento) after the first mention, as done later for Panormus (modern Palermo).
 * Good spot. Done.

That's it for now and I'll be back again soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Background
Just a few questions on this section which are mainly concerned with the motives of all concerned. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The Mamertines appealed to both Rome and Carthage for assistance. Is it known if the Mamertines wanted both to assist or if they were playing them off against each other?
 * Carthage had already garrisoned Messana when Caudex began his expedition. Did the Romans make any attempt to form an alliance with Carthage in support of the Mamertines or was the expedition a direct attack on the Carthaginian garrison?
 * The point of the above two questions is that it isn't really clear why Rome and Carthage went to war against each other when, on the face of it, they were both seeking to assist the Mamertines against Syracuse.
 * Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana. Is this Caudex again or another Claudian?
 * Is there any known reason for the expulsion of the Carthaginian garrison by the Mamertines? Had the Mamertines allied themselves with Rome?
 * Did the Carthaginians form an alliance with Syracuse prior to or during the siege of Messana?
 * Their experience over the previous two centuries of warfare on Sicily was that decisive action was impossible. Just a thought only but would it be worth mentioning the 415 BC Athenian expedition against Syracuse in this context?
 * The "Armies" sub-section is fine – it's a mine of useful information.

Sicily 264–256 BC

 * Slight confusion between hatnote and text as one uses Battle of Agrigentum and the other Battle of Akragas.
 * Oops. Fixed.

 * only two full-scale pitched battles. Worth a brief mention of where – Akragas and Panormus?
 * Done.

Rome builds a fleet

 * Use of "interfere" as last word in first sentence. Would "intervene" be more appropriate in a military context?
 * I have gone with "interdict" and linked it.

 * In the piece about the corvus, perhaps add that it was only in use for a few years till its constraints were fully realised.
 * I mention this in chronological order - "Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans ..." - which seems more natural to me. Do you not like this approach?

 * The Romans then raided both the Liparis and Malta. Did the Romans make any serious attempt to occupy Malta at this time?
 * Not that the sources mention. (Malta was still in Carthaginian hands at the start of the Second Punic War.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of Africa

 * Second paragraph. I think it would read better if you move the name of the battle from the third sentence into the second sentence where it currently says "the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history".
 * Done.

 * Then begin the third sentence with: "At first, the Carthaginians took the initiative..."
 * Gone with a variant of this.

 * It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa. Might be better to name a specific location which was modern Cape Bon in northern Tunisia.
 * Very true. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Remaining sections
I've read the other sections – Sicily 255–248 BC, Conclusion, Aftermath and the references, etc. – three times now and I've no comment other than all being interesting and highly readable. I like the way you have concluded the aftermath by guiding the reader towards the second conflict.

Summary
Hello again,. Although you're still looking at some of the comments I've made above, I don't feel there is anything which prevents me from supporting the nomination. It is a really good, informative, interesting historical summary that is entirely fit for purpose as the introduction to a conflict that shaped world history. Which is true, if you think in terms of what might have been, had the Carthaginians won this war, and there had been no Caesar, no Roman Empire. Sadly, it's true that the war is largely forgotten, but it has real historical importance that cannot be understated. Well done, Gog. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by T8612

 * Infobox: what is the logic behind the list of commanders for Rome? it's neither alphabetical, nor chronological. Then, why picking Megellus & Vitulus and not Lutatius Catulus? I would also mention Valerius Messalla. In fact, you could theoretically list all the consuls as they all fought. The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others, like Scipio Africanus or Claudius Marcellus for the 2PW.
 * Secondly, did Hiero II really fought on the Roman side? As far as I remember, his only fight in the war was against Rome, which he lost and remained an ally until his death. Should he be mentioned on each side (with a mention "after 263" and "until 263")?
 * I have tried all sorts of rationales on this, but cannot find a satisfactory solution. As you say "The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others". The most reader-friendly solution would seem to be to mention none of the leaders at all - so I haven't. (The template documentation says that including commanders is "optional".)
 * What about Syracuse? They fought for both sides. T8612  (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So did numerous other Sicilian city states. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they are not in the infobox. Given the anecdotal role of Syracuse in the military operations, I think it could be removed, or at least add (from 263) next to it. T8612  (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am being slow. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 * In "background", you shortened the name of Appius Claudius Caudex to "Caudex" and "Claudius", pick only one for consistency.
 * Done.

 * I think this time this picture of the Fasti Triumphales is appropriate. You have all the triumphators of the First Punic War. This pic is a bit better.
 * Thanks. Inserted.

T8612 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Commants welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC) No Roman annalist has survived for the 1PW, hence "fragmentary"; Plutarch is useful for the 2 and 3PW, but none of his biographies deal with the 1PW, so I think he can be removed here. I also removed "Heavily" from "relied heavily on Polybius", because Livy relied principally on the previous Roman annalists, he used Polybius for military operations. T8612 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the sources, I would still mention Livy, even though his books are lost for the period, their content have partially survived through later authors, notably Orosius and Cassius Dio you mention, and their epitome (called the Periochae) is still used by modern scholars.
 * Umm. How would you feel about "Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; the later Roman historians Livy (who relied heavily on Polybius), Plutarch, Appian and Dio Cassius."
 * Livy was an annalist too, so I would say "Modern historians usually take into account the fragmentary writings of various Roman annalists, especially Livy (who relied on Polybius); the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and the later Greek writers Appian and Dio Cassius."
 * That works for me. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 * For the caption of the list of triumphs, I would says this: "A fragment of the Fasti Triumphales, listing all of the Roman triumphators of the war." T8612  (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Good points, thanks. Addressed and actioned. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Just wondering whether note 1 on the etymology of Punic should be in the lede instead of the text body. It's a bit strange to put it in the section on sources. T8612  (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that the Sources section is the best place for the information on the etymology - whether in a note or in line. And while I am not sure if there is a guideline recommending against using notes in the lead in the same way that cites there are discouraged - there may well be - I prefer if at all possible to keep the lead "uncluttered". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

 * Support just a few things.
 * "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships, and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC. The next year they lost another 150 ships to a storm.' I might cut 'another'. I don't think the reader will necessarily assume these were of the 220.
 * Done.
 * You might want to move the mention that Roman marines were legionnaires to the first mention of their marines.
 * Done.
 * is it 'north east' or 'north-east' (both as adjectives). You might want to check the other points of the compass, so to speak.
 * It's "south east" when used eg as "they moved to the south east"; and "south-east" when used eg in "south-east Sicily".
 * An interesting read. Good to hear about the whole thing in context.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the virtually preemptive support. Your points addressed anyway. (Obviously.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Query Support by WereSpielChequers
According to the article "in 237 BC Rome took advantage of the chaos to seize Corsica and Sardinia, in defiance of the terms of their treaty" but according to the map, Corsica and Sardinia are in the pink "ceded by the treaty" area along with most of Sicily.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi : I (quite literally) can hardly believe I did that. Treaty of Lutatius was my last FAC! Amended to cover this crucial point. Going directly to your query is "the additional payment and the renunciation of Sardinia and Corsica were added to the treaty as a codicil". See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Works for me. But you might want to expand on the bit about Sicily becoming the first Roman province to add the fate of Sardinia and Corsica.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to support as a well written important topic. If you have control of the maps File:Carthaginianempire.PNG shows Carthage as having the coast of Corsica and not all of Sardinia, which I think may be more accurate than the map which shows the dispositions of Rome and Carthage at the outbreak of the war. You might also want to expand the aftermath to clarify that the Sicilian losses included territory that had been Carthaginian for a very long time whilst much of Sardinia and Corsica was a more peripheral, even ephemeral part of Carthage's empire.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi : thank you for the support; a rather embarrassing omission picked up there. While one suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year, I would prefer the more nuanced approach you suggest. The only editor I know who may be able to sort it has just gone on holiday. I will see how willing they are when they return.
 * The sources I have (eg Miles) lists five "new" Phoenician settlements in the 7th C BC, stating that they were established to control the export of resources to Carthage. Not what you would call "recent". They also argue that the original, and for some sources the continuing main, purpose of the settlements on Sicily was as way stations to link Carthage to Sardinia. The driving force being foodstuffs and precious metals from Sardinia. Which sources are telling you different? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah "much of" not "all of". I don't dispute that parts of Sardinia were core, and in terms of metals more important. I don't see why anyone going north from Carthage to Sardinia would start by going east to Sicily (other than some very strange winds), though I can see that holding western Sicily would make the sea route to Sardinia safer. Very happy with your solution of asking the mapmaker to tweak things on their return.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I confess it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but that's what Miles says. And, from memory, other sources make Sicily subsidiary to Sardinia and suggest that that was why the major Carthaginian strongholds were in the west of Sicily. But what do I know of the winds, currents, tides, trade routes, resources and accessible harbours of the area 2,300 years ago? Anyway, you can see why I wasn't (aren't) keen to go with your compare Sicily and Sardinia suggestion.
 * I assume "my" mapmaker will be able to sort it. They put the pink in the map in Aftermath at my request so I assume they will be able to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Map tweaked as discussed, with grateful thanks to the multi-talented . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. marked that as resolved.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
Pending. In about five weeks be OK? :p ——  Serial  12:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * —— : well, it's been open 11 days, so if you waited another 73 ... Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Fn 166 has the wrong date. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * well spotted. Thanks. The date is correct; I forgot to add the source when I added a cite. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. A query. has signed on to do the source review for this, but has not edited for nine days. (And is not responding to emails.) Would I be in order to strike their 'staking a claim' and to put it in the reviews requested box? Or is there any other advice you have? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can take on the SR here if Serial is missing (t · c)  buidhe  10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . SN is definitely MIA. (I am a little concerned.) If you could pick up the SR I would most grateful. I suspect that you could identify most of the flaws in my sourcing of a First Punic War article from memory by now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Source checks
 * Which source supports the figures in the sentence "Since 2010, eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea off the west coast of Sicily, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of amphorae."? Tusa & Royal speak of "4 bronze warship rams (Egadi 3-6), at least 8 bronze helmets" that they recovered in their survey. The other sources mention ten rams.
 * I absolutely remember counting eleven when I wrote Battle of the Aegates, but on holiday without all my sources I can't reproduce it. So I am amending to the ten supported by two of the sources. I may revisit this when I am back, but if so I shall consult you. Done.

 * Might be a good idea to specify that the artifacts were from both sides of the battle
 * Ah, but we don't know that they were. The Carthaginians captured a lot of Roman warships, including 93 at the Battle of Drepana which they reused. So it is possible that they were all "Carthaginian" ships. Thinking this through though, it may be worth mentioning that there were some built by each side, and I shall. Done.

 * Tusa & Royal p. 46 (in the official pagination based on the doi-identified version) does not mention Polybius. I think you might be referring to the previous page, where it states, "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire." The sentence in the article is "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." But the source doesn't discuss amphorae, at least not on that page, and the sentence in the article, if kept, needs to clarify what the account is of (the battle, the war)?
 * My pagination is for the first edition. I am not sure who added the doi. The second edition has the same content, but a new forward by Tusa's widow, which alters the pagination.
 * Url to 1st edition removed. Note that the page given states "The amphora finds attest to the particular mission of the warships in this conflict". This, IMO, supports "they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account". Note that this paragraph begins "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire. It is the sought-after convergence of the archaeological and historical records". (Emphasis added.)

 * As far as I can tell, Tusa & Royal mostly support the location of the battle being where Polybius said. But you already state that earlier in the paragraph, "The archaeologists involved stated that the location of artefacts so far discovered supports Polybius's account of where the Battle of the Aegates took place." Therefore, I wonder if the last sentence in the paragraph is redundant, or if not, whether it can be made more specific.
 * The last sentence "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." refers to Polybius stating that the Carthaginian ships were weighed down with food supplies which they planned to unload in Sicily before getting into battle trim. I didn't want to get into a lot of detail at this stage, so summarised. This is confirmation of a different aspect of Polybius's account than the location.

 * The one citation to Sabin checks out.
 * On page 121, Morgan states that the majority view puts the battle in 250, but she argues that it was actually 251. Either both dates need to be given as alternatives, or else another source would need to be cited to show that Morgan's view has been adopted as the majority one. If, on the other hand, Rankov, Lazenby and Bagnall state it was 251, then I don't see the need to cite Morgan. Also, I am not sure why you also cite page 129, since it does not include any relevant information as far as I can tell. Also, I am not sure where you get "late summer" from.
 * I was relying on the quote from Polybius "when the harvest was at its height" and the vindication of Polybius's account on page 129. I could switch this to Goldsworthy who says in his own voice "while they harvested their crops", which I believe is a reasonable paraphrase to "late summer". In fact, if you are unhappy with Morgan for the year I could switch that to Goldsworthy and make things simpler all round.
 * I think that using Goldsworthy would be a better solution (t · c)  buidhe  05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(t · c)  buidhe  08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks a lot. (I haven't read it yet, I reserve the right to withdraw my thanks. ;-) ) I am currently packing to go on holiday. I shall take most of my sources, so there will be a response, but please bear with me if it is delayed and/or arrives bitily. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gah! I should have read it first. I am now on holiday and haven't got my pdfs of most of the sources you refer to. I should be able to access on line versions. Tusa and Royal: I used the pre-publication, old version of this. After Tusa died this was withdrawn; my understanding was that no changes were made to the text, but I am guessing that the preface or similar may have been rewritten and this may explain the page number discrepancies. It is not impossible that the text has changed in the new version and I shall obviously check for this. (Note that a helpful drive by editor has changed all of the identifiers to the new version - I didn't notice - so you have been looking at a different version from the one I intended you to.) I shall crack on now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, I am going to be out of commission for the next two to three days. Apologies. I hope to wrap up my responses to your review over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Review of sources used
 * There is some inconsistency in whether locations are provided, e.g. see Collins, Walbank, Sidwell
 * Beginners mistake. The book by Walbank already has a location, the journal doesn't. Locations added to the other two. Thanks. (And for "Untied States of America"; *rolly eyes*)

 * The sources look reliable for what they are being cited for (t · c)  buidhe  05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi again . Apologies if my responses are (increasingly) incoherent. (I miss my library.) I have responded to, I think, all of your queries. Possibly over-hurriedly before I go off line. Any hoo, see what you make of it, and I will come back on your follow up comments in a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde
I know very little about this subject, but reviewing is as good a way to learn as any. As always, feel free to query/revert any copyedits I make as I go.
 * "greatest naval war of antiquity" "antiquity" is a potentially fuzzy term; can you link it?
 * Done.

 * "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed" at this point the reader only knows Sardinia is Carthaginian if they've looked at the map; I'd suggest clarifying in the prose, too.
 * Good point. Done - "on Carthaginian-held Sardinia".

 * "attacked and recaptured Akragas" Akragas hasn't been introduced yet, and doesn't have a link
 * D'oh! Good spot. Thank you. I have mixed the Latin and the Greek names - and even thrown in one bare modern name! Now standardised. Akragas (Latin: Agrigentum; modern Agrigento).

 * Note 1 is significant enough in its content that I'd include it in the main text, but that's a matter of preference only
 * Done.

 * The sentence beginning "other sources include" would flow better attached to paragraph 2 of that section, IMO
 * Done.

Hi, good to see you again and thanks for the comments - a couple of them I am annoyed to have missed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"empire": I slightly prefer Carthage had come to dominate X,Y and Z in a military and commercial empire, meaning (it seems to me) that X, Y and Z were in the empire and that Carthage dominated them; to "building". But if the former is impenetrably unclear, then best to change it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi : I was wondering if you had any further queries or comments, or any follow ups to my responses above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I wouldn't have bothered you except I am going to be off line for a day or two and I thought that I would give you a nudge as part of my "housekeeping". Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant to read through the rest of the article and hadn't gotten around to it. If this is otherwise ready to promote I will not stand in the way, but if not I'll get to finishing my prose review soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 * In retrospect, the "empire" wording was just a matter of preference, I think, so self-reverted.
 * Cheers.

 * "Carthage was unperturbed" strikes me as rather heavy use of editorial voice...
 * Fair point. Rephrased to avoid this.

 * "Adult male Roman citizens" is it possible to mention somewhere that this definition of "citizen" is rather different from the present-day understanding of it, in that most (?) of the inhabitants of the empire were not citizens?
 * This has come up before (hence the IMO redundant "Adult male") and I would like to add a footnote. Bizarrely, I can't source it! All of my sources take this factoid as a given.
 * Huh. well, the sources are what they are.

 * "Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army" are these foreigners to the city or the empire?
 * Ah now. Carthage was an empire rather like the old British Empire - components from outside the city and a few colonies settled directly from it were viewed as "foreign". Rome was not so different: hence the references to Latin, Italic and Greek allies - the components of the growing Roman "republic". So, to answer the question, some of both in your terms; or non-citizens in mine.

 * "close-order" and "shock cavalry" strike me as terms that could use links or explanation
 * A bit like citizen: widely used, but not oft defined. But you are correct; they do need defining. Let me hunt around. It may need to wait until after my current holiday so I can access my more general military sources.
 * Yeah, it's not a make-or-break thing, but would be worth fixing; technical terms without definitions or links aren't ideal, in my view.

 * " several other small Carthaginian dependencies switched to the Romans" The prose to this point hasn't suggested Syracuse was a dependency; or perhaps it wasn't, and the "other" needs to be omitted?
 * Oops. Well spotted. "other" removed.

 * "Carthaginian naval supremacy prevented them from shipping supplies by sea" More for my curiosity than anything else; Sicily is an island; getting any supplies there requires shipping by sea; why was it specifically hard for Akragas?
 * Omitted for summary style is that sneaking supplies by night across the 3 km Strait of Messina was achievable with acceptably low losses. Sailing them 400 km and landing them on the open beach probably wasn't technically doable. Even if you had naval superiority. Hence much of the war being over the major Sicilian ports.
 * Thanks for the explanation, the summary seems fine.

 * "which assembled in Africa" Africa's rather large...do we know where exactly? If not, can we at least say "African coast"?
 * Well now, I "know" that they were assembled in Carthage, and to a lesser extent (possibly) Utica. But Polybius says "Africanus" and every modern source I have read blindly copies him. I would be entirely happy to give a fairly precise location, but you would shoot me down for inadequate sourcing.
 * Fair. it annoys me no end, especially because Polybius's phrasing sounds a heck of a lot like modern geographic ignorance that does the same thing; but if the sources aren't specific, then you can't be, either.
 * Ah; it is even worse. Africanus is Latin for Tunisia, as in the Roman province. Do you too sometimes want you to shake the modern scholars who fail to think things through? When I am home I shall have a proper root around. Some one must have thought this through!

 * "ultimately fruitless campaign against Corsica and Sardinia" sounds like an event of the same scale as that which has just been treated over several paragraphs; was it much less important, or do we just not have any information?
 * A bit of both. It was a secondary campaign - at least one modern source lambasts the Romans' strategic judgement for diverting resources to it. Whoever won the campaign, it was not going to significantly effect the outcome of the war. And so neither the primary nor the secondary sources spend much time on it.
 * Seems fine.

 * The first sentence of "Rome builds a fleet" seems to me to belong in the previous section both chronologically and thematically
 * It's there deliberately as an explanation as to why Rome felt a need to build a fleet. It seems to me that if I moved it I would need to say much the same thing again to introduce this section.
 * Even so, I think all you need in "Rome builds a fleet" is "As the war in Sicily reached a stalemate..." and the rest could be moved up

 * I wonder if the material about ship types, etc, would be well-served by a subsection, and also perhaps whether that belongs along with "armies" above
 * Similar to what I have done in Punic Wars? Hmm. That may well work better. I have tried it. See what you think.
 * Looks good, thanks.

 * A more general comment; a lot of the material here strikes me as patchy, in the sense that the amount of detail used for events of seemingly similar significance varies considerably. Based on the "primary sources" section I rather suspect that this is the result of patchiness in the source material; would you say that's accurate? if so, is that something that could be discussed in the first section of the article?
 * Please don't get me started! Before I dropped by 1PW there was no article on an event which combined Carthage's greatest naval defeat and Rome's greatest (by far) loss of live. Because both were barely covered in the primary sources and hence likewise in the secondary. I have never had a more difficult time getting an article through FAC. This is where Wikipedia being a tertiary source comes back to bite us.
 * So yes, the ancients judged events by different criteria, and modern RSs inevitably have similar weighting (mostly), and I would love to explicitly point this out under sources, But the RSs - curse them - seem blind to this "selection bias" and I would not be able to source it. It makes me want to chew my keyboard.
 * Ah well. The sources are what they are. Perhaps you'd need to write a paper about it, and then someone can come and at least address the patchiness directly in this article...
 * Don’t encourage me. I just possibly could. And I know a head of a university history department who would probably help me get it published. But it sounds a bit like actual work to me!

 * Another likely ignorant question; the prose refers to Carthaginian Sardinia and Corsica; but the map only shows them partially under Carthaginian control; why?
 * Another oft asked question. The map was custom tweaked at the request of above at their third struck comment. I commented later "One suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year." I could elaborate quite a lot on this, but hopefully you get the idea. If the Carthaginians controlled, say, a silver mine, who cared who controlled the barren hills around it. And define "control". Which by any definition may have varied by time of day - the locals coming out to raid and extort at night for example. It's a lot of nuance over an extended period to pack into a shading on a map.

 * "was possibly the largest naval battle in history" I think you mean the largest naval battle to that date; or is it really saying it was the largest ever?
 * No, it means just what it says, including the "by total number of combatants" qualifier. Staggering eh?
 * Huh, yeah, indeed. I'd have thought Jutland or Midway would have been hard to top...
 * )t is all the oarsmen in each ship. 680 x 690 = c. 290,000, Leytte Gulf was probably the largest WW2 naval battle and “only” made 200,000 combatants!

 * "losing 30 ships sunk" strikes me as ungrammatical, but maybe I'm just unused to military history writing conventions; I would write "having 30 ships sunk"
 * It seems normal - non-military - English to me. A Google search on "losing * ships sunk" gives well over 2 mn hits.
 * Hmmm. A matter of preference, then, so you can ignore it.

 * Who is Bostar? He hasn't been introduced, and isn't mentioned later
 * Sorry, he appears this once in the sources, then disappears again. I am never sure how to introduce him. (And whatever I do seems to get criticised.) "Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and a third general called Bostar" is the best I can think of, but is so clumsy. Do you have any ideas?
 * "a third general, Bostar," would seem fine to me
 * Done.

 * "the presence of the corvus" is the singular form correct here? There was one on each ship, presumably?
 * Wiktionary says that it is an English word with a plural of "corvi". I do not consider this helpful to a reader and am, frankly, IARing.

 * There's some inconsistancy with serial commas; I was unsure which way you wanted to go, so I didn't make any changes
 * I don't do Oxford commas, but sometimes a comma after and is nevertheless grammatically required. If you see others, feel free to delete them. I have been referred to as a "comma-minimalist".
 * Agreed, I'll do a sweep.

 * "the Carthaginian hold-out cities" what makes them hold-out cities? Didn't Carthage still have a lot of territory on Sicily?
 * Hold-out refers to bypassed cities surrounded by Roman-held territory and fortifications. It was the most accurate succinct phrase I could think of, but I am not wedded to it. (Maybe "the isolated cities holding out behind the Roman lines"? Longer, but clearer.)

 * Hi : Apologies for keeping you waiting for this. I think that I have addressed all of your comments, if sometimes not very satisfactorily. I shall try to revisit this in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * "picked": it may be a specialist usage - I hadn't thought so - but "picked" in this context is not synonymous with selected, see . Or to quote from some sources - Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * Thanks; a couple of brief responses above for you to consider; the only one I feel strongly about is the technical terms. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * all addressed. I agree re the technical terms (I should have defined them when I first wrote them, but I have grown too used to the specialist terminology and it is not always obvious to me that it is specialist), but they are going to have to wait until I am home and can consult my The Art of War in the Western World, which I know covers these (well). Hopefully I am in good enough standing with the coordinators that they will bear with me.
 * Many thanks for this comprehensive trawl through my sometimes shakey prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; thanks for a detailed article about an important topic. No objections to waiting on the technical terms. Happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright
Like many others, I know little about this period of world history. Nonetheless, I offer the following comments and questons. Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * The Romans then built a navy to challenge Carthage's, and using novel tactics inflicted several defeats.
 * Carthage's > would "the Carthaginians" be more apt?
 * It would, it would. Done.

Primary sources:
 * His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics,[4] but he is known today for The Histories,
 * Is "today" clear enough for readers?
 * It seems entirely clear to me. In what way do you think it may not be? Or what do you feel might be clearer?
 * A clear situation of diminishing return.

 * Carthaginian written records were destroyed along with their capital, Carthage, in 146 BC and so Polybius's account of the First Punic War is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources.
 * Independent clauses: This sentence has two independent clauses separated by a coordinating conuction but unjoined by a comma?
 * Indeed. It is how I was taught and my usual Wikipedian habit.
 * We are in agreement, fantastic!
 * ",now lost," seems essential to the meaning of the sentence?
 * I fear you have the advantage of me. It may be simpler if you copy edited the article to your satisfaction and I commented if I were to be unhappy?
 * Advantage here is still in question, but I fear I may have struck a nerve. Anyway, the ball is still in your court.

Background
 * The Romans had not previously displayed any interest in Sicily and did not wish to come to the aid of soldiers who had unjustly stolen a city from its rightful possessors.
 * Independent clauses - same as in the

lead?
 * And a similar response. You will find a lot of these.
 * Ditto!

 * Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana, where the Mamertines had expelled the Carthaginian garrison commanded by Hanno (no relation to Hanno the Great) and were besieged by both the Carthaginians and the Syracusans.
 * How about a comma after (no relation to Hanno the Great)?
 * A definite theme is developing.
 * Yet, the nominee continues to play games.

Rome builds a fleet
 * In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own.
 * Independent clauses - same as in the lead?
 * Ditto!
 * Ditto!

 * As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable.
 * Consdier replacing "and so" with "but"?
 * Would this not deny the reader the reason why they were slower? Ie, because they were heavier. I am not adverse to a rewording which continues to communicate this.
 * Call this one a draw!

Africa
 * Their naval victories at Mylae and Sulci, and their frustration at the stalemate in Sicily, led the Romans to adopt a sea-based strategy and to develop a plan to invade the Carthaginian heartland in North Africa and threaten Carthage (close to Tunis).
 * How about a comma after strategy?
 * Ah, well, I think that you will have identified by now that the missing commas are not unintentional.
 * Gamesmanship at play!

Sicily
 * Their entire fleet, under both consuls, attacked Panormus early in the year.
 * Consider "in the same year", or in "that year", referring to 254 BC about two sentences back?
 * Both of those seem a little clumsy to me. I could repeat the year: "attacked Panormus early in 254 BC"?
 * You seem to have this well in hand.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Good evening, I see you too rarely. Thank you for your comments, which I have addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Could we do this again sometime, perhaps in the next life? In the meantime, the article is worthy of my support. Pendright (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
Hi guys, given the above could I fire up my next one? Thanks? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, fire away... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:John S. Blenkiron

Coverage in RS
If you believe substantive reliable sources exist, please add them. I want to avoid AfD if possible, but in it's current state the article is deletion-worthy. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how AfD works: the references don't need to be in the article. For example, Blenkiron has an entry in this book, but I don't have access to it. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be patronizing. They don't need to be in the article. But an article without such references will be given serious consideration at AfD; and to prevent deletion, you would need to provide sources there. I am asking you to short-circuit that process, and provide them here, or better still, in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:John S. Blenkiron


text:
Talk:1984 in England

Copyvio
See https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=1984+in+England&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 --John B123 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
As I explained in the page's history all information in this page is from the wikipedia page 1984 in the United Kingdom which doesn't have any copyright issues.Llewee (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Apologies, my mistake. Content on co-curate.ncl.ac.uk had been copied from Flickr, which in turn had incorporated content from 1984 in the United Kingdom. I've removed the tag. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories
I have removed this from Category:1980s in Wales as there is no reason for an article about England to be in a Wales category. Dunarc (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1984 in England


text:
User:Underscorre

I clean up grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. I can also be found looking through new pages at Special:NewPagesFeed, or attempting to keep up with Special:RecentChanges.

title: User:Underscorre


text:
User:ChristianRoy

I am a french Canadian Programmer and Start Trek fan.

The programming languages I (currently|have in the past) work on:
 * PHP
 * Perl
 * C/C++
 * Java
 * SQL (Oracle, Sybase, mSQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL)

I started my own business in 1998 which offers Web Hosting and Web Application Development.

title: User:ChristianRoy


text:
A Cart on the Snowy Road at Honfleur

A Cart on the Snowy Road at Honfleur (La Charrette, route sous la neige à Honfleur) is an oil-on-canvas snowscape painting by French impressionist Claude Monet. The painting depicts a man on a wooden cart travelling along a snow-laden road in Honfleur.

A Cart on the Snowy Road at Honfleur is one of nearly 140 snowscapes painted by Monet. It is believed to be his first completed snowscape, and is similar to other snowscapes by him such as The Road in Front of Saint-Simeon Farm in Winter, The Magpie, Snow at Argenteuil, and The Red Cape.

The painting is thought to be heavily influenced by the snowscapes of Japanese artist Utagawa Hiroshige (1797–1858), such as Ochanomizu and Clear weather after snow at Kaneyama (1797–1858). Aspects such as the single vanishing point and varied colors of snow can also trace their influences back to Japan.

title: A Cart on the Snowy Road at Honfleur


text:
Thamsanqa Shabalala

Thamsanqa Shabalala (born September 29, 1974) is a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo, a South African choral group founded in 1960 by his father Joseph. He replaced Joseph as the group's lead singer after his father's retirement in 2015 (see main article for more information).

Thamsanqa was born in Ladysmith (eMnambithi district) to Joseph and his late wife Nellie. In 1976, Joseph brought together his six sons to form Mshengu White Mambazo, Ladysmith's 'junior choir'.

After the murder of his uncle Headman Shabalala in December 1991 and the retirement of several other members a friend called Geophrey Mdletshe and Thamsanqa Shabalala uncle Ben Shabalala), Joseph later recruited Thamsanqa and his brothers Sibongiseni, Thulani and Msizi. Thamsanqa began singing with the group as an alto voice (alongside Albert Mazibuko, who is a tenor voice) and has remained in the line-up since 1993.

Together with his brother Sibongiseni and a well-known South African guitarist, Maqhinga Radebe, Thamsanqa formed the maskandi-mbaqanga-isicathamiya crossover band Shabalala Rhythm in 1998, which has released successful releases to date including Ubuhle Bakho (2003), Vuma (2005), and Izingqaku (2007).

It was announced by Joseph Shabalala in January 2008 that when he retires, Thamsanqa will take over as leader of Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Joseph Shabalala retired in 2015.

title: Thamsanqa Shabalala


text:
EuroLeague Basketball Legend Award

The EuroLeague Basketball Legend Award, or simply EuroLeague Legend, or EuroLeague Legends, is an award that is given by the EuroLeague Basketball Company, the organizer of the EuroLeague, which is the top-tier level professional basketball competition in Europe. It is a Hall of Fame award that is awarded only to a very distinct and small group of the greatest of all-time EuroLeague star players, head coaches, and executives, who are honored from time-to-time, for their outstanding playing, coaching, and front-office careers in the league. To which, the EuroLeague's organizing body, the EuroLeague Basketball Company, sees fit to officially designate them as "EuroLeague Legends".

EuroLeague Legends may be officially designated during or after their playing, coaching, or administrative careers. All players, head coaches, and executives who have been active in the EuroLeague are eligible for the EuroLeague Legend designation. Currently, the EuroLeague Legend Award has only been given to nine players, one head coach, and one team executive.

Executives

* The 2000–01 season was a transition year, with the best European basketball teams split into two different major leagues: The SuproLeague, held by FIBA, and the Euroleague, held by Euroleague Basketball Company. The 2001 FIBA SuproLeague title is recognized by the EuroLeague.

title: EuroLeague Basketball Legend Award


text:
Talk:Algebra/Arithmetic

From Talk:Absolute value
IIRC, absolute values of complex numbers isn't something typically covered in Algebra I and it's more something for Algebra II or Trig(coupled with De Movire's Theorem maybe?) Etothex 03:37, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * The explanation here is very basic. A more thorough explanation will be explored at Algebra/Complex Numbers; perhaps this will serve as motivation to read up on complex numbers? Dysprosia 11:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * It's nice IMO to have something a little advanced in a book to inspire students to learn new stuff.Absolute value of real numbers is a trivially easy, we need to inspire the bright ones. Theresa knott 11:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Discussion
use a midscript * that is in the middle. don't use a plain astertisk.

Do you really think that subtraction is a binary opperation? In fact, addition is an abelian (semi)group (depends if you have already negative integers or not). Minus is the the _unary_ operation of inversion, hence a+(-a)=0, where 0=zero is the unit element of the (semi)group. In the case of addition one should hence write a+(-b) and not a-b. This solves the commutativity problem, since a+(-b)=(-b)+a. The notiopn a-b can then be introduced as a shorthand. While I would not recommend to introduce abelian groups at this level, I would strictly object against the introduction of a binary operator called minus, July 26, 2004 BF.

That picture of the number line is really bad--it would be much simpler just to use an image.

I have made an image and fixed the problem. It now looks beautiful. :-) H Padleckas 12:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paul - What are we trying to do here with this page? There doesn't seem to be a comprehensible focus on the page. My take on it is that we're trying to create a maths textbook that can be used to teach someone arithmetic - if that's the case then what are all those useless bits and pieces about subtrahend and Numerical Axioms doing in there?

On the other hand, if we're trying to document Arithmetic for someone seriously studying the root of mathematics, why have exercises asking for the solution of 5-3?

It doesn't make sense that exercises as simple as 5-3=? would be on the same page as words like subtrahend.

 * It was my impression that the page was for a brush-up lesson on the basics of arithmetic necessary for using algebra. Subtrahend (and the other higher-level stuff) would therefore be the extraneous information. - Jonel

Whoever posted anonymously made a very good point about the order of operations. I've cleaned it up a little; if you think it needs more work feel free to alter it. As for the etiquette, for the most part if you see something that needs to be fixed you should just go ahead and fix it. If you're unsure, put a message in this talk page. Jonel

 * Actually - that was me before I registered as a user :) The editing looks fine to me. I tihnk I'm going to enjoy working on this project! - Paul

I don't think that this section is in keeping with the idea of this page, but it might be useful on another page for more advanced work. So I will just leave it here on the talk page for now. Jonel

"Absolute Value" of Complex numbers
For complex numbers, the absolute value or modulus presents us with a different concept. A number in the Argand plane has a rotation from the real axis through angle θ and a distance away from zero, r. By using the Pythagorean theorem and a bit of trigonometry, we can generalize the complex number to be a triangle, and we obtain that the modulus is the same as the real value squared plus the imaginary value squared (See Algebra/Complex Numbers for more detail).

 * z2 = Re(z)2+Im(z)2

then
 * z|= √(Re(z)2+Im(z)2)

It is important to note that if z has imaginary part zero; ie z is purely real, this method is equivalent to finding the absolute value as well.

Previous section?
Under Addition, a "previous section" is referred to. There is no previous section. This is the first section of Math. H Padleckas 12:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I fixed it. --MathMan64 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

BODMAS
Hello. I'm using this Wikibook to come to grips with maths in english. In my native language (Dutch) I'm pretty clued up, but the language barrier is keeping me from understanding a lot of maths-related stuff in english. Just now I stumbled upon something which I can't quite understand:

"There are a number of different abbreviations for memorizing the order. PEMDAS, BEDMAS and BODMAS (B is Brackets) are common." I can't figure out where the O in BODMAS comes from? Care to enlighten, anybody?

[edit] The "O" stands for Orders (ie Powers and Square Roots, etc.) The "O" has also been taught simply as "OF"; Brackets of Divison etc.

Thanks to all contributors for taking the time to write all this. Perhaps I'm a bit simple-minded, but I feel the book could do with some graphics (even non-functional graphics), both to break the text apart in more managable chunks, and to make it more appealing from a visual point of view.

Order of operations
I feel that this page is not the correct place to introduce anything to do with negative numbers, such as -22. This important concept should be introduced after the multiplication of integers. I would rather it not be a subtraction problem from zero, but a multiplication by negative one. --MathMan64 22:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Long multiplication?
Can there be some information about how to multiply large numbers, say 34 * 281 or whatever.

addition and the other operations too, for that matter. this wikibook gives excercises for them, but does not explain the method of solution. <IP_ADDRESS> 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Exercises
I think it would be good to add exercises to each arithmetic section. I performed all exercises so far and found some holes in my understanding that I would not get from the explanations alone. Particularly, start from simple to advanced within 25 problems so the student can get a real feel for what they are lacking. I will create some of my own and add it here in a couple of days if no one has any objections.:) ---Irishboy0 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)#--Irishboy0 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

missing pages with problems
I marked this page fair for completeness due to the missing pages when you try to go to the problems for each category on this page. only the pages for addition and subtraction exist. Kweeks (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Addition"
Why in quot.marks? Cause the issue is not about addition while the passage is out of there: "To define the number one is a rather difficult task, but we all have a good intuitive sense of what "oneness" is."

O'k, not a very good way... Know what I think? I think that we can′t define oneness without quantity. Moreover, the concept of quantity is of the premises to the oneness not otherwise. No oneness does exist without a quantity prior to that. The quantity is a natural concept — then somebody, planning to organise the surrounding, chooses the units. You may argue that there is a natural concept of oneness - when considering some indivisible objects — for example humans etc. (apples etc.). Somebody could say that either humans or, especially, apples can be divided. To those, it will be recalled that the objects should strictly retain their immanent parameters so as to remain being considered equal or comparable in the same way. Well, it was an interlude. So... Somebody says "what about 'natural objects'?" — thus resolving the phantom paradox: saying "natural". Now, I agree that there are objects which may imply some natural oneness. BUT THEY ARE ONLY "NATURAL", COUNTABLE OBJECTS. Linguistics seems giving the best answer to solving such ambiguities: remember the classes of nouns in English:) So, this way we have NATURAL DICHOTOMY between the countable and the uncountable. So we should choose the way of approach to our dilemma: either we introduce here in "Arithmetics" the natural numbers first — or we're defining the quantity as a prior to any units perceptional concept... Lincoln J. (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Logarithms
It is arguable that the introduction of digital technologies has largely replaced the need for logarithms at this level of mathematics. If so, is this section necessary? Colinf (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Algebra/Arithmetic


text:
User:Abdallah albeltagy/Books/Human Pheromones

The Amazing Scent

 * Chapter (1) : Pheromones
 * Pheromone
 * Sex pheromone
 * The Great Pheromone Myth

 * Chapter (2) : Human Body Glands
 * Human
 * Skin
 * Body odor
 * List of glands of the human body
 * Apocrine sweat gland
 * Sweat gland
 * Eccrine sweat gland
 * Adrenal gland
 * Endocrine gland
 * Axilla
 * Testicle
 * Ovary
 * Apocrine
 * Holocrine
 * Merocrine

 * Chapter (3) : Olifaction
 * Human nose
 * Electronic nose
 * Olfaction
 * Anosmia
 * Sensory system
 * Olfactory system
 * Olfactory transduction
 * Olfactory mucosa
 * Olfactory bulb
 * Glomerulus (olfaction)
 * Olfactory epithelium
 * Nasal cavity
 * Olfactory nerve
 * Olfactory receptor neuron
 * Vomeronasal organ
 * Olfactory receptor
 * Epithelium
 * Cilium
 * Action potential
 * G protein-coupled receptor
 * G protein

 * Chapter (4) : Human Pheromones
 * Odor
 * Neuroscience and sexual orientation
 * Androstenol
 * Androstenone
 * Androstadienone
 * Estratetraenol
 * Richard Axel
 * Linda B. Buck


text:
Talk:Santiago Iglesias

+PROJECT

Political status stance
Including a Puerto Rican politician's stance on the #1 political issue, the islands' political status, is first-paragraph material in any biography, so I've edited in a reference in Santiago Iglesias Pantín's bio. Since most of this labor leader's biographies are written by anti-statehood labor leaders, such as Mario Roche it was not easy to source this fact. Pr4ever (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Santiago Iglesias


text:
Trinity College Chapel

Trinity College Chapel may refer to:

 * Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge of Trinity College, Cambridge
 * Trinity College Chapel, Hartford, at Trinity College, Connecticut
 * Trinity College Chapel, Dublin of Trinity College, Dublin
 * Trinity College Chapel, Kandy, in Kandy, Ceylon
 * Trinity College Chapel, Oxford of Trinity College, Oxford
 * Trinity College Chapel, at University of Trinity College, Toronto

title: Trinity College Chapel


text:
Τιτανίς

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) one of the Titanides in Greek mythology; a female Titan; a Titaness

title: Τιτανίς


text:
User:Bakert

http://bluebones.net/ is my main site. I'm trying to help start a group discussing The Art of Computer Programming by Donald E. Knuth. I'll never get through it alone!

title: User:Bakert


text:
Alexander Scrymgeour (died 1306)

Sir Alexander Scrymgeour (died 4 August 1306) was a Scottish knight who took part in the War of Scottish Independence, as a supporter of Robert de Brus. He was constable of Dundee and Scottish standard bearer who was captured and later executed by the English in 1306.

Life
Alexander was the son of Colin Scrimgeour. He was appointed constable of Dundee Castle and the standard bearer of Scotland at the Scottish parliament of 29 March 1298, held by Guardian William Wallace at Torphichen. He was with Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Methven. During the battle on 19 June 1306, Alexander was captured by English forces under Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, along with a number of Bruce's closest supporters. The Earl of Pembroke refused to summarily execute the prisoners as ordered by Edward I of England. Alexander was executed on 4 August by hanging at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He was succeeded by his son Nicholas.

title: Alexander Scrymgeour (died 1306)


text:
точити

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to drive, to hurry
 * 2) to pour, to shed, to let flow

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to pour
 * 2)  to tap (draw off liquid from a vessel)

Etymology 1
..

Verb

 * 1) to cause to flow, to cause to run, to flow
 * 2) to pour
 * 3) to tap

Etymology 2
Probably, the same as etymology 1.

Verb

 * 1) to sharpen, to hone, to whet
 * 2) to produce, to make
 * 3)  to damage by eating/chewing through
 * 4)  to distress, to trouble
 * 5)  to nag, to blame, to criticize

Derived terms

Etymology 3
The same as etymology 1.

Verb

 * 1)  to sift, to sieve, to strain

title: точити


text:
Willi Petzold

Willi Petzold (6 September 1885 – 16 March 1978) was a German painter. His work was part of the painting event in the art competition at the 1936 Summer Olympics.

title: Willi Petzold


text:
lamauttaa

Verb

 * 1) to paralyze, numb to render unable to move; to immobilize, especially temporarily
 * 2) to paralyze, disable, cripple, incapacitate to render unable to function properly
 * 3) to unnerve to deprive of nerve, force, or strength
 * lamauttaa käsi
 * to unnerve the arm
 * 1)  to neutralize
 * 1)  to neutralize

title: lamauttaa


text:
Bakerton

Bakerton may refer to:

 * Bakerton, Kentucky, an unincorporated community in Cumberland County
 * Bakerton, Tennessee, an unincorporated community in Clay County
 * Bakerton, West Virginia, an unincorporated community in Jefferson County

title: Bakerton


text:
Diplomatic History/Definition

The communication and exchange between actors in the political context constitutes the realm of "diplomatic history." Not altogether different from a history of war, or peace, or of great women and men, diplomatic history illuminates the efforts of those who sought the interests of their political incorporation-- or themselves, as well as the complex and ever-changing relationships amongst actors at all levels of political discourse: international, state, and individual.

The Diplomatic History journal, run out of the University of Colorado is primarily concerned with "international history and foreign relations, broadly defined, including grand strategy, diplomacy, and issues involving gender, culture, ethnicity, and ideology," comparing issues in global and comparative contexts.

These are the issues through which diplomatic history is analyzed and framed.

title: Diplomatic History/Definition


text:
Talk:Donbas operation (1941)

“Donbass became known as 'Donbas' only after the collapse of the Soviet Union”
Regarding these edits.

Firstly, that is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia in 2021, written in current English, for today’s readers. Imagine what articles about medieval Britain would look like if we actually followed that implied logic.

Secondly, that statement is absolutely false. A Google Books Ngram chart show that the spelling Donbas was most common during most of relevant history: Donbas/Donbass. Another shows that “Donbas operation” is the only spelling and capitalization used with significant frequency. Comparing book results before 2014 (with search conducted according to WP:SET guidelines) confirms that “Donbas operation” has over 2,100% higher frequency of usage:
 * Donbas operation 204
 * Donbass operation 9

before you make major changes to an encyclopedia article, please make the tiniest effort to confirm your preconceptions. If I haven’t missed anything, I will revert the changes and page move. —Michael Z. 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if you've looked at your links, but the situation is reversed. There are books about the 'Donbass Operation', but not about the 'Donbas Operation'. I am fine about the post–Soviet name of 'Donbas', but the historical reality cannot be changed. The Soviet command called this region 'the Donbass'. MarcusTraianus (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Soviet command called it Донбасс, and millions living there in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries called it Донбас, but the Soviet command is not mentioned in our guidelines and we’re not writing in their languages. Again, you’re constructing faulty logic based on your prejudices (=WP:ILIKEIT). If the situation is reversed, you’ll have to be more specific about some evidence, because I do not see that. I see three pages of results for the first, and almost a full one for the second, and 204 to 9 for Google’s estimated totals. The links I provided are to the last page where the accurate total can be read according to WP:SET, but the exact phrase is less likely to be given in Google’s previews. Look at the first page for more previews showing the search string. —Michael Z. 15:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Prejudice? You are looking for something that I have not shown and do not support in principle. Once again, the title reflects historical reality, not my vision or my desires. And again, the provided links show that 'Donbass Operation' used nearly always, while refering to that conflict. It was officialy called 'Donbass'. People refered to Burma as Myanmar, but it got its current official name only after the collapse of the British Empire. That's why we have Burma Campaign page, not Myanmar Campaing. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I described in detail that the links I posted show one thing, but you insist they show the opposite. If you don’t explain how you come to that conclusion, then I can’t determine if you’re misreading them completely or looking at something else altogether. —Michael Z. 15:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2021

The result of the move request was: moved. Arguments for moving are much stronger. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste  (t, e | c, l) 02:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Donbass Operation (1941) → Donbas operation (1941) – —Michael Z. 20:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) To satisfy WP:COMMONNAME.
 * 2) * Donbas operation is the most common spelling and capitalization of this article’s title in reliable sources. A Google Books Ngram Viewer frequency chart doesn’t even register the alternatives.
 * 3) * Google Advanced Book Search (conducted according to WP:SET, adding 1941 to filter out results about the current war) shows books favour this spelling by about 30 to 2 (+1,400%).
 * 4) * Google Scholar Search shows articles and citations favour this spelling by about 14 to 1 (+1,300%).
 * 5) For WP:CONSISTENCY with the title of the main article about the geographical region, “Donbas” (move discussion).
 * 6) * Donbas is the most common spelling of the name found in reliable sources, both currently and historically. A Google Books Ngram Viewer frequency chart shows the alternative was only more common in new publications for about 15 years of the last century, but not in the subject’s year 1941, and not in the most recent data for 2019.
 * 7) * Donbas is used in subject-specific sources, e.g., Erickson 2019, The Road to Stalingrad: Stalin’s War with Germany, Glantz, et al 2015, When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, Overy 1998, Russia’s War: A History of the Soviet War Effort: 1941–1945.
 * 8) For WP:CONSISTENCY with other article titles about both current and historical subjects. See search results for intitle:Donbas. (Also see this recent move discussion for War in Donbas.)
 * 9) To afford consistent spelling of Donbas throughout the text of other Wikipedia articles.
 * 10) The above serve all five main WP:CRITERIA for article titles.
 * Support per detailed and strongly sourced nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SUpport clear casse of wp:commonname—blindlynx (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. We cannot use WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY while talking about historical namings. Imagine using WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY while appling to the current name of Kyiv: historically, "Kiev" superseded "Kyiv" by number of use, but we have "Kyiv" article, because it is how it is used today, not becasue of common name rule. Same with the Donbass: yes, now it is called 'Donbas', but in 1941, it was named 'Donbass'. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We’re supposed to ignore COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY?? Which guideline says that? That other decision certainly relied on COMMONNAME: . And I already demonstrated that Donbas was the more common spelling in 1941, twice. Here’s a close-up. Not that we should write in anachronistic language, anyway. —Michael Z. 18:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * >We’re supposed to ignore COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY?? Well, if we are talking about historical namings, of course. It is a comletely different field.
 * >Not that we should write in anachronistic language, anyway. It is not anachronistic. It is historical. I hope you know, that names of cities and places changes over time. It is natural. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think those wp:CRITERIA are restricted to a particular field. Even so, Donbas is the historical spelling of the 1940s. —Michael Z. 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was named as Donbass in Stavka documents and other official documents. Again, it is article about battle that was waged by army of a state, it is named how organizational structrures named it. MarcusTraianus (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was named Донбасс in those documents, which were unpublished at the time. —Michael Z. 12:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of cource it is named 'Донбасс', how it should be? And by the way, Donbass is used in other offical art. I just can't understand the entire problem. It was Byelorussia, now it is Belarus. It was Moldovia, now it is Moldova. It was Donbass, now it is Donbas. History as it is. MarcusTraianus (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 * CommentWhy was this page was moved to 'Donbass Operation (1941)' without discussion in the first place?—blindlynx (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I first moved it from this title because 1) we moved Donbas with consensus, 2) other historical articles used this spelling, and 3) I saw that old sources used this title. MarcusTraianus reverted, our conversation was an impasse, and so I filed this RM. All going as it should. —Michael Z. 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool—blindlynx (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It originally was named "Donbass Operation" and then it was moved to "Donbas Operation" without any move request. MarcusTraianus (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donbas operation (1941)


text:
Cookbook:Chocolate Chip Cookies

| Cuisine of the United States | Dessert Chocolate chip cookies are cookies with chocolate chips or pieces baked in. Originating in Massachusetts, they are one of the most traditional/popular types of cookies.

Warnings

 * Anyone with peanut or tree nut allergies should be careful when consuming cookies made with nuts or ingredients which may have been in contact with nuts.
 * Consuming raw cookie dough can pose risks due to the uncooked eggs and uncooked wheat flour.

Plain

 * Chocolate Chip Cookies I
 * Chocolate Chip Cookies II
 * Chocolate Chip Cookies III
 * Chocolate Chip Cookies IV
 * Chocolate Chip Balls

For special diets

 * Chocolate Chip Cookies (Gluten-Free)
 * Chocolate Chip Cookies (Vegan)

With oatmeal

 * Oatmeal Chocolate Chip Cookies
 * Celeste Oatmeal Chocolate Chip Cookies
 * Ginny's Toll House Cookies

Other

 * Chocolate Chip Pumpkin Cookies

Related

 * Cookies and Milk
 * No-Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Pie

title: Cookbook:Chocolate Chip Cookies


text:
Talk:The Confession Tapes

False confessions
Just been watching this series and I'm surprised that nobody has thought that it's a type of hypnosis. Listening to some of these interviews without the hours I'm assuming they have been interviewed I came close to confessing and I don't even live in America.

I think that America must spend more on their legal system than anything else - bizarre. Kelly Trueman (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Confession Tapes


text:
1994 in Macau

Events from the year 1994 in Portuguese Macau.

Incumbents

 * President - Mário Soares
 * Governor - Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira

title: 1994 in Macau


text:
Talk:Burton Blumert

June Morrall
I added a reference and a link to the stub for Mr. Blumert's widow, June Morrall, who recently passed away.

SouthStExit (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burton Blumert


text:
User:Dashmon

Hey there,

Just signed up for Wikibooks, but I've been watching the project for quite some time now, and I'm not new to the concept of a wiki (big wikipedia fan here :)). I'm interested in (contributing to, if my schedual allows for it) books on languages/linguistics, history, philosophy, and perhaps some computer/computer programming related stuff. If you'd like to conctact me, drop a line at my talk page or mail met at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
- Dashy

title: User:Dashmon


text:
Talk:Western Sydney Wanderers FC/Archive 1

Duplicate Article
A duplicate article at Western Sydney A-League Team has been tagged for speedy deletion.Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was instead redirect.

Redirection of Western Sydney Football Club
This page was a redirect to an AFL team, I have fixed it to this more appropriate page.

Erroneous information
Western Sydney as yet has: No name, no colours, no jersey, no stadium (though speculation is that they'll play at one, or a mix of Parramatta, Homebush, Campbelltown, or Penrith. It technically has no foundation date (other bids have fallen through prior to starting up) as yet, the existing nickname is "Unicorn" or "Unicorns" - representing their continual failure to exist. And while Scott Chipperfield and Lucas Neill have "expressed support" for the club, this has nothing to do with their squad (Many overseas based national team player have expressed "support" to a multitude of expansion teams, this means they are not opposed to the team existing, not that they intend to play)  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)HOLZY<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Simione001, please do not revert edits
All information listed in the article as it stands is perfectly acceptable under the guidelines CBALL. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. The new club and the items included in the article now are verified through reputable notable sources. The club is already notable and as such it meets the sufficiently wide interest section. Please do not revert further edits. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to undo because i had to go back through the edits to remove edits made by 2nyte showing Popovic as head coach and milicic as assistant as well jersey which are all not confirmed.Simione001 (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As per CBALL they are verfifiable anticipated events. They are not unsourced and thus are perfectly acceptable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to wait until an official announcement rather than going on what TWG expects to happen.Simione001 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate but it is not required under CBALL, only that the proposed items are verifiable. If you are worried about it being completely 100% accurate I would suggest you avoid the page until everything is made 100% certain. There is a "Current Event" template on the page and repeated mentions of it being proposed details so there should be no problem. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do the same. I will continue to edit this article i created.Simione001 (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Scott Cannon
Where did this information come from? My sources indicate that Ron Corry has signed to be the coach, and this other guy is apparently based in the USA.Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now changed this. References for Ron Corry provided, none that Scott Canon is on staff. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD on Sydney Derby (A-League)
Sydney Derby AFD. This concerns all editors for the club. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


text:
Civ/Social Engineering

Social Engineering is equivalent to what the Civilization games refer to as form of government. However, Alpha Centauri's system is the most flexible of any Civ game (until Civilization IV): you can not only choose the form of government, but fine-tune its economy, values, and how it embraces advanced technology.

In Civ games, it is usually the rule that you must switch out of your starting form of government as soon as you can get any other form. This is not always true in this game. It is surely important to adjust your Social Engineering choices, but the time must be ripe. Would you want to switch to a Police State if you're already inefficient? No! You should only use Police State if your empire is reasonably efficient and will remain so.

Diplomacy
Your Social Engineering choices affect the AI factions' attitudes toward you. Each faction has a "preferred" choice and an "aversion" choice. For example, Morgan will begin to like you if your economy is a Free Market (his preferred choice), and will hate you for running Planned (his aversion). Likewise, Deirdre will hate you for running Free Market, and love you if you're Green. Factions will dislike you slightly if you use any other choice in the category of their preferred choice. To use the previous examples, Morgan will be wary of you if you are using Green economics, and Deirdre if you are running Planned. Listed under each socio/economic model are the factions whose attitudes are affected if you are using that model.

A faction may not select its aversion as a current engineering choice, regardless of whether it is AI-controlled or human-controlled.

Frontier
No advantages or disadvantages. While it is balanced, it lacks focus. Yang will want to switch to Police State as soon as possible because it will grant him great advantages with the only penalty being the upheaval cost, due to his immunity to inefficiency.

Police State
+2 Support, +2 Police, -2 Efficiency (except Yang)

Yang's best option because he incurs no penalty from it, and he starts with the option to boot. Everybody else is likely to suffer great inefficiency, so for them, Police State must either be balanced with other Social Engineering choices with positive Efficiency modifiers (e.g., Green) or with being a faction with bonus efficiency (e.g., Deirdre).

This is the Hive's preferred choice, and the Peacekeepers' aversion.

Democratic
+2 Efficiency, +2 Growth, -2 Support

Not a good idea for militaristic players, but great for pacifists. The extra efficiency will strengthen the economy, while the growth will help the faction expand, both horizontally and vertically. Watch out when sprawling those bases, though – you lose the 10 free minerals for new bases under a Democracy.

This is the preferred choice of the Peacekeepers' and the Data Angels, and is the aversion of the Hive and the Usurpers.

Fundamentalist
+2 Probe, +1 Morale, -2 Research

When a faction switches to Fundamentalist, they mean business! This choice was designed for one thing: kicking butt. Your research will be crippled, so forget about it unless you can balance it (with Knowledge or your faction's traits), or you wish to start the war to end all wars.

This is the preferred choice of the Lord's Believers, and the aversion of both the University of Planet and the Cybernetic Consciousness.

Simple
No advantages or disadvantages. While it is balanced, it lacks focus. Yang will want to switch to Planned as soon as possible because it will grant him advantages with the only penalty being the upheaval cost, due to his immunity to inefficiency.

Free Market
+2 Economy, -3 Planet, -5 Police

This is only good for one thing: bringing in lots of money. This is best if your faction already has an economy bonus; it will help the benefits balance against what you lose: control of both your people and Planet. Forget about balancing out the -5 Police; reversing or minimizing the -3 Planet is doable. The penalty isn't too bad if you know what you're doing. It is if you don't.

Advanced players may want to switch to Free Market as early as possible by researching Industrial Economics at the first opportunity. The base tile of each base is free from early game restrictions, and not much energy is being produced elsewhere because the focus is on creating Colony Pods, therefore the energy output of each base can often be doubled, or nearly so. This strategy is not universally accepted, however.

This is the preferred choice of the Morganites, and is the Gaians' aversion.

Planned
+2 Growth, +1 Industry, -2 Efficiency (except Yang)

Again, Yang will usually want this because he suffers no disadvantages. Otherwise, the efficiency hit can be crippling. The combination of Police State with Planned is signing your faction's death certificate — unless you're Yang, in which case it's your most optimal combination! Otherwise, it is often good for a Democratic faction (in order to give a further boost to Growth), especially because the efficiency of Democratic will balance perfectly against the inefficiency of Planned.

This is the preferred choice of both the Caretakers and the Usurpers, and is the Morganites' aversion.

Green
+2 Efficiency, +2 Planet, -2 Growth

Best if you wish to fight with Mind Worms — both in the sense of fighting against them and fighting using them. Otherwise, the +2 Efficiency is often not worth the -2 Growth. However, keep in mind that once you have many many bases, +2 efficiency will benefit your economy as much as FM's +2 economy without all the drawbacks.

This is the preferred choice of the Gaians and the Planet Cult, and the aversion of the Free Drones.

Survival
No advantages or disadvantages. All other Values will hurt you militarily in some way or other, but Power will more than counterbalance that. The others will not; therefore, choosing a Value can be the most determining factor in whether or not you will play a military-focused middlegame.

Power
+2 Support, +2 Morale, -2 Industry

Another choice that warmongers will want, although the -2 Industry can also hurt their cause. There is no reason to choose Power unless you wish to use your military might extensively. The Cloning Vats removes the penalty to Industry, making this choice much more feasible.

This is the Spartans' and the Pirates' preferred choice, and the aversion of the Data Angels.

Knowledge
+2 Research, +1 Efficiency, -2 Probe

This choice is good either for boosting your Research through the roof or making Fundamentalist more practical. While The Hunter-Seeker Algorithm does not improve your Probe teams, it does make you immune to being Probed, so the defensive half of the penalty is removed.

This is the University of Planet's preferred choice, and the Lord's Believers' aversion.

Wealth
+1 Economy, +1 Industry, -2 Morale

As the name implies, this is for the money-grubber. Especially useful for Morgan, as he can run Wealth instead of Free Market and get the much-desired +1 energy per square.

This is the Spartans' and the Pirates' aversion.

None
No advantages or disadvantages. As with Values, all other options will hurt you militarily, but Thought Control will counterbalance it by far if you have enough positive modifiers to Support elsewhere. Future Society is geared towards helping you bring the game toward the end, and selecting one will likely be the final Social Engineering choice you make.

Cybernetic
+2 Efficiency, +2 Planet, +2 Research, -3 Police

Mind Worm lovers will love this.

This is the preferred choice of the Cybernetic Consciousness (who else?). Additionally, the Consciousness is immune to the Police penalty, as is any faction that has built The Network Backbone.

Eudaimonic
+2 Economy, +2 Growth, +2 Industry, -2 Morale

A boost to infrastructure, for those who like to make use of newly-conquered empires near the endgame.

This is the Free Drones' preferred choice.

Thought Control
+2 Morale, +2 Probe, +2 Police, -3 Support

An all-military option, despite the -3 Support. The Cloning Vats removes the -3 Support penalty.

title: Civ/Social Engineering


text:
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2019 September 14

= September 14 =

Fibonacci numbers and Friday the 13th
Yesterday was a Friday the 13th. But there is also an interesting coincidence with Fibonacci numbers that will occur in 2021. Namely, August 13, 2021, which happens to be a Friday the 13th, could also be written (in the United States) as 8/13/21, which consists of three consecutive Fibonacci numbers.

Does anyone think that we will have a Fibonacci numbers celebration on August 13, 2021 (e.g. a cake with the Fibonacci sequence on it)?

In the Julian calendar, August 13 was on a Friday in AD 521, 1221, and (in Greece) 1921. In the Gregorian calendar, August 13 was on a Friday in 1621. Of course, because the Gregorian calendar repeats every four centuries, August 13 will also be on a Friday in 2421 and 2821. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We could call it phi-day the 13th :) Much of the world would write it as 13/8/21, not quite as compelling, but already there's 3/14 as pi day and even 6/28 as tau day. --RDBury (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * November 23 is Fibonacci Day. An article was deleted as an alleged hoax. I'm not sure it's worth an article but finds many sources. I guess 01:12:35 on 8/13/21 will get some attention at the time. PrimeHunter (talk)
 * You forgot that Friday, as the 5th day of week is also part of the Fibonacci sequence ;) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need an American Wikipedia just for people who write dates illogically. It took too much of my brain power to keep translating that strange notation used by only 5% of the world's population. Will the US keep that silliness up forever? HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please avoid arguing personal prejudices here. "8/13/21" is a perfectly logical way to abbreviate "August 13, '21" since it keeps the components in the same order.  Other notations such as the international standard 2021-08-13 are logical for other reasons. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is for simplicity and logic. Neither of the American usages you illustrated display those characteristics. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) If you push the argument that the US usage is absurd because the items are not ordered, you will find that 2021-08-13 12:34 is more logical than 13-08-2021 12:34. (I do think the US usage is absurd, but the dd-mm-yyyy is only slightly less so.) (2) Decimal time is simple and logic. I doubt you use it. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The original query is asking for a prediction and I'm afraid that is also off-topic here. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't some genius work out the probability of such an event occurring? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Will we have a celebration, with cake? Well yes, if chooses to organise it. {The poster formerly known as <IP_ADDRESS>} <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Cookbook:Asian Cuisine

There are sub-varieties of Asian Cuisines to choose from:
 * East Asian cuisines
 * Southeast Asian cuisines
 * South Asian cuisines

title: Cookbook:Asian Cuisine


text:
Paint Your Picture

Paint Your Picture may refer to:

 * "Paint Your Picture", a song from the 1993 Steve Hackett album Guitar Noir
 * "Paint Your Picture", a song from the 1999 Josh Ritter album Josh Ritter
 * "Paint Your Picture", a song from the 2009 Steve Cradock album The Kundalini Target

title: Paint Your Picture


text:
Template:VBfooter

This template is for the bottom of pages in Category:Visual Basic to aid in navigation between them.

Usage
It will only link to a page that exists, so if there is no next page, set that parameter to "(none)" or something, and it wont put a link there.

title: Template:VBfooter


text:
Norwegian News Agency

The Norwegian News Agency (Norsk Telegrambyrå; abbreviated NTB) is a Norwegian press agency and wire service that serves most of the largest Norwegian media outlets. The agency is located in Oslo and has bureaus in Brussels in Belgium and Tromsø in northern Norway. NTB operates 24 hours a day, with the night service handled from a bureau in Sydney, Australia since 2015. The photo agency Scanpix is a wholly owned subsidiary of NTB.

History and profile
NTB was established in 1867. In the early years it was privately owned. After World War I, the agency was acquired by AS Norsk Telegrambyrå, a limited company owned by a group of newspapers. Images have been part of their news services since 1932. It is closely held by large media corporations, including Edda Media (26.1%), Schibsted (20.6%), A-Pressen (20.5%), the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (10.5%), Adresseavisen (7.8%), a few smaller newspapers, TV 2 and P4. 0.5% is owned by the agency's employees.

The agency has three main news services, covering domestic news, international news, and sports. It also provides special services within news graphics, video, culture, entertainment, feature, etc. Approximately 136 staff are employed by the agency. Pål Bjerketvedt was the editor-in-chief and managing director from 2004 to 2016; Ole Kristian Bjellaanes is the executive editor.

In December 2021 Tina Mari Flem was appointed as chief editor and managing director for the Norwegian News Agency, succeeding Mads Yngve Storvik.

title: Norwegian News Agency