text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia

The result was delete. Whilst the !vote tally (which seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing) is more or less even, the strength of arguments is in favour of deletion. Many of the keep !votes are bare assertions of notability or veracity, and on the whole fail to refute the central argument for deletion: that there are insufficient reliable sources to write an article on this topic from a neutral point of view. Several participants mentioned that there may be material suitable for merging into other articles. If anyone wants to do that, I can temporarily restore the deleted version as a draft. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CFORK in a long series of such articles that have been created (see recent AfDs:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs). It is largely based on one source (Talk:Destruction_of_books_in_post-independence_Croatia which is a heavy WP:POV/WP:FRINGE of an advocate of one of the state factions in the Yugoslav Wars. Thus, the article has a large WP:NOTABILITY problem because its legitimacy as a subject, can't be established in independent sources. The article tries to solve the notability problem - the fact that it can't be established that there was an organized mass destruction of books in Croatia by the introduction of sentences such as In 2012 Viktor Ivančić published a text dedicated to destruction of books in Croatia during 1990's, underlining that in 2012 it was basically impossible to buy books published in Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina in Croatian bookstores, which he perceived as an extension of bibliocide. Setting aside the absurdity of the claim that in Croatia you can't buy books published in Serbia, this creates an even larger problem as it establishes the article as extreme WP:FRINGE content. The original title of the article was Bookocide in Croatia. After it was moved to at least solve the WP:POVNAMING issues, it was heavily tagged. Then, back in May, I said in the talkpage that if none of the issues were addressed, it would get to AfD. The article has remained in an "abandoned", heavily tagged status (one of the many that stay in this state for many years). I think that it's time to delete it. Maleschreiber (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete Clearly WP:FORK, not notable and fringe. N.Hoxha (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete I said opinion about this article earlier on talk page. The article is mostly based on a single source. There were and regular removal of the books in the Croatia. There was and war destruction of the books(bombing, vandalism, etc) on all sides. Based on the above I think that this article should be deleted. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Opose - We have already had similar discussions. Numerous RS are cited in the article. We should not relativize crimes and discriminatory policies with stories about “all sides”. Moreover, it is well-documented that destruction started in 1990, shortly before the Yugoslav Wars. If someone doesn't think that the article is of good quality, they can rearrange it in accordance with the policies and sources, but it's not a solution to delete something that is well documented. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Those events took place regardless of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and personal attempts at relativization ("they all did it", "it was regularly done"), which are appalling. The key sources are reliable and calling this article and events fringe is simply ignorant in my book.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "they all did it", if you comment on me this refers to the destruction in the Croatian War of Independence. "The devastating fact is that despite all international laws and regulations, up to ground were destroyed as many as forty-two libraries, page 15. As for "it was regularly done" claim, each country has its own regulations about removal of books(old, worn out, unusable, uninteresting, etc), including Croatia. Mikola22 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of things have happened, and it happens all the time, every day, including a whole host of events and phenomena, but, whether we like it or not, they are not necessarily included in Wikipedia, and there are a whole host of reasons why, too.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose Per all above. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, but use sourceable chunks or merge them with suitable existing article. Argument: Although it is not a mystery and there is not the slightest doubt that populist daily politics and nationalist intrigues spawned the idea to remove as many books written in what was considered not-really-Croatian, and printed in both Cyrillic and Latin, as possible, it never, at any point nor in any shape or form, induced a uniform and consistent action, nor introduction of state-level policies, all the while no one claimed to know what happened with these books, after being removed from a number of public libraries and other public spaces, including abandoned privately owned ones - were they “destroyed,” burned, thrown away, stored, sold, donated, whatever. Except that one book, which is the only real attempt to study it, and the sole source for this article, the removal was almost exclusively talked about in the context of nationalistic intrigues and political games, including international, the Croatian-Serbian, quarrels. But, what's most disturbing about this article, and especially its title, is that it evokes a feeling and is reminiscent of similar Nazi policies. However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. While being inaccurate, the title itself is deceptively suggestive.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Santasa99. Hope you're well. These are some very good points and there is an ad Hitlerum implication in the article, which further confirms that wikipedia shouldn't be used as a WP:SOAPBOX about political advocacy. Side comment: it's basically the same group of people who unsuccessfully try to !keep these articles every time, so the closing admin should take that into account when the discussion is closed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea to bash and label editors who do not agree with your particular viewpoint? Try to behave yourself like a civil person.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  22:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. - This is simply not true. Numerous RS are cited in the article, that campaign is well-documented. For example, many historians and intellectuals, who are otherwise known for criticizing Serbian elites, have spoken publicly about these events in Croatia. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said it didn't happen? And since your conclusion (t)his is simply not true came in the context of the rest of this long quote from my post and your subsequent elaboration of the sources, and all that regardless of everything I said in the first sentence of my comment, I have to ask what exactly is not true in my argument?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was systematic compulsory removal and destruction of books and cultural property. Not only that but destruction of anti-fascist heritage, memorials to one of the most brutal and deadliest genocides, monuments to Serbs, even Nikola Tesla, etc. All this is well documented. Even Croatian media and Croatian historians have discussed this, for example one of the most prominent Hrvoje Klasić. None of this is unknown, nor is fringe..--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the generally positive review of Lešaja's book by Robert Hayden in Slavic Review says the book notes that whilst there was pressure on librarians to "cleanse" their libraries of "unsuitable" books, the pressure was "informal". Your characterisation of it as "compulsory" is clearly wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose We have a notable topic here and the sources used are okay. It would be better to have some in English, but regardless, it took place and RS are clear about this. Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Maleschreiber gave a good summary regarding the reasons. The article is largely based on a single, non-English source, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The article has a very exceptional claim, that the discarding of old, obsolete books (that were written in a scrypt or a standardized variety of a language that are no longer official, or with a strong ideological bias) in a time frame of over 20 years is a "bookocide", "libricide", or a "mass destruction". Yet, it doesn't have high-quality sources to back the claim. Outdated books are often replaced by libraries. I somehow doubt that school libraries in Slovenia have their shelves filled with books in Serbo-Croatian/Cyrillic from the 1970s, or the likes of "Edvard Kardelj's collected works". Tezwoo (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is a worthless WP:POVFORK, no content worth saving. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Trying to look at this objectively, no matter the personal view of the creator or other editors, it would appear that this did happen, and it was notable enough that there is RS supporting it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose More than 30 references and sources, no reason for delete. --MareBG (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose The subject crosses the basic notability threshold; there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been noted in the previous AfDs, many editors from Serbian wikipedia who aren't reguarly involved in editing in English wikipedia joined the discussion. The same phenomenon has occurred in every AfD and the community has been able to assess it for what it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the weight of the arguments that count, not how many !keep or !delete have been collected. Now, a side comment for the sources: There aren't 30 sources which support the article, there are some reviews of the book which is the main source that put forward this theory and there are several articles from dubious websites and blogs from authors who want to show how unwelcome "Serbian books" are in Croatia. The article is a collection of all these different concepts and ideas. The subject doesn't exist outside of that one book - it is the wikipedia article via its narrative which tries to create the scope of the subject: namely, that some incidents during the Yugoslav Wars (which every editor here surely condemns regardless of opinions about this article), an allegedly low availability of books from Serbia in Croatian bookstores and a low amount of books in Cyrillic in Croatian libraries - all together can be summed up as "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". This scope, however, is not established in independent, reliable bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tabloids that talk about that one, non-English, source are the basis of the article and its dubious theory. And for the record, there are also sources, of at least the same quality, that dispute the claim from that single source. Just to name a few:  . Not to mention that authors such as Ramet, Tanner, Hoare, that extensively wrote about the Yugoslav Wars, say nothing about this "bookocide". Tezwoo (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Merge Some of the contents can be merged. I don't think the subject is notable enough to deserve separate article. For example, VRS destroyed Vijećnica and Oriental Institute, and burned a lot of the books, but I'm not sure I could find quality sources to name an article "Bibliocide in Bosnian War". Rather, I could move all the information into Vijećnica and Oriental Institute articles. To fellow Opposing colleagues: IF there was systematic effort to destroy books in Croatia, clearly, there should be some extraordinary sources for such claims. Mhare (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These events have nothing to do with each other. No source brings them into a temporal or causal relationship. This is not just destruction in war, but systematic on several levels over several years.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That sort of systematic destruction on several levels over several years which is the subject of the article is not confirmed in bibliography. It is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim without RS sources which confirm it. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not exceptional claim or fringe, it is confirmed in bibliography and it was covered even by Croatian media and Croatian historians. All editors know that this happened, we should not hide or relativize.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was using it as analogy what went into my thought process if I would reasonably tried to decide the subject I'm writing about deserves separate article. The key things is: reason. There is lack of it, and some editors here are too deep in some of nationalistic shit to be ever reasonable ;-) Mhare (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, I know post-independence Croatia is into some pretty nasty far-right shit, with CW Wikipedia on top of it. I'm aware of it, I'm just trying to present you reasonable person-to-person arguments, and not just repeating same old. Stuff that happened can be surely moved into right article. It's like with Demonization of Serbs, article that has no place on Wikipedia as I explained with an analogy there is no Demonization of Japanese and Germans, there should be no Demonization of Serbs, but yet, y'all automatically voted for it! As all the Croatian editors voted for Tesla's nationality. Ridiculous and tiring! Mhare (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep or Merge reliably sourced content to Independence of Croatia or similar article, as this appears to be a subtopic. With no personal experience in this area, I'm basing my opinion on the arguments above and a perusal of some of the sources. It would be much easier to assess if sources could be found for the alleged contemporary criticism when the action was occurring. That said, while many sources stem from the publication of a single book, they all felt this topic warranted coverage and they do no appear to express that this event didn't happen. Even editors voting for deletion acknowledge that this was an occurrence, so I'm unsure how this is WP:FRINGE or how we serve the encyclopedia by removing information that (presumably) reliable sources covered. There may be a current lack of details as to what caused the action or what the actual result was (were the books destroyed or just relocated?), so a title change may be warranted and the content should be copyedited for tone and validity. —Ost (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ost, you are on the right track, and indeed some controversial (I would say even shameful in some instances) occurrence did happened, so some information deserve to be preserved, however not as a standalone article, and certainly not with this title and narrative-tone. If you look back by checking article history, the whole thing started as a "bookocide", with a title "Bookocide in post-independence Croatia", which was complete nonsense so we managed to wrestle it into this halfway neutral but still quite a bit heavy-handed on implications.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove all the dubious and unrelated elements from the article and kept only specific incidents - very little would remain. So little in fact that it would fail WP:NOTABILITY on its own and it would have to be added as a few sentences to another article. The subject of the article is a narrative put forward by the article itself and one book, but it's not a shared narrative in bibliography - even in the article's sources. The reality is that this article cannot be salvaged or be made into something else - that would have happened by now. Instead it has remained in this heavily tagged status and will remain so if kept, because the only actual option that exists here is to WP:TNT delete it and any editor who wants to can write about specific incidents in specific articles without the burden of having to encompass it to a grand narrative of a systematic, organized, all-Croatian persecution of everything Cyrillic since 1991. This extremely particular political-ideological-social narrative which the article puts forward doesn't find validation in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep Topic is notable. The state of the article notwithstanding, that is not a reason for deletion. Many articles are in very poor state, but that is not a reason for deletion. The only criterion is whether the topic is notable. Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Weakly-sourced content fork, per others. Zaathras (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I gave the topic a google search and there appears to be coverage of this topic even in English language sources.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice I was initially in two minds about this, hence my late comment. On one hand, there is one reliably published book about this topic (however the current article title is not neutral and the article should be at Disposal of books in post-independence Croatia because the books weren't "destroyed", they were disposed of), the book was positively reviewed by Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh in the academic journal Slavic Review in January 2013, and the publication of the book itself is the subject of several news reports, mainly in the yellow pressa and commentary by non-experts. I note, with considerable concern, that a 2018 review of recent history of Croatian libraries in the international journal of librarians IFLA Journal makes no mention whatsoever of this "phenomena" of book destruction. On the other hand, this article is a complete POV mess that has been tagged for months, and the creator, Antidiskriminator, has done nothing to fix it. Antidiskriminator has created several highly POV anti-Croat/pro-Serb articles since their long-term TBAN on Serbia and Serbs in the 20th century was lifted, and IMHO their continuing poor wikibehaviour and POV-pushing agenda shouldn't be rewarded. So, as far as I am concerned, while the subject exists in sources, it is only one book and reporting on that one book, mainly in the yellow press, and so I am concerned that WP:ONESOURCE may apply here (a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as Maleschreiber has already stated. But more importantly, even if there should be an article on the subject, the extensive highly POV agenda of this one isn't it, and this is a classic example of where WP:TNT should be applied. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Anti-Serb sentiment#Croatia. I had seen the nomination but only now decided to step in. The topic deserves coverage on Wikipedia, but the article as is now is written very badly. Hence it should be deleted, and then maybe rewritten to be in line with policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:Title, and to cover the entire destruction of books in the territories that were part of Yugoslavia -- not only cases when the books were written by Serbs or people perceived as "pro-Serb". Similar cases were Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito and Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, written by the very same editor, and redirected so later they can be written from scratch in line with Wiki rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately in every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. I see someone has already put a related template at the head of the discussion, due to their own concerns. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I also have concerns about canvassing/vote stacking from sr WP. There are several editors who have voted here who virtually never edit former Yugoslav articles on en WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Clearly notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've rewritten the article to include those reliable sources since no one else seemed remotely willing to do so. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree there has been a lot canvassing from sr WP towards this AfD with many factually false arguments too from several editors who voted !(strong) keep.  what exactly have you rewritten? It's the same article  with the same sources  - with slightly better styling and grammar, but with an even heavier POV than before as now it openly claims that a "libricide" happened in Croatia. The extreme POV and FRINGE still amazes every time I read it  There are enough good arguments in this AfD to delete a very bad piece of propaganda that wants us to believe that in Croatia today you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic and as of the latest rewrite that a libricide took place in 1990-2010. The latest round of editing by AB really shows that the only solution for this article is to delete it. The alternative is for it to be a hub for even heavier POVs. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything. If you disagree with the term libricide then take it up with the likes of Dora Komnenović and Robert Hayden. And deriding other volunteers as "propaganda" peddlers isn't bound to get a discussion to go your way. Learn some manners. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is a piece of political advocacy - one of the reasons that caused it to be heavily tagged. I didn't mention any particular editor, so don't make comments that can be construed as WP:ASPERSIONs. Now, I really want an answer . You based your !strong keep on the fact that you included . But as everyone can see the sources are the same (Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia)-old version. The changes are mostly in styling and use of English and the fact that now the article openly has a section named "libricide" - a very heavy POV claim. I won't take it to Robert Hayden, because he's the reviewer of the book, not its writer. Peacemaker67 can you check it too? I think that it highlights a large problem when any editor claims that they added sources as a reason for !keep when they haven't done so. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking it isn't good rhetorical form to vehemently claim that you know more about a text than the person who wrote it. For the record, the only references that were retained from AD's version are Komnenović and the Ugrešić interview. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that I had a cache problem and the page didn't load properly. Now, I can see your edits - so an apology is in order about that particular issue. But I don't see how your edits confirm that a "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" existed/exists that country. The heavy POV issues from AD's version remain with all the claims that you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic in Croatia and the new claim about libricide. You've also introduced contradictions by trying to redefine the article as one that encompasses all cases where literature has been targetted in Croatia by any group. In the lead you write that and then in the article you write that  That can be written in LGBT rights in Croatia too, but the main problem is that the scope of the article has become an all-encompassing narrative about every claim that exists about the targetting of literature in Croatia. So, I will definitely apologize to you for not recognizing at first that you did indeed add new sources - but those sources are used in a way that creates the subject of the article as an editorial narrative, but the sources themself don't mention the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, is something that may or may not have happened, but what does it have to do with "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" or "Libricide"? It brings me back to my original argument that much of the article isn't about the subject itself, which can't be confirmed in bibliography ("Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia") even in the latest round of editing which reintroduced the libricide claim. If Tuđman had an ideological problem with Andrić and blacklisted him, you can probably add that somewhere, but why is it part of a  "libricide"?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perica clearly states that Andrić's works, alongside those of multiple others, were slated for "cleansing". The decision to rename this article to Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia (instead of Bookocide/Libricide in Croatia) makes my recent additions even less contentious. Since the scope is now wider, it doesn't preclude me from citing sources where the words "bookocide" and "libricide" aren't explicitly used, and includes all destruction of books, as opposed to solely the JNA shelling of libraries or solely the Croatian government's policy of getting rid of ethnically, linguistically and politically undesirable works (which multiple reliable sources refer to as libricide). As for the 2010/2018 contradiction, that's a phrasing issue than can be easily fixed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. We cannot say with certainty that all newspaper articles are accurate, and we do not know who writes these articles. In this case Jutarnji List at that time is opposition newspapers. If we consider a newspaper to be a historical record then it is foundation for some book but most sources either have Lešaja book as a source or use information's ie sources from his book. It’s as someone writing a book about war crimes using mostly newspaper articles as evidence, I don't know if such a book could be used as a source on Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Ehhmm, no. Perica's book was published in 2002. Lešaja's book was published in 2012. The fact that two different scholars may have used the same primary source in their writings (I'm not even going to both to check, I'll take your word for it) is irrelevant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

,, the discontent regarding language and literature issues in Croatia, and polemics that took place within the disgruntled (mostly liberal) portion of society, which I will never shy away admitting to be a part of, nor that I (among other things) disagree with a language political games and intrigues, and, to stay on tracks, that I do not like the possibility that publishers and sellers in Croatia do not want to deal with Cyrillic literature, or that readers/customers do not want to read/buy it for whatever reason, still does not justify the title and narrative of this article. The statements cited here as a sources are not always relevant because they are misconstrued and/or taken out of context, not in the narrow immediate sense of the citation/statements meaning itself but in the broader context of purpose and message as well as the moment and the atmosphere in society at large. None of this justifies a standalone article, let alone with a title like we have now. I tend to agree more often than not with a likes of Pavlaković, Ugrešić and other like-minded people, and I accept many arguments in their polemics on this situation as well, but I can still spot attempts to use it to exaggerate or completely distort reality.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as it stands now the article would be accurate as List of controversies and incidents related to books in Croatia - with the libricide claim as a large subsection and without a substantial number of actual events. An article with that title for many reasons would get deleted. Some parts are also misleading because may or may not be actually true but the causes are many and are more related to the collapse of public libraries in the post-socialist Balkans. A comparable number of discarded Encyclopedias of Yugoslavia probably exists in Serbia and elsewhere. The narrative, however, which tries to bind all these issues together doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the subject of this article doesn't exist bibliography. The issue is not whether Perica (2002) is RS or not, but whether he puts forward the events which are listed in the article in the same scope as the article. Well, he doesn't - he examines the public discourse in the early 1990s in Croatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably happened in every country in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed, purges of library shelves of various literature was common practice.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of this article took those events from Croatia (which happened in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed) and made an original article about burning of books in Croatia. Therefore the intent was clearly not good, and now we have what we have. Mikola22 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent edits to the article is basically an addition of more content from a source that was already there ("Komnenović 2018" was previously named "Bevernage & Wouters 2018"), some unrelated content from Perica 2002, a 2018 incident on a carnival that is also off topic, and content from a review of Lešaja's book.
 * As for the background, Knuth's 30-page section titled "Greater Serbia" was somehow summarized with a detailed description of one instance of vandalization of a Serb library by Croatian irregulars in 1992, and a short, general mention of JNA's shelling of libraries. Again a problem of undue weight, considering that the shelling of Croatian libraries/destruction of books by the JNA and Serb paramilitaries are covered in countless more sources than the subject we are discussing here. The current version of the article has the same problems.
 * And yes, throughout eastern Europe, post-communist countries largely discarded/removed/replaced books from the communist (1945-1989/1990) era. Here's a short overview of some of the reasons for that: Tezwoo (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not deny cultural genocide and discriminatory policies, despite being well documented by RS. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation. Such ideologies should be uncompromisingly described as they are and, in essence, to be condemn. It is often difficult to do that on Wikipedia, especially on Balkan topics. Still, I hope that rules and policies will prevail in the end. Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. - Such arguments are repeated over and over again. (WP:BLUDGEON?) If Perica and countless other authors have used this source, it means that it is reliable and significant. The bias of the Western media during the Yugoslav wars was well studied, often based on a single source and creating something that scholars defined as the “illusion of multiple sources”. In that case, we should edit 90% of the articles related to the Yugoslav wars. Hrvoje Klasić often talked about this topic. The Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is far from pro-Serbian, also discussed. All this suggests that the topic is more than relevant. No one explained it in another context. Mentioning other post-communist countries and the crimes of Serbs is relativization and trivialization. When the sources put them in that context, then it can be explained in the article. Authors are often discriminated against on the basis of origin. Here, Vjekoslav Perica is a Croatian historian and is relevant. The author of the article has significantly improved the quality. It is difficult now for anyone impartial to dispute that. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Vjekoslav Perica doesn't examine anything close to the narrative he's being used as a back up to. Cultural genocide - a very serious allegation is being put forward so casually (- in the form of libricide - in this CFORK that loses all meaning as a term. The narrative of the article doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the article is a WP:SOAPBOX patchwork of unrelated events, narratives, ideas - all into a grand narrative that has no analytical meaning, the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". The discardment of books from the yugoslav socialist era, Tuđman's dislike of Ivo Andrić, a library that was targetted by irregulars in 1992 during the Yugoslav Wars in response to JNA actions and a book that was burnt publicly in 2018 at an anti-LGBTQ rally don't fall in the narrative and subject which requires wikipedia to have an article about because they all involve books. That much should be obvious.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sources exist" is not an argument when those sources don't deal with the subject you're putting forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete. Honestly, after like 20 years of looking at these kinds of issues in the English Wikipedia, I would think that we as a community would grow to recognize it more efficiently, but apparently it still requires so much effort and walls of text to get rid of such obvious gaming of the system. I recall a number of articles having been started by the same editor (Antidiskriminator) on various topics interesting to Serbian nationalists, and every time it's the same pattern - let's use the English Wikipedia to examine some weird nationalist talking point from the angle of - hey, surely if there's N random "sources" talking about this, therefore their narrative must be worth expounding on at length! Guess what - no. Just - no! The encyclopedia is not the place for this. I suppose it's logical to expect that every time these kinds of articles get written, they're "better" at it, with more purported support in sources, and it becomes less obvious they're pushing a point based on what is not an exhaustive examination of source material, and they stay online for *years*. Anyway, once this kind of abuse is belatedly noticed, we need to react by deterring further gaming of the system - admins need to examine the editing history of any editor who willingly contributed to this mess and voiced unequivocal support for this - for further WP:ARBMAC abuse. We know that history just keeps repeating itself, and we have to expect the same to happen again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, here! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that! --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Note Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy should NOT be used and supported by involved admins. That is textbook abuse of power through labeling other editors and building an atmosphere where editors can not express their opinion freely.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions on talk pages are one thing, constantly POV pushing in actual articles is a completely different thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aww, this is so quaint. You're not only concocting this weird appeal to "omg we're being persecuted", but you already immediately called me an "involved admin". This is a tactic that has very often been used by WP:ARBMAC abusers, using WP:INVOLVED as a cudgel to try to dissuade any admin action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that violates WP:NPOV. As a second choice, a short merge would be fine. Any section about this should have very clear in-line attribution to sources, especially Dora Komnenović, so readers can discern the POV sources from the more neutral ones. Archrogue (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page contains valid references. The topic of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Notability. Also per conclusion at WP:ANI (link) - the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough...the topic is real enough, The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. and Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real.. Any eventual issues of the article can be resolved in collaboration between editors. Wikipedia is based on collaboration. Not on "No article/editor - no problem" attitude demonstrated by some editors here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like the article about satanization of Serbs which you wrote before this one, "sources exist" is not an argument, when those sources either don't discuss the subject/narrative which you put forward or consist of one political advocacy pamphlet which put forward the narrative of "knjigocid". And don't use non-admin comments as "ANI conclusions" or half-quoted admin comments in order to strengthen your narrative. Now, I'm not going to fully quote that last comment in order to show what it truly says - any editor can read it for themselves and judge if what it puts forward is what Antidiskriminator claims it does. I'm against the practice of quoting editors who don't take part in a discussion in order to strengthen a particular narrative which they themselves haven't chosen to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is difficult to establish consensus when the same arguments are repeated multiple times. Some that favor deleting seem to argue WP:FORK and WP:FRINGE, and some that vote keep seem to argue WP:N. Hopefully a relist will make consensus clearer on this article for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic should be covered in a neutral way. This article, even after being rewritten during this Afd discussion, continues to have the same problems. A new article, covering all cases of book destruction in former Yugoslavia, could be written with neutrality and NPOV wording. Sadsadas (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article may have some issues, but the topic is notable and discussed in reliable scholarly works: . I don't see what would make Lešaja's book Knjigocid/Bookocide (as mentioned here) not reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From her paper: "Nevertheless, the only two accounts entirely devoted to “libricide” are the Prosvjeta magazine special issue on “Bibliocide-Culturecide: Where One Burns Books, One Will Soon Burn People,” published in 2003 by the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta” (Srpsko kulturno društvo Prosvjeta) and Ante Lešaja’s volume about the destruction of books in Croatia between 1990 and 2010, Knjigocid. Uništavanje knjiga u Hrvatskoj 1990.-ih (Libricide. The Destruction of Books in Croatia in the 1990s)". The point is that most of the article(informations) are originally based on Ante Lešaja book. Otherwise, he himself research and write in the book whether some libraries are destroyed(in Serbian bombing) etc, and he gives his conclusions whether they were really destroyed or not. It could even be WP:FRINGE because no one confirms his conclusions (historian, etc). Also from her paper: "Lešaja’s work constitutes a valuable starting point for anyone interested in cultural heritage destruction in Croatia, the former Yugoslav area and broader", while here only Croatia is subject of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
1990 Virginia Slims of Nashville

The 1990 Virginia Slims of Nashville was a women's tennis tournament played on indoor hard courts at the Maryland Farms Racquet Club in Brentwood, Tennessee, in the United States and was part of the Tier IV category of the 1990 WTA Tour. It was the sixth edition of the tournament and ran from October 29 through November 4, 1990. Unseeded Natalia Medvedeva won the singles title and earned $27,000 first-prize money.

Singles
Natalia Medvedeva defeated 🇺🇸 Susan Sloane 6–3, 7–6(7–3)
 * It was Medvedeva's first singles title of her career.

Doubles
🇺🇸 Kathy Jordan / Larisa Neiland defeated  Brenda Schultz /  Caroline Vis 6–1, 6–2

source: wikimedia

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

title: 1990 Virginia Slims of Nashville


text:
Little Floramye

Little Floramye (Mala Floramye) is operetta in three acts by Croatian composer Ivo Tijardović. It premiered on January 14, 1926 in Split.

Synopsis
The first act takes place at the Split waterfront right before the start of the First World War, the second in Quimperville, a small town near Marseille, just before the end of the War, and the third in Split after the war in the apartment of the Little Floramye's girlfriend.

First act
August. Carnival night. The Split waterfront is decorated with lanterns and flowers. In a crowd of students, Mirko is looking for his Floramye. Three older cavaliers get teased by the group of young man. In particular, they tease Mr. Bepo Pegula for his unsuccessful seductive tendencies. Floramye arrives at the waterfront. She, " the most beautiful flower of Split", sneaked out from home regardless of mother's ban to do so, and expresses love towards Mirko. There is also a strict "guardian of morality and order" present who tries to impress the people by saying: "In the name of the steps, three laws back!", but also gets teased by a group of young men. Mrs. Petronila, angry at Floramye for disobeying her, came to the waterfront to look for Floramye and eventually sees her dancing with Mr. Dan and Mr. File. Floramye runs away when she sees her angry mother, while Dan and File try to calm her down. The most exciting part of the carnival - the election of the Carnival Queen, is getting closer. Floramye wins and chooses Mirko as her king. At the same time, boys tell Mr. Bepo that Floramye scheduled for a date with him. Mr. Bepo shows up at the alleged meeting location with a large bouquet, but instead of Floramye, who is at the time with Mirko, meets Mrs. Petrolina who arrived after hearing that someone was having a date with her daughter. Mr. Bepo gets hit in the head by Mrs. Petronila who also demanded form the guard to arrest him because of the attempted seduction of the juvenile.

Second act
January. Quimperville, a small place near Marseille. End of the First World War. Floramye left Split and now works as a nurse in a military hospital but before that, she worked in Paris as a cabaret dancer. During the war, she lost contact with her parents and has changed her name to Suzette. War hero, Lieutenant Petar Petrović, is set to arrive at the military hospital where she works. Everyone is preparing for the celebration. Mr. Bepo Pegula is also at Marseille where he met the English paramedic Miss Evelin Beauty-Flower. She invites him to the celebration at the military hospital. He accepts, puts on generals uniform and thus provokes confusion when he arrives at the hospital because everyone thinks that he is Petar Petrović. When real Petar Petrović finally arrives, Suzette recognizes him as Mirko but hides because she is afraid that he would be angry at her for working as a cabaret dancer. They eventually meet, and he forgives her.

Third act
February. Split. Mr. Bepo Pegula brags about his love adventures with an "English princess of incredible beauty" and various military accomplishments, but when Mirko, Floramye, and Evelin arrive to Split his lies are exposed. The act ends with laughter, poetry, and lovingly happy ending.

Roles

 * Mr. Bepo
 * Mr. File
 * Mr. Dane
 * Little Floramye
 * Miss Evelin Beauty-Flower
 * Mrs. Petronila
 * Tonkica
 * Marica
 * Mirko
 * Zvone
 * Marinko
 * Almette
 * Guard
 * Mr. Felicio
 * American journalist
 * Picaferaj

Famous actors and roles they played

 * Boris Dvornik, Tonči Banov - Mr. Bepo
 * Albin Kokeza, Vinko Maroević - Mr. File
 * Vinko Varvodić, Trpimir Jurkić - Mr. Dane
 * Marina Jajić, Antonela Malis - Little Floramye
 * Maria Boga Verdes - Miss Evelin Beauty-Flower
 * Ilija Zovko - marquis Armand de Guimperville

title: Little Floramye


text:
galet

Noun

 * 1) spout of a porron, for example

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1) pebble
 * 2)  disk-shaped object
 * 3)  roller

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1)  pebble

title: galet


text:
Talk:Web Design/JavaScript Challenges

// you only need the following line if you don't already // have a variable for your quantity field. var email = document.getElementById("email");

// First, create a variable to remember the position of the "@" symbol var atPos = email.value.indexOf("@");

if (atPos == ??) // you need to replace the question marks with {   // Then there wasn't any @ symbol within the email address! // Let the user know that they need to correct the error! // Add your code below:

// Lastly, return false so that the form won't be submitted. return false; }

you need to replace the question marks with... With what? Stuck here.

We should also invest in some syntax highlighting. --<IP_ADDRESS> 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

onsubmit or onSubmit
Hi <IP_ADDRESS> (whover that IP maps to!)

Thanks for getting in and editing the Javascript challenges! Just a note, onsubmit should actually be all lower case for XHTML... but you're right, in HTML 4 it was onSubmit (I think?). I've changed it back for the moment... hope that's ok!
 * Sorry, yeah that IP is me, I'm totally new to JScipt but have been studying web design for 5 years. I'm looking at the javascript cheat sheet from ilovejackdaniels.com ans it has onSubmit. I know that JS is pretty sketchy when it somes to case sensitivity. When i ran it with onSubmit on my home server it worked... It really makes no difference to me I'm trying to learn it and am not a prof by any means. -- Koolaidman  Talk Contribs 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Great! I hope you find the resources here useful... and please continue to update and improve them as you go :) Yeah, I noticed the Jack Daniels cheat sheet uses onSubmit form for events. The main thing is (1) that you're consistent, then your JS code will work either way. But to get your XHTML files to validate you'll need to use lower case. Hope that helps Michaelnelson 00:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I'll have to take a look at the standards for event handlers, I haven't really paid much attention to them prior to now. -- Koolaidman  Talk Contribs 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Challenge 5
"For example, isNaN(1.5) will return true, whereas isNaN("hi there") will return false." I'm learning so I don't really want to edit this myself, but I'm pretty sure this can't be right. Atleast not according to the W3 demo that is referred to...

 * Thanks annon!! Fixed up now. Michaelnelson 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

W3Schools.com Down?
Is it just me or is w3schools down at the moment? I got frustrated with not being able to reference w3s while working on example #5 a few days ago and the site hasn't been up since. TMyhres 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Challenge 4 to 7 using Switch Statements
!! While putting this up i noticed wiki makes my code UNREADABLE! Copy/paste this in your text editor and format, i promise you that you will understand it much better :) btw my comments can also be a bit intrusive so remove them after you read through them GOOD LUCK!!

<!DOCTYPE html>

JavaScript Challenges

.errormsg {

display: none;

color: red;

}

.qerrormsg {

display: none;

color: red;

}

Personal details Full name:  Please enter your name above.

Street Address:

Please enter your street address.

Quantity:  Please enter your postcode. You can only enter numbers

/* notice how i put my script at the end of my document instead of the head, that way i make sure the document is loaded and i dont have to call for onload="" to read the body first */

document.getElementById("userfeedbackform").onsubmit = checkForm; function checkForm {

/* convert everything into a var for easy re-use */ var nameError = document.getElementById("nameerrormsg"); var adressError = document.getElementById("addrerrormsg"); var addressField = document.getElementById("streetaddr").value; var nameField = document.getElementById("fullname").value; var posterrormsg = document.getElementById("posterrormsg"); var quantityField = document.getElementById("Quantity").value; var quantity = isNaN(document.getElementById("Quantity").value); var qerrormsg = document.getElementById("qerrormsg");

/* switch statement with parameter (true), this will make it look for a case with the value the of true [1]*/ switch (true) {

/* [1] the swith statement found a case being true and will excecute ALL the code inside*/ case (true):

/* now here you will see 4 different switch statements [2] with parameter true, this time it has the option between 2 cases [3], it will execute the case that returns true*/ /* [2] */ switch (true) {

/*[3] this is one of the 2 cases, here the switch statement will check if (nameField.length <1 ) is true, if not it will check the next case */ case (nameField.length < 1): nameError.style.display = 'inline';

/* if the Namefield input is not filled in it will desplay the error code and more importantly it will prevent the the form from being submitted ! */           event.preventDefault;

break;

/* [3] the second possible case is that the input field is filled in         ,important is that you make the error message disappear in case it was displayed before! */         case (nameField.length > 1): /* Changes error message to 'none', in case it was not displayed then nothing happens*/ nameError.style.display = 'none';

break;

}       /* check if addresField is filled in, same as switch statement above */ /* [2] */ switch (true) {

case (addressField.length < 1): adressError.style.display = 'inline';

/* repeat event.preventDefault because if we only do it for Namefield then the moment the namefield is filled in but the addressField is NOT, it will still submit form because it only checked nameField*/

event.preventDefault;

break;

case (addressField.length > 1): adressError.style.display = 'none';

break;

}

/* check if quantity field is filled in, same as the 2 previous switch statements */ /* [2] */ switch (true) {

case (quantityField.length < 1): posterrormsg.style.display = 'inline';

event.preventDefault;

break;

case (quantityField.length > 1): posterrormsg.style.display = 'none';

break; }

/* check if the input of quantityField is a number or not */ /* [2] */ switch (true) {

case (quantity == true): qerrormsg.style.display = 'inline'; event.preventDefault;

break;

case (quantity == false): qerrormsg.style.display = 'none';

break;

}       /* in case you did not know, you need a break after every case otherwise it will excecute the other case too and we only want one case to be excecuted*/

break;

} }

title: Talk:Web Design/JavaScript Challenges


text:
Portal:Science/Science topics

 * Biophilia Project - General survey of exciting findings in biology
 * Science as Religion - the relationship between science and religion
 * Science research and the Law - how various governments regulate scientific research
 * Open content science - Wikiversity content development project for Open content science.
 * - how scientific studies have resulted in altered human concepts of time
 * Consilience - can all knowledge be unified within a scientific world view?
 * Exploring science through fiction - where is boundary between science and science fiction?
 * Understanding Scientific Terminology -the Greek and Latin roots of technical terms

title: Portal:Science/Science topics


text:
Abigail Varela

Abigail Varela (born February 9, 1948) is a Venezuelan visual artist. He is best known for bronze sculptures representing pre-Columbian of abstract feminine figures interpreted in modern style in poses that suggest motion.

Career
Varela began his art education under Japanese ceramist Hiroshi Kawagiri followed by courses at art schools in Caracas. Varela produces flat silhouetted large sculptures, evolving into classic cast bronzes with a polished dark finish. Other works are made in solid aluminum. Varela's favorite theme is feminity in bulky shapes that somehow manage to suggest lightness and movement. His shapes have been likened to those of the Venus of Willendorf. A touch of humor inhabits many of Varela's sculptures.

Achievements
Varela's art is noted in Venezuela and beyond. His work has been exhibited in New York (Katharina Rich Perlow Gallery), London (Cynthia Bourne Gallery), San Salvador (Galería Espacio), Coral Gables (Galería Freites-Revilla) and Boca Raton (Elaine Baker Gallery) among other places. A retrospective of Varela's art was presented at the BOD Center in Caracas in 2014. In 2018 his work was chosen (among 22 pieces) for exhibition at the CAF gallery (Caracas) representing Times and Trends in Latin American Sculpture. His art has been reviewed in essays and books. His pieces occupy the art collections of Venezuelan institutions such as the National Art Gallery (Caracas), Contemporary Art Museum, Empresas Polar Foundation and Fundación Cultural Chacao. It is found in open-air art museums in Venezuelan locations (Mérida, Valencia, Aroa and Margarita Island ) as well as in Huelva (Spain) and at the Suncheon Bay National Garden, Korea.

Recognition
In 2014 Varela was awarded the Omar Carreño Prize for Plastic Arts offered jointly by the Venezuelan Architects Association and the National Association of Plastic Artists.

Varela's name is listed in established artist directories including ULAN, Artnet, Christie's, Benezit, in Marta Traba's Art of Latin America and in Leonard's Price Index of Latin American Art.

title: Abigail Varela


text:
Dichotomous Key/Carnivora

1

 * Habitat
 * Aquatic -
 * Land -

2: Pinnipedia

 * Tusks
 * Present - ../Odobenidae/
 * Not present -

3: Fissipedia

 * Auditory bulla
 * Single-chambered or partially divided -
 * Double-chambered -

4

 * External ears
 * Present - ../Otariidae/, Sea lion
 * Not present - ../Phocidae/, Seal

5: Caniformia

 * Presence of scent glands used defensively
 * Present - ../Mephitidae/
 * Not present -

6: Feliformia

 * Anal scent glands
 * Present - ../Hyaenidae/
 * Not present -

7
Could be ../Mustelidae/, ../Ursidae/, ../Procyonidae/, or ../Canidae/.

8
Could be ../Felidae/, ../Herpestidae/, ../Viverridae/, or ../Nandiniidae/.

title: Dichotomous Key/Carnivora


text:
Active Server Pages/Variable Types

= Objectives =

In this section you will learn about variables in Active Server Pages. This includes naming conventions, how they are declared, different primitive types and naming conventions. After studying this section, you should have a firm grasp of the types of variables available to you and how to work with different types in a web application.

= Content =

All variables in ASP are loosely typed. This means that you don't need to declare variables with a type. It also means that you can assign the value of any variable to any other variable. There are a few exceptions to this rule as we will see.

Basically, every variable in ASP has the major type of Variant. It is "variant" meaning that the type of value it holds can vary. Basically, the ASP interpreter will handle all conversion between types automatically when you group more than one variable or type together in a single expression.

Variable Scope
There are three different scopes for variables used in ASP. The first is page scope meaning that the variable is available for the entire duration. These are typically declared at the top of the page. The second type of variables are procedure scoped variables which are declared inside a procedure or function declaration. The third type of variables are scoped with a class definition which is used for object-oriented programming.

Page-scoped variables will be visible to all code included on your web page including procedures and functions. You can even access page-scoped variables within a class although good object-oriented design would strongly discourage this practice.

Procedure-scoped variables will only be visible within the procedure in which they are defined. It is perfectly acceptable to use the same variable name for a page-scoped variable and a procedure-scoped variable. Keep in mind, that when you do this, you will hide the page-scoped variable and will have no way to access it within the procedure.

Class-scoped variables can only be accessed through an instance of the class. There is no notion of static variables or static methods in the simplified ASP scripting language. You will need to use the ObjectName.VariableName syntax in order to access member variables directly. Only variable declared Public can be accessed in this way. Private class variables can only be accessed by code defined within the class. More information about using classes in Active Server Pages will be discussed later.

Valid Variable Names
To be valid, an ASP variable name must follow the following rules:

 * Must begin with an alphabetic character
 * All other characters must be alphanumeric or underscore ("_")
 * Name must not exceed 255 characters in length
 * Name must be unique within the scope it is defined
 * Name must not be the same as a reserved word of built in functions, procedures, and objects.

Variable names, just like statements are case-insensitive. This means that if you declare a variable with the name "myVar", you can access it using "MYVAR" or "myvar" or even "MyVaR".

One way to avoid using reserved words and make it easier to identify what type of variables you are using is to use a naming convention. Usually the first letter or few letters of the variable names what information it holds.

Examples:
 * nCount n for integer or number, holds a value that is used to count something, like for control loops.
 * sName s for string, holds a value that represents a name.
 * bIsActive b for boolean, holds true or false values, in this case true if something is active, false if it is not.

Following a naming convention can help avoid messy code, and leads to good programming habits. It also allows somebody else to work with your code and help debug it or modify it. Along with a naming convention, use comments as well to document what the variable is to be used for in the ASP page.

Examples:

You will learn more on naming conventions later on in this document.

Declaring Variables
To declare a variable, you use the Dim statement for page and procedure-scoped variables. After the Dim statement, you can put a comma-separated list of variable names. If you prefer, you can just put one variable on each line. This allows you to add comments about each variable you declare.

You should place your variables in a consistent location on the page or within your procedures. Typically, most people place the declarations at the very top (beginning) of the page or the top of the procedure. Others think it makes more sense to place the variable declarations right above the location where they are first used.

Primitive Types
When we talk about primitive types, we are talking about low-level variables types that cannot be broken down into smaller primitive types. Basically, these are the "built-in" variables that Active Server Pages understands.

These are sometimes referred to the "sub-type" of the variable since the major type of the variable is "variant". Each variable may have one of the sub-types shown in the following table. If you have used other programming languages, then these primitive types will be very familiar to you.

Special Values
In addition to the values shown above, the following special values may also be assigned to Active Server Page variables:

The empty value is the default value for newly declared variables (never assigned any value.) If tested in a boolean context, it is equivalent to "false" or tested in a string context it is equivalent to the empty string ("")

Conversion and Verification
You don't need to concern yourself much with setting the type of the variable. This is done pretty much automatically for you. In the event that you want to set the type that is assigned to a variable, you can use the ASP conversion function that corresponds to each type.

Also, there are verification functions available to make sure a variable is compatible with the specified type. This doesn't mean that the variable has that sub-type. Rather, it means that the variable can successfully be converted to the type.

Literal Values
Literal values are values you insert into your ASP code and use in expressions. By itself, a literal value has no use, but when used in a statement such as an assignment or output statement

You will notice that there is no way to specify a date literal in ASP. Therefore, you need to use a function call to build a date value using DateSerial or you can use Now to get the current date and time.

The value for a literal value is bound by the limits specified in the table for primitive types above. If you attempt to use a value that is outside the acceptable range for any of the types, you will receive an error message indicating this fact and your ASP page will terminate execution.

Constant Definitions
In some cases, you might want to create "named constants" instead of using literal values all of the time. This is particularly useful if you create a common include file that will be used in multiple scripts on your site. You define constants using the Const keyword like so:

It is common practice to use all uppercase variables for your constant definitions although this is not required. It simply makes your code easier to read and maintain.

Naming Conventions
A naming convention is a standard way of naming all of the variables used on your site. There are various different methods used for naming variables and a whole chapter could be devoted to this subject. One of the most popular is Hungarian notation where the first letter of the variable name indicates the dominant sub-type for the variable.

The Microsoft standard proposed for Visual Basic is to use a 3-letter naming convention for their variables. This is a little more clear for reading and maintaining code. Some would consider this overkill for a light-weight scripting language.

= Summary =

= Exercises =

title: Active Server Pages/Variable Types


text:
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 July 8

= July 8 =

What Android rooting & data-transferring app would you most recommend?
Hi, I have an issue with my Xperia Play only having 380 MB of internal space. I was told that to move EVERY LAST BYTE to the SD card, including phone OS information, I would first have to "root" the phone.

It would void a warranty, but the standard warranty (at least through Verizon and Best Bought phones, is just one year, and I obtained it in May 2011.

Now, I need to find out what phone-rooting and data-transferring app (both functions in one, preferably) you would most recommend.

How well has it helped you?

Moreover, I may pay for it if no other app does it better, but free ones take precedence. Thanks in advance. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Have a look at this guide. As for copying the file over, I tend to use Remote Web Desktop. There are a number of apps like this. But I'm not sure if you need to have a rooted device to simply copy the files over. You certainly won't need it to copy the SD card contents over. I would try using the Remote Web app to see if you can copy everything over before rooting. - Akamad (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that you may want to look in to what you are doing first. AFAIK, the norm with most Android phones is simply to put the internal data partition (/data or sometimes even just /data/apps) on the SD card. The actual OS etc is still stored on the phone's internal flash. Since it doesn't change much, except if you upgrade firmware and anyone making firmware will generally make it fit on the flash, I can't see much advantage to what you have proposed and while removing the SD card while the phone is on even if it's only the data partition is likely a bad idea, what you're proposing seems to guarantee a crash if you ever do remove the card while the phone is on and perhaps could even create problems after you put the card back. At most, perhaps it will make sense to move the swap partition as well. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

'Replay' function on YouTube
YouTube has a button (play/pause/'rewind') on the left of the 'toolbar' that allows a replay of a just viewed video. This used to mean that after it had downloaded, on pause for example, (which I often do because my wireless download (only≈30 kilobytes/sec) is not fast enough to watch most vids in real time) I could click that button and it would play/replay without downloading again.

Now it seem that if I try this, then instead of replaying immediately (from a copy apparently cached on my PC) it starts downloading the entire vid again. I was also able to move the 'progress cursor' back to re-watch certain parts, now it also tends to reload again rather than playing what I have already downloaded.

I have plenty of download capacity, it is just that the waiting (& re-waiting) is annoying (5 min. video takes about 15 min. (or more?) to download)

My laptop PC OS is Windows 7 Home Premium 32 bit. About 10 days ago I downloaded/installed a lot of Windows updates. 2.74 Gb of usable RAM (900Mb available), 226 Gb HDD space. Intel Core i3-2310M CPU. Browser I was using was Firefox 13.0.1

• So my question is: has YouTube changed something so that I if I let the entire video load and play, then I must download again to watch it again? (I just watched a relatively short vid. (1:38) and it replayed without trouble, using Firefox browser. A longer vid (4 mins) would not replay w/o downloading again. Caching problem on my PC?) - 220  of  Borg 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * YouTube actually has two different implementations at the moment, one using Flash, which has always had its problems, and one using native browser video playback support, which has always had its problems (but is less tested). If you want reliability, you should probably investigate using a 3rd party plugin (like VLC's maybe), or use something like DownloadHelper to simply download the video normally. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Based on some tests, I think it's YouTube's Flash video player. More information below.

 * In the past, YouTube's Flash video player downloaded one long video file in the background. You could visit a video page, start playback, then immediately pause the video and wait for the playback bar to indicate the video had completely loaded. Currently, the player loads several background files in segments. If I go to a video page, start playback, then immediately pause the video and wait for the video to load, only a segment of the video gets loaded. The next segment is only loaded when the play position is near the end of the current segment.

 * After reading this question, I performed some tests to see if a video is replayed from the browser cache. I played a 6-minute test video, then clicked the restart button at the end to play it a second and third time. I monitored my browser cache and kept track of the URLs of each segment downloaded as well as keeping a copy of each segment. On the first play, 13 segments of 1,781,760 bytes or less were downloaded. The second and third plays downloaded 7 segments each, and seemed to use other segments from the cache.

 * Each segment of the video is loaded from a URL of the following form

 * really.long.subdomain n1 v1 n2 v2 n3 v3 ... n21 v21

 * The part after the  has 21 parameters, each one in a name value format, separated by  s.

 * Unfortunately, YouTube's Flash video player seems to specify the parameters in a different order from time to time. The browser cache thinks the segments are different because the URLs don't match exactly, but the URL parameters and actual downloaded data usually match an existing segment in the cache. This seems to be the main reason the player doesn't reuse existing segments from the cache.

 * The main parameter that changes is begin end, where begin and end seem to indicate the byte positions, inclusive, from a master video stream that YouTube has stored for the video. (The size of the downloaded segment is always end + 1 − start bytes.) The only other parameter that changed during my test was   was used for the first segment of the first play, and   was used for all other segments. I don't know what this parameter means. All of the other parameters were the same across all segments.

 * On the three plays, only 1 out of 13 segments had a slightly different range between the first and second play. The other segments had matching ranges. Even though the the ranges were the same, the first segments of each play had 9 bytes near the beginning of the downloaded data that were different each time. All of the other segments with the same ranges had identically downloaded bytes.

 * So the main reason the segments are redownloaded seems to be YouTube's Flash video player specifies the URL parameters in a different order from time to time. Other less frequent causes might be the player specifies slightly different segment ranges on a subsequent play, or requests other parameters with different values.

 * I mainly tested with Internet Explorer. I tested again with Firefox and the progress bar behaved similarly so I suspect it's doing something similar, but I don't have a good tool to monitor Firefox's cache. As an alternative, I disabled Firefox's Flash plug in, and then YouTube used the HTML player. The HTML player downloaded the video in one background file. When I restarted the video the progress bar still indicated the video was downloaded, suggesting it reused the cached file.

 * --Bavi H (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm Really curious how did you monitored the cache. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I used NirSoft IECacheView.

 * Basic procedure: In IECacheView, I sorted the cache by Last Accessed time. In Internet Explorer, I cleared the cache (Tools, Delete Browsing History, uncheck everything, only check Temporary Internet Files, click Delete.) Then I went to the test video page, played the video and periodically refreshed the IECacheView window. I could occasionally see new items in the cache as the new segments were downloaded. In the IECacheView Edit menu, you can copy the text data from the table of items to further analyze the URLs, and you can copy the actual cached file (Explorer Copy) and paste it to another folder to analyze if certain segments are the same.

 * NirSoft also has a MozillaCacheView, but it seems to only see changes to Firefox's cache after you close Firefox, so I couldn't use it to track the cache while Firefox was open. --Bavi H (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks to "Reisio", and Double+ thanks to "Bavi H" for making extraordinary effort to investigate the issue. {I still have to fully read and digest your posts Bavi H :-) The life of a technical support person is not an easy one. Should I expect a bill now? ;-) } Anyone with more to add are still welcome to chime in. - 220  of  Borg 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re. Reisios' suggestion, I already have a downloader installed. Oddly the 'download' button has been appearing and disappearing!.
 * I should add that as an alternative to specially downloading, like after watching a video and then wanting to keep a copy, it appears that viewed videos are stored as *.tmp files in a 'Temp' directory. I have found that all you need to do (after locating the file) is change the filename from 'foo'.temp to 'foo'.flv and it can be played with FLV player. Not sure if this applies to, or only to, Youtube as I have been finding 'cached' content from other sites I have viewed videos on.

Iphone 4
I hear this (and a few other mobiles) are about to be obsolete. Is this true? Kittybrewster  ☎  23:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, Steve Ballmer has spoken: a windows phone, is now, the only phone to have. Almost as good as two paper cups strung between a string. --Aspro (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The ref desk is not the place for speculation. There are always rumors of new phones "coming soon."   RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Very silly people with more money than sense will call a gadget "obsolete" the instant there's a newer version available. To their mind, the iPhone 4 was obsolete the moment the 4S, or possibly the Samsung Galaxy, etc, was released.  As far as actual functional obsolescence goes, I imagine the network technology which the iPhone 4 connects to will be around for at least a couple more decades. FiggyBee (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
User:Amallalds/sandbox

CPPR
Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR) is a think tank dedicated to extensive and in-depth research on current economic, social, and political issues. We study public policies with a dedicated, objective, and an unbiased approach. We strive to initiate policy changes by publishing our research and by framing policy debates and discussions on various subjects. Our research areas include Governance, Education, Health, Law, Livelihood, Strategy & Security and Urban Reforms. We have carried out research projects and worked on policy papers for government bodies, private institutions, and academia; many of which have had a profound impact at the governance level. CPPR has a good research team comprising of professionals from different fields of expertise and resource persons from across the world. Research internship is another key activity of CPPR. CPPR produces working papers in various fields. Innovative policy solutions and ideas that are in sync with global technological revolutions and entrepreneurship are the key components of our policy research.

Vision and Mission
Vision CPPR aims to be a thought leader which is able to design and execute practical strategies that lead to changes in public policy and governance. The Centre is dedicated to the principles of liberal thought, democracy, rule of law and economic freedom with a focus on equity, efficiency and effectiveness.

Mission

CPPR’s mission is to conduct and promote high-quality evidence based research and training; provide government bodies, private organizations, and academic institutions with practical and innovative recommendations; and influence decision-making.

title: User:Amallalds/sandbox


text:
Talk:Bella Goodall

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bella Goodall. 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/20091001011421/https://www.gsarchive.net/other_gilbert/merry_zing.doc to https://www.gsarchive.net/other_gilbert/merry_zing.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310183815/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/Actors.htmto http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/Actors.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008005301/http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/20074 to http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/20074

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bella Goodall


text:
File:Hawley Orbit.jpg

Summary
This orbit diagram was generated using the "JPL Small-Body Database Browser" found here: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi

title: File:Hawley Orbit.jpg


text:
Category talk:cs:Chemical elements

Czech Wiktionary
The Czech Wiktionary has an extensive category, which can be used as a checklist or worklist. --Daniel Polansky 15:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Category talk:cs:Chemical elements


text:
Ceramics/Creating A Relief Sculpture

Procedure Outline:
 * 1: Trace over the contour lines of a photocopied image with a charcoal pencil.
 * 2: Knead and wedge a ball of clay to get rid of all air bubbles, then flatten it out to create a slab around 1” thick
 * 3: Place the newly-traced image face-down on top of the clay slab. Then, using a cotton ball, saturate the back of the paper in rubbing alcohol. Next, burnish the back of the paper with a spoon, making sure that all points of the paper have made direct contact with the clay. Check periodically to make sure the drawing is transferring to the clay.
 * 4: After the image has been transferred, use the assortment of clay tools to gouge out the clay to preferred depths, allowing foreground images to protrude from the work, making it three-dimensional (and thus giving the piece a sense of depth and complexity). To smooth rough edges, dip fingers in water and gently rub onto clay surface.
 * 5: Paint pieces with underglaze.
 * 6: Bisque-fire the pieces.
 * 7: Paint pieces with underglaze.
 * 8: Fire the pieces.

title: Ceramics/Creating A Relief Sculpture


text:
Rotzo Formation

The Rotzo Formation (also known in older literature as the Noriglio Grey Limestone Formation) is a geological formation in Italy, dating to roughly between 192 and 186 million years ago and covering the Pliensbachian stage of the Jurassic Period in the Mesozoic Era. Has been traditionally classified as a Sinemurian-Pliensbachian Formation, but a large and detailed dataset of isotopic 13C and 87Sr/86Sr data, estimated the Rotzo Formation to span only over the Early Pliensbachian, bracketed between the Jamesoni-Davoei biozones, marked in the Loppio Oolitic Limestone–Rotzo Fm contact by a carbon isotope excursion onset similar to the Sinemu-Pliens boundary event, while the other sequences fit with the a warm phase that lasts until the Davoei biozone. The Rotzo Formation represented the Carbonate Platform, being located over the Trento Platform and surrounded by the Massone Oolite (marginal calcarenitic bodies), the Fanes Piccola Encrinite (condensed deposits and emerged lands), the Lombadian Basin Medolo Group and Belluno Basin Soverzene Formation (open marine), and finally towards the south, deep water deposits of the Adriatic Basin. The also Pliensbachian Aganane Formation of Morocco represents a regional equivalent, both in deposition and faunal content.

Fossil prosauropod tracks have been reported from the formation. This formation was deposited within a tropical lagoon environment, similar to modern Bahamas which was protected by oolitic shoals and bars from the open deep sea located to the east (Belluno Basin) and towards the west (Lombardia Basin). It is characterized by a rich paleontological content. It is notable mostly thanks to its great amount of big aberrant bivalves, among which is the genus Lithiotis, described in the second half of the nineteenth century. The unusual shape of Lithiotis and Cochlearites shells, extremely elongated and narrow, characterized by a spoon-like body space placed in a high position, rarely preserved, seems to suggest their adaptation to soft and muddy bottoms with a high sedimentation rate. The Bellori outcrop displays about 20 m of limestones with intercalated clays and marls rich in organic matter and sometimes fossil wood (coal) and amber. The limestones are well stratified, with beds 10 cm to more than one metre thick, whereas the clayey levels range between 3 and 40 cm in thickness.

Paleoenvironment
The sedimentary cover of the Southern Alps has been recognized as a well-preserved section of the Mesozoic Tethys' southern continental margin, featuring a horst and graben structure linked to the rifting associated with the opening of the central North Atlantic that in the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic, created elevated blocks separated by troughs. While the western margin (Piedmont and Lombardy) quickly submerged in the Early Jurassic (As seen by the Saltrio Formation & Moltrasio Formation), the eastern regions maintained shallow water sedimentation, including the Friuli and Trento Platforms, this last one latter evolving into a pelagic plateau, and separated from the Lombardian basin by the Garda escarpment fault system.

The Early Jurassic Calcari Grigi Group represents the shallow-water sedimentation phase of the Trento Platform, revealing several sites over an area of about 1,500 km2. The continuity of dinosaur tracks from the Hettangian-Pliensbachian interval indicates a stable connection between the Southern Alps' carbonate tidal flats and nearby vegetated lands and freshwater sources, although the exact locations of these lands remain uncertain. Detailed sedimentological studies of the Calcari Grigi Group, particularly the Rotzo Formation, describe it as a shallow subtidal platform with an inner lagoon bordered by oolitic shoals.

The Coste dell’Anglone ichnosite for example, situated on the margin of this lagoon within a sandy barrier complex, was influenced by pioneer plants like Hirmeriellaceae in semi-arid conditions. Sedimentary structures indicate a shallow water tidal environment with heterolithic stratification pointing to steady flows at low current velocities. The presence of dinosaur tracks and supratidal markers suggests repeated subaerial exposure, contrasting with previous interpretations of the site as fully subtidal.

These findings align with the lagoon-barrier island complex scenario, featuring a subtidal ramp gently inclined to the west and an intertidal-supratidal barrier island complex trending approximately N-S, now corresponding to the Mt. Brento-Biaina and Mt. Baldo chains.

Amoebae
The presence of the families Centropyxidae and Difflugiidae testifies the presence of a mixed marine-terrestrial depositional system, lacking large bodies of water.

Invertebrates and mollusks
Microfossils of the Rotzo Formation consist of benthic foraminifera, calcareous algae, Ostracoda and coprolites. Foraminifera are mainly benthic agglutinated species belonging to the superfamily Lituolacea (suborder Textulariina), while lamellar and porcellaneous-walled species are very rare. The bivalve Opisoma excavatum is very common.

Bivalves
The Rotzo Formation is known mostly due to its massive bivalve associations of the genera Lithiotis, Cochlearites and Lithioperna that extended all along the Pliensbachian Trento Platform forming mass accumulations of specimens that formed Reef-Like structures. This fauna appeared after the early Pliensbachian C-cycle perturbation, that triggered the diffusion of the Lithiotis Fauna, noted on the rapid widespread of this biota after the event layers. All of the genera related with this fauna appeared on the lower Jurassic, and all but one became extinct before the Middle Jurassic. This "Reefs" had a strong zonation, starting with the bivalves Gervilleioperna and Mytiloperna, restricted to intertidal and shallow-subtidal facies. Lithioperna is limited to lagoonal subtidal facies and even in some low-oxygen environments. Finally Lithiotis and Cochlearites are found in subtidal facies, constructing buildups. This sections formed various kinds of ecosystems on the Trento platform, where it appeared in branched corals filled with (Spongiomorpha), Domal corals (Stromatoporida), tubular corals, Styllophyllidae corals, unidentified Cerioidea colonial corals, regular echinoid debris, sponges, and the solitary coral Opelismilia sp., with also aggregated snail shells.

Invertebrate ichnofossils
In the Western Venetian Prealps a shallow-water, oceanic carbonate platform system, the Trento platform, developed on the Early Jurassic, producing a large succession of massive to well-bedded white Limestones, several 100 m thick that are part of the Calcari Grigi Group, where the Rotzo Formation is the Upper Member. On the local limestone of the Rotzo Formation deep burrowing is a very common type of biogenic activity, as is shown due to the presence of a large characteristic network of burrows which reach down to the lagoonal, marly-clayey assigned strata, suggesting intense bioturbation by large unknown organisms, perhaps giant decapod crustaceans (Probably members of the family Erymidae), although, the burrows found are not closely related to the ones of Shrimps or other decapods, but resemble those of Stomatopoda and Malacostraca. Other includes abandoned burrows, vertical biogenic action and infilling on the sea substrate.

Chondrichthyes
Episodic surficial bioturbation is common on the Rotzo Formation, due to invertebrates or fishes which alter intensely but rapidly the substrate for many cm in depth. It this case the Bioturbation is assigned to mollusc predatory Chondrichthyes, such as Hybodontidae and Heterodontidae. It also resembles present day flat angel sharks or Squatinidae and Guitarfish such as Rhinobatos.

Actinopterygii
Unidentified fish scales are known from the formation.

Dinosaurs
On the Inter-supratidal levels show that on the Rotzo Formation the Tracksites were rarely hit by Storm Waves. Bella Lastra Tracksite recovers this environment, where the shales present (Where Fish & Crocodrylomorph Remains where found) are filled with plant roots, pollen grains, spores, freshwater ostracodes and the bivalve Eomiodon. This was deposited mostly on a Lagoonar environment with abundant shed vegetation. The main local Track record recovers specially Theropoda and Sauropoda, where the Sauropods are the most abundant tracks present (70%), moving the Otozum-like Sauropodomorphs of lower levels, with the climate changing from arid to humid. The Coste dell’Anglone ichnosite is considered as derived from semi-arid tidal flat deposits, due to the abundance of Cheirolepidiaceae Pollen. As the Pliensbachian Trento Platform is considered to be formed by a channelized barrier formed by sand, with reiterate tide emersions. The dinosaurs living here probably trampled on the subtidal flats looking for fishes trapped on tidal-derived ponds.

Flora
The Rotzo Formation was deposited on a Lagoon on the emerged Trento Platform, leading to a well preserved fossil flora record, collected and studied since the 19th century. The great level of floral fossilization has even allow to discovery fossil amber on the Bellori section. This amber has allowed to determine that the environment was a shallow tropical lagoon, only a few metres deep, closed seawards by oolitic shoals and bars. This levels are dominated by a high abundance of Classopollis sp. (Cheirolepidiaceae), associated with dry and wet climates in coastal areas. The abundance of this group of conifers is also proven by the high presence of cuticles of ''Pagiophyllum cf. rotzoanum''. Beyond this genera, spores are highly diversified, including from Sphenophyta, Selaginellales to Ferns, with abundance (more than 50%) of trilete spores (Deltoidospora), what suggest a good freshwater availability corresponding to  a  wet  climate, proven also by the presence of aquatic miospores of algae such as Botryococcus  and Pseudoschizaea. The climate was arid on some seasons with monsoon months. The abundance of marine fauna on this sediments, including fragments of  corals,  bryozoans,  bivalves, echinoids,  and  foraminifera,  suggest transport  from brackish  lagoons  and  marshes,  probably  occurred  during storm events. Overall data points to a marshy and/or submerged paleoenvironment, comparable to the present-day Taxodium swamp or cypress swamp and a Bahamian-type marine environment in a rather wet monsoonal climate as in the modern southeastern Asia.

Amber
The Rotzo Formation records one of the few Early Jurassic assamblages with Amber in the world, the nicknamed "Bellori amber" found near the village of the same name. Made mostly of small droplets of less than 1 mm with exceptionally preserved morphology its likely the amber producing plants were likely not stressed or affected by disease. Due to the small size animal inclusion have not been found. However various plant materials, identified “mummified wood” and wood tissue are known. Additionally large amounts of Circumpolles Cheirolepidiaceous pollen, and occasional freshwater algae Pseudoschizaea remains are included. Several cuticle fragments are attributed to the araucariaceous or Hirmeriellaceae genus Pagiophyllum. Those lived on a coastal and wet palaeoenvironment similar to the present-day Taxodium swamps with monsoonal seasons as in the modern southern Asia.

title: Rotzo Formation


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Dylan Finch

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sam Dylan Finch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a blogger, which is referenced entirely to his own primary source content with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him provided at all. As always, every person who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because directories of his own work exist on the websites of the publications he wrote for -- to qualify for an article, a person needs to be the subject of media coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete. I've found no evidence of significant, independent coverage per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited by contributing to notable publications. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep. He has press coverage with Anxy Magazine (https://medium.com/anxy-magazine/who-gets-to-decide-what-conversations-have-value-ff93c9fa3509) and the Michigal Journal (http://michiganjournal.org/2015/10/27/writing-program-hosts-panel-discussion-to-celebrate-national-day-on-writing/). He is also mentioned on Jes Baker's page because he contributed to her anthology of essays. --decorcione! (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are notability-assisting sources. Anxy is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, and Michigan Journal is a university student newspaper — which are types of sources that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by general market media coverage that's written in the third person, but not sources that can be used to bring the passage of GNG. And a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article just because his name is mentioned in another Wikipedia article about someone else, either. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Websites and student newspapers don't carry any real weight for demonstrating notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A New York Times feature is the definition of notability. I never heard that a Q&A format excludes a source, if true then Charlie Rose and Terry Gross interviews would be forbidden, but again they define notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Q&A interviews can certainly be used for supplementary verification of facts in a Wikipedia article whose notability has already been properly demonstrated by stronger third-party and third-person sources — but they cannot be used as data points toward getting the person past WP:GNG if they're the best sources on offer, because people cannot talk themselves into wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete: The New York Times feature (opinion page) is them writing about themself, the Michigan Journal is an interview, ULoop is not about Finch, Upworthy is a blog, Everyday Feminism articles are primary sources, HuffPost is primary, Ravishly is primary, LetsQueerThingsUP is an interview, Medium is an interview, WearYourVoiceMag is only two sencences actually discussing Finch. There are no independent, secondary, reliable sources writing in-depth about the subject. -- Darth Mike (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not enough sources on the subject, as opposed to ones by the subject, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. NYT source is from the "storywall", so I don't think this helps much. Most of the other sources are also problematic (web ephem, obscure, etc). Agricola44 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
Addysgydd

Addysgydd was a monthly Welsh language periodical published by J. Evans in Carmarthen, Wales during 1823. The periodical is an early example of a Welsh language children's periodical. It was aimed at the children and young people of the Sunday school in Carmarthen. The magazine was edited by the minister and hymn writer David Charles (1803–1880), and contains a number of his hymns. The subject matter of the Journal was largely concerned with religious education. It is thought to be the first Welsh language publication for children to contain illustrations of events from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

title: Addysgydd


text:
User:Cktt13

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User:Cktt13