text:
Everway

Everway is a fantasy role-playing game first published by Wizards of the Coast under their Alter Ego brand in 1995. Its lead designer was Jonathan Tweet. Marketed as a "Visionary Roleplaying Game", it has often been characterized as an innovative concept with limited commercial success. Wizards later abandoned the line, and Rubicon Games purchased it, and published several supplements. The line was sold again to Gaslight Press in February 2001. The line is currently with The Everway Company, which has released a Silver Anniversary Edition.

Setting
The game has a fantasy setting of the multiverse type containing many different worlds, some of which differed from generic fantasy. It appears to have been heavily influenced by divinatory tarot, the four classical elements of ancient Greece, and world mythology.

Overview
The game was first with implementing, in a commercial game, several new concepts including much more picture-based/visual source material and character creation than usual. Like other works by Jonathan Tweet, the rules are very simple and flexible. It is also one of a few diceless role-playing games. The Fortune Deck works as a randomizer and inspirational tool, and the results obtained by it are highly subjective. In order to clarify their use, Tweet coined some new vocabulary to describe and formalize methods of gamemaster adjudication; these terms have been adopted by the wider tabletop RPG community. Tweet's adjudication terms are: Karma (making a decision based on character abilities, tactics, and the internal logic of a fictional situation), Drama (making a decision based on what moves the story along), and Fortune (letting a randomizer — drawing a card in Everway, but could also refer to rolling dice in other games — determine the outcome).

Everway was released as a boxed set designed by Jonathan Tweet, Jenny Scott, Aron Anderson, Scott Hungerford, Kathy Ice, Bob Kruger, and John Tynes, with illustrations by Doug Alexander, Rick Berry, Daniel Gelon, Janine Johnston, Hannibal King, Scott Kirschner, Ed Lee, John Matson, Martin McKenna, Ian Miller, Jeff Miracola, Roger Raupp, Andrew Robinson, Christopher Rush, and Amy Weber, and cover art by Susan Harris

First edition components

 * 162-page Playing Guide
 * 64-page Gamemastering Guide
 * 14-page Guide to the Fortune Deck
 * 90 Vision cards (each depicts a fantastic scene of some sort and is backed with a series of leading questions such as, "What does this person most enjoy?" or "What's the worst thing that could happen in this situation?")
 * 36 Fortune cards (used for "divination" and action resolution, illustrated by Scott Kirschner and Jeff Miracola)
 * four source cards
 * six Questy cards
 * 24 full-colour character sheets
 * 16" x 11" Bonekeep map and 8" x 11" city map
 * plastic trays to hold cards
 * box

Setting
The games revolve around heroes with the power of "spherewalking" traveling between worlds called "spheres". Spheres typically are composed of many "realms". Nearly all spheres are inhabited by humans, with mostly realistic physics. The theme is fantasy-oriented as opposed to science fictional. Advanced technology is explicitly forbidden in the character creation rules. The authors considered anthropology in terms of describing how the people of various spheres live, including many similarities across cultures. Some of these common features are entirely realistic (language, art), and others plainly related to the game's fantasy elements (magic, knowledge of the Fortune Deck).

The titular city of Everway is located in a realm called Roundwander, in the sphere called Fourcorner. Roundwander is the only realm in Fourcorner that is described. There is some detail on the sphere's main city, Everway, which contains a stone pyramid, a set of family-oriented guilds, and various exotic events related to the city's position as an inter-planar trading center. Several dozen other spheres are given one-sentence and a few are given page-long summaries, One it detailed as the setting for a sample adventure, "Journey to Stonekeep".

Character creation
Character design is abstract and simple by most role-playing games' standards. Each character begins with twenty points to divide between four Element scores roughly equivalent to statistics for Strength (Fire), Perception (Water), Intelligence (Air) and Endurance (Earth). Scores range from 1 (pathetic) to 3 (average) to 10 (godlike), so a generic hero would have scores of 5. Each Element also has a specialty for which a character can get a 1-point bonus; e.g., a 5-Air hero with an Air specialty of "Writing" could write as though their Air score were 6. As a general rule a statistic of N is twice as capable as a level of N-1, where this makes sense. (A 5-Fire, 5-Earth hero can typically defeat two 4-Fire, 5-Earth enemies, or handily defeat a 3-Fire, 5-Earth character in foot race, but cannot necessarily run twice as fast even though speed is governed by Fire).

Each character also has Powers representing unusual abilities. These cost from zero to three or more points depending on whether they should be considered Frequent, Major (or even "Twice Major", for especially powerful abilities that significantly affect gameplay) and/or Versatile. For instance, a "Cat Familiar", a slightly intelligent cat, is arguably worth two points for being Frequent (usually around and often useful) and Versatile (able to scout, carry messages, and fight). A "Winning Smile" that makes the hero likable is worth zero points because of its trivial effect, while a "Charming Song" that inspires one emotion when played might be useful enough to count as Frequent (1 point). There is no strict rule for deciding what a Power is worth. Each hero can have one 0-point Power for free; additional Powers that would otherwise cost zero points instead cost one.

Magic is also abstract. A hero wanting access to magic, as opposed to a few specific Powers, must design their own magic system. This is done by choosing an Element for its basis, which affects its theme; e.g., Air is associated with speech and intellect and would be suitable for a system of spoken spells gained through study. The new Magic statistic has a 1–10 rating and point cost, and can be no higher than the Element on what it is based. The game's rules suggest listing examples of what the magic system can do at each power level, working these out with the GM. It is suggested that most characters do not need magic and that it is not suitable for new players.

Finally, each hero has personality traits based on the game's Fortune and Vision cards. Players are to choose one or more Vision cards and base a backstory on them, and to have three Fortune cards representing a Virtue, Fault, and Fate (a challenge they will face). These three cards can change to represent new phases in the hero's life. There is a list of suggested Motives for why the hero is adventuring, such as "Adversity" or "Wanderlust", but this feature has no gameplay effect.

Equipment such as weaponry is handled completely abstractly, with no specific rules for item cost, carrying capacity, or combat statistics. However, a particularly powerful piece of equipment—for example, a cloak that renders its wearer invisible for a brief period—may be treated as a Power that the hero must spend their initial element points on.

The Fortune Deck
To decide what happens, the GM considers the rules of Karma (characters' abilities, tactics, logic), Drama (the needs of the plot), and Fortune, the result of a card drawn from the Fortune Deck. Many of these cards are based on the "Major Arcana" of tarot divination, such as "The Fool" and "Death", but the deck includes original cards such as "Drowning in Armor" and "Law". As with the Tarot deck there is symbolic art and each card has two complementary meanings when upright or reversed (while face up). The meanings are printed on the cards (e.g., "Protective Measures Turn Dangerous" vs. "True Prudence" for "Drowning in Armor") and explained more fully in the game's books. The rules are flexible about how often the GM should consult the Fortune Deck, whether the cards should be shown to players, and how much influence the draw should have—it is entirely acceptable for the GM to never use the deck at all, if she so desires. Though cards sometimes have obvious interpretations for the context in which they are drawn, the rules explain that sometimes they are best read simply as "a positive (or negative) result".

Although the Fortune Deck resembles (and can be used as) a fortune-telling device, Everway treats the Deck only as a storytelling device and an element of the fictional setting. It does not in any way endorse "real" fortune-telling or other supernatural concepts.

Reception
In the December 1995 edition of Dragon (Issue 224), Rick Swan was surprised by Wizards of the Coast's choice of the very different Everway to enter the role-playing game market: "Everway is so far out of the mainstream, it’s barely recognizable as an RPG. For starters, it has no dice. It has no tables or charts. A deck of cards directs the flow of the game. Monster bashing, treasure hunting, dungeon crawling—bye-bye; Everway is pure narrative." Swan liked the "first class" production values of the components, but found the maps "lifeless". Swan was a big fan of the diceless system, saying, "It makes for a brisk game, and Everway, to its credit, plays at blinding speed." But Swan was concerned by how the game placed an unreasonable onus on the improvisational skills of both the gamemaster and the players. He concluded by giving the game an average rating of 4 out of 6.

title: Everway


text:
Talk:East Germany

What's the de jure capital of East Germany?
Just wondering. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * it doesn't have one. It no longer exists as a separate state. See German reunification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say "What was East Germany's de jure capital when it existed" Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 * East Berlin was the capital, period. The NATO trolls maintaining this article added that garbage footnote because Amerikkka and its two older brothers England and France (the original NATO trolls) all refused to recognize GDR's capital. Crybabies. 142.198.135.212 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Was the Soviet Sector ever recognized as part of the GDR and its capital? Incidentally, the GDR referred to it as Berlin Haupstadt der DDR. TFD (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even the Soviets fully recognized East Berlin as the formal capital. 84.216.156.210 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union and other Communist countries refused to recognize West Berlin as even being part of West Germany, let alone as West Germany's de jure capital.
 * Communist countries, however, did not recognise West Berlin as part of West Germany and usually described it as a "third" German jurisdiction, called to "independent political unit" (German: selbständige politische Einheit). On maps of East Berlin, West Berlin often did not appear as an adjacent urban area but as a monochrome terra incognita, sometimes showing the letters WB, meaning "Westberlin" (German: Westberlin) or overlaid with a legend or pictures. It was often labelled "Westberlin special political area" (German: Besonderes politisches Gebiet Westberlin).
 * West_Berlin
 * Carney333 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to reinforce my point, see this excerpt from page 88 of an official 1986 publication of the East German government describing the GDR to foreign readers. It says:
 * In its relations with West Berlin the GDR is guided by strict adherence to the Quadripartite Agreement, notably its central provision that West Berlin continues not to be a constituent part of the Federal Republic and may not be governed by it.
 * Carney333 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * West Berlin was never internationally recognized as part of the Federal Republic of Germany, even though it was treated as one of the Lander. The FRG chose Bonn, not West Berlin, as its capital.
 * OTOH, the FRG claimed sovereignty over all of the former Soviet Sector, all of Berlin and half of Poland, until renouncing these claims as part of Ostpolitik. TFD (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * West Germany never recognized the GDR as sovereign country, as opposed to parts of today’s Poland. There was no GDR citizenship, according to West German law, and West Germany didn’t have an embassy in the GDR. Andif1 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

National Committee for a Free Germany(NKFD)
I think we should add the National Committee for a Free Germany into a section. maybe a mix between the (identity) section and the (origin) section of East Germany. The reason why is because many members of this organization played a big role in the foundation, creation and the governance of east Germany. Zyxrq (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Satellite state
@Vif12vf, I ask you to explain the reasons of reverting my edit. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Infoboxes are for general facts, not characterizations that shall be attributed. East Germany was a sovereign state, just like West Germany was, or modern-day Belarus is. Whether or not someone considers a state to be a 'satellite' of another is irrelevant regarding its legal standing. I distinctly remember reverting the same exact edit already in July 2023. Please self-revert and follow the standard WP:BRD procedure. –Vipz (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comecon members are widely characterized as Soviet Satellite states, including the Polish People's Republic page. There's a provided by the authoritative sources proofs that these countries didn't have fully independent and sovereign policies, but were subordinated to the authority of the Soviet Union.
 * Also, 2 Comecon members were invaded by the USSR after leading an independent and more liberal than socialistic dictatorship policies.
 * Both DPR between 2014 and 2022 or Northern Cyprus are also legally considered as 'independent', but both considered as military occupation by an international community.
 * So, by these reasons I disagree with your statement and I won't revert my constructive and cited edit. If you don't agree with me, please provide an authoritative sources proving your point and statement. Ones proving mine I've already cited in my edit.
 * --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not applied here because Vif12vf didn't provide any reason for reverting my good-faith edit in the edit summary. I've constructively reverted their unexplained revert and invited to this talk page. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Soviet satellite" state is a politically charged statement that requires extensive scolarly sourcing, so far the evidence presented is lacking. Political influence of one state over another is a common thing, one needs to be careful with formulations. I propose removing "status" altogether from the infobox. F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. That's a very controversial and debatable point and we should follow the Neutral point of view. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Government
@Nikkimaria Why did you remove the government section? Please explain. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi UA0Volodymyr, this level of detail would be better explored (and properly sourced) in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the Polish People's Republic page where there is a similar section with nearly same size? --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 * That should be addressed too. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For a complete discussion: the section that was being added multiple times was: this one. As an initial idea for a consensus: one could either attach a note to a simple statement like "Communist" or drastically reduce the amount of information and linking. JackTheSecond (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor typos in the Ostalgie subsection
The final paragraph in the "Ostalgie" subsection reads

"In 2023, a poll found that 40% of East Germans identify as East Germans rather then German which was 52%."

I think that it should be changed to something more grammatically correct like

"In 2023, a poll found that 40% of Germans living in the former East Germany identify as East Germans rather than German, which 52% identified as." JonathanArbuckle (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:East Germany


text:
Eurocard (printed circuit board)

Eurocard is an IEEE standard format for printed circuit board (PCB) cards that can be plugged together into a standard chassis which, in turn, can be mounted in a 19-inch rack. The chassis consists of a series of slotted card guides on the top and bottom, into which the cards are slid so they stand on end, like books on a shelf. At the spine of each card is one or more connectors which plug into mating connectors on a backplane that closes the rear of the chassis.

Dimensions
As the cards are assumed to be installed in a vertical orientation, the usual meanings of height and width are transposed: A card might be 233.35 mm "high", but only 20 mm "wide". Height is measured in rack units, "U", with 1 U being 1.75 in. This dimension refers to the subrack in which the card is to be mounted, rather than the card itself.

A single card is 100 mm high. Taller cards add a 133.35 mm, so that a double height card is 233.35 mm high and a triple 366.7 mm high.

Enclosure heights are multiples of 3U, with the cards always 33.35 mm shorter than the enclosure. Two common heights are 3U (a 100 mm card in a 5.25 in subrack) and 6U (a 233.35 mm card in a 10.5 in high subrack). As two 3U cards are shorter than a 6U card (by 33.35 mm), it is possible to install two 3U cards in one slot of a 6U subrack, with a mid-height structure for proper support.

Card widths are specified in horizontal pitch units "HP", with 1 HP being 0.20 in.

Card depths start at 100 mm and increase in 60 mm increments. The most common today is 160 mm, but standard hardware is available for depths of 100 mm, 160 mm, 220 mm, 280 mm, 340 mm, and 400 mm.

Standards and architecture
The Eurocard mechanical architecture was defined originally under IEC-60297-3. Today, the most widely recognized standards for this mechanical structure are IEEE 1101.1, IEEE 1101.10 (also known commonly as "dot ten") and IEEE 1101.11. IEEE 1101.10 covers the additional mechanical and electromagnetic interference features required for VITA 1.1-1997(R2002), which is the VME64 Extensions standard, as well as PICMG 2.0 (R3.0), which is the CompactPCI specification.

The IEEE 1101.11 standard covers rear plug-in units that are also called rear transition modules or RTMs.

The Eurocard is a mechanical system and does not define the specific connector to be used or the signals that are assigned to connector contacts.

The connector systems that are commonly used with Eurocard architectures include the original DIN 41612 connector that is also standardized as IEC 60603.2. This is the connector that is used for the VMEbus standard, which was IEEE 1014. The connector known as the 5-row DIN, which is used for the VME64 Extensions standard is IEC 61076-4-113. The VME64 Extension architecture defined by VITA 1.1-1997 (R2002).

Another popular computer architecture that utilizes the 6U-160 Eurocard is CompactPCI and CompactPCI Express. These are defined by PICMG 2.0R3 and PICMG Exp0 R1 respectively. Other computer architectures that utilize the Eurocard system are VME eXtensions for Instrumentation (VXI), PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation (PXI), and PXI Express.

A computer architecture that used the 6U-220 Eurocard format was Multibus-II, which was IEEE 1296.

Because the Eurocard system provided for so many modular card sizes and because connector manufacturers have continued to create new connectors that are compatible with this system, it is a popular mechanical standard that is also used for innumerable "one-off" applications.

Conduction-cooled Eurocards are used in military and aerospace applications. They are defined by the IEEE 1101.2-1992 (2001) standard.

The Eurocard standard is also the basis of the "Eurorack" format for modular electronic music synthesizers, popularized by Doepfer and other manufacturers.

title: Eurocard (printed circuit board)


text:
Talk:England

Country, State or Nation?
This helpful article helped me understand the difference between a Country, State and Nation. I note the confusion of different interpretations of each word. However I would argue the introduction of this article should read "England is a nation that is part of the United Kingdom". This would better agree with the wiki definitions of Country, Nation and State (polity). Ssojjoss (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 * You can find academic sources at Countries of the United Kingdom. Moxy 🍁 00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, there are no academic sources which support the claim that England is a country. In the meantime, the United Nations does NOT recognise England as a country, nor does England meet the definition of a country in the various dictionaries, which invariably refer to an area of land which has its own government, something which England does not have. Texas used to be a country, still has its own government though, and is clearly closer to the definition of country than England is, as are the other 49 states, and all the states in Australia. England is more like a state of the United Kingdom, but it doesn't even rise to that level, because once again it doesn't have its own government. England is more like a group of provinces of the United Kingdom than anything else! It certainly isn't a country... FillsHerTease (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be definitely be changed, because England is NOT a country. There is no basis whatsoever on which it can be called a country. It doesn't have it's own government. It doesn't have passports. It doesn't have ANYTHING that an actual country has. Not to mention the fact that it is part of a ... drum roll please ... country called The United Kingdom. I'm sure people call it a country simply because it was, at one stage, and for many hundreds of years. Anyone who says it is a country needs to explain why England is a country but Texas is not, considering that, unlike England, Texas DOES have a government, and even its own Constitution. However it isn't a country, despite the fact that it was one at one stage, because it is part of another country, namely The United States. There is no such thing as a country that is part of another country! FillsHerTease (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why England is not a country? So the English flag doesn't make sense? In what world did you think that? There is so much arrogance, so much shallow knowledge that this shouldn't even be considered an "argument",because clearly I can see that you don't understand anything about the subject,this is worst edit I've ever seen, and they still say that the problem with Wikipedia is reliable sources, being after all, no one is saved and will never be saved anytime soon, If you don't stop being intolerant and want to own the truth, you'll make me feel sorry, man, I'm in mourning, because your brain passed away a long time ago. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained why it isn't a country, but I'll explain again because you obviously aren't very bright:
 * 1. It doesn't have it's own government.
 * 2. It doesn't have passports.
 * 3. It isn't recognised as a country by the United Nations.
 * 4. It doesn't meet the definition of country in the various dictionaries.
 * 5. The COUNTRY it is part of is called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and there is no such thing as a country that is part of another country.
 * These are the things which countries ALL have, FillsHerTease (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please try to be civil. And note, this has been discussed many times before and the consensus seems to be as the wording is now.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dude, there's no point in saying "Ah, be civil", this guy won't accept that he's wrong. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not wrong. FillsHerTease (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone says "I'm in mourning, because your brain passed away a long time ago", then ... NO ... I will NOT be civil. Where is your admonition for the person who started it? I have quoted sources - i.e. The United Nations amongst others - and presented an argument, but he has provided NOTHING but insults in reply. If it has been discussed in the past and you have reached the erroneous conclusion that England is a country, then that's fine, I understand how it works, but don't come after me for responding in kind to someone who has don't NOTHING except throw shade. FillsHerTease (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop being an idiot, man, you should be banned from Wikipedia, you want to try to be the lord of the truth, but everything you've said so far is hypocrisy, you're a shame, listen? And don't bother filling my patience with your stupidity, because I'm fed up with it, if you want to lie, lie right, man. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some more sources by the way:
 * The Encyclopaedia Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-countries-1993160
 * Worldmeter - https://www.worldometers.info/geography/alphabetical-list-of-countries/
 * US Department of State - https://history.state.gov/countries/all
 * WIKIPEDIA ITSELF DOESN'T RECOGNISE ENGLAND AS A COUNTRY - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states FillsHerTease (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sovereign states typically decide on the names of their component parts. Russia is made up of 'republics'. The US of 'states'. I believe France calls them 'regions'. The UK government calls its largest components 'countries'. See Countries of the United Kingdom.
 * ISO 3166-2:GB defines England as a 'country'. See also the UK's submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names which defines the UK as being made up of two countries (England and Scotland), one principality (Wales) and one province (Northern Ireland). The UK's Office of National Statistics also describes England as a country. Seems pretty definitive to me. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say it seems pretty definitive that the people of England want to keep referring to England as a country. You say the UK made a submission to the United Nations, but the United Nations does not recognise England and a country - despite what people in England might say or think - and England does not meet the United Nations definition of a country. You quote the UK Office of National Statistics, but I have quote the US State Department. I have also shown what other encyclopaedias say, and shown that Wikipedia doesn't list it as a country. Doesn't seem like your argument is very definitive at all. Since when does a local custom - which, as I've said, exists for very obvious reasons, but is wrong - trump reality? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean this one: https://history.state.gov/countries/all? It says it's a list of "countries with which the United States has had diplomatic relations." And it's clearly meant for that purpose only.
 * In any case, you don't seem to have a consensus on changing the term I'm afraid. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, another person claiming that the US Government hasn't had diplomatic relations with England. LOL! I already agreed that I know how things work, and that if it has already been decided - ERRONEOUSLY - that England is a country, then that's fine. If you don't want this encyclopaedia to be accurate, then there's nothing I can do... FillsHerTease (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting the term 'country' aside for a moment, what do you suggest England is? You've given one source which uses the term 'constituent'. Is that your suggested term? Are there other sources which call it simply a 'constituent'? I see you've said 'group of provinces' also. Are there any sources which define England as a 'group of provinces'? Dgp4004 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting the term 'country' aside for a moment, what do you suggest England is? You've given one source which uses the term 'constituent'. Is that your suggested term? Are there other sources which call it simply a 'constituent'? I see you've said 'group of provinces' also. Are there any sources which define England as a 'group of provinces'? Dgp4004 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this page has neither the HDI nor Gini of England listed? All other UK nation pages (Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom etc) have them. 92.15.85.19 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 * We can't get a source for England HDI, sadly (see the source on the other pages). And for GINI, the only source was the Scottish Government which somebody objected to as it was felt to be unreliable. Dgp4004 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no basis whatsoever on which it can be called a country. England is a country because the vast majority of people in the British Isles call it a country. It's that simple. For WP purposes there are numerous quality RSSs that also call it a country. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly! It was a country, once upon a time, and a very powerful one at that, so people have kept calling it a country - for obvious reasons - but this is an encyclopaedia, and in the real world England is not a country, so this encyclopaedia should not refer to it as one.
 * Here is the entry on England in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/place/England - which refers to it as a "constituent", which is what it is (though I think I used the term "province" above).
 * Here is the link in the New World Encyclopaedia, which also refers to it as a constituent - https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/England
 * I could easily add another 20 different sources which make it clear that it is not a country... FillsHerTease (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are all these sources - I have provided multiple sources - and when are they going to be added to the page? FillsHerTease (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quote: Exactly! I'm glad you agree with me. It's bed time, but referring to your sources, and before I turn off the light, WP doesn't count as a source. The US govt source, that isn't secondary, says This section provides historical reference information on the countries with which the United States has had diplomatic relations. Where does it say England isn't a country, or that the USA doesn't recognise England as a country? I don't have time to explain why your other sources aren't siotable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! So England is a country, but the US Government hasn't had diplomatic relations with them??? LOL!
 * "I don't have time to explain why your other sources aren't siotable." - I'll take that to mean that you don't have any good arguments, and that your claim that the US Government has never had relations with England is the best you can do... FillsHerTease (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we should make Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs more clear so our readers can educate themselves. Moxy 🍁 21:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024
Please change "the greater metropolitan of which has a population" (Intro) to "the metropolitan area of which has a population" because i. there's no noun following the adj ii. 'greater metropolitan' is not justified by the content of the relative article (Greater London is more specific, and there are other area definitions as well) Aethalides 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024
Under transport, 'Bus Rapid Transit' is incorrectly in capitals. It should be bus rapid transit (BRT). 2A0A:EF40:E81:7701:C9E4:23A8:8929:A3F7 (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024 (2)
In the third paragraph, the opening sentence "England is the origin the..." should be changed to "English is the origin of the...". Toor137 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Should be changed to: "England is the origin of the..."
 * can't believe I made a mistake while correcting one! Toor137 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024
Cite badminton in sport section Backdoored (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024
Under energy, add the Viking Link and National Grid network, such as the following:

Much of Great Britain's National Grid electric power transmission network runs through England. The English parts of the National Grid are controlled from the National Grid Control Centre located in Berkshire. The Viking Link between Denmark and England is the world’s longest land and subsea interconnector, which was completed in 2023. 2A0A:EF40:E0D:1D01:4971:1631:57B8:4CC0 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ as this is a request to verbatim restore an edit by LTA banned user Lam312321321. They are the reason that this article is currently edit protected. --Belbury (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2024
Add all the English cities designated City of Literature under Literature; this includes Exeter, Manchester, Norwich, and Nottingham. KingandcountryGB (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Charliehdb (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Update
The poltics section needs to be updated, due to the aftermath of the UK general election. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:1D3D:909:A1B3:2F4B (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024
> [|Goverance]

> Change the MP make up of England, after the results of the recent election. KingandcountryGB (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:England


text:
Electron counting

In chemistry, electron counting is a formalism for assigning a number of valence electrons to individual atoms in a molecule. It is used for classifying compounds and for explaining or predicting their electronic structure and bonding. Many rules in chemistry rely on electron-counting:

 * Octet rule is used with Lewis structures for main group elements, especially the lighter ones such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen,
 * 18-electron rule in inorganic chemistry and organometallic chemistry of transition metals,
 * Hückel's rule for the π-electrons of aromatic compounds,
 * Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory for polyhedral cluster compounds, including transition metals and main group elements and mixtures thereof, such as boranes.

Atoms are called "electron-deficient" when they have too few electrons as compared to their respective rules, or "hypervalent" when they have too many electrons. Since these compounds tend to be more reactive than compounds that obey their rule, electron counting is an important tool for identifying the reactivity of molecules. While the counting formalism considers each atom separately, these individual atoms (with their hypothetical assigned charge) do not generally exist as free species.

Counting rules
Two methods of electron counting are "neutral counting" and "ionic counting". Both approaches give the same result (and can therefore be used to verify one's calculation).
 * The neutral counting approach assumes the molecule or fragment being studied consists of purely covalent bonds. It was popularized by Malcolm Green along with the L and X ligand notation. It is usually considered easier especially for low-valent transition metals.

 * The "ionic counting" approach assumes purely ionic bonds between atoms.

It is important, though, to be aware that most chemical species exist between the purely covalent and ionic extremes.

Neutral counting

 * Neutral counting assumes each bond is equally split between two atoms.
 * This method begins with locating the central atom on the periodic table and determining the number of its valence electrons. One counts valence electrons for main group elements differently from transition metals, which use d electron count.
 * E.g. in period 2: B, C, N, O, and F have 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 valence electrons, respectively.
 * E.g. in period 4: K, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Ni have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 valence electrons respectively.

 * One is added for every halide or other anionic ligand which binds to the central atom through a sigma bond.
 * Two is added for every lone pair bonding to the metal (e.g. each Lewis base binds with a lone pair). Unsaturated hydrocarbons such as alkenes and alkynes are considered Lewis bases. Similarly Lewis and Bronsted acids (protons) contribute nothing.
 * One is added for each homoelement bond.
 * One is added for each negative charge, and one is subtracted for each positive charge.

Ionic counting

 * Ionic counting assumes unequal sharing of electrons in the bond. The more electronegative atom in the bond gains electron lost from the less electronegative atom.
 * This method begins by calculating the number of electrons of the element, assuming an oxidation state.
 * E.g. for a Fe2+ has 6 electrons
 * S2− has 8 electrons

 * Two is added for every halide or other anionic ligand which binds to the metal through a sigma bond.
 * Two is added for every lone pair bonding to the metal (e.g. each phosphine ligand can bind with a lone pair). Similarly Lewis and Bronsted acids (protons) contribute nothing.
 * For unsaturated ligands such as alkenes, one electron is added for each carbon atom binding to the metal.

"Special cases"
The numbers of electrons "donated" by some ligands depends on the geometry of the metal-ligand ensemble. An example of this complication is the M–NO entity. When this grouping is linear, the NO ligand is considered to be a three-electron ligand. When the M–NO subunit is strongly bent at N, the NO is treated as a pseudohalide and is thus a one electron (in the neutral counting approach). The situation is not very different from the η3 versus the η1 allyl. Another unusual ligand from the electron counting perspective is sulfur dioxide.

Examples

 * H2O

For a water molecule (H2O), using both neutral counting and ionic counting result in a total of 8 electrons. The neutral counting method assumes each OH bond is split equally (each atom gets one electron from the bond). Thus both hydrogen atoms have an electron count of one. The oxygen atom has 6 valence electrons. The total electron count is 8, which agrees with the octet rule. With the ionic counting method, the more electronegative oxygen will gain electrons donated by the two hydrogen atoms in the two OH bonds to become O2-. It now has 8 total valence electrons, which obeys the octet rule.

 * CH4, for the central C
 * neutral counting: C contributes 4 electrons, each H radical contributes one each: 4 + 4 × 1 = 8 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: C4− contributes 8 electrons, each proton contributes 0 each: 8 + 4 × 0 = 8 electrons.
 * Similar for H:
 * neutral counting: H contributes 1 electron, the C contributes 1 electron (the other 3 electrons of C are for the other 3 hydrogens in the molecule): 1 + 1 × 1 = 2 valence electrons.
 * ionic counting: H contributes 0 electrons (H+), C4− contributes 2 electrons (per H), 0 + 1 × 2 = 2 valence electrons
 * conclusion: Methane follows the octet-rule for carbon, and the duet rule for hydrogen, and hence is expected to be a stable molecule (as we see from daily life)

 * H2S, for the central S
 * neutral counting: S contributes 6 electrons, each hydrogen radical contributes one each: 6 + 2 × 1 = 8 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: S2− contributes 8 electrons, each proton contributes 0: 8 + 2 × 0 = 8 valence electrons
 * conclusion: with an octet electron count (on sulfur), we can anticipate that H2S would be pseudo-tetrahedral if one considers the two lone pairs.

 * SCl2, for the central S
 * neutral counting: S contributes 6 electrons, each chlorine radical contributes one each: 6 + 2 × 1 = 8 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: S2+ contributes 4 electrons, each chloride anion contributes 2: 4 + 2 × 2 = 8 valence electrons
 * conclusion: see discussion for H2S above. Both SCl2 and H2S follow the octet rule - the behavior of these molecules is however quite different.

 * SF6, for the central S
 * neutral counting: S contributes 6 electrons, each fluorine radical contributes one each: 6 + 6 × 1 = 12 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: S6+ contributes 0 electrons, each fluoride anion contributes 2: 0 + 6 × 2 = 12 valence electrons
 * conclusion: ionic counting indicates a molecule lacking lone pairs of electrons, therefore its structure will be octahedral, as predicted by VSEPR. One might conclude that this molecule would be highly reactive - but the opposite is true: SF6 is inert, and it is widely used in industry because of this property.

 * RuCl2(bpy)2

RuCl2(bpy)2 is an octahedral metal complex with two bidentate 2,2′-Bipyridine (bpy) ligands and two chloride ligands. In the neutral counting method, the Ruthenium of the complex is treated as Ru(0). It has 8 d electrons to contribute to the electron count. The two bpy ligands are L-type ligand neutral ligands, thus contributing two electrons each. The two chloride ligands hallides and thus 1 electron donors, donating 1 electron each to the electron count. The total electron count of RuCl2(bpy)2 is 18. In the ionic counting method, the Ruthenium of the complex is treated as Ru(II). It has 6 d electrons to contribute to the electron count. The two bpy ligands are L-type ligand neutral ligands, thus contributing two electrons each. The two chloride ligands are anionic ligands, thus donating 2 electrons each to the electron count. The total electron count of RuCl2(bpy)2 is 18, agreeing with the result of neural counting.

 * TiCl4, for the central Ti
 * neutral counting: Ti contributes 4 electrons, each chlorine radical contributes one each: 4 + 4 × 1 = 8 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: Ti4+ contributes 0 electrons, each chloride anion contributes two each: 0 + 4 × 2 = 8 valence electrons
 * conclusion: Having only 8e (vs. 18 possible), we can anticipate that TiCl4 will be a good Lewis acid. Indeed, it reacts (in some cases violently) with water, alcohols, ethers, amines.

 * Fe(CO)5
 * neutral counting: Fe contributes 8 electrons, each CO contributes 2 each: 8 + 2 × 5 = 18 valence electrons
 * ionic counting: Fe(0) contributes 8 electrons, each CO contributes 2 each: 8 + 2 × 5 = 18 valence electrons
 * conclusions: this is a special case, where ionic counting is the same as neutral counting, all fragments being neutral. Since this is an 18-electron complex, it is expected to be isolable compound.

 * Ferrocene, (C5H5)2Fe, for the central Fe:
 * neutral counting: Fe contributes 8 electrons, the 2 cyclopentadienyl-rings contribute 5 each: 8 + 2 × 5 = 18 electrons
 * ionic counting: Fe2+ contributes 6 electrons, the two aromatic cyclopentadienyl rings contribute 6 each: 6 + 2 × 6 = 18 valence electrons on iron.
 * conclusion: Ferrocene is expected to be an isolable compound.

title: Electron counting