text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guilden Morden boar/archive1

 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017.

Guilden Morden boar

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive yet concise article about an Anglo-Saxon boar that was once the crest for a helmet. The boar-crested helmet is a staple of contemporary imagery—think Beowulf or the Benty Grange helmet—yet could be seen today as an artistic invention if not for the three remaining examples. The Guilden Morden boar is small but significant, displayed in the same gallery of the British Museum as the Sutton Hoo treasures and exhibited internationally. This exhaustive article covers the boar from its discovery alongside "a doubled-up skeleton" in 1864 or 1865, to its reanalysis in 1977, to its typographic and artistic parallels. It includes all the relevant literature, which, when offline or otherwise inaccessible, I'm happy to help provide to anyone interested. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto
An interesting little article. A little on the short side, which is fine if it covers all the bases, but I wonder if anything more could be said about:
 * The manufacture of the crest. The article says it is cast bronze, but how was it cast?  The lost wax process?
 * Iconography. Why a boar?  Presumably boars are in some way iconographically significant, if they are known from multiple helmets.

The references I have spot-checked all check out. Prose is mostly fine, but I did notice "the boar is part of a number of boar-crested helmets" – in fact, it was part of only one! Perhaps something like: "the boar was probably once the crest of a helmet; a number of other Saxon boar-crested helmets are known from archaeological excavations and artistic depictions"? I also feel like "gains a further parallel in the Wollaston helmet" is fairly clunky, but I don't have any suggestion to improve it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts . Taking your comments in order:
 * Length: You're right that it's short, but it's a small object, and only has two articles devoted to it (Fordham 1904; Foster 1977a). Other articles discuss it in context (boar iconography and Beowulf, for example) along with other items. Especially with the addition of the "Iconography" section (see #3, below), I believe that the article covers all the bases.
 * Manufacture: That's a good question, but there is nothing in the literature. Fordham does not mention manufacture; Foster just says "cast" with some details punched in afterwards; and the BM website, along with the 2013 exhibition catalog, says the same as Foster (probably copying her) without elaboration. I also looked at the articles on the other boar-crested helmets (Benty Grange and Wollaston), which are not helpful. A detailed article (Bruce-Mitford 1974) on the Benty Grange helmet simply says the pieces were cast (again no elaboration), and the simpler Wollaston boar was manufactured differently, by forging a rod of iron.
 * Iconography: Good point. I've added an "Iconography" section which I believe addresses your question, and turned the Beowulf section into a subsection thereof.
 * Prose: Re-worded the section that contained those two phrases. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a minor copy-edit to the "Iconography" section. The article is looking good to me, though as FunkMonk notes below, a photograph would be nice if we could get a good one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even without the photograph, though, I am very happy to Support this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

my source spot-checks were for accuracy. I wasn't specifically looking for close paraphrasing, though I think if there was anything very egregious I would have noticed it. If no one else does any spot-checks before, I will do some more tonight thinking about paraphrasing as well as accuracy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, have done a little bit more source checking. No problems with close paraphrasing that I can see.  I wonder about ref 52 (Bruce-Mitford 1972, p.122) though, which I don't see supports anything (not that it's necessary, because other references to that claim do adequately support that the Beowulf quote in question does refer to the kind of boars found on the Sutton Hoo helmet). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued checking, . That Bruce-Mitford citation supports the idea that when boars (plural) in Beowulf are mentioned in the context of helmets, they refer to adornments such as the terminal eyebrow boars on the Sutton Hoo helmet. Bruce-Mitford quotes lines 303–304 (the same ones quoted in the footnote in the Guilden Morden boar article) right after noting that the helmet had boars' heads instead of a boar crest. It's somewhat redundant, since, as you mention, there are other citations that support the same concept, but Bruce-Mitford is an important writer on the Sutton Hoo helmet, and his acceptance of that interpretation carries some weight. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, re-reading this more closely, I see that this is actually fine.  I am happy that the sources do check out, both for accuracy and for avoiding close paraphrasing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Guilden_Morden_grave_goods_drawing.png: we're certain that the journal itself had no copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm at the library with an original copy of the journal now. The inside of the front cover states at the bottom that "All contributions to Medieval Archaeology are COPYRIGHT. Applications to reproduce them, in whole or in part, should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Secretary, Society for Medieval Archaeology, University College, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT." The journal also has a copyright page before the contents, which states "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology". (I'm happy to email you this if you would like, having just scanned all the front and back matter of the journal.)
 * I'm not sure what significance, if any, the above language has. Per the article, the drawing was "made between April 1882 and September 1883." Foster does not state who drew it, but realistically it could only have been Herbert Fordham (d. 1891); his son Herbert George Fordham (d. 1929) wrote about the boar in 1904, but professed to be unaware of various details that were mentioned in the drawing. He explicitly stated that "No further information as to ... the particular objects found is now, unfortunately available", yet had he drawn the drawing, he would have known about the bronze ring and amber bead found alongside the boar. But regardless, the father died in 1891 and the son in 1929, so any copyright based on life + 70 years has expired. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is rather the US tagging - the tag currently in use requires "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Is there a different tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to, which appears to be more explicit about the criteria needed for a foreign publication to achieve copyright protections in the United States. Medieval Archaeology was not registered in the United States (Copyright Entries), and so failed to comply with the necessary formalities (page 3 of the Hirtle chart). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion at the copyright help desk. Bottom line is that the 1977 UK publication did not comply with the formal requirements to establish US copyright, and so not only is the drawing PD is the UK, it is PD in the US. The previous tag appears to have been accurate, but I have updated it with a more succinct one:   . --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of the points raised in that discussion, but am unsure of the results; the new tag retains the "without copyright notice" verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Per the continued discussion at the copyright help desk, I have included a detailed explanation under "Permission" on the file page. It doesn't seem like there is a perfect template; the current one appears to be technically correct (defective notice=no notice, legally speaking), though I could switch to      if you prefer. The explanation under "Permission" also has the benefit of explaining the other possibility, i.e., that the drawing is considered "unpublished" (and thus PD) in the US. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon, first thing that comes to mind is; why don't we have a photo of this object? Seems to be on public display? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I look forward to your comments. At your prompting I've asked at the BM project page if a photograph might be possible. Including searches on Flikr, Google, and Bing, the only photographs I have seen of the boar are those taken by the BM (shown as an external link in the article) and a B&W photograph in a 1999 book. If the BM project page doesn't work I might email the author of the book and see if he has it in color and would be willing to release it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it will bear fruit! Seems odd no one hasn't just gone to that room and snapped a photo for Commons already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Looking throughout the article, it seems you extensively use direct quotes for pretty simple statements. This disrupts the flow, I think, any reason why this can't just be paraphrased in your own words throughout?
 * Just went through and paraphrased about half of them. If still feels too disruptive I can probably find a few more to get rid of. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes should be attributed in-text, which i don't think you want to do, so it is probably best to get rid of them all. There are a couple in the intro as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've removed many more, including those in the lead (sans Beowulf). The remaining are attributed by inline citations. Unless I'm missing something, that's acceptable per WP:Attribution: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable."
 * Looks much more self-contained now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "probably about 1864 or 1865," This quote seems especially unnecessary. It is just dates.
 * I've now paraphrased it. My thought behind that one was that quoting Fordham demonstrates that the uncertainty of the date stems back to the person most closely associated with the boar, but clearly it didn't have the desired effect.
 * Not when there is no in-text attribution, the reader has no idea who this is quoted from. You could also have said "according to X, it was found around Y Z." FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point . The uncertainty of Fordham's recollections is reflected in the block quotation a few lines later, so I'll let it lie at that.

 * "the son of Herbert, suggested that" I think this could end with a colon before the quote.
 * Done.

 * " although a date more specific than the 6th or 7th century AD has not been suggested for the Guilden Morden boar" Based on what? Also, the infobox only says c. 7th century AD...
 * Fixed the infobox. The only source that suggests a date is the BM website ("6thC-7thC"). I think it's probably just based on the conservative guess of a curator asked to suggest a date without any guidance in the literature.

 * "only five from the Anglo-Saxon period are capable of reconstruction" What is meant by "reconstructible"?
 * Well-preserved enough that the original form can be determined. I've clarified it in the article. An example of a helmet that is not reconstructable is the Tjele helmet fragment.

 * "sacred to the mother goddess" Anything that could be linked here?
 * The sources I have just say "mother goddess" or similar, probably taking their lead from Tacitus, who only says "They worship the mother of the gods" without naming her. Searching online was inconclusive; I'll try a book on the Celtic Gundestrup cauldron (will take a day or two to get), and see if it has anything.
 * Perhaps Mother goddess would be sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll update it with something more specific it/when possible.

 * You should state which languages the two Beowulf quotes are in.
 * Is it fine if i add this in either a footnote or by explaining in the text that Beowulf was originally written in Old English, or does it need to be in-text with both quotations?
 * What would be nicest for the reader is something like this, where each table has a "title" that states what the language is. So you would have one titled "Old English original", and the other titled "English translation", or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Added to the end of the block quotation. Because the second Old English quotation is only a sentence later, I haven't added a second mention, but will do so if you think it better.

 * "a doubled-up skeleton" Not sure what is meant by this.
 * I presume a skeleton in the fetal position (e.g., second photograph here), but neither the drawing nor Foster elaborate. If you like I could add a short footnote to that effect, but I have not done so lest I run afoul of speculation or OR.
 * This could be a good place to use in-text attribution (since there is ambiguity), by saying for example "a "doubled-up skeleton", according to X". FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the "doubled-up skeleton" quotation in the lead; where it remains in the body, it is attributed to the 1882–1883 drawing ("Underneath the images it is noted that the items were 'all found in a grave with a doubled-up skeleton'"), which I think does what you are asking. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "he Guilden Morden boar is a link between the mythical Anglo-Saxon warrior hero and reality" Only stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Support - everything nicely addressed, now I only hope you'll soon get a real photo of this object. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment from Brianboulton
I think the approximate age of the object needs to be in the lead, rather than just in the infobox. This is important basic data, and at present you have to read quite a way into the article before you find it in the Typology section. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.

Sources review

 * There are several citations to the work Beowulf. In what form was this source consulted? Did you go to the BM and view it there, or did you use some printed edition? If the latter, details should be given.
 * Added the Klaeber text, and indicated that it is the source of the Beowulf quotations.

 * One of the Beowulf citations supports the statement in the lead that boar-adorned helmets are mentioned in the work five times by providing the page references. This looks a little like OR.
 * It's not OR, and has been published some half-dozen times; Hatto, for example, says "In Beowulf there are six references to the boar as a symbol. ... Five of the six references concern the helmet," and Foster says "the literature contains numerous references to boars and to boar-capped helmets. Beowulf has five instances (Beowulf, 1968, pp 40, 63, 68, 72 and 94)." The purpose of the citations directly to the lines in question is to make it easier for any reader to find them. Foster's reference doesn't help unless someone has access to one particular in-copyright version of the poem, Hatto lists them in confusing order and translates only half of them, and others inexplicably state that there are five, and then only mention a few of them. It was confusing when I was going through the literature, and I figured that being explicit about what lines are pertinent would help others avoid similar confusion.
 * Copyright isn't an issue when citing text (otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite anything published in the last 70 years). So you should cite the Foster source, in addition to the work itself. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added another citation to the lead. Previously I think I misinterpreted your comment, thinking you were referring to the part in the "Boar-crests in Beowulf" section which supports the statement in the lead. That section has four citations ("... helmets with boar imagery are referenced five times.[7][8][39][40]"). My point about the source that Foster uses being copyrighted is only that it's substantially less versatile than the line numbers; armed with the lines, one may go to any out of copyright version on Google Books and read the relevant parts. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * One very small formatting point: in ref 9, p. should be pp.
 * Fixed.

Everything else looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback ! I have addressed all the issues you raise above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

 * Support - I've read through, nothing stands out as a clanger prose-wise. Hence all good on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Adityavagarwal

 * Strong support - Just two minor issues of dup links and ref ordering, which I have fixed. A very interesting article, and very well-written! Just one little thing I would ask is, why are we having so many citations in the lead? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! The citations in the lead are probably strictly speaking unnecessary, but I include them as a matter of preference. I'd rather err on the side of citing something than not citing it, and especially when things in the lead are stated in different ways later (or just in recognition of the fact that articles change over time), it makes clear what citation supports what fact. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, no issues in having citations in the lead, that is why I supported it and mentioned it as a minor thing. Just wondered about the reason. It is all cool! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

 * Great work all round. Just a few minor points:
 * In the lede, we do not mention the actual country where the object was found, instead resting on the assumption that the reader will be familiar with the term "Anglo-Saxon" and the location of "Cambridgeshire". Of course, readers can just click on the links, but that will then take them away from this article. I would suggest using something like "in a grave in Guilden Morden, a village in the eastern English county of Cambridgeshire". It just provides that extra level of precision which many international readers will appreciate (I found that the most useful strategy when putting together Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added.

 * There is a duplink to Anglo-Saxons in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed.

 * It is a shame that we do not have a photograph of the artefact itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an ongoing project. See discussion above, and request here.

 * "found by Herbert Fordham" - could we have a little further explanation of who he was? Just a few words should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added.

 * "Herbert George Fordham, the son of Herbert," - I think that it would be best to use the surname rather than the forename of the finder here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Was trying to avoid the inherent awkwardness of referring to two people with almost identical names, but think the new phrasing is better.

 * No need to have "— Herbert George Fordham" at the end of the quotation if we already state who provided it just before the quote appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed.

 * "at the Sutton Hoo Visitor Centre" - perhaps a link to Sutton Hoo here? And a statement that it is in Suffolk? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added mention of Suffolk. Sutton Hoo is linked two sentences earlier ("... objects such as the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial and the Lycurgus Cup.").

 * "as part of Between Myth and Reality" - it is not made clear what this actually was, so perhaps "as part of Between Myth and Reality temporary exhibition"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this not covered by the two references to the boar being exhibited? The article says that "the Guilden Morden boar has been exhibited both domestically and internationally" (emphasis added) and that it was "exhibited from 26 July to 16 October 2013 ... as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter" (emphasis added).
 * I see your point. I would probably still state "temporary exhibition" to make things 100% clear, but it isn't a key issue by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased the initial sentence to "the Guilden Morden boar has been shown in both domestic and international exhibitions", making clear (by changing the verb "exhibited" to the noun "exhibitions") that the displays in Britain and Germany were exhibitions. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter (Christianisation of Medieval Europe)" - same issue as above. Best to just make things crystal clear, particularly for those who are not native English speakers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Typology", we have "6th or 7th century AD" and then "sixth through eleventh centuries AD". There needs to be some standardisation here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Crested helmets were in use from the 6th century to the 11th; the crested helmet the boar adorned was from the 6th or 7th century. Rephrased slightly to make that clear.
 * Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough there; I mean that we use both textual and numerical names for the centuries; i.e. both "6th" and "sixth". It is that which needs to be standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, have now done so. There is still one mention of the "19th century" in note 1, but as it is part of a quotation I have left it as is.

 * "In Celtic times the boar..." - I really think that we need to be very careful here, particularly with wording like "In Celtic times..." I would scrap this sentence altogether, to be honest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say you would scrap this sentence, do you mean the entire part from "In Celtic times" to "with boar-crested helmets"? If so, why would you do so? it's purpose is to demonstrate the early use of, and reason behind, boar-crested helmets. Tacitus, the concept of a mother goddess, and the Gundestrup cauldron are generally invoked in any discussion of boar-crested helmets.
 * The thing that particularly irks me here is the wording "in Celtic times". In Britain at least, archaeologists have pretty much entirely jettisoned talk of a "Celtic period" with all its 19th century associations and prefer to speak of the Iron Age, Romano-British period, and early middle ages, in each of which linguistically Celtic populations could be found. I would suggest something like "It has been argued that among linguistically Celtic communities in Iron Age Europe, the boar was seen as sacred to a mother goddess figure". Ensure that it is presented as an argument rather than as fact, too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "Celtic Gundestrup cauldron" - the ethno-cultural origins of the cauldron ae certainly debatable; it was found in (linguistically Germanic) Denmark and was possibly produced in Anatolia (as far as I understand). I think that you need better sourcing than Foster on this one. I appreciate that her BAR volume is a reliable source but anything to do with "Celtic" identity and culture is inevitably contested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The paraphrasing is my fault, not Foster's. She says "The great silver cauldron from Gundestrup, probably depicting Celtic ideology, though its place of manufacture is uncertain, provides further evidence of boar-crested helmets." (I had originally quoted the "probably depicting Celtic ideology" part, but removed it when attempting to remove the many quotations that were earlier in the article.) I'll spend a bit of time looking into this.
 * I would recommend just getting rid of the C-word from this sentence, and simply discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron without it; perhaps mention where it was found, in order that the reader may appreciate its pertinence to the Guilden Morden boar. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ages" - again, problematic wording. Perhaps "Iron Age and early middle ages"? Talk of a "Celtic age" has generally been expunged from British archaeology for quite some time now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to "the demise of Celtic culture and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons". The point of the sentence is less the particular time periods, and more the fact that two cultures to which the boar was important were separated by a significant amount of time.
 * The issue is that concepts of a "Celtic culture", like those of "Celtic people", remain very contested within archaeological scholarship. I think that the only place where the term "Celtic" is still being used completely un-problematically is when referencing the broad linguistic group (and perhaps when talking about post-18th century ethno-cultural and religious groups who very much self-identify as "Celtic"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "Anglo-Saxon times," - I would really reword. Perhaps the "Anglo-Saxon period"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reworded.
 * Thanks very much for your careful read . I have incorporated many of your suggestions; specific responses with a few questions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "Anglo-Saxon boar symbols "are latecomers in a procession led by La Tène prototypes in the fourth century BC, joined by Gaulish models in the first century BC, and reinforced by late Roman parade armor in the fourth century AD."" - perhaps better to paraphrase rather than going with a direct quotation here, because there is already a quote taking up much of the previous sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "according to the Roman historian Tacitus boar symbols were worn in battle to invoke her protection" - by whom? A lot of Tacitus' descriptions pertain to specific tribal or regional groups and it would be good to be specific on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * " stable of symbols" - is this the right term to use? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Stable" is being used for its more general meaning as "group" or "collection," which feels fitting especially when used in an animalistic context. But let me know if it reads awkwardly and I'll rephrase.

 * Thanks again for your comments . I have substantially rewritten the iconpgraphy section (and added an image of a wild boar, ). I believe it now addresses most of your concerns: among other changes the language is now less broad, talk of Celts is all but removed, and more details are given. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment:, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just that I would like to offer my support for its promotion. Well done, Usernameunique! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominators first FAC if promoted. Therefore, we would require spot checks of the sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing. I notice above that spot-checked some references. Could I clarify that these were checks for accurate usage and close paraphrasing? Also, I strongly agree with above that we should be avoiding "Celtic". Nor am I keen on Beowulf's description as "mythical" as there wasn't really much about him that was mythical. Also, never wanting to let a medieval expert go to waste, I wonder if or  have seen this? (If they don't get chance to respond, that does not have to hold up this nomination, by the way.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . You are correct that this is my first nomination. At your suggestion I have changed "mythical" to "legendary", to remove any supernatural connotations. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review etc. by Cas Liber

 * References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Earwigs copyvio good, with one text correctly quoted and attributed inflating the score.
 * FN 12 faithful to source
 * FN 1 (used 10 times) faithful to source
 * FN 4 (used 4 times) faithful to source

All in order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
Getting to know pathogens

Welcome to Getting to know pathogens. This is an introduction to basic concepts related to disease-causing micro-organisms.

Chapter readings are from "Medical Microbiology" by P. R. Murray, K. S. Rosenthal, G. S. Kobayashi and M. A. Pfaller (4th Edition) Mosby Inc. 2002	 ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>. You can probably find used copies for a low price.

Another option is "Medical Microbiology" (Samuel Baron, editor) which is available online (free) or as a CD-ROM] ($10).

Host-microbe interactions
The interaction of humans with disease-causing bacteria is often thought of in terms of a host-invader interaction. However, there are many types of human-microbe interactions, so we need a more complex understanding of micro-organisms and their roles in normal human health and disease processes. It is useful to think in evolutionary terms. The various types of human-microbe interactions are the result of hundreds of millions of years of interactions between animals and micro-organisms. There are 3 main types of pathogen: bacteria, viruses and fungi. Not all bacteria and fungi are pathogens - pathogens are microbes that cause disease.

Host Susceptibility

 * Reading (Chapter 1)

Strict pathogens
Some (relatively few) microbes can infect essentially all human hosts who are exposed to the particular microbe AND cause essentially the same sort of infection and disease symptoms in every infected person. “Strict pathogens”

 * examples: Treponema pallidum (syphilis); HIV (AIDS); Plasmodium vivax (malaria)

Discussion.
 * 1) What percent of people who are infected with Treponema pallidum show symptoms of syphilis?
 * 2) Does HIV infection always cause AIDS?
 * 3) How does genetic background influence the incidence and severity malaria?

Opportunistic pathogens
Most microbes are more efficient at infecting some people than others and many microbes can cause several different types of disease depending on the type of infection (for example, depending on the site of infection) and variations in host-microbe interactions. “Opportunistic pathogens”
 * example, Escherichia coli
 * Discussion. Escherichia coli is a very common type of bacteria that normally lives in close contact with humans. Under what special circumstances can Escherichia coli cause human disease?

Human variability
We often speak of "the human body" and "human-microbe interactions" but it is wrong to think that all people have similar interactions with micro-organisms. It is important to keep in mind the full spectrum of human variability.

Sources of variation in host susceptibility to microbes:
 * variation in nutritional status,
 * variation in levels of stress and circulating stress hormones,
 * variation in genes that confer resistance to microbes,
 * variations in somatic cell mutations involved in immune system function,
 * physical damage to tissues can open tissue barriers that normally limit microbial infections.
 * Behavioral differences. Some behaviors promote health and avoid pathogens, other behaviors damage defenses and bring people into contact with pathogenic microbes.
 * Example: intravenous drug use allows exposure to disease-causing microbes.

General Properties of Infections

 * Reading (Chapter 9)

normal microflora
Many microbial infections are called “endogenous infections” because they are caused by microbes that normally are found on the surface of human hosts.

Each surface of the body has its own population of typical microbes. Often, these are protective against harmful microbes.
 * Types of colonization-
 * not harmful:
 * Transient colonization.
 * Permanent colonization.

 * harmful, disease causing:
 * damage to the host by the microbe
 * disruption of normal host tissue functions due to immune system response to an otherwise harmless microbe.

example: Lactobacillus species are generally harmless GI tract microbes. Some antibiotics reach high levels in the GI tract and can greatly reduce or eliminate the normal gut microbes. Opportunistic disease-causing organisms such as Clostridium difficle can then proliferate and cause disease.

Discussion Topic Prospects for maintaining normal (protective) microbial flora. Example: Aspergillosis is caused by a fungus (Aspergillus), which is found commonly growing on dead leaves, stored grain, compost piles, or other decaying vegetation. Healthy humans are not susceptible to Aspergillus. Those at risk for Aspergillosis include immunosuppressed people such as organ transplant recipients, people being treated for cancer, and AIDS patients Aspergillus can also cause illness by colonization and growth in a lung cavity that was damaged by previous disease such as tuberculosis. When growing in the lung it produces a fungus ball called aspergilloma. The lung colonization can also progress to clinical pneumonia and invasive infection that is spread to other parts of the body by the blood stream (Pulmonary aspergillosis; invasive type).
 * a. Diet.
 * b. Replacement of bacteria after exposure to antibiotics.

Comments:

Josh Wright: 19th October 2006 10:24 EAST.

One day, the whole world will die from virus's. The only help, people who study them, and know how to treat, a research antivaccines to cure them. I think that we need to put more effort into researching virus's, and pathogens, and then we will one day be able to save the world from complete death.

 * Are viruses all bad? Much of the genetic difference between humans and chimps has come about by way of insertions and deletions. A significant portion of human genetic change is due to the large amount of virus-derived sequence in the human genome (see). In addition to playing an important role in the rate of evolution of existing species, some hypotheses suggest that viruses played a fundamental role in the origin of cellular life as we know it; see: Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: A hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain by Patrick Forterre. --JWSchmidt 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Getting to know pathogens


text:
Talk:Let It Roll (Flo Rida song)

Requested move 25 July 2017

The result of the move request was: ❌ (page mover closure)  Dr Strauss   talk   19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)   Dr Strauss   talk   19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Let It Roll (Flo Rida song) → Let It Roll (song) – I removed the Doug Lazy song because it has little notability. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:3DCB:4C8:3F44:C58C (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * There are several songs with this name and the Doug Lazy song was a #1 hit in the pre-internet era. I don't think the Flo Rida song is exceptionally well known. I think discussion is needed to establish that Let It Roll (song) should not remain as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Let It Roll" (Doug Lazy song), a 1989 single by Doug Lazy In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. So long as Let It Roll (Doug Lazy song) exists, Let It Roll (song) is incomplete disambiguation and should point to the dab page.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Let It Roll (Flo Rida song)


text:
Civ/Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Facility Index

The cost of each facility is given in "rows". The number of minerals for a human player with 0 industry is 10, so an Aquafarm, with its 8-row cost, is usually 80 minerals.

Aerospace Complex

 * Prerequisite: Doctrine: Air Power
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Adds +2 morale to air units built at this base, increases base air defense by 100%, allows base to construct and receive the full benefits of satellites.

Aquafarm

 * Prerequisite: Progenitor Psych
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 1
 * Alien Crossfire only

The Aquafarm increases the nutrient output of every kelp farm at that base by one.

This facility is most useful when a tightly packed sea-base spacing is used, and if you really need to maximize production from worked tiles it can help keep a small base eating well, even when mostly specialists. The main negatives are that despite coming early in the tech tree, you won't be able to reap the benefits until after Gene Splicing lifts the nutrient restrictions, and the large mineral cost, combined with a per-turn upkeep, mean that this facility may be a waste of precious minerals to build, and even more precious cash to maintain until at least after Tree Farms — by which point you probably will not be short of nutrients anyway. The case for building them in sea bases is even worse, as sea bases normally are so rich in nutrients, that any more is purely a waste.

Having said that, if building an Aquafarm allows you to increase the base size, then it may pay for itself in the long term, although if it allows one specialist (producing +2 of something) it will require 160 turns to cover its costs, or with 2 extra specialists 53 turns. If the Aquafarm allow you to use two extra second-tier specialists (that is, if you are working four tiles with kelp), the construction costs can be regained in only 18-25 turns, and then anything after that is profit.

This is bad practice in terms of turn advantage, though; sea bases are notoriously short of minerals, and an 8-row facility is going to block up your build queues for a few years. A single trawler on a kelp tile will offer just about the same benefits, for half the mineral cost and no upkeep.

Bioenhancement Center

 * Prerequisite: Neural Grafting
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Adds +2 morale to conventional units and +1 lifecycle to psi units.

Biology Lab

 * Prerequisite: Centauri Empathy
 * Mineral rows: 6
 * Maintenance cost: 1

+1 Lifecycle for Native Life, +2 Labs/turn

There's only one reason to build a Biology Lab, and that is for the +1 Lifecycle Native Life gets when built here. Without a decent level of Lifecycle, your worms and locusts will just get mashed. If you are planning on pursuing an all-worm strategy, these facilities are your Command Centers. The comments about Command Centers apply equally here, but more so, as Morale/Lifecycle is much more important in psy-combat.

The +2 Labs per turn is insignificant unless you're planning on building them everywhere, but I don't recommend the investment in these for the purpose of boosting your research. Paying 1 ec/turn for 2 Labs/Turn may sound like a good deal, but with your six rows of minerals (worth about 120 ec) you could have built two crawlers, which I guarantee will be able to crawl you more energy than the +1 you gain from just the Biolab (which will make a profit in the 123rd turn after its built)

Brood Pit

 * Prerequisite: Centauri Genetics
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 2
 * Alien Crossfire only

The base gets a +1 lifecycle bonus for aliens and decrease cost of breeding aliens by -25%. Negative lifecycle effects are canceled inside this base. Also the base gets +2 police rating.

Centauri Preserve

 * Prerequisite: Centauri Meditation
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Decreases Eco damage and adds +1 lifecycle bonus.

Children's Creche

 * Prerequisite: Ethical Calculus
 * Mineral rows: 5
 * Maintenance cost: 1

This facility provides +2 Growth and +1 Efficiency. Any units defending the base ignore negative Morale penalties and take +1 Morale instead. Units that already have +1 Morale or better do not benefit.

Everyone knows the importance of looking after the children. For a mere 50 minerals (Roughly = 100 ec) plus 1 ec/turn (Which the +1 Effic often gives back to you from reduced inefficiency losses) you have given yourself (with most factions) the ability to pop-boom. Even without the other bonuses, the +2 Growth is easily worth twice the current cost of the facility. Say, for example, that we build the Creche in one of our little size 4-5 bases in turn 30, expecting to end the game around turn 130 (conservative estimates indeed) so we have to pay the equivelent of 200ec all together over those 100 turns, which is about 2 ec/turn. Here comes the good news. Even without pop-booming, the extra +2 Growth will (assuming there's always enough food) make the base grow so much faster, that often in the long run the extra income from a getting a larger base x turns earlier than otherwise more than pays for the production and maintainance with the profit gained over a base growing without a Creche.

Assume the Creche makes the base grow to each size 1 turn faster. Assume also that each extra poppoint is worth a 2-2-2 tile (nothing special) which has an estimated ec-value of 6. Now with a 50/50 Labs/Economy split, that's 3 extra ecs each time the base grows one turn earlier (ignoring the other benefits). So, the first growth comes 1 turn earlier, the second comes 2 turns earlier... till the tenth comes 10 turns earlier. That's a total of (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) x 3 = 165 extra ecs gained in the growth of the base compared to one without a creche. Ok, then we have to pay for the creche, and that costs an estimated 200ecs over our 100 turns or so, so we only make a loss of 35 ecs. However... what if the base grows more than only one turn faster? Depending on the base set-up, its possible to rake huge profits here by growing 2 turns faster each time (130 ec/base = 1.3 per turn) or 3 turns faster to the next size (295 ec/base = 2.95 ec/turn)

And that's without figuring in the other advantages of more population, namely council votes and score.

Not to mention how much you can gain by going from size 5 to size 14 in only 9-10 turns, in which case you are Popbooming, and the maths becomes irrelevant. If you're going to pop-boom, time your construction so that all your bases are finishing the Creches about the same time, then flick over to Democratic/Planned and enjoy the glory of +6 Growth.

Command Center

 * Prerequisite: Doctrine: Mobility
 * Mineral rows: 4
 * Maintenance cost: variable1

This facility provides +2 Morale to land units produced. Land units end their turn here are automatically restored to full strength the next turn.

For a small cost you can make your units 25% better in combat. You can see how that might be useful in a prolonged war. There's a big "but..." implied here though, and that is whether or not the time and minerals needed to build Command Centers in every base are well spent.

Consider you intend to start an early war using Laser or Impact Rovers. The aim of an early war is to rush a nearby opponent before he or she can get their defenses ready. If you delay your war long enough to build Command Centers (say 4 turns in a size 3 base with Recycling Tanks working 3 forest tiles) your intended target has time to prepare. There's nothing more embarrassing than a failed rover rush.

So, what else could you do with 4 rows of minerals instead of building a Command Center?

You could build four 1-1-1 infantry units or two 1-1-2 rover units to upgrade into real attack troops. In this case, you'd better be playing a high-support faction. For a high-cash faction, it's much better to have smaller numbers of better troops.

Don't automatically build the Command Centers before building the troops. If you're planning on attacking Morgan or Zakharov, it's usually unnecessary to pump up your Morale. It's far better to attack these Builders early before they can get ahead in tech, and your 4-1-2 rovers find themselves attacking 1-3-1 ECM units behind Perimeter Defenses. If you want to take on Cha'Dawn or Deirdre, then that extra Morale may just save you while you fight the inevitable Mind Worms.

The catch: Command Centers will cost you 1 energy per turn each. If you're playing as Yang, with his -2 Economy, then this may be a bridge too far. Of course, Yang can run Wealth to counter his -1 energy per base, but this is not an option because it reverses the effect of the Command Centers. You gain 1 Energy, pay it to the Command Center, which gives you +2 Morale, which in turn is taken away by the Wealth. Sure, you get +1 Industry, but that will save 4 minerals from the cost of your rather expensive and pretty useless Command Centers.

But, and here's the rub, against the AI you can be pretty sure of snagging The Command Nexus, and getting one free in every base. Of course, this is only a good deal if you have 5 or more bases.

[1] The upkeep of your Command Centers starts at 1 and increases according to the best Reactor strength you have. For example, upon discovery of Fusion Power, Command Centers will cost 2 energy per turn to maintain.

Covert Ops Center

 * Prerequisite: Pre-Sentient Algorithms
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2
 * Alien Crossfire only

Probe Teams get 2 morale upgrades and gets a +2 probe rating.

Energy Bank

 * Prerequisite: Industrial Economics
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 1 (0 with discovery of Quantum Machinery)

The Energy Bank adds +50% Economy at the base.

As long as you're making good money anyway, it can't hurt to make a bit more. Energy Banks are always worth having, especially if you can get one in every base for free with The Planetary Energy Grid (Alien Crossfire only). However, there are two questions to ask yourself before building an Energy Bank: "Will it give me a profit?" and "What else could I be building?"

Firstly the profit question. An Energy Bank gives you +50% Economy, at a cost of 1ec/turn. So if you're producing 2 Economy (not total energy, just Economy) at that base, you will gain 1 energy/turn at a cost of 1 energy/turn — not such a great deal. With 4 Economy at that base you gain 2 energy/turn which means it will only take 160 turns to cover the value of the minerals involved in building the Energy Bank. Of course, the base will grow, and the returns will improve over time, so the sooner you build one, the quicker you'll make the money back. Energy Banks are like a stock exchange: you put some cash in now, and hope the company goes up, and stays up long enough for you to profit from it. So, as with all facilities that improve the base's mineral or Economy production, the sooner you build an Energy Bank, the more you will gain from it.

However, building too many facilities early on is going to kill your horizontal growth in favor of vertical growth. Which is better, 5 bases with Energy Banks now, or 15 bases with Energy Banks later? Instead of increasing the Economy of your bases by 50%, why not increase the number of your bases by 50%?

What else could we have built in the same time with those 8 rows? A Colony Pod, 2 Formers to develop the new base, and a 1-1(t)-1 unit to protect it? Recycling Tanks and a Crawler? Two Colony Pods and 1-1(t)-1 units to protect them? If every base did that instead of building an Energy Bank, you'd increase the number of bases by 200%.

So, we must decide between building early to get more cash for rush buying to speed a later but faster expansion, or building later, to expand faster in the first instance, but to get less efficient use from our Energy Banks. There really are a lot of factors to consider here, such as which faction, Social Engineering settings and map you are using, but with the exception of Morgan, it may be wiser to use those 8 rows in the early game to get more stuff on the map instead of more credits in your pockets. Morgan on the other hand has poor Support and high energy in the base square (easily gets 8+) so he can build Energy Banks as soon as he is running Free Market/Wealth and really rake in the cash. Morgan can easily get 16 energy at a size 3 base, which with the default 50/50 Economy/Labs split allows an Energy Bank to make a net profit of 3 energy/turn – only 53 turns at that rate to earn the value of the Bank back, and most probably less, and help to fuel a rush-buying frenzy that only Morgan can get away with.

Flechette Defense System

 * Prerequisite: N-Space Compression
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 2
 * Alien Crossfire only

There is a 50% chance that a normal missile will be shot down if it comes near the base. It also can shoot down more powerful missiles like Planetbusters 50% of the time. The more you have, the more chance you have. (50% to shoot down, if he lives, another 50% to be shot down by the second)

Fusion Lab

 * Prerequisite: Fusion Power
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 3

Labs and Economy is increased by 50%

Genejack Factory

 * Prerequisite: Retroviral Engineering
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2

You gain an extra 50% minerals at this base, but you get 1 more drone at the base and you’re more vulnerable to mind control.

Geosynchronous Survey Pod

 * Prerequisite: N-Space Compression
 * Mineral rows: 16
 * Maintenance cost: 4
 * Alien Crossfire only

Sight Radius of the base is now 3. They also count as sensory array so you get +25% defense. They can be destroyed by Orbital Defense Pods and Probe Teams.

Hab Complex

 * Prerequisite: Industrial Automation
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 2

The Hab Complex increases the population limit of the base by seven.

What is there to say? Every base needs one to grow above size 7 except those of Lal (size 9) and Morgan (size 4). If you're at all interested in vertical growth, then you'll have to build some eventually. Having said that, Jamski has won a game on Transcend using the Gaians without building any, and won Diplomatic Victory in 2180. Lots of smaller bases with crawlers and specialists can perform very well in the early and middle game, and aggressive play in this period can ensure that your "swarm techniques" end up saving you the trouble of building the 8 rows and paying the 2 energy/turn needed for the Hab Complex.

The most important consideration when building Hab Complexes is timing. You don't want one sitting around in a size 5 base for turns and turns costing you money for no reason. In an ideal world you'd look to see how many turns until you grow to size 8, and time the Hab Complex to be either finished then, or at least in a position for you to rush it then.

Also, it's hardly worth the cost for bases that will only grow to size 8 and then stop. If you're really packing them close together and concentrating on boreholes and mines, this happens pretty often. You'll be paying 2 energy/turn for an extra worker, who as number 8 will be born a Drone, even on Citizen level. Consider it, and don't stick them everywhere, even in size 4 bases that were not growing because "I might get enough satellites up there eventually".

Habitation Dome

 * Prerequisite: Super Tensile Solids
 * Mineral rows: 16
 * Maintenance cost: 4

Allows your base to grow beyond 14. Note: You need Hab Complex first.

Headquarters

 * Mineral rows: 5
 * Maintenance cost: 0

This facility can be moved, you can only have 1. You get +1 energy at the base and you have ZERO inefficiency. And enemy Probe Teams cannot try to Mind Control.

Hologram Theatre

 * Prerequisite: Planetary Networks
 * Mineral rows: 6
 * Maintenance cost: 3

A Hologram Theatre adds +50% to Psych, and quells 2 Drones.

If you didn't get the Virtual World, you're going to need deep pockets here. Unless you're playing on one of the easier levels, you will need to suppress your Drones somehow. You may think the Virtual World is expensive for a Secret Project you can build very early, but those 300 Minerals = only 5 Hologram Theatres, and you don't have to pay the upkeep (although you wil have to build some Network Nodes, which you were planning on doing anyway, right?

Hologram Theatres are expensive, and before you blindly build them, its always worth considering if there's another way of dealing with your Drones. First alternative are Recreation Commons – they cost less to build, they only cost 1 energy/turn but they don't give extra Psych. Second alternative is to use more Police, either more units, or a different Social Engineering setting. Third alternative is to increase Psych spending on the Social Engineering screen, and the fourth easy option for those early game Drones is to use specialists.

There's a fifth option, which is to play as Lal and pinch the Human Genome Project, in which case Drones will be a non-issue even on Transcend level. In this case Hologram Theatres are a waste of time and money.

In most situations you might be better advised to crawl 2 extra nutrients and make someone a doctor than to spend 6 rows of minerals up front (roughly = 120 ec) and then another 3 energy/turn. There's only a short window in which Holo Theaters are worth it, but when Tree Farms (also +50% Psych) and Research Hospitals (+25% Psych and -1 Drone) come along then I'd build them instead. You'll end up having to shove some energy into Psych at some point in most games anyway, there's no need to be ashamed of it.

Anyway this is about facilities, not Drone control, and of all the facilities in this category, Hologram Theatres are the worst value. They do a good job, but not at those prices, and not in my early game build queues. There's plenty of reasons to get them free with the Virtual World, though.

Hybrid Forest

 * Prerequisite: Planetary Economics
 * Mineral rows: 24
 * Maintenance cost: 4

You get +1 Energy and Nutrient from forests. You get an extra 50% psych and economy. It removes eco damage from terraforming 100% (You need Tree Farm first before you can build this).

A must have since, you can get 3/2/2 resources from forests!

Nanohospital

 * Prerequisite: Homo Superior
 * Mineral rows: 24
 * Maintenance cost: 4

Psych goes up 25%, labs go up 50% and the amount of drones goes down by 1. Helps prevent population loss by disease or genetic warfare.

Nanoreplicator

 * Prerequisite: Matter Editation
 * Mineral rows: 32
 * Maintenance cost: 6

Mineral output goes up by 50%.

Naval Yard

 * Prerequisite: Doctrine: Initiative
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 2

This facility provides +2 Morale to naval units produced. Naval units that end their turn here are automatically restored to full strength the next turn.

Ouch. Big ouch. I'm not convinced of the economics of Command Centers, unless you can get them free with the Command Nexus, and Naval Yards not only have a more limited application (Everyone except the Pirates will build many less naval units than land and air units) but they also require twice the upkeep costs. Unless you get The Maritime Control Center and get them for free, or you feel you really must take on the Pirates before Doctrine: Airpower, you are simply foolish to build these. Actually, if you want to make a big enough navy to take on the Pirates at surface level, you're pretty foolish too. They get these Naval Yards for free, and can capture the ships you so expensively trained up. If the Pirates are not in the game, then who exactly did you want to use all these +2 Morale foils and cruisers against anyway? By the time there's enough sea bases in the game that its worth training your navy to attack them, its also late enough that you have noodles and choppers, which do a much better job.

Use those 8 rows to build a couple of Foil Probes if you really have to muck about in the water, and then spend the cash you saved on causing a few problems for some other fool.

Nessus Mining Station

 * Prerequisite: Self-Aware Machines
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 0

At EVERY base, you get an extra +1 mineral, but in bases where you do not have an Aerospace Complex, the effects are halved. You need Aerospace Complex to build these. You can place more than 1 Nessus Mining Station.

Network Node

 * Prerequisite: Information Networks
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 1 (0 with discovery of Self-Aware Machines)
 * Adds +50% to Labs, allows Alien Artifacts to be linked for tech.

They're not cheap, and despite what the Datalinks say, they cost 1 energy/turn, not zero, which is a shame. If you play as the University, you get one in every base for free. They are also the prequisite for some of the later and greater tech boosting facilities, and they link up with two different Secret Projects (The Virtual World and The Network Backbone) to become even more useful.

If you're playing as the University you can skip this, but the other factions are almost forced to build them in order to try and match the Uni's tech speed. They get a basic +2 Research on the Social Engineering table, making their tech costs 20% lower, and the free Nodes make them reach that lower target 50% quicker. They get you coming and going, so the other factions are obliged to try to do something about it.

Like their sister facility, the Energy Bank, they need to be built at the right moment. They'll cost you 1 energy/turn so unless they'll give you at least 2 extra labs/turn you're not making a profit. That means bases that are producing a basic 4 labs/turn or more will start to feel the benefit, or even at 2 labs/turn its worth considering for factions with low Efficiency ratings if they have lots of cash, but slow tech. Build your Nodes too early, and you are throwing away expansion for little or no return. Build them too late, and someone else will out-tech you. Either build them in core bases just after getting Industrial Automation and getting the basic Crawler infrastructure out and building whatever early game Secret Projects you might want, or to try and get them built quickly before Industrial Automation so they don't stop you from filling your build queues with crawlers.

Network Nodes have some other nice effects. They prevent the bad random event from happening when you lose all accumulated labs, and instead give you a chance of getting the random event where "A Network Node reports a technological breakthrough" and you get the tech currently being researched.

They also allow you to 'cash in' alien artifacts for an extra tech.

Orbital Defense Pod

 * Prerequisite: Self-Aware Machines
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 0

50% of all missiles will get destroyed if they try to attack ANY base. To stop a Planet Buster, an Orbital Defense must be sacrificed.

Orbital Power Transmitter

 * Prerequisite: Advanced Spaceflight
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 0

At EVERY base, you get an extra +1 energy, but the effects are halved in bases where you do not have an Aerospace Complex. You need an Aerospace Complex to build these. You can place more than 1 Orbital Power Transmitter.

A Sky Hydroponics Lab will probably be more useful.

Paradise Garden

 * Prerequisite: Sentient Econometrics
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 4

Two extra talents at the base.

Perimeter Defense

 * Prerequisite: Doctrine: Loyalty
 * Mineral rows: 5
 * Maintenance cost: 0
 * Adds +100% to base defense.

The Hive get free Perimeter Defenses, which is a strong argument for playing them. In the early game they have immense value. Before Synthetic Fossil Fuels, the common early wars will be Impact (4) weapons against Synthmetal Armor (2) or Plasma (3) armour. Plasma armour behind a Perimeter Defense is not going to be pushed out by Impact Rovers so easily. In fact, with just the first Impact Rover destroyed attacking your Perimeters, the minerals/ecs lost by your opponent are already nearly equal to what the Perimeter cost you, not to mention the fact that you just saved your base. This tends to dissuade human opponents from even attacking. You're threatening them with losing before they even attack you.

Of course its not that simple, because the threat of one Impact Rover probably will cause the defender to build more than just one Perimeter Defense, since if the attacker sees one base is protected and another is not, which is he likely to go for? And if you have to build 5 or 6 Perimeters to scare off a couple of rovers, the attacker has won a material victory. He's made you spend 250-300 minerals and the build queues of half a dozen bases for his cost of 50-60 minerals and two build queues. So turn this on its head, and you have another use for Perimeter Defenses – making your opponents build them. The game is so balanced that the attacker will almost always have the advantage without Perimeters, and the defender the advantage with Perimeters.

If you have the minerals to spare, The Citizens' Defense Force is one of the more expensive Secret Projects. Most "put a facility in every base" SPs cost the same as (5 x facility), but the CDF at 350 minerals costs (7 x facility) It does have the advantage of putting a free Perimeter Defense in every base though, helping when expanding ino dangerous areas and may save you cash compared to the usual cat & mouse game between the attacker and the defender. Compared to the other SPs up for grabs at this level. I'd rather take the Empath Guild, PTS or Virtual World though.

Generally, Perimeter Defenses are nice things to have. They're cheap, cost no upkeep and can save your bases. The one warning I would give is that they should only be built in the bases that will need them, as they do still take up the 5 rows that could otherwise be used to build facilities or units that will then return nutrients, population, energy and minerals back to you and make you more powerful in the long run. Remember, the sooner you build these facilites and units, the better, while a Perimeter Defense is just as good if it was built the turn before the attack or 100 turns before.

Pressure Dome

 * Prerequisite: Doctrine: Flexibility
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 0

Counts as a recycling tank. Prevents base from submerging when the terrain changes. (Base will turn into a naval base.)

Psi Gate

 * Prerequisite: Matter Transmission
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Allows one unit to teleport to -or- from another base with a psi gate per turn.

Punishment Sphere

 * Prerequisite: Advanced Military Algorithms
 * Mineral rows: 10
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Quells all drones at this base with the penalty of -50% labs and no talents.

Might be useful in a recently conquered base, if you manage to rush it before the drones start rioting.

Quantum Converter

 * Prerequisite: Quantum Machinery
 * Mineral rows: 20
 * Maintenance cost: 5

Adds +50% minerals production at this base. Cumulative with similar facilities.

Quantum Lab

 * Prerequisite: Quantum Power
 * Mineral rows: 24
 * Maintenance cost: 4

Adds +50% labs and energy production at this base. Cumulative with similar facilities.

Recreation Commons

 * Prerequisite: Social Psych
 * Mineral rows: 4
 * Maintenance cost: 1 (0 with discovery of Sentient Econometrics)

Quells 2 Drones.

Unless you're playing on one of the "baby" levels, or you are using at least +2 Police per base, you're going to have to find some way of dealing with Drones in the early game. Of all the facilities available, Recreation Commons give the best cost:effect ratio, and are available with one simple starting-level technology, Social Psych. A 1-1-1(police) unit is actually a lot quicker/cheaper to build, and with decent Support on the SE table won't cost you anything in upkeep, but not everyone has the ability to use Police.

Now let's look at the numbers. Recreation Commons are actually one of the biggest production-boosting facilities. They enable 2 more tiles to be worked or two more useful (i.e. non-Doctor) specialists to be made in the base. Before restriction lifting that's a possible extra 4-4-4 against the initial cost of 40 minerals ( = 80 ec ) + 1ec/turn. Assuming maximum energy and mineral production from the two workers (and the food is a bonus) then it will take only 7 turns before the facility is making a mineral/energy profit for you. And a big one too, with a possible converted ec value of 11 ec/turn – all before restriction lifting. After lifting you can double that value. Very few facilities offer such huge gains from such moderate outlays.

All factions benefit from the use of Rec Commons. Police-based Drone quelling is limited in the numbers it will subdue, and Psych spending cuts into your Econ and Labs at 4 times the cost of a Rec Commons (although other facilities will make Psych spending more efficient in the long run) The trick, as always, is in the timing. Ideally a base should build the Rec Commons exactly one turn before it will grow to a size where Drones would riot, or exactly one turn before building a new base that will push you over another Bureaucracy Limit and give you a B-Drone in that base. Always try and stop Drone Riots before they happen. Losing a whole turn of production is no way to win a game, especially against human opponents. There's ALWAYS time to check your bases before pressing "End Turn".

Recycling Tanks

 * Prerequisite: Biogenetics
 * Mineral rows: 4
 * Maintenance cost: 0

The Recycling Tanks provides +1 nutrient, mineral, and energy per turn in the base square of the base it is built. The Pressure Dome can serve the same function as a Recycling Tanks but also protects the base in case it gets submerged in the sea...but it costs twice as much to build. Sea bases are automatically equipped with a Pressure Dome (so Svensgaard will rarely have to worry about Recycling Tanks).

The Tanks seem modest at first glance, but they are essential facilities; every base should have one as soon as it can get it. Some consider the Tanks so essential that they will rush-build it the very turn a base is built if they can, even if the base is undefended. It pays for its mineral cost in 40 turns, assuming no Industry bonuses or penalties, while providing free nutrients and minerals all the while, and everything after those 40 turns is profit. The extra resources can also be multiplied by facilities, so the small amount the Tanks contributes each turn will still be significant later in the game.

Imagine we have a size 1 base on land which is producing a total of 4-4-4. Adding a Recycling Tank to the base is a 25% increase for all the base's production and income. Not bad, for a facility that's so cheap, and requires no upkeep. Look at it another way — your first 4 bases with Recycling Tanks will be as productive as 5 bases without Recycling Tanks.

Of course, you don't want to tie up your build queues early in the game with expensive facilities when you should be scouting, Mind Worm hunting, Colony Pod rushing and former flooding. Therefore, the best way to build Recycling Tanks is probably to rush them using the free minerals1 on the very turn you found a new base. The cost is somewhere around (40-10) = 30 minerals, assuming the base can produce 4 minerals per turn, so that's only 26 minerals that you need to buy, which will cost about 52 energy to rush with normal Industry. The Recycling Tanks will only take 15 turns to pay off the rough equivalent of that cost, while increasing the growth, research rate, and speed of production immediately. More growth and more production mean the next base will be planted perhaps a turn sooner. That adds up in the long term to big savings and more turn advantage, and after only 15 or so turns, you're making pure tax-free profit from your rush building.

A nice side effect of Recycling Tanks is that a size 3 base with Recycling Tanks can work 3 forest tiles for 6 nutrients, ensuring no waste. Before restriction lifting, this is one of the more efficient base builds, especially if you can manage 3 forests on a river. Without the Tanks, the base would have to use a farm or crawl one nutrient, costing you either a mineral or an energy credit, or an extra turn for the next citizen and wasted nutrient production.

[1] Won't work so well with Democratic; otherwise, the ten free minerals are pretty nice.

Research Hospital

 * Prerequisite: Gene Splicing
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 3

Adds +50% Labs, +25% Psych, quells 1 Drone.

This facility is always a problem. It comes with Gene Splicing and heralds the end or the true "Early Game" with the lifting of the restriction on nutrient production. Those size 3-4 bases start growing a bit, you have a decent infrastructure and now you're faced with the choices offered by the first of the "second tier" facilities1. Here is the moment when you really have to decide what direction you want to build in. Do you want to go upwards, or outwards?

If you want to go outwards, then leave the Research Hospitals for now, apart from those bases you may have identified as science bases. Crawling farms/condensors now that the restrictions are lifted can really give you the nutrients needed for a very rapid expansion horizontally. Research Hospitals are expensive to build and maintain, and you want to preserve outward momentum at this point, not shut up shop and enter "turtle mode" The 12 rows of minerals needed means you can't simply rush one at every base and then continue expanding, as you can with Nodes and Energy Banks. You'll have to sit and build for 4-5 turns even with a great cash supply. If you want to build vertically though, this is generally a good time to take your foot off the "colony pod/former/scout patrol" pedal and start to really develop your bases.

This bears repeating: They're not cheap. And they keep costing you 3 ec/turn too, so don't build them unless you can afford them. They do boost production in 3 different ways though, so in a large enough base (never build in a small base) they more than pay for themselves.

Firstly the +50% Labs. Let's assume a nice size 4 base with the basic facilities already in place, with 2 energy from each population, and say 4 from the base (a moderate estimate) for 12 base energy. Then let's take again the default 50/50 Econ/Labs distribution. In this case, the Research Hospital is going to give you 3 Labs/turn at a cost of 3 ec/turn. No loss, no gain either.

However, when that size 4 base grows to size 5, let's imagine that it develops another Drone, which is then quelled by the Research Hospital. We now have to include the added productivity of an extra worker (let's put him on a forest for 1-2-2) which (ignoring the nutrients) is worth 6 ec/turn. This defrays the upkeep cost of the Hospital, returns 3 ec/turn to our pockets, and gives us an extra 0.5 Labs/turn (a whole +1 Labs/turn, with the Node that the base should already have) As the base grows past size 5, you may have to spend on Psych to keep them happy in there, so the 3rd bonus comes into play, of +25% Psych.

So, the timing of Research Hospitals is pretty simple. You should aim to have them built the turn before reaching size 5 if running an FM using faction, and any time between sizes 5 and 7 if using Police under Planned or Green and planning on "turtling" for a bit, or if you are planning on spreading like xenofungus before simply crushing everyone, its best not to build them at all. Do one thing, and do it well, its better than messing them both up.

One final thing to note – A Research Hospital stops outbreaks of Prometheus Viruses and Planet Blight at that base.

[1]Assuming a normal tech progression to Industrial Automation, then restriction lifting, then Doctrine: Air Power

Robotic Assembly Plant

 * Prerequisite: Industrial Nanorobotics
 * Mineral rows: 20
 * Maintenance cost: 4

Adds +50% minerals production at this base. Cumulative with similar facilities.

Skunkworks

 * Prerequisite: Advanced Subatomic Theory
 * Mineral rows: 6
 * Maintenance cost: 1

Building prototype units at this base does not cost extra minerals.

It may be useful to build a Skunkworks in a base with a morale-boosting facility, if you can afford to set aside a major base for building prototypes, instead of building secret projects.

Sky Hydroponics Lab

 * Prerequisite: Orbital Spaceflight
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 0

Adds +1 nutrients to every base. Bonus halved for bases without Aerospace Complexes and cannot exceed the size of the base. Can be built any number of times.

Stockpile Energy

 * Mineral rows: 0
 * Maintenance cost: 0

Converts minerals to energy at a rate of 2 minerals for each point of energy

Subsea Trunkline

 * Prerequisite: Planetary Economics
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 4
 * Alien Crossfire only

Increases minerals by 1 on every square (in the sea).

Subspace Generator

 * Prerequisite: Singularity Mechanics
 * Mineral rows: 60
 * Maintenance cost: 5
 * Alien Crossfire only

Only aliens can build these. If you build 6 generators each in a base with a population of 10 or more, you win the game.

Tachyon Field

 * Prerequisite: Probability Mechanics
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 2

Like perimeter defense, but more powerful & higher maintenance cost.

Temple of Planet

 * Prerequisite: Secrets of Alpha Centauri
 * Mineral rows: 20
 * Maintenance cost: 3
 * The Voice of Planet must have been built by you or any other faction.

Thermocline Transducer

 * Prerequisite: Adaptive Economics
 * Mineral rows: 8
 * Maintenance cost: 0
 * Alien Crossfire only

+1 Energy from Tidal Harnesses

First thing to note is that before you lift the restriction on Energy Production, this is completly useless to you. Don't build it. Don't even think about the idea of building one. You can't get more than 2 energy per tile1 until Environmental Economics even if you are Morgan running FM and Wealth with the Merchant Exchange.

After Environmental Economics, however, a facility that gives +1 energy per square with no upkeep costs sounds too good to be true. It's not. Rush one in any base that is working 2 or more Tidal Harnesses. It will take a while till you are actually in profit from it, but it can also be used as a way to convert minerals to energy cheaply if you let it build naturally. If you are working 5 tiles with Tidal Harnesses, it will only take 32 turns until the mineral cost of the facility is returned to you as energy to do with as you wish. (Much less time if you have decent Industry and didn't pay so much in the first place)

Any base that is sea energy based would be stupid not to build one of these. Coastal bases with only 1-3 Tidal Harnesses would probably not always recover the cost of building the facility between the lifting of restrictions and the end of the game. Better to build those Treefarms, I'd say.

Tree Farm

 * Prerequisite: Environmental Economics
 * Mineral rows: 12
 * Maintenance cost: 3

Adds +50% Economy, +50% Psych, +1 Nutrient in Forest tiles.

Coming two techs after Gene Splicing and the Research Hospital comes the Tree Farm, and the lifting of the energy restrictions. Just one tech before, your mineral restriction was removed, and all your 2-mineral crawlers moved off the forests and onto the mine/road/rocky tiles you cunningly had just prepared with this tech in mind, and doubled their production to 4 mins/turn. As a result you suddenly hear*pop* and you know its time to start with the Tree Farms. For my mind, this marks the end of the true "Early Game" and the beginning of the "Mid Game", where all tiles can now be used to their full effects, and all terraforming enhancements are possible except magtubes and soil enrichment.

Ok, first of all the main reason to build these facilities is not for the extra Econ or Psych. What we are after is the extra nutrient from our forests, (they should be everywhere by now) which will give us the +2 nuts/turn we need for a popboom. If we're playing a faction that needs a Golden Age to popboom, then view the +50% Psych as the game telling you to get into the SE screen and push that central slider to the right.

Like Research Hospitals, they boost income by 50%, in this case for Psych and Econ, the other two of the three energy categories, and in the same way they cover their own costs, as long as the base is producing a base 12 energy after ineffieciency, with anything else being profit. Tree Farms, however, are the one facility where I'm inclined to ignore the maths. The extra nutrients translate into extra growth, which is always good – see my comments on Children's Creches. If you want to count every last ec though, then I'd say that the only bases that are really too small to build a Tree Farm are any bases under size 4 which are not directly working either at least 2 forested rivers, or at least two forests under FM.

The "hidden" effects of Tree Farms are also worth considering. Each Tree Farm built increases the number of "clean minerals" for all your bases by one, as long as it was built after the first fungal *pop* and also reduces the Ecodamage at that base caused by terraforming within the base radius.

There's only two instances where I would consider not building Tree Farms as soon as they became available. Either if I was still pumping units for an expansion or a war, or if I was running towards a future "All Specialists" strategy, which was using only advanced terraforming instead of any forests.

''Some of this content was originally written by Jamski on Apolyton and has been modified from its original version, which can be found here. Used with permission.''