text:
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 1

Fiction criteria
Since there have been recent disputes over fiction (or "fancruft" and good article status, I 'copy and pasted' the discussion from the Good Article talk page in "Archive 2" onto this page (which was empty, I might add). I think this is a discussion that should have taken place here before it was made policy. I think more people should at least comment on it since at the present moment of time it seems the process was passed unilaterally by one or two users.

From my understanding, several of the fiction article nominations that were recently rejected follow the guidelines suggested on Notability (fiction) page and are in line with the examples given on that page.Dmoon1 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * actually it was rejected for the reasons given on the amidala article's talk page (which you obviously didnt read). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2006(UTC).

Fancruft (from Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 2
i added a suggestion that "fancruft" type articles should discuss the subject outside of its hermetically-sealed fictional universe, i.e. why the author/creator decided to make it, how they went about developing it, what other things influenced it, why its important to the world outside the fictional universe, etc etc. somebody rv'ed it saying "if its fancruft it shouldnt even be an article" so i added "fancruft is not acceptable" as a policy. somebody *else* rv'ed that without expln.

what is the consensus here? Zzzzz 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As the person who reverted the second time, the reason for the revert is that significant changes to a policy page I believe it should be discussed before being made part of the policy. I also have no objection to a requirement that works dealing with fictional subjects be required to include some information on the subject's influence in the real world.  The big problem is working out the wording of the addition so that it does the correct job.  --Allen3 talk 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "For "fancruft" type articles, significance outside of the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship."

I think it may be outside the scope of this page to specify such a requirement for this specific type of article. I'd reckon the criteria requiring compelling prose aimed at the layman should cover this one. More detailed descriptions of what is expected of each type of article are usually defined by wikiprojects for the relevant subject area. Worldtraveller 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's another suggestion for wording, to get rid of the negative and combatative word "fancruft".
 * For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside of the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship.
 * "Fancruft", as I understand it, is any minutia of fandom that HAS no relevance outside of the fictional universe. What we want is ANY article on a fictional subject to make sure that it is understood that the subject is fictional, and treat it as such. Fieari 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i support adding the above to the "comprehensiveness" clause of the GA policy. Zzzzz 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * if there is no objections by the weekend, i'll add this to the GA policy. Zzzzz 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
I think that stubs or articles containing sections that are stubs should not be allowed under the criteria. Any commnets? Flying Canuck 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no objections within 14 days (April 10 2006 (UTC)) I will add a note to the effect that stubs do not qualify in the comphrensive section of the critera.Flying Canuck 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that we'll have to open up a "Featured Stubs" page? --User:Rayc
 * Stubs are by definition incomplete, so definitely don't meet GA criteria. I always assumed this would be implicitly obvious but would support adding it to the criteria if people feel it's not.  Worldtraveller 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb would be "If the article qualifies for Collaboration of the week it does not qualify for Good Article". --Barberio 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a very good guidline to follow. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is a good article?"
To me, these two points suggest the same thing: Wintran 13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate - its content should be verifiable with good quality sources cited. Although citing of sources is essential, inline citations are not mandatory.
 * It is well referenced.
 * I agree - they need a merge. --Cel es tianpower háblame 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - the 'second' one is not needed. Flying Canuck 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Original research may be factual, but it isn't well-referenced. NPOV articles may be well-referenced, but they are not factual. Neither would qualify as even acceptable Wikipedia content, much less GA content. ClairSamoht 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, 2a and 2b should be merge into it provides references to any and all sources used for its material altough the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;. Lincher 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed from reading WP:NOR that if 2.(b) or 2.(c) fails, 2.(d) will always fail, since the only way to prove 2.(d) is to cite reliable sources.Bugmuncher 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Short articles and GA
If "shorter articles" are to be eligible for GA status (say, an article which fits snugly on a single screen or so), then perhaps the criterion "it is appropriately structured with a lead section and a proper system of hierarchical headings" needs to be relaxed a little. Quite often, compact articles present better when they are not broken up into multiple sections of a few sentences each; one would think that if at least some logical structure and flow is maintained within the text (appropriately segmented into paragraphs), then the same desirable end has been achieved. Thoughts?--cjllw | TALK  04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that splitting a very short article into very very short sections isn't really doing it a good turn, but personally I think that such a short article would probably be better off merged into a broader topic. Are there any examples you could give of a very short article where a merger would not be appropriate?  Worldtraveller 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sparging would be one example. It's too long for a Wiktionary entry. It isn't a stub; there's not much else to be said about sparging without getting far afield. Merging it with something else would annoy both people who are trying to look up sparging and don't give a hoot about something else, and people who are looking up something else, and don't give a hoot about sparging.
 * Merging articles A and B only makes sense when readers logically could use all the information on the page. Otherwise, it simply results in a larger page which slows down both the server and users when it is served up, and when the page gets edited for either A or B, both A and B end up getting saved.
 * As a principle of good writing, you should have something to say, say it, and shut up when you're done. And as a matter of organization, an encyclopedia should be organized according to "Trebek's Law": express it in the form of a question. "What is sparging?".
 * I don't think GA should be reserved for major articles. They are the hard ones to do well, and GA is there to show editors what to do, not as some sort of blue ribbon of accomplishment. If you can say everything that needs to be said about sparging in one screen or so, then it's easy to remain focused, and do a good job. It's when you ask "Who was Stephen King?" that things get difficult. That page is long, and it seems to get edited 6 times a day - and it's not edit wars, but contributors adding more detail. Will the editing ever slow down? ClairSamoht 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Clair says it well, and they do not have to be "very short" articles, but I rather had in mind some I have seen (forgetting, for the moment, just which ones they were!) which ran to a page or perhaps a little more, well-structured, covering all the main points, with some well chosen images or even an infobox. Say an article on a minor town, or some historical figure notable for some particular deed, but whose life was otherwise undocumented. In the latter case, there may well be not much more which can be added after describing their claim to fame, but it would not be appropriate to condense them into some other article. It's really just a question of if a small but notable topic can be roundly covered, and has all the other attributes of a good article, there may simply not be enough material to pad it out to 20k or more, and the aesthetic presentation works best without the usual sub-section breakup (a valid and useful way to organise lengthier articles, but not always appropriate).--cjllw | TALK  08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The last thing I would like to see is pages being padded out with unnecessary verbosity. Absolutely, GA is not in any way reserved for 'major' articles - they really should be worked up to FA standards.  I see it as predominantly for short articles (say 3-15kb or so).  Sparging I do think could be expanded a little bit without getting waffly.  If it had references, and if some of the short paras were merged, would probably be the very essence of what I see an ideal GA as.  If an article genuinely does cover its topic well in only a few paragraphs, then I don't think it should be excluded from the list.  Worldtraveller 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a crack at rewriting that particular criterion in view of the above discussion; open to any further amendments.--cjllw | TALK  06:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've given it a mild rewrite: short articles are fine so long as they address the major aspects of the topic (contrast to FAs, where length doesn't matter so long as the article is comprehensive) TheGrappler 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Lists?
The FA system has its own set of critieria for articles which are lists, but we don't, so technically speaking, it seems no list can be deemed a good article since they aren't prose :/. How about we amend this so that the prose standards don't have to apply to lists? Homestarmy 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. And maybe the criteria should specifically mention lists. Maurreen 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what a 'good list' would be. Can you give an example of what you might consider a list that contains excellent content but would probably not pass FLC?  Worldtraveller 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I assume you mean FAC, and I was thinking something like Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, because since its still a recent event I don't know if people would want to make it an FA, yet it isn't changing very quickly these days. Homestarmy 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Lists have their own 'featured' process: WP:FLC. I'd say our one person review system would be completely inadequate to assess an article 112kb long so that particular example, I would say, we should not touch with a bargepole.  I don't know how the FLC process treats short lists, but if they generally look for lengthy lists, then there would be a place for us looking at short lists.  If they take lists of any length, 'good lists' would be redundant.  Worldtraveller 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with you because the only real thing we could do is assess for the completeness of a list which is too basic to be done by the GA project. I'd say leave it as a FA-only process in order to prevent doing things twice and adding too much things to do on our hands. Lincher 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with "What is a FA?"
I think a short paragraph explaining how these criteria are weaker than those for FA would be helpful. Hyacinth 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit - hope it's useful. Worldtraveller 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The addition tells us more about the differences between how the criteria are formulated than about what they tend to achieve. Especially in light of the next section telling us that "A good article may be any length", it is somewhat unclear what the criteria (and differences with the criteria for a FA) are for non-short articles. Assuming that FA quality requires that an article be good, what is additionally required of a somewhat lengthy "good" article to achieve featured status? --Lambiam Talk 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adherence to Manual of Style
I added adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style to the attributes of a well-written article, the rationale being (a) that in the peer reviews this is also used as a touchstone; and (b) that doing so is an entirely reasonable thing. I hope no-one is offended by this not being discussed in advance, but as far as I can see this page is not "policy" but really more descriptive. Lambiam Talk 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't "specialist" articles be good?
A well-written article is supposed to be "readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader". This means that, for example, the article Levi-Civita symbol can never become a "good" article; any attempt to make it readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader will most definitely result in a very bad article. Most readers are somewhat unlikely to think: "Hey, let me look up what Wikipedia has to say about Levi-Civita symbol", and if they arrive there through the link at Rarita-Schwinger equation, say, they will probably expect a specialist treatment and would most likely be severely disappointed if they then find a text that has been made "comprehensible to the non-specialist". What about this relaxed criterion: the degree of non-accessibility to the non-specialist reader should be commensurate with how specialized the topic is? Lambiam Talk 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had that issue when reviewing Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and moved it to disputes, which appears to be equally lightly travelled. :-) The main contributors to that article maintain a similar stance. I still think I at least should get some sort of more common reference point, i.e. Windows, if one exists. — Rob (  talk  ) 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, if an article is not comprehensible to a general reader, it's difficult to see how anyone can review it effectively to say whether it meets the criteria.
 * My own opinion is that what we're here for is to make information about our areas of interest and/or expertise available to as wide an audience as possible, without dumbing it down, and so I think every article on Wikipedia ought to be written so that an ignorant but intelligent reader can understand it. If an article cannot be made intelligible to such a reader, I'm not sure a general encyclopaedia is really the place for it, but I do think it is possible to explain even very complex topics so that the general reader can have an idea of what they are about.  Worldtraveller 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - an article which is not accessible to the layman is not a "good article" at all. Stevage 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So I think we clearly disagree here. We probably agree that the difficulty of a topic must not be used as an argument to shirk a valiant effort of making an article as accessible as possible. But should the mere fact that it cannot reasonably be made accessible to an ignorant – though intelligent – reader be sufficient reason to withhold the information from less ignorant readers? I think not. Remember: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." Or is that old hat? The ultimate consequence of the position that articles do not belong if they can't be made understandable to this reader (without turning them into textbooks), is that articles like Rarita-Schwinger equation should be deleted. As to the difficulty of reviewing a specialist article, maybe not everyone can do that, but certainly specialists should be able to. And is the only purpose of this project page to serve such reviews? Maybe editors come to this page in the hope of being enlightened on what makes an article good. The editor labouring on a specialist article is now made to think: "Whatever I do is in vain; my article cannot be redeemed." --Lambiam Talk 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible we could incorprate something in here about specialist type articles, but they would probably need to be reviewed by.....a specialist :/. I won't be going to collage for a couple years so we'll probably need some really good mathematicion to evaluate all those types of articles, and well.....who's gonna be our mathematicion? Homestarmy 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Much needed copy-edit
Dear contributors

I've gone over the attributes of a good article on the project page, and the text below it, to make it easier to read and to number the attributes so that reviewers can easily refer to them.

I made no substantive changes to the meaning.

Tony 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1(b) is longish, but it might be awkward to divide it. I wonder whether the following change would be acceptable (this one would be a slight change in meaning, but would nicely simplify the language):

EXISTING (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)

PROPOSED (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; a longer article contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections;

Tony 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Tony, those alterations look fine to me, at least, and the numbering system is a good addition- thanks.

 * Re the text of 1(b), the general idea here (per discussion supra) was that it should not be a pre-requisite for all GA-candidates to have section headers, as long as the information was presented in a logically-ordered and grouped fashion, with paragraphs of sensible length. I think your proposal still captures that intention, and IMO would be fine. --cjllw | TALK  08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Section 6 is contradictory
It says:

"A good article has the following attributes. ... 6. It contains images."

"(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status."

The first part requires images, while the second part doesn't. It can go both ways:

If images are required for GA, then 6b shouldn't exist. If images aren't required, then why not just remove the entire Section 6? -- King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the recent amendment by Tony has addressed this. The general idea is that where images are used, they must be appropriately captioned, tagged and otherwise adhering to image use guidelines, and that while images, maps, diags, etc are good to have, they are not a mandatory requirement.--cjllw | TALK  03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I just came here to make the same point. Someone reverted my change. It's ridiculous to say that "Good articles have images. Lack of images does not prevent an article being a good article."

So here are the possible situations:
 * If an article could be illustrated (ie, it is not an abstract concept with no appropriate illustrations), it must be illustrated to be a GA
 * An article does not have to have images. If it does, they must meet certain requirements for the article to be a GA.
 * An article does not have to have images. However, good images may increase its "GA" factor.

What is the real situation, so we can update the criteria as appropriate? Stevage 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with yesterday's version ('where appropriate')? Should be reverted to that. Tony 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Problem with that wording is it's very vague. What is meant by appropriate?  When would havin images be inappropriate?  Right now, it says images should be included where possible, which acknowledges that many topics do not have suitable images availble to illustrate them, and is also internally self-consistent.  Worldtraveller 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There will sometimes be a grey area, where an image might or might not be included; 'possible' forces the issue, whereas 'appropriate' leaves it up to a judgement of suitability. You yourself use the word 'suitability', so 'appropriate' is more consistent with your views. Tony 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This does not resolve the basic problem: Point 6 says good articles must have images, "where possible". Point 6b says good articles don't have to have images.

So, if an article could have images, but doesn't, does it still qualify as a good article (under point 6b) or does it fail (under point 6)? Why don't we just scrap the whole of point 6, if images are irrelevant to an article being a good article anyway? Stevage 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see how that's contradictory, really - 6b is just emphasising that if it's not possible to illustrate an article, then don't fail it for not having images. If it is possible to illustrate it, but it's not illustrated, then it falls short of what we would expect of a good article, and should be failed.  Images are not irrelevant at all - it's just that unlike references, they can be absent and an article can still be good.  Worldtraveller 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WT that it's not contradictory; but I'd still prefer 'appropriate'. Tony 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amendment
I feel that it needs to be mentioned that if an article has any "negative" tags in the article, it should not be nominated until they are resolved. Personally, I automatically fail an article without further review if I see tags such as, , or (failing #3, #2, and #5 respectively). It really shouldn't NEED to be mentioned, but too many people are submitting articles with problems that have big bold signs saying "I'M NOT READY YET!". They need reminding not to overlook such obvious errors, as we certainly should not. --SeizureDog 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Stability
I've been adding a lot of info to the Winfield Scott (ship) article, which basically sat dormant as a stub since March. Since I'm still adding info, I obviously don't think it qualifies as "stable" per se. But once the bulk of the writing is done (by me, anyway), how long should I reasonably wait before thinking about a GA nomination? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's what the stability issue is really about. If a couple of people are the ones nurturing it and making it better, than it's ok. It's when there are dozens of people going back and forth and changing it every day that's a problem. Stability is where once you're done working on an article, it stays done. If in a month's time you come back and find that the entire article has been rewritten, then that's not stable. The stability requirement just doesn't want the quality to change. But in cases such as yours, the quality will stay the same but the information will increase. Hope that helps. --SeizureDog 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does help. Thanks!  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to stability criteria
There's been I think at least 2 discussions on the disputes page now about stability where it really matters, specifically whether vandalism counts as instability, and whether a semi-protection or protected template warrents immediete delisting. Personally, I think delisting for vandalism is silly because it sends the message "Ok, vandals rule Wikipedia, so good content should just be left for dead", and that the stability rule should better mean "Is not the subject of on-going content disputes which result in edit wars or other massive content related changes" rather than just "Content rapidly changes from day to day" which is rather ambiguous to start with anyway. Anyone else have thoughts? Homestarmy 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think an article's stability should warrent delisting, but should be an automatic failure for becoming a good article. --SeizureDog 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The same standards should be applied to both nominated and current GA. Bias aside the problem with automatic failure for nominations is the action of vandals is considered as important as legitimate editors.
 * currently criteria 5 states.
 * 5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars
 * suggest that it says
 * 5. It is considered stable if
 * (a)It does not change significantly from day to day.
 * (b)It is not the subject of on going edit wars.
 * (c)Vandalism is not considered a significant change.
 * (d)Protection of an article alone does not make it unstable.

thanks for listening Gnangarra 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Length
current criteria ''A good article may be of any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic. However, the authors of very short articles might consider whether it is more appropriate to merge them into larger articles. For articles longer than about 20Kb, the more rigorous reviewing of Peer review and Featured article candidates is generally more appropriate than the process here''

Suggest that this statement gets removed, For articles longer than about 20Kb, the more rigorous reviewing of Peer review and Featured article candidates is generally more appropriate than the process here GA is capable of reviewing all articles size doesnt matter, getting GA on articles does both for the GA process and the editors. Gnangarra 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I think Worldtraveller added this in because he feels that we cannot adequately assess long articles on our own.... Homestarmy 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * currently they are being done and they are maintain a similar age to that of the other articles. Gnangarra 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Anyhow, there is a need to assess the 25kb-size and more articles only because we want to have the GA process become a widely used/liked/assessment project that will be a step below the FA status. We gotta continue to fight/find arguments for that purpose and the more that criteria are solidly implemented and re-worked, the better the project will be. Lincher 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GA was never really supposed to be a 'step below' FA. It was designed to be a parallel process for short articles, which there is otherwise little incentive to bring up to high quality. I've always argued that there's no way one person can review a large article thoroughly enough to judge whether it meets the criteria. Many eyes are much more effective. To be honest I think many of the long articles which are 'good articles' are really not very good. Given the similarity between FA and GA criteria, a long article which meets these criteria should also meet FA criteria, so why not just nominate it there? Worldtraveller 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clear up. What does this mean, that the 20kb+ articles should be left alone and not reviewed by us or throw in the FA nomination? What I think is that people coming for GA know they will get feedback and that is the main reason behind having to review articles of all length.
 * The project could become a review process-only for articles 20kb and up and a GA-awarding review for articles less than 20kb? What do you think about that. Lincher 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * To me, the best solution would be to not review long articles here, and refer them to PR or FAC. However, as you say, GA has become the new PR in many respects, because the system guarantees feedback, usually within a few days.  People obviously find it useful so it would be a shame to scrap that.  If reviewers only pass long articles that they would support an FA nomination for, I'd be happy to carry on as things are.  Worldtraveller 20:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed then, we pass lenthy GAs only if we give extensive comments and help them reach FA because that is what they are requesting ... PR in the first place and how to get to the FA status in the second place. Since that is settled, maybe we should add a comment somewhere about that. Knowing that we accept lenthy almost-good GAs knowing they have flaws and will eventually go to FA. Lincher 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, a little more detail on all reviews would be nice; looking at a few reviews i've seen people do recently, they are often little more than "nice work", and one didn't even have any summary at all. (Though I think it was good enough for GA) Long or short, a bit more depth in comments would probably be nice. Homestarmy 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point, I was seeing a lot of this recently. It would then be a good idea to request from the reviewers to give insight on the articles future (like what should be added to the article even if it met GA). And if the article failed, then be merciless but in a civilised manner in criticising all that doesn't seem to apply to GA nor to FA.
 * We could also do it this way ... First give out what is absolutely necessary for GA (as a list) and then add NOT FOR GA and add what will be necessary for FA. What do you guys think?. Lincher 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding a criterion
Comply to the WP:NOT, thus removing the Trivia section. Lincher 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see the part about trivia in there....? I've also seen some rather nice looking articles have trivia sections, whats so bad about them? Homestarmy 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely nothing wrong with trivia. Yes, an article consisting solely of a trivia section would probably be nominated for AfD, but a trivia section in an article with content does not detract from its value. The trivia section can simply be a collection of facts which are relevant to the article (and not other articles), but do not fit anywhere else in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Altough, the presence of trivia should be a prose instead of a list and be point-by-point inline cited, no? Lincher 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm, are all trivia sections traditionally supposed to be rendered into prose? Homestarmy 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * For one, traditional encyclopedias do not tolerate trivia since it is not prose though we seem to do things differently. I normally ask to remove (like FA does) or to place in the text somewhere else as a brilliant prose (like FA does). If this is possible. Lincher 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You can see King Kong (1933 film) for an example of what I'm talking about, too much Trivia lists. Lincher 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There's plenty wrong with trivia. Is "trivia" really trivia? If so, it should be cut. If not, it should at the very least be relabeled. Moreover, a randomly sequenced list of odds and sods, even if these are not trivial, is not encyclopedic. -- Hoary 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Trivia lists should be cut by the time an article is of "good" quality. They either can be worked into the text easily enough or not important enough to actually known. --SeizureDog 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * So basically, we should just write (No trivia sections)? Homestarmy 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I fear that people would then retitle them. Better: "No trivia". -- Hoary 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok so no trivia, so now they'll have Behind the myths, Social usage , Peer reflection , Tales, the facts For something like the King Kong movie I think the Trivia is relevant, though excessive. For current pop culture subjects its irrelevant to extent of being trivial. Gnangarra 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying. Anyway, I propose that no section (e.g. one titled "Behind the myths") should contain trivia. "No trivia" should handle that. -- Hoary 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Its use is subjective that a definitive no trivia may preclude articles where the subject of the article has had a prolonged significant impact on society, like subjects like JFK assassination, King Kong, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of OZ would all be justified in the use of some form of trivia section, its the presentation of the information thats the issue. I think a No trivia list would be more appropriate, though still not ideal. Gnangarra 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. King Kong (to take one of your examples) has at least three trivia lists, although none is titled "trivia". As there are fewer than ten days in each week (needed for arguments with the hordes of trivia-lovers), I do not offer to do what should be done: tease out of these lists the 5%–20% of the content that's worthwhile, integrate it within the article in some intelligent fashion, and delete the rest. As it is, this article is a triviahound's companion to the movies rather than an encyclopedic article; it's a dreadful model for emulation. -- Hoary 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- going back left for space King kong has too much trivia, the statement no trivia is IMHO too harsh thats why I suggested using No Trivia Lists those pieces that are useful would then to be made into prose. Basically same the dog just a different leg. That way when an article is failed for a trivia list instead of just having this information cut out the editors would have encouragement to consider whats there and how better to present the information. If the information had value to in the initial article then it still has value it just needs to be better presented. Gnangarra 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Trivia is by definition unencylopaedic and should be removed. The problem with trivia sections is that they often include actual useful info.  Editors need to assess what's actually relevant and what's not, and put the relevant stuff somewhere other than a section called 'unencyclopaedic'.
 * As for lists, I see loads of articles nominated for GA that have lists where prose should be used. In many cases the lists are simply very poor writing style and could easily be rendered as prose.  Trivia or not, lists should only be used when prose is not practical.
 * Not sure I think we need a new criterion for all this though - perhaps some clarifications within existing criteria though. Worldtraveller 08:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit, maybe we should let them there but in the most succinct form possible and if they can be added to the text then fine. Altough when trivia overlaps other section and it is not added to these sections there is a lack of structuring in the article (criterion 1b). So for the trivia section and the fact that we want lists to be turned into prose, if possible, we could add to criterion 1c what follows :

1(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;

Lincher 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * the statement no trivia is IMHO too harsh And in mine it isn't too harsh. ¶ Trivia is by definition unencylopaedic and should be removed. Thank you for the refreshing sanity! ¶ The problem with trivia sections is that they often include actual useful info. Oh? I'd say that the problem with them is that they usually include bags of mere trivia, laced with some more or less subtle coat-tails spamvertising for non-notable bands and so forth. ("The Three-Chord Strummers [still awaiting their first recording contract] dropped this guy's name in the second stanza of their second, 'independently distributed' single.") ¶ Trivia or not, lists should only be used when prose is not practical. Agreed. ¶ Since what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit, maybe we should let them there but in the most succinct form possible and if they can be added to the text then fine. It's certainly not what brought me: I started by fixing gross stylistic errors and also errors of fact. I put it to you that trivia lists are particularly attractive to the kind of potential editor who will proceed to augment and multiply trivia lists. Would en-WP benefit from the activities of yet more of these people? ¶ ...if possible, we could add to criterion 1c what follows : / 1(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline; Neither of these seems to say anything about trivia. Certainly the word "trivia" doesn't appear on either, or didn't when I looked a few moments ago. -- Hoary 07:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well for your information, there is no consensus whatsoever on the trivia section on wikipedia and as I said it : what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit so gazillions of users will be against a policy on removing the trivia section. In order to remediate to this we should have a GA policy about removing the trivia. Another proposition for the WIAGA is to change criterion 3 from :

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

to :

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
 * (a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
 * (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no trivia).

Lincher 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I agree with what you write in 3(b): no trivia. -- Hoary 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I was saying is that trivia isn't bad for an article because the new editors often work on these section first (especially for pop culture topics) altough, when the articles get serious or into serious reviewing, they should find alternatives to trivia sections such as bringing it to prose or merging it into other sections of the articles. What I find acceptable is something like 1 trivia info per 10kb of prose. Lincher 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * But we're primarily talking here about good articles, which surely implies getting serious, etc. Really, I find it hard to follow what you're saying. You say "No trivia", which which I agree. Then you say that trivia isn't bad for a [pre-"Good"] article (which which I happen to disagree, but we'll let that pass) and seem to imply that for a "Good" article the (presumably trivial) content of trivia sections should be integrated within the rest of the article rather than simply deleted. But if trivia is moved from under the "trivia" subtitle and integrated, is it not still trivia? And if it is still trivia, are you saying it's good? ¶ Consider Mona Lisa (a "Good Article"). We learn that it has enjoyed countless references in both popular culture and avant-garde art. It has been a subject of many songs, including: ... "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters", a song on Elton John's 1972 album, Honky Chateau. It rose to #1 in the Billboard Music Charts / "Mona Lisa", the first track on country singer Willie Nelson's 1981 album, Somewhere over the Rainbow. The album rose to#1 on the Billboard Top Country Albums chart. / "Mona Lisa", a song on hip hop performer Slick Rick's 1988 album, The Great Adventures of Slick Rick. The album rose to#1 on the Billboard Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums chart. .... (I've omitted a lot of songs there, and zapped some markup.) To me, this is all trivia. It may indeed signify something (I suspect that Mona Lisa is a celebrity painting; through no fault of its own, it has become among paintings what Elizabeth Taylor is to actresses), but as long as we're not told this, I see it as saying something trivial and obvious about the intellectual/imaginative poverty of songwriters and as saying nothing whatever about the painting. Do our mileages differ? Do you actually think this stuff enhances the Mona Lisa article? -- Hoary 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I completely agree that lists like that in Mona Lisa fall way below GA standards. I delisted the article.  As you say, they tell us nothing about the painting itself.  To my mind, the article on The Scream treats the 'influence on subject culture' very nicely, using select examples to illustrate how it influenced later works.  Exhaustive lists of appearances in popular culture are not encyclopaedic.  Worldtraveller 10:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with the Mona Lisa failing GA standards because it has too much trivia. What I mean is that if it is real trivia ... it is not needed. If it is not trivia but added to a trivia section because of a lack of effort to prose the text then it should be added to the article in some section.
 * So for the Mona Lisa article, if we implement the criterion I've created up there, it would fail criterion 3(b) which states that the article doesn't stay focus on the main topic and uses trivia.
 * Did I make myself a bit clearer (please tell me). Lincher 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Concision and a sense of proportion
I'm happy with long articles that have bags of significant content. Example: Sicilian Baroque. I'm much less happy about long articles (or even shortish ones) that maunder on and on about the trivial. The last time I looked -- after a time, I gave up in complete disgust -- these were exemplified by articles on any aspect of tabloid staples such as Mariah Carey: what this or that "good friend" reputedly did, quotations of vacuous comments by the star, etc etc. I suggest that a good article has a word count that's somehow proportional to the significance of the subject in science, society, culture, etc. Of course this is next to impossible to judge, but the length-per-significance ratio of for example "Good Article" Mega Man X (character) (whose adherence to this isn't so obvious) strikes me as bizarre. These days a lot of books and movies seem to go on for ever; perhaps logorrhea is a Good Thing and I'm out of step with the times. But I suggest that these guidelines should at least attempt to dissuade editors from the pursuit of a soporific exhaustiveness. -- Hoary 15:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've come across an article recently myself which had a sort of smaller hint of the problem you've described, and I do think a change should probably be made. How about something else under the "logical structure" part of the well-written section, perhaps something to the effect of "Should flow in structure without getting off-topic"? Homestarmy 03:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bloat is never good. I'm sure at one point we had 'stays tightly focussed on the main topic' in the criteria.  It's certainly implicit in 'well written' and I wouldn't object to making it explicit.  Articles should say what needs to be said in the fewest words possible, and if they don't I'd say they're not well written.  Worldtraveller 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good vs. featured articles
The definition listed in this section does not quite line up with that in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It may be a little confusing as to the quality and standards. Morphh 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we may of changed it a few times, in particular clarified the dispute part, could you just update it on the 1.0's end? Nobody's tried to like stealth sneak in any new standards that I can see heh. Homestarmy 03:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for fiction
I get the impression that these criteria are simply ignored. That is, if the creators of a fancruft articles are sufficiently earnest ("sourcing" their stuff, etc. etc.), the article is pronounced "Good". Am I just imagining this? If I'm not, does it matter? -- Hoary 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you name any specific articles? Homestarmy 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aerith Gainsborough, Charmander, Combusken, etc etc. -- Hoary 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I did see your point sometimes in those particular articles, though I don't think they were compleatly from a fictional point of view :/. Does most ofthe content in those articles really strike you as not being written from the perspective of an outside universe? Homestarmy 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they're not completely from a viewpoint within the fiction. But primarily, they are. Reconsider what's written on the project page: The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe.... (That's not the same as for example: The focus of the article shouldn't exclude discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, and should not be exclusively on describing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe....)
 * To me, these articles seem rather obvious examples of what's permissible by WP criteria but (according to WIAGA's rules) not good. Rules aside, it's also obvious to me that they're of no interest to people who aren't already involved in these little worlds.
 * Of course, somebody could counterclaim that (for example) moras are analogously of no interest outside the little world of phonology -- but this would be untrue, because mora is the best term yet discovered (and the standard term) to describe certain aspects of some languages (see here for example), and if the latter too sounds too la-di-da, we can point to it as one reason why speakers of Japanese have such trouble with English.
 * Consider Eevee. I "failed" it. I didn't enjoy doing that, and I stated my objection politely on its talk page at 06:37, 27 June. Here are the changes made to the article between then and now. None are substantive. Nobody argued against or asked for a clarification of my objection. It's as if they don't care. My guess is that the authors regard my judgement as just a matter of bad luck; they'll keep resubmitting it till it's read by somebody who likes fancruft, is impressed by the (undeniable) industry involved, or hasn't read (or chooses to ignore) the rules of WIAGA. -- Hoary 09:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to help people to better understand this issue, there is now a new guideline/essay which is part of the Manual of Style. Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or just WP:WAF. It's a good essay that clarifies the guidelines about fiction writing, as well as giving a lot of good examples for how to write about fiction in a good way. I failed Kai (God) based on that guideline, but referred the author to it, so they can work on improving their style. I even edited the project page a bit to include a reference to the guideline in the 'writing about fiction' section, which is stuck down at the bottom where no one notices it... Maybe we should include a link to the guideline higher up on the WP:WIAGA page, so it will be easier to point to? Phidauex 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Concision bandwagon
The article currently says, "These criteria are very similar to the criteria for featured articles. However, they are written, and the good article review process is designed, primarily with short articles (15kb or less) in mind, for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles, and in which inline referencing is not as important."

My opinion (and I'm glad to see that several people have expressed similar opinions here) is that the prose in featured articles is less likely to be brilliant than that in shorter articles. Featured articles tend to have too many details (as Voltaire said, "Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire", the secret of being a bore is to tell everything), added by many hands and not necessarily well integrated. You can see this in the third paragraph of Microsoft (today's featured article), which was as far as I could get myself to read. It's much easier to select material for a short article judiciously, organize it well, and write it in concise and maybe graceful style. —JerryFriedman 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Then what do you suggest to go for as a project that now accepts long articles. And what do you also suggest for short articles ... that we ask the best prose and be like the FA project??? Lincher 18:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * What I'm suggesting for this article is to remove the phrase "for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles", which I think is based on a false assumption. I see no reason that "good articles" shouldn't mean they have good prose (though judging it is kind of subjective), but I wouldn't describe "the best prose" as "like the FA project" at all.  If I come up with an answer to your first question, this isn't where I'll give it.

 * By the way, I've probably been guilty of giving excessive details at times. It's hard to resist.  —JerryFriedman 00:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria Section 1 part D
I reverted the removal of this criteria pending this discussion taking place.

Currently (since 6th April 2006) this is the criteria:-
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
 * During a review and its dispute listing it has been raised that an active link to explain terms is not an acceptible and that technical terms need to be explained within the article.

 * My view is that the purpose of links within an article whether technical, historical, or about an individual is to explain words for those that dont know and expand for those that want to know more. The use of such links are invaluable to the expansion of wikipedia, there use within articles draws the reader to further articles. By not using the links articles become heavy in explainations and loose quality as the amount of meanings definations and explanations draw the article off subject. Gnangarra 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have several problems with the 'or an active link provided' bit. It was added to the criteria without discussion, and I certainly don't think it should have been. The example that's brought these problems to light is Banksia brownii.

 * 1) If lots of technical terms are used, and only links provided instead of brief explanations, the reader is forced to leave the article if they want to understand it.  That seems perverse.
 * 2) Links may not be helpful.  In Banksia brownii, links to perianth are not helpful because that article says the word has three separate meanings.  How is the reader supposed to know which one is intended?  Similarly, lenticel provides two choices for what might have been meant.
 * 3) Many of these technical terms can be replaced simply and easily by plain language, as originally required by the criterion in question.  I can't see any value in making an article unnecessarily obscure.

One person involved in Banksia Brownii has been incredibly agressive in his demands that the article be given GA status, although it uses technical terms in a way that I think is needlessly confusing, thus clearly failing to be well written. The 'or an active link provided', added as I say without any discussion, has caused this problem, so I removed it. Worldtraveller 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * My view on the Banksia brownii article is that the article is lacking in explaining terms that are necessary to understand basic concepts about the subject described. It thus fails the well-written criteria for not being understadable for non-expert users. For the addition of the wikilinks, if words aren't associated with basic concepts in the text then wikilinks can be added for additional information about certain terms or events or ideas related to the article. Lincher 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stay within the topic of discussion, this was created to purely to decide on the criteria with no intent to move or expand the withdrawn dispute beyond WP:GA/D. While the use of the article in the discussion maybe helpful to further explain arguements this not about whether the article passes or fails, nor should the actions of one editor be a consideratioon in this discussion. Gnangarra 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Back on topic, I like this criteria, it's a "this or this" statement, so you can either have an article which explains words, or if it has too many technical terms, just provide the links. This doesn't mean reviewers can't note whether or not vocabulary or jargon is well beyond the typical level, i'd hope people would point such deficiencies out whenever they spot them, but it does mean we don't end up asking for things which may not be reasonable for some articles. Homestarmy 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't like this criteria because if the wikilink leads to a disambig page or if the linked article is a start or even if the wikilink given is a redlink ... it doesn't give any insight in the word wikilinked. Readers will be put off when they will read an article that has too much jargon so it will need to be explained and parenthesis can be handy in this situation. (Sorry for jumping off topic ... wasn't intended) Lincher 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well nobody appears to be concerned about the criteria being change, I have removed the reference to a link. Gnangarra 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hold on, why was the active link part removed? I thought we were just discussing the criteria as a whole. If all terms have to be explained, then a great deal of articles which have even the slightest necessary complexity in vocabulary could never become GA's. Homestarmy 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry there appeared to be no interest in the continuation of the discussion, and that as the reason for the discussion was the prior removal of the section without discussion. Gnangarra 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. How does one rephrase "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth made up of four united tepals, and one long wiry style", without using jargon, and without replacing the phrase by an entire paragraph on flower morphology? I don't know. Snottygobble 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Why is there a presumption made that terms(jargon) needs to be explained only within scientific articles, many historical, religious, political, geographic, fancruft articles use technical style terms. WP style says articles exceeding 32k should be seperated, yet to keep the articles to sizes that make this possible definitions, daughter articles etc need to be created.   Good prose is about writing clear understandable text, disjointing text by digressing into definitions of technical terms is at odds with that. Take the example above, to rewrite this without using technical terms (plain language) this sentence grows to between 6 and 8 sentences, needing to be divided into 2 seperate paragraphs.
 * I think that commonsense needs to be exercised, taking B.brownii its one of 76 species of Banksia anyone requiring a general overview will use the genus article Banksia. If someone has an interest in specific species why cant it be assumed that they already have some basic botanical knowledge that while they may not be 110% conversant with terminology the use of terminology isnt going overwhelm them. The links on the terminology are actually more beneficial then condensed generalised definitions that would be given within an article space.
 * As with NPOV articles we could insist on a template that says this article uses technical terms, links provide definitions or this xxxxx article gives a more generalised view of the topic. An alternative is that we require scientific articles to have section after references  called Glossary where all technical terms can be explain in general with a link to relevant articles where more indepth explainations are given. Gnangarra 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit on lists...
...but what we really need is a solid decision from somewhere. The bit I've added will discourage lists from being nominated but it's still a bit ambiguous as to where we actually stand on the issue. -- Run! 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's good for now... we will re-open the subject when hordes of prosed lists that are well referenced and all are beginning to come in the process and ... we won't even know if they are lists anymore. Lincher 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken literally... (verifiability)
The current suggested attributes, point 2 (verifiability) require an assessor to have access to all the sources to check whether they actually support the facts that they are claimed to support. With most people having limited access to print and certain online media, this is not logistically possible, not to mention extremely time-consuming in the rare case of someone having all the requisite access. In the absence of such thorough checking, it is easy, for instance, to overlook original research that is indicated in the article as supported by a reference. Can we come up with criteria that can actually work in reality? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's always seemed to me that "Well-referenced" doens't have to mean "perfectly referenced", I mean, there can be some OR that slips in without making it no longer a good article. If an article only has book references or innaccessable material, I don't know if i'd be so quick to pass it :/. Homestarmy 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the point here, I thought I learned in school that book references were better than internet references in the first place. In terms of verifiability ... it is impossible to go through like 40 refs to make sure it is verifiable. Lincher 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should be assuming good faith to all articles and editors, the intent of verifiability is not to have every reference checked, but ensure that articles are referenced and that the sources are clearly identifiable within the article. Gnangarra 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Escalation
The requirements for GAs have become unreasonable recently. Historically, FA requirements have risen similarly, but now we have reached a stage where former (say 2003) FAs would not even qualify as a GA anymore. Stop turning the GA tag into another bureaucracy. GA means "good article", meaning an article is evolved and useful. Stroke order, imho, is easily a "good article". It may not quite be a FA, but that's the point for having an simple way of saying 'it's still good'. please, people. Much more of this, and I'll introduce "Fair Article", and of course, after a few months there will be swathes of instructions and review processes and templates to establish whether an article is "Fair". dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point that your are trying to make. Please point to examples as I see more articles meeting criteria than those that don't. Also, please note that the GA process is not intended to be a downstep for the FA for small articles in the sense that if the article has just this to present (like 15kB of prose) then it will be too short for FA but can still be improved. Altough long articles will be pushed hard toward FA and may never even need to receive the GA tag as they will be past that point after the GA review. Lincher 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in, that article did indeed fail the standards basically any way you look at it, it's a clear violation of WP:LEAD :/. That's not an amazingly hard criteria to follow, just put like half that introduction into another section or something. Homestarmy 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


text:
Maletino, Altai Krai

Maletino (Малетино) is a rural locality (a selo) in Stolbovsky Selsoviet, Kamensky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 68 as of 2013. There are 2 streets.

Geography
Maletino is located 41 km north of Kamen-na-Obi (the district's administrative centre) by road. Klyuchi is the nearest rural locality.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Maletino, Altai Krai


text:
User:Crouch, Swale/Tiree

Settlements (and similar) on the island of Tiree, Argyll and Bute, Scotland.

Exists
These currently exist on Wikipedia. All are on the standard A-Z unless stated otherwise.
 * Mannal
 * Scarinish, bold on the standard A-Z, on the Mini A-Z and OS at county level

OS settlements
These don't currently exist on Wikipedia. All are on the standard A-Z unless stated otherwise.
 * Balemartine, bold on the standard A-Z
 * Balephetrish
 * Balephuil
 * Balevullin
 * Balinoe, not on standard A-Z
 * Barrapol
 * Baugh
 * Caolas
 * Cornaigbeg, also one on Coll which isn't an OS settlement and not on standard A-Z
 * Cornaigmore, also one on Coll which isn't an OS settlement but on standard A-Z
 * Crossapol, also one on Coll which isn't an OS settlement and not on standard A-Z
 * Gott
 * Heanish
 * Heylipol
 * Hough
 * Hynish
 * Kenovay
 * Kilkenneth
 * Kilmoluaig
 * Kirkapol
 * Middleton
 * Moss
 * Ruaig
 * Salum
 * Sandaig
 * Sraid Ruadh
 * Vaul
 * West Hynish

Not OS settlements
These don't currently exist on Wikipedia. Although these aren't OS settlements they are on on the standard A-Z or the Gazetteer for Scotland lists them as settlements. All are on the standard A-Z unless stated otherwise.
 * Carnan
 * Clachan Mor, not on standard A-Z
 * Millton, not on standard A-Z
 * Miodar

Other places on the Gazetteer for Scotland
Those at https://www.scottish-places.info/parishes/pardetails480.html that are on the island but don't have articles on the Gazetteer for Scotland. None are on the standard A-Z.
 * A' Chrois
 * Brock
 * Cu' Dhèis
 * The Green
 * Greenhill House
 * Mealbhach
 * Miodar
 * Orisgal
 * Sorby (can't locate but there is Sorby Beach)

title: User:Crouch, Swale/Tiree


text:
User:Arttic00

i'm interested in learning languages, philosphy, and other stuff so far it's: arabic, spanish, japanese, esperanto, hungarian, and portugese.

title: User:Arttic00


text:
6ixense

6ixense (pronounced "sixth sense") is the debut studio album by South Korean boy band AB6IX. It was released through Brand New Music on October 7, 2019, along with lead single "Blind for Love" and its music video. The album debuted at number two on the Gaon Album Chart and 25 on the Oricon Albums Chart. It is the final release with member Youngmin, before he left the group on June 8, 2020.

Promotion
Throughout late September and early October, various concept photos for the album and music video teasers were released through the band's social media.

AB6IX had the album showcase on October 7 at Kyung Hee University in Seoul where they performed title track "Blind For Love" along with "Be There" and "Deep Inside".

The group started promoting their title track "Blind For Love" on October 10. They first performed the lead single on Mnet's M Countdown, followed by performances on KBS' Music Bank, MBC's Show! Music Core and SBS' Inkigayo.

Critical reception
Billboard's Jeff Benjamin called the single "Blind for Love" a second part to "Breathe" from B Complete, noting its "sleek house-inspired sound". He pointed out the variety of genres on the album, describing the songs "_And Me" and "Be There" as a "a blend of gentle pop and steely hip-hop", "Love Air" as featuring "tropical house vibes", "Pretty" as "staccato-piano pop", "Shadow" as having a "late-night EDM" sound and "Deep Inside" as containing "deep harmonies", while noting "D.R.E.A.M" is a "straightforward hip-hop cut" and closing track "Nothing Without You" a ballad.

Track listing
Credits adapted from Melon

title: 6ixense


text:
Robin Miles

Robin Miles is an American actor, casting director, audiobook narrator and audiobook director. Miles has acted in Broadway shows and on TV shows including Law & Order and Murder by Numbers. She is best known for her audiobook narrations and narration director work for which she has won numerous awards, including Audie Awards, AudioFile Golden Voice, and Earphone Awards. Miles is revered in her field and is credited as one of the audiobook narrators saving the publishing industry. In 2017, Miles was inducted into Audible's Narrator Hall of Fame. Miles also has a voice training school, VOXpertise, for aspiring narrators. She has narrated over 300 books. Miles specializes in recreating "accents and speech patterns from around the globe."

Biography
Robin Miles grew up in New Jersey and credits her immigrant neighborhood for immersing her in a rich world of accents, languages and cultures which she has been able to draw on for her narration work. Miles started in musical theater, but transitioned to drama. Miles graduated from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts in Theater Studies and she earned her Master of Fine Arts in Drama from Yale School of Drama. After graduating and moving to New York City, Miles was looking for community service volunteer opportunities. She started book narration by volunteering to read for the American Foundation for the Blind and the National Library Service. When she started narration work, Miles was surprised by how ethnically segregated the work was considering it is voice work:"It was like, 'You do the black books, and you're Jewish, you do the Jewish books.' I was totally shocked,' she says. 'But, it's kind of morphed. It really started out with such a small pool of people, that the people they had did everything whether or not they could handle the accent and culture. And then, when a little more diversity came in, it was like, well nobody can do anything outside of their yard. And now, I think we're also beginning to hopefully, break through that again."Miles has narrated a wide range of genres including children's books, non-fiction, fantasy, horror, historical fiction, biography and other genres including the Young Reader's Edition of Kamala Harris's The Truths We Hold.

Reviews
According to The New York Times, Miles "excels at technically perfect Standard American dialect but interjects just enough slightly sarcastic pauses and subtly acerbic inflections to emphasize the true meaning of the text."

According to AudioFile magazine, who reviewed The Vela, "The best way to tie together a space opera written alternately by four authors" is "choosing the capable Robin Miles to narrate" as "Miles creatively utilizes dialects to differentiate the denizens of several planets that revolve around a dying sun".

AudioFile also reviewed The Shadow King, writing, "Robin Miles gives a flawless emotional narration of this superb novel, set in Ethiopia in 1974 and in 1935, on the eve of Mussolini's invasion. Mengiste's beautiful writing already draws fully formed characters; Miles adds yet another dimension to their inner lives by slowing and quickening her voice strategically, adding suspense and fervor to their experiences, particularly those of the tormented protagonist." Also reviewing The Shadow King, The Times wrote, "The eloquence of Maaza Mengiste's tribute to the forgotten women warriors who defended Ethiopia from Mussolini's invasion in 1935 is unforgettably conveyed by the narrator Robin Miles, whose upbringing in the ethnic melting pot of New Jersey has enhanced her gift for entering into character."

Awards and honors
In 2014, Booklist named Miles a Voice of Choice narrator. AudioFile magazine has also named Miles a Golden Voice narrator. In 2017, she was inducted into Audible's Narrator Hall of Fame.

title: Robin Miles


text:
Talk:Dorothée

Untitled
The French wiki has substantial information on subject. There is also a separate article there on Club Dorothée. Will attempt to translate after finishing the translation of TFOU TV. Tamarkot (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is written with very poor standards. The grammar is off (using literally translated french constructions) and the repeated use of exclamation marks betrays the fact that this was written by a fan with little to no oversight. The information may be factual but completely lacks citations; some details seem very anecdotal. This article needs a serious review, a lot of additional research and a substantial rewrite

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dorothée. 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/20061123041535/http://infodisc.fr/CD_Certif.php to http://infodisc.fr/CD_Certif.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061123031750/http://infodisc.fr/S_Certif.php to http://infodisc.fr/S_Certif.php

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorothée. 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/20090628101945/http://www.allocine.fr/personne/fichepersonne_gen_cpersonne%3D3908%26nopub%3D1.html to http://www.allocine.fr/personne/fichepersonne_gen_cpersonne%3D3908%26nopub%3D1.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dorothée


text:
Wikijunior:Big Cats/Lion

Lions are a major symbol of wild Africa. They have been long respected in Africa for their strength and beauty. Lions are the only big cats that live in large groups. Also, they have the loudest roar of any cat, which can be heard for up to five miles!

Where do lions live?

Despite the nickname King of the jungle, lions do not live in the jungle. They live in a flat grassy plains called savannas; they usually have a certain place in the savannas where they like to stay. In ancient times, lions roamed nearly every continent. Today, they can commonly be found across central and southern Africa. There is also a small population in the Gir forest of India on the continent of Asia. Also, most people know lions as "The King of the Beasts" today.

What do lions look like?

Lions have tawny, or yellowish brown, fur. They grow to a length of about 10 feet (3 meters) and stand about 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall. Male lions are larger than the lionesses (females), weighing as much as five men or about 550 pounds (250 kilograms). The more slender lioness usually weighs about as much as 400 pounds (180 kilograms).

Adult males can be recognized by the furry mane that runs around the heads and down the neck. For some lions the mane even runs along the belly. There is no other big cat with such a dramatic difference in appearance between males and females.

Both lions and lionesses have tufts on the end of their tails, something no other cat has. If you could touch a male lion's tail, you would feel a sharp bone tucked into the tail tuft. One old legend claims that lions would use the tail spur to whip themselves into a frenzy before fighting.

What is a pride?
Lions are the most social cats, living in large groups called prides. Prides are made up of one to three related adult males, along with as many as thirty females and cubs. The females are usually closely related to each other, being a large family of sisters and daughters. Lion prides act much like packs of wolves or dogs, animals surprisingly similar to lions (but not other big cats) in behavior, and also very deadly to their prey.

The male lion is much stronger than the female. This makes him an able protector, especially when a group of females are hunting and the cubs are at risk of marauders, such as hyenas. Male lions use their muscles and fighting skills to guard the land and keep enemies away. Sometimes those enemies are other lions.

In prides, cubs are cared for not just by their mothers but by other adult females, as well. Often, one or two lionesses (female lions) will stay with the cubs while the other females hunt. If a cub becomes an orphan, it is common for it to be cared for by other females who are related to it, perhaps by a lioness who is an aunt or older sister.

According to a study on sciencedirect.com, "male lions were frequent and successful hunters. The main prey species of all male group types, but particularly nonterritorial males, was buffalo. By contrast, females preyed more frequently on the most abundant medium-sized ungulates, such as wildebeest." There are photographs of both male and female lions hunting at http://www.laocomics.com/blog/category/animals/.

When young male lions reach the age of one year, they are chased from the prides they are born into by the older male lions. If the lead male is elderly, the young male, either alone or with male siblings, will sometimes fight to take over the leadership of the pride. If the young males leave the pride, they become "rogue" males. They travel alone or may partner with other rogues, perhaps brothers. Having a partner makes it easier for a rogue lion to survive and eventually win a pride of his own. These rogue lions are often found scavenging food killed by smaller predators, such as hyenas or jackals, which can be chased away. Rogue lions hunt for themselves until they are able to take over a pride of their own!

What do lions eat, and how do they catch their prey?

Lions eat large prey, such as gazelles, antelopes, zebras, wildebeests, giraffes, and buffalo. They have been known to take down even elephants, but then only with all of the adults of the pride participating in the kill. Even elephants fear hungry lions. When food becomes scarce, lions will hunt smaller prey or sometimes eat the kills of other animals.

Most prey animals can run much faster than the average lion. Therefore, lions hunt in fairly well organized groups and stalk, or sneak up on, their prey. They may try to surround them first, then make a swift, sudden charge from the tall grass. The grass where lions live is not short and green but grows very tall and is a light brownish color most of the time. The lions' fur is the same color as this grass, making it difficult for other animals to see them. Coloring that helps to hide an animal or thing is called "camouflage".

Females do most of the hunting and work in groups although, if she has to, a single lioness is able to hunt on her own. Male lions are actually more capable hunters than females but they usually focus more on protecting the pride. Lions might spend hours stalking prey but the actual kill is made in just minutes. After a kill is made, the females let out low roars. This tells the pride to join them for a meal. Adult males eat first, followed by females, and then cubs.

To avoid the dangerous heat of the mid-day sun, lions usually hunt at night when the dim light helps to keep them hidden from their prey. Lions have very good night vision so the darkness does not pose a problem for them. Animals that are active at night like lions are called nocturnal creatures. Lions can eat 69kg of meat a day!

Fun facts

 * A male lion's roar can be heard up to 5 miles away.
 * The hunting grounds for a pride of lions can range from 8 to 150 square miles.
 * The largest lion on record was almost 11.8 feet long and weighed nearly 900 pounds.
 * Lions rarely eat an entire kill. Hyenas and vultures finish the rest.
 * A lion can run as fast as 50 mph for short distances and can leap a distance of more than 30 feet.
 * There are only a quarter the number of lions in Africa as there were just 40 years ago.
 * A lion's eyesight is five times better than a human's eyesight, and it can hear prey that is more than a mile away.
 * It may take up to 4 hours for a pride of lions to finish eating.
 * A male lion eats first, even though the females actually catch the prey.
 * After eating, a thirsty lion may drink for as long as 20 minutes.
 * Lions were once thought to be magical creatures and were worshiped as gods. Domestic cats replaced lions in that role, especially in Egypt, because they were much safer and easier to care for.
 * There can be up to 40 members in a pride with over half of them being cubs and young adults.
 * Females will often stay with the pride their entire life, while young males are driven out.
 * A lion eats 36 kg of meat a day.
 * When a male lion gets old, its mane may fall off.
 * The lion is the only social predator among the Big Cats.
 * Lions can't climb as well as leopards.
 * Lions can steal food from other predators such as cheetahs.

For more information

 * Wikipedia: Lion
 * http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-lion.html - hear the sound of a roaring lion.
 * http://www.tigertouch.org/barbary/index.html - learn about the rare Barbary lions of North Africa.

Next Topic: Tigers

ca:Viquijúnior:Grans felins/Lleó Wikijunior Großkatzen/ Löwe Wikichicos/Grandes felinos/León fr:Wikijunior:Les félins/Les lions Wikijunior Grandi felini/Leone zh:Wikijunior:大猫/狮

title: Wikijunior:Big Cats/Lion


text:
Lumen Technologies Building

The Lumen Technologies Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota was completed in 1932 and became the tallest building to be built in the city during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Named for its current owner, it was previously known as the CenturyLink Building, Qwest Building and the Northwestern Bell Telephone Building. Originally standing 346 feet (105 m) tall, the structure grew to 416 feet (127 m) with the addition of a microwave antenna "crown" in 1958, followed by the addition of a second tier of microwave antennas in 1972. The antennas, which were used for AT&T Long Lines, were removed in 2019. It was the second-tallest building in the city after the slightly older Foshay Tower for many years, and stands slightly taller than the tower of its neighbor, Minneapolis City Hall.

The building has many small details on the exterior, including electric bolts and a stylized bird above the main entrance. When under construction, an unusual move was made by stripping a 1920s Northwestern Bell building on the site and the steel frame was incorporated into the new structure. The building was expanded on its west side in the 1940s.

History
Telephone service in Minneapolis first began in 1878 with a switchboard located in the old city hall, located in the Gateway area, and serving 11 phones. Demand increased rapidly, and in 1885, the central office had 775 lines and was moved to the second floor of the city hall building. In 1890, the office outgrew its quarters in the city hall, with 1700 lines, so it moved to a building on Fourth Street between Nicollet and Marquette Avenues. Demand increased to 3000 subscribers in 1897, so a three-story building was built at Third Avenue South and Fifth Street. In 1908, two five-story wings were built. Additional central office buildings were established outside downtown Minneapolis. By 1920, there were 96,000 telephones in 14 central office buildings.

In 1920, a nine-story building was built at Third Avenue South and Fifth Street. That building was planned with the possibility that it would be merged into a larger structure. In 1929, with still more expansion, six floors were leased in an outside building. Finally, the current building was built, after a study of future needs. It was decided to add some space for the Minnesota administrative offices of the phone company, in a decision that was both economical and architecturally pleasing.

When built, the building had its business office on the first floor, with space for customers to transact business with the phone company, public telephone booths, and rooms for long-distance calls. The next 12 floors contained telephone equipment, such as long-distance switchboards, other special switchboards, and dial central office equipment for the MAin, ATlantic, and BRidgeport central offices. There were also breakroom facilities and a lunch room for telephone operators who were off duty. The 14th, 25th, and 26th floors were mechanical floors. Finally, a tower on the 15th through 24th floors housed administrative offices of the telephone company. There were also three basement floors with power and heating equipment, along with cable vaults. The building measured 346 ft above street level, 42 ft in the basements, and had 26 stories. Many of these stories were somewhat taller than those in office buildings due to the size of central office equipment. The building had 24000 sqft of floor space, and housed about 1,000 employees.

Minnesota construction materials were used in the building, with a granite exterior from Morton on the first floor and limestone from Kasota on subsequent stories. Cement from Duluth and steel from the Mesabi Range were used for interior construction. The building was designed by Minnesota architects, built by Minneapolis contractors, and supplied with other materials by Minnesota firms.

title: Lumen Technologies Building


text:
Talk:Lincolnshire Wolds Railway

Discrepancies
Diesel loco details do not agree with railway's website. Biscuittin 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Volunteering" section
I have removed the "volunteering" section. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing web site. This site is for providing information about the railway, not for trying to get people to help run it. If you want to do the latter, create a website and use that. There are plenty of other heritage railways, canal trusts and so on on Wikipedia, and none of these use the site for such purposes. As it was, the section was far too technical and used far too many terms that would be meaningless to the average person and was sadly lacking in attention to spelling, grammar and punctuation ("loco's" - why the apostrophe?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincolnshire Wolds Railway. 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/20100126045141/http://www.lincolnshirewoldsrailway.co.uk/locomotives.html to http://www.lincolnshirewoldsrailway.co.uk/locomotives.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lincolnshire Wolds Railway


text:
Talk:Emergency medical responder (EMR)/Patient history

There has to be a mnemonic for OPQRRST - probably rude but it should go in anyway --Vannin 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Don Ivan Punchatz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Don Ivan Punchatz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gamespy.com/articles/533/533968p10.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Don Ivan Punchatz. 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/20091031220006/http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/full_content.php?article_id=1070&full=yes to http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/full_content.php?article_id=1070&full=yes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320205732/http://rome.ro/images/doom/Doom.png to http://rome.ro/images/doom/Doom.png
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091031220006/http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/full_content.php?article_id=1070&full=yes to http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/full_content.php?article_id=1070&full=yes

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Don Ivan Punchatz


text:
Talk:Focus 3

Fair use rationale for Image:Focus3.jpg
Image:Focus3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the information on the Focus 3 album. May I correct one point? You state: "Carnival Fugue" borrows from Johann Sebastian Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier. In fact this Fugue subject does not appear in any of the 48 Fugues in The Well-Tempered Clavier. If it is by Bach, I am unaware of the source. Best wishes, Ogibbons (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Focus 3


text:
Koca Marković

Nikola "Koca" Marković (Коца Марковић; 1762 – 1832) was a Serbian trader, representative of Prince Miloš Obrenović, and politician. He was Prince Miloš's most influential advisor during the most critical time of the Second Serbian Uprising in 1815.

title: Koca Marković


text:
Talk:Charles Norman (British Army officer)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles Norman. 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/20110911063604/http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/aqadmin/media/uploads/4b0979a5d683f_Aldershot%20Command%20History%20&%20Personnel.pdf to http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/aqadmin/media/uploads/4b0979a5d683f_Aldershot%20Command%20History%20&%20Personnel.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


text:
Buranovka, Romanovsky District, Altai Krai

Buranovka (Бурановка) is a rural locality (a settlement) in Mormyshansky Selsoviet, Romanovsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 241 as of 2013. There are 3 streets.

Geography
Buranovka is located 33 km southwest of Romanovo (the district's administrative centre) by road. Ilyinsky is the nearest rural locality.


text:
User:WikiversityJack

Hey! I'm Jack! Please leave me a message on my talk page and I might respond...

I was born in Florida in a green house of all places! I enjoy surfing, long walks on the beach, and of course STUDYING, learning, and WIKIVERSITY.

I know a lot about actuarial science, biochemistry, and a little bit about gardening and classical studies. I am also excited to be part of the mascot contest.

I've posted some pictures here about myself and my life, I hope you like them.

Dear Jack,

Thanks for your welcome message. Surely I will bank on you if I need any assistance. First come first, I am just taking a quick tour of Wikiversity.

Dineshjk 13:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Dineshjk"

title: User:WikiversityJack


text:
Talk:Ben Francis

Material challenged on BLP grounds
This material has been repeatedly removed on BLP grounds. It is under discussion at WP:BLPN at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. It stays out until (and if) there is consensus to include it. I have restored the status quo by removing it again. Meters (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC).
 * IP blocked for edit warring Meters (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing
This article was extensively edited by who I have discovered unequivocally operates a reputation management company. SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-promotion
This article reads as self-promotion and is repetitive. It doesn't read well and requires clean-up. HelloHanSolo (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ben Francis


text:
Karl A. Brabenec

Karl A. Brabenec (born July 12, 1979) is the New York State Assemblyman from the 98th District. A Republican, he has served in the Assembly since 2014, when he won a special election. The 98th District contains portions of Orange and Rockland Counties in the Hudson Valley. In January 2023, Brabenec ascended to the role of Assembly Minority Whip after previously serving as the Deputy Minority Whip since 2019.

Personal life, education and career
Brabenec was born in Manhasset, New York and lived in Bayside, Queens before moving with his family to Slate Hill, New York when he was 8 years old. He went to Minisink Valley High School, and graduated from Mount Saint Mary College in 2000. In 2005, he received his Masters of Public Administration from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. His father, Rainer K. Brabenec, was a police officer with the New York City Police Department; Brabenec's mother, Emilie (Popule) Brabenec, was a police dispatcher, also with the NYPD. Both of Brabenec's parents are Czechoslovak refugees from the former Sudetenland who fled from Soviet communist oppression in the late 1940s.

At age 18, while attending Mount Saint Mary College, Brabenec was appointed as events coordinator for the City of Newburgh, New York. He was later appointed as executive director of the Downing Park Planning Committee.

Brabenec served as a staff assistant to Orange County Executive Edward A. Diana in the early 2000s.

In early 2007, Brabenec was appointed by the Deerpark Town Board to serve as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Later that year in November, he was elected to serve as a Deerpark Town councilman.

In 2009, with the town facing fiscal difficulties brought on by previous administrations, Brabenec announced he would run for town supervisor and recruited a team of individuals with legal and business expertise to run for town board positions. All of those candidates, including Brabenec, were elected that November.

From 2010 to 2014, Brabenec served as town supervisor for the Town of Deerpark. He became an assistant professor at SUNY Orange in 2010.

Brabenec resides in Deerpark, New York, and has two children (Karl and Kimberlee) with his ex-wife, Jessica Ebbecke, to whom he was married from 2005 to 2009.

New York State Assembly
Brabenec was chosen in a special election held November 2014 to fill the remaining term of Assemblywoman Annie Rabbitt, who had resigned to become Orange County Clerk. Brabenec was concurrently elected to serve a full two-year term starting January 2015. He won re-election to a second term in 2016 with 59% of the vote, to a third term in 2018 with 63% of the vote, ran unopposed for a fourth term in 2020, and to a fifth term in 2022 with 64% of the vote.

Brabenec currently serves as the ranking minority member of the Labor Committee, and is a member of the committees on Ways and Means, Rules and Election Law.

On January 1, 2019, Brabenec was appointed assistant minority whip, a leadership position within the Assembly Republican Minority Conference, by then-Minority Leader Brian Kolb.

On January 1, 2021, Brabenec was appointed deputy minority whip, a leadership position within the Assembly Republican Minority Conference, by Minority Leader Will Barclay.

On January 1, 2023, Brabenec was appointed minority whip, a leadership position within the Assembly Republican Minority Conference, by Minority Leader Will Barclay.

Consideration to run for NY State Senate
On April 27, 2018, Brabenec confirmed he was considering running to replace retiring New York State Senator John Bonacic in the November 2018 election. The race was expected to be one of the most competitive in New York State and could easily determine whether Republicans maintained their slim majority in the New York State Senate. After careful consideration, Brabenec opted to continue his campaign for re-election to the 98th Assembly District for a third term and he won the general election on November 6, 2018.

Community organizations
Brabenec's community involvement includes being a former member of the board of directors for the Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc., an associate member of the Orange County Shields, member of the Greenwood Lake Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge #2067, Association of the United States Army, Town of Deerpark Lions Club, National Rifle Association of America, the Sons of the American Legion - Monroe Post #488, and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. He is also an honorary major with the United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol.

Political involvement
Brabenec has been involved in the Republican Party since the age of 14.

He served as president of the Orange County (NY) Young Republicans from 1997 to 2003 and then again in 2005.

Additionally, he served as 1st vice chairman of the New York State Young Republicans and Northeast Regional (Region 1) vice chairman of the Young Republican National Federation (YRNF) from 1999 to 2001.

Brabenec served as vice chairman for the Town of Wawayanda and Town of Wallkill Republican Committees in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Brabenec is currently chairman of the Town of Deerpark Republican Committee and 1st vice chairman of the Orange County (NY) Republican Committee.

Awards

 * 2010 Rising Star, Orange County Chamber of Commerce
 * 2015 Rising Star, New York State Republican Committee

title: Karl A. Brabenec


text:
User:Certwell/sandbox

Link Sound and Vision
This was a company set up as a subsidiary of Pye Ltd to provide a cabled television service in Gloucester in 1951. This business was also the first commercial usage of a Microwave Link. For business reasons, the business was sold to British Relay Wireless in 1952 although it continued to trade under the original name for some years. The broadcast signals were received via a mast located on the top of the nearby Chosen Hill. The audio component was sent by a cable to the control room in central Gloucester while the video component was transmitted using the Microwave Link to the control room. Although the system has been superceded, the mast was retained and later was put to other uses including mobilr phone nodes.

title: User:Certwell/sandbox


text:
Bhai Kanhaiya

Bhai Kanhaiya (1648–1718; also spelt as Bhai Ghanaiya ), known as Khat Waro Bao and Khaatwala Baba in Sindh,   born to Mata Sundari ji and father Sri Nathu Ram's home village Saudra district Sialkot now in Pakistan, was a Sikh of Guru Tegh Bahadur and was requested to establish the Sewapanthi or Addanshahi order of the Sikhs by Guru Gobind Singh. He was known for pouring water for all the wounded members of the battlefield no matter whether they were Sikhs or fighting against the Sikhs.

During his youth he also spent a lot of time in the company of Nanua Bairagi, who belonged to a Saini agriculture family and was also a disciple and comrade of last three Sikh gurus. Nanua Bairagi was a renowned poet-mystic of Punjab and he left a deep imprint on Bhai Kanhaiya's spiritual and humanitarian outlook in his formative years.

Biography
Bhai Kanhaiya was born in 1648 in the Dhamman Khatri community of Sodhara, to Mata Sundari ji and father Sri Nathu Ram's near Wazirabad in the Sialkot region (now in Pakistan), and his father was a wealthy broker. He was known to have a habit of giving to the poor from a very young age.

In his youth, Kanhaiya met a man named Nauna Bairagi, who was a Sikh of the 9th Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur. Their connection allowed Kanhaiya to meet the Guru, and he converted to Sikhism. Kanhaiya stayed and continued to serve the Sangat (community). Kanhaiya was assigned as Guru's water bearer and later in Langar (community kitchen). He also looked after Guru Sahib's steeds. After the death of the 9th Guru, the 10th Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, had ascended and Kanhaiya began to follow him. Kanhaiya was visiting Anandpur in May 1704 when the city was attacked by a combination of Rajput troops and their Mughal partners. Bhai Kanhaiya was frequently seen carrying a goatskin water pocket and serving water to anyone who was thirsty. He performed this sewa (magnanimous administration) with adoration. This irritated the Sikh warriors on the battlefield, who complained to the Guru. The Guru then asked Kanhaiya, "These Sikhs are saying that you go and feed water to the enemy and they recover". Kanhaiya replied, saying, "Yes, my Guru, what they say is true, however, there were no Mughals or Sikhs on the battlefield. All I saw were people."

The answer satisfied the Guru. He provided with Bhai Kanhaiya with medical aid, and later on his mission came to be known as the Sewa Panthi Sampradaye.

In Sindh
He was sent by the Guru to Sindh in-order to propagate the Sikh religion amongst the locals of the region. He is locally known as Khat Waro Bao or Khaatwala Baba in Sindh as he would preach whilst seated on a bed. The Khat Wari Darbar in Shikarpur is a Sindhi temple dedicated to him. After his passing, he was succeeded as head of the Sewapanthi sect by Bhai Sewa Ram. His successor would continue preaching and proselytizing Sikhism in Sindh. SGPC under president Prof Kirpal Singh Badungar first time celebrated the birth anniversary of Bhai Kanhaiya ji on September 20, 2017. In this context, the Punjab government under chief minister Capt. Amrinder Singh too celebrated his birthday on September 20, 2017 as the Manav Sewa Diwas.

title: Bhai Kanhaiya