text:
Talk:Saint Petersburg

Article name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg → St. Petersburg – As English language sources use St. Petersburg, per WP:CommonName this article should be titled St. Petersburg. I have looked back through the archives, and this matter doesn't appear to have been previously discussed. (on behalf of SilkTork)) Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC) As English language sources use St. Petersburg, per WP:CommonName this article should be titled St. Petersburg. I have looked back through the archives, and this matter doesn't appear to have been previously discussed. As the article is high profile, and well edited, and has held the present title for some years, I am pausing before moving from Saint Petersburg to St. Petersburg.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with this name change. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this, leaning towards leaving the article where it is, but I understand the reasoning. At any rate, whatever you do, don't just move the page. This is a high-profile article which at the very least deserves to go through a move request for wider input, in case there are less-than-obvious considerations that need to be taken into account.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 28, 2013; 13:40 (UTC)

 * I think this is an uncontroversial move - I am simply pausing here to see if there's something the article regulars know that I missed. This is the move request discussion, if you like. If you prefer to set up a more formal move request, please do so using this section as the starting point, otherwise I will action the move tomorrow.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree this is an uncontroversial move, and even if your reasoning is correct (as it very well may be), it should go through a review more thorough than a couple of hasty comments. The article is about a major city, not some obscure concept where judgement of a couple editors is usually good enough. Since the move is your initiative, it is also your responsibility to format and submit the RM properly; please don't shift this burden to other people. Thank you for understanding.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 28, 2013; 15:26 (UTC)
 * I formatted a formal request. (aw, come on, loosen up, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we can ignore the rules at any time for the good of the encyclopedia, remember?) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I didn't ask to follow the rules for the sake of feeding the bureaucracy :) A properly submitted RM leads to notifications automatically posted in all kinds of places, thus enabling a lot more people to comment other than the handful who happened to have the page on their watchlists and who paid attention on this particular day. And the article's high profile calls for a little bit more formality, don't you think? I would have happily helped to RM this myself, had I agreed with the proposal, but I have my reservations (and will document them here shortly after mulling them over); me submitting a request with which I don't quite agree would have simply looked weird :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2013; 01:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Um, I can't really take this nomination seriously... Of course, I'm Russian and I see the things from this side of the ocean, but I can't imagine a contraction as the primary reference to a city. This is Saint Petersburg, not St. Petersburg, Florida! I can't come up with any proper arguments for the full spelling, but I guess that's just because it is the default spelling? Personally, I've seen "Saint Petersburg" far more often than "St. Petersburg" - and I mean written in English, not in Russian. Maybe it is a U.S. tradition to contract it, but certainly not global (and we should take into account not only English-speaking countries). A brief glance through the references gives at least three that use full spelling:, incl. Encyclopædia Britannica, which contracts it in text but spells in full in the title. YLSS (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I understand the reasoning behind the request, after reflecting on it for a while I can't agree with it. Let me explain. In Russian, the name of the city is "Санкт-Петербург", which unambiguously translates to "Saint Petersburg". "Saint Petersburg" is, in fact, the variant recognized as the conventional English name by the NGA, which I suspect is one of the reasons why our article is titled so. "St. Petersburg", on the other hand, is obviously just an abbreviation of the conventional name. Now, there is no doubt that the abbreviated name is being used in the real world a lot, but the question remains: is a commonly used abbreviation the same as the common name in English? I am not convinced that it is. To me, arguing about whether "St. Petersburg" is more common than "Saint Petersburg" is akin to arguing whether the article about the 100 meters sprint race should be under "100 meters" or "100 m". Surely the latter is extremely common as well! In the end, it boils down to benefits to both readers and editors, and in this case I just don't see any. Regardless of whether the full or abbreviated version is used as the title, the other variant remains (as it should) a redirect to it, rendering any navigational concerns moot. And a move of an article of this scale is bound to create inconveniences for editors, too (think of a gazillion bot edits this move will trigger, and think about how many other minor tweaks would have to be done manually across Wikipedia). All for a benefit that's nowhere to be seen. And if the article is moved, what are we going to be arguing about next? Whether "St. Petersburg" is more common than "St Petersburg"? This seems to be a move just for a move's sake (but please do enlighten me if there's some important benefit I'm just not seeing).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2013; 15:25 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessary and let's also remember that this fails WP:ENGVAR, since "St. Petersburg" would be American English. Commonwealth English favours "St Petersburg". Better to leave as is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think that titles should be abbreviated unless the title is very long.  There is no WP:COMMONNAME differentiation between "St. Petersburg" and "Saint Petersburg", both are equally recognisable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article title
As a native English speaker and resident of St. Petersburg, I propose renaming the article's title to "St. Petersburg". "Saint Petersburg" is a widespread error resulting from a literal translation of the city's Russian name, "Sankt-Peterburg", by Russian-speaking translators. This error appears to have become widespread only after the advent of the Internet. You'll not find it anywhere in older English-language sources.Abercius (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know, Britannica uses Saint Petersburg. Any way to check paper maps?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition (p. 38): "St Petersburg". Other formats available here. —Abercius (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Current online version--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You did see that the move proposal immediately above this section failed just a couple weeks ago, right? Unless you can offer any new arguments, there is hardly any point in reopening it. Plus, a wide-sweeping statement that the "Saint Petersburg" spelling is a "widespread error" (as opposed to being the full form of "St. Petersburg") really needs to be supported by sources. So far you've offered none (EB 11th edition, is merely an example of alternative usage, and a badly outdated one at that). The NGA's website, on the other hand, gives only "Saint Petersburg" as the conventional English name, not the abbreviation, and those folks are extremely conservative with their "conventional name" assessments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2013; 12:07 (UTC)
 * That's just the thing, that electronic and post-Internet reference works can't be regarded as definitive. Unfortunately, many errors have "gone viral" in our day and found their way into even such respected publications as the Britannica.  Older, printed reference works must be consulted to really settle the issue, but few of these can be found on the Internet.  But if you want online sources, here are a few:
 * The Oxford Dictionary (GB)
 * The Oxford Dictionary (US)
 * The Longman Dictionary
 * Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
 * WordNet 3.0
 * Google Maps

 * The St. Petersburg Times
 * The State Hermitage Museum
 * The State Russian Museum
 * The Mariinsky Theatre
 * St. Petersburg International Economic Forum

 * By the way, since you've cited the current Britannica, you'll find that other entries in it use "St Petersburg" or "St. Petersburg".  Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, just to mention a few.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abercius (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * —Abercius (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not what I asked for. Not one of all those sources says that the "Saint Petersburg" spelling is a "widespread error" or is somehow incorrect. The only thing they illustrate is that some sources use "St(.) Petersburg", the abbreviated version of the full name (a fact that no one ever contended). For all we know, it's a part of the manual of style they follow, and a style choice is never an error, merely a decision. One could easily compile a similar list of sources which use "Saint Petersburg"; indeed, some are already available in the thread above this one. Additionally, that "electronic and post-Internet reference works can't be regarded as definitive" is strictly your opinion, and a rather unorthodox one, I would say. If you look at Wikipedia's definition of what a "reliable source" is, you won't see "electronic and post-Internet reference" in the list of exclusions; on the contrary, the very definition of "published" (further explained here) notes that whether a document is published in traditional printed format or online makes no difference.
 * Regarding Britannica's in-text examples, these remind me strongly of NPR's style guide, according to which the current President of the United States is referred to as "President Obama" on the first mention, but as "Mr. Obama" subsequently. Deciding what a title of a Wikipedia article should be based on such technicalities isn't a terribly smart idea, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2013; 13:51 (UTC)
 * Уважаемый Ezhiki, perhaps you might at least consider giving some heed to my opinion on this issue, the opinion of a native (unlike you) English speaker and professional translator, instead of just rejecting it outright? This page is evidence to that fact that I'm not alone: others have raised this problem before me and also consider "Saint Petersburg" an error.  Just maybe we could be right?

 * In any case, here's an additional argument you might find convincing:

 * From the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (1994):

 * When saints' names are written into those of institutions, the shortened form St(.) is always used... Geographical names which honor a saint are likewise written with St(.): St Gotthard Pass, St Kilda, St Moritz, St Petersburg. Abbreviated forms like these are used in the gazetteers of world atlases published by The Times and Oxford, among others, and they reflect common usage... Use of full stop/period: The shortened form St is normally left unstopped by British writers and editors, because (a) it's a contraction rather than an abbreviation, and (b) it contains a lower case letter.
 * (Source).
 * —Abercius (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As one professional (albeit no longer practicing) translator to another I assure you I gave full weight to your arguments :) So did other people, to very similar arguments, in the thread immediately above. It should be rather obvious that neither "Saint Petersburg" nor "St. Petersburg" (nor "St Petersburg") are incorrect; at least no one was able to support such a claim with an authoritative source. What we have here is clearly a matter of style, and while in matters of style usage is one of the selection criteria, it is by no means the only one. Your Cambridge Guide example would have been a convincing argument only if the said guide had been adopted as Wikipedia's sole style guide (which it hadn't been). Style matters in Wikipedia are driven by applicable policies and guidelines, as well as community consensus, and here we have neither. If any of those ingredients change, then I am sure the article will be moved. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2013; 15:00 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should see the article for St Asaph in North Wales: that follows the convention User:Abercius was referring to, and conforms with the said Cambridge Guide to English Usage. If that city can be there (along with all other cities with "St." in them), this should be among them too. -- 92.13.63.113 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of the St Asaph article is formatted to meet the British English usage conventions due to the strong national ties. The subject on St. Petersburg, Russia has no national ties to any variety of English, which is why the original choice of spelling has a greater weight, per WP:RETAIN. Since the current title is not incorrect, there is no point in changing it. Additionally, nothing is to be gained by switching to any of the two other equally valid spellings, but there is something to lose—instead of a current stable compromise title we'll get endless quarrels on whether it should be "St. Petersburg" or "St Petersburg". Lest you think I'm exaggerating, a quick scan through WT:AT and its archives will show you that some editors are happy to churn out kilobytes upon kilobytes of pointless discussions over even less significant issues...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 15, 2013; 15:49 (UTC)
 * Regarding "endless quarrels on whether it should be 'St. Petersburg' or 'St Petersburg'", can you cite any evidence to support that claim?  The variant with the full stop is American, the other British.  Both are equally correct, and I for one would be happy with either as long as consistency is maintained.—Abercius (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't purposefully keep track of every silly squabble Wikipedians somehow find time to engage in, but disputes about the choice between British and American spelling in articles which have to do with neither Britain nor America (and where WP:ENGVAR is happily ignored) are surprisingly common. Indeed, this very thread is already heading that way! If you ever feel like being astonished by the pettiness (and length!) of some disputes (many of which are not dissimilar to this hypothetical one), just take a look at WT:AT and its archives. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 28, 2013; 16:06 (UTC)

Airport photo
For whom it may concern

Please, change the photo of Pulkovo airport. Now we have new terminal, long awaited, and don`t have those Russian types as portrayed (hope obtain some). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.38.217 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.67.55 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My city is called Sankt Petersburg! Not Saint....
Please respect our Russian spelling and change. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.166.82 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Тhe city is in fact called Санкт-Петербург - in Russian. In German, it is called Sankt-Petersburg; please note the added "s", which is absent from the Russian name. In English, cities named after saints start with "St." by convention, e.g. St. Louis or St. Paul in the U.S.. You wouldn't expect English Wikipedia to rename the article for "Moscow" to "Moskva" or the Russian Wikipedia to change the current "Сент-Луис" to "Ст. Луис". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.190.95 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree - this isn't a question of "respecting our Russian spelling", but simply of using the accepted name in the language you happen to be writing in. If we were to apply the "respect" principle, then we'd have to insist that Russian-speakers stop calling Rome "Рим" ("Rim") and Athens "Афины" ("Afiny" - Russian doesn't have a sound corresponding to "th", and replaces it with "f") and change them to something more "respectful" of Italian- or Greek-speakers. So please don't tell us English-speakers how to use our own language - just as we English-speakers shouldn't tell Russian-speakers how to use theirs.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/pulkovointnernationa/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a hyphen?
Encyclopedant (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 13, 2015 ; 13:08 (UTC)

In the name of the city. There shouldn't be a hyphen, it spells in English exactly as it is over here. The confusion comes from Russian language where the name of the city spells with a hyphen: Санкт-Петербург ('Saint-Petersburg'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.235.133.18 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Famous people?
As a wikinewbie just wondering how wikieditors decide who is included on the article page and who remains amongst the 800 people in:  Some city articles just have the wikilink under the notable people section ie. Baltimore    Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Saint Petersburg
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Peterburg
If it's Санкт-Петербург (Sankt-Peterburg) in Russian, why are we calling it St. PeterSburg? Sca (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is St. Petersburg in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is probably because of its German form Sankt Petersburg, which needs s as an indicator of the genitive (posessive) case. Шурбур (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Saint Petersburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061010155112/http://www.gov.spb.ru/gov/admin/otrasl/trud/demogr/pokazately to http://gov.spb.ru/gov/admin/otrasl/trud/demogr/pokazately
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080328001653/http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk:80/internet/city_living/CEC_twin_and_partner_cities to http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/city_living/CEC_twin_and_partner_cities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 33 one external links on Saint Petersburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418012345/http://www.gov.spb.ru:80/day to http://gov.spb.ru/day
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140116025405/http://old.rgo.ru:80/otkroj-rossiyu/kniga-rekordov/sankt-peterburg-samyj-severnyj-v-mire-gorod-s-naseleniem-bolshe-milliona/ to http://old.rgo.ru/otkroj-rossiyu/kniga-rekordov/sankt-peterburg-samyj-severnyj-v-mire-gorod-s-naseleniem-bolshe-milliona/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720042332/http://www.saint-petersburg.com/museums/peter-paul-fortress.asp to http://www.saint-petersburg.com/museums/peter-paul-fortress.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120120215411/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/st-petersburg-paris-of-the-north-or-city-of-bones-407069.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/st-petersburg-paris-of-the-north-or-city-of-bones-407069.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090608000817/http://lenobltrans.narod.ru:80/adm1.html to http://lenobltrans.narod.ru/adm1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110825131522/http://radiokarnaval.ru/news/show/3042?radio=bd09712698pcpirbfrg1bjne86 to http://radiokarnaval.ru/news/show/3042?radio=bd09712698pcpirbfrg1bjne86
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111020191228/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/st-petersburg-the-venice-of-the-north-gets-its-own-fleet-of-gondolas-733899.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/st-petersburg-the-venice-of-the-north-gets-its-own-fleet-of-gondolas-733899.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230231453/http://www.discoverthebaltic.com:80/spb/index.htm to http://www.discoverthebaltic.com/spb/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715220016/http://www.russianstandard.com/corporation/press_center/press_releases/1.smx to http://www.russianstandard.com/corporation/press_center/press_releases/1.smx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100827013819/http://www.mr7.ru:80/info/most/ to http://www.mr7.ru/info/most/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140709132017/http://www.apmtri.ru/projects/blagoustrojstvo_v_sanktpeterburge/park_300letija_s_peterburga/ to http://www.apmtri.ru/projects/blagoustrojstvo_v_sanktpeterburge/park_300letija_s_peterburga
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121016131325/http://www.russkialbum.ru/r/sp5/h.shtml to http://www.russkialbum.ru/r/sp5/h.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090515190814/http://m2m.iffc.ru:80/index_E.htm to http://m2m.iffc.ru/index_E.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324052941/http://gov.spb.ru/news7408.html to http://gov.spb.ru/news7408.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100724140854/http://www.bethlehem-city.org:80/Twining.php to http://www.bethlehem-city.org/Twining.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081020201744/http://english.daegu.go.kr:80/AboutDaegu/sister.asp to http://english.daegu.go.kr/AboutDaegu/sister.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016001550/http://www.dresden.de:80/en/02/11/c_03.php to http://dresden.de/en/02/11/c_03.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100525044911/http://www.serviredprofesional.com:80/pageID_8034482.html to http://serviredprofesional.com/pageID_8034482.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101012143342/http://www.graz.at:80/cms/beitrag/10099866/606819 to http://www.graz.at/cms/beitrag/10099866/606819
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091108153010/http://www.graz.at:80/cms/beitrag/10045157/606819/ to http://www.graz.at/cms/beitrag/10045157/606819/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719222418/http://www.lacity.org/sistercities/html/08.htm to http://www.lacity.org/sistercities/html/08.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926111720/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au:80/info.cfm?top=161&pg=2979 to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=161&pg=2979
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705053702/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=161&pg=2979 to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=161&pg=2979
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121029114949/http://nice.fr/Collectivites/La-municipalite/Villes-jumelees-avec-la-Ville-de-Nice to http://www.nice.fr/Collectivites/La-municipalite/Villes-jumelees-avec-la-Ville-de-Nice
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080522195942/http://www.paris.fr:80/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=6587&document_type_id=5&document_id=16468&portlet_id=14974 to http://www.paris.fr/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=6587&document_type_id=5&document_id=16468&portlet_id=14974
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225090448/http://www.paris.fr:80/en/city_government/international/special_partners.asp to http://www.paris.fr/en/city_government/international/special_partners.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111102060041/http://www20081010.plovdiv.bg:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=261&Itemid=279 to http://www.plovdiv.bg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=261&Itemid=279
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208152508/http://www.zagreb.hr:80/mms/en/index.html to http://www.zagreb.hr/mms/en/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105220142/http://www.yerevan.am/3-233-233.html to http://www.yerevan.am/3-233-233.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204021323/http://www.riga.lv/EN/Channels/Riga_Municipality/Twin_cities_of_Riga/default.htm to http://www.riga.lv/EN/Channels/Riga_Municipality/Twin_cities_of_Riga/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908065704/http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/NIS/Russia to http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/NIS/Russia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019194319/http://www.lansingsc.org:80/pages/stpetersburg.cfm to http://www.lansingsc.org/pages/stpetersburg.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080527220449/http://www.usasc.org/misc-docs/SA_Conf_Tour%20package.pdf to http://www.usasc.org/misc-docs/SA_Conf_Tour%20package.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Saint Petersburg. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gov.spb.ru/gov/admin/otrasl/trud/demogr/pokazately

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Gallery of paintings of Saint-Petersburg
Why it has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concord92 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GALLERY.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyenschantz
In 'Russia of the Russians' by Harold Whitmore Williams it only says on page 33 : "He [Peter the Great] was beaten at Narva, but in 1703 he beat the Swedes at Nyenschatz on the site of present day St. Petersburg, and again in the first sea fight won by Russians in modern times." The reference is not covering what is written.Taksen (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But it does not make sense to say that this happened according to Williams. We need to either find a better source or to remove it. (I believe this is correct and a better source should be available, but this is debatable). --Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

may be it is written on another page, I will check.08:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Greek name
We're told the "official Greek name is Αγία Πετρούπολη". This suggests there's an unofficial, and by implication more common, Greek name - but according to the Greek version of this article the name is either "Πετρούπολη" or "Πόλη του Αγίου Πέτρου", and no mention is made of the "official" name quoted here. In any case, few English-speaking readers will know what the Greek letters stand for, or why the Greek name might be important. Either this sentence should be deleted, or else explained.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sankt
There was no established form of the toponym during Peter's life. The form Sant Pi(e)ter Burch looks like Dutch (sant is a variant for sint), others more like (Low) German, Swedish or even English. As for the argument that calvinists do not venerate saints, there are a lot of placenames in the Netherlands like Sint Pieter etc. Шурбур (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Location
Is it just me or is the location of Saint Petersburg not on the map of Russia? The little pinpoint is missing. I checked on both Chrome and IE. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no pinpoint. The SVG map has Saint Petersburg's area highlighted red, as it is its own federal subject. AndreyKva (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AndreyKva Thanks I see it now, it's just quite small. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Population density error
@Ymblanter: Can you sort out why the infobox is showing an error ("[convert: invalid number]") for the population density? The superficial reason is that a calculation is performed and the result is passed to convert but the calculation resulted in an error message which made convert display "invalid number". Even a month ago, the infobox had a strange mix of 2010 and 2017 items related to population. I suspect that pop_latest_date needs to be fixed, but what about the other 2017 mentions? Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I realized I did not respond. I tried adding the auto parameter but failed, I was not sure what gives the error.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But the last census was 2010. There were no censuses in 2012 or 2017.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

1991 name change key dates

 * 12 June: referendum on city's name
 * 25 June: Leningrad's city council votes to change the name  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyearbaby (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 September: Russia's parliament approval of name change
 * 12 September: approval by Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union?
 * 1 October: city name is officially changed

Newyearbaby (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble adding in the population density of St. Petersburg to this article.
None of my edits for population and population density to the city template are not showing up. Can someone help me fix it. - KrishnaDasMath (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no 2017 census. The last census was 2010.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that. It is a population estimate. But the 2010 census data should be added to the article. And we stil need to add population density. - KrishnaDasMath (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mikhail Kutuzov, Dmitri Shostakovich, Alexander III, Kolya Vasin... Whaaa???

 * Mikhail Kutuzov
 * Alexander Blok
 * Dmitri Shostakovich
 * Peter II of Russia
 * Alexander III
 * Vladimir Putin
 * Dmitry Medvedev
 * Nicholas Roerich
 * Joseph Brodsky
 * Kolya Vasin
 * Mikhail Boyarsky

People, are you serious?? That guy might be known in collectors circles (or wherever he was known), but including him in this list looks like some kind of parody. The fact that, say, Pushkin was not considered famous enough to be included, makes that even funnier.

I'd propose removing that list completely - there are too many famous names. The full list would be too big (and at some point it would be hard to decide who deserves to be included). Any short list would look too short at best, or just laughable like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabern (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Saint Petersburg for deletion (2nd nomination)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Saint Petersburg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saint Petersburg (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not the northernmost metropolis
Helsinki (H-E-V) is (a) a metropolis; and (b) further north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis#Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8332:C680:DACB:8AFF:FEA7:FCDD (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The citation used states that: " It is the northernmost city in the world with a population of over one million." not that its is the northern most metropolis in the world, which it is clearly not. If this information is to be included in the lead then it should represent the citation accurately. blindlynx (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed this section to read that it's the northernmost metropolis with more than 1 million people. Should be uncontroversial. JHMM13 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Northernmost
It can readily be seen, from looking at Helsinki, that that metropolitan area has a population of well over 1 million, and that it is (marginally) farther north than St Petersburg. What exactly are you getting at with this blatantly false claim? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * where is St. Petersburg's metropolitan area's population mentioned in the lead, open your eyes and read the lead. I mentioned that St. Petersburg is the "northernmost" metropolis with over 1 million residents within the city limits, the city has a total population of over 5.4 million residents. Did i mention Saint Petersburg's metropolitan area's population, which is over 6 million people, and around 5 times larger than Helsinki? I wrote "metropolis". Helsinki is a metropolis too, but has around 650k residents within the city limits. What are you trying to claim? I even changed the "northernmost metropolis" line, since Helsinki is INDEED the northernmost metropolis. But Saint Petersburg is the northernmost metropolis with over 1 million people. Helsinki does not have over 1 million residents within the city limits, we are not counting the metropolitan population here. It seems like you don't understand simple English. Danloud (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Helsinki says it is the world's northernmost metro area with over one million people. This directly contradicts what we are saying in St Petersburg.  You don't see that as a problem?

 * Also, if we aren't counting the metropolitan population, why do we say "metropolis"? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "A metropolis is a large city or conurbation which is a significant economic, political, and cultural center for a country or region, and an important hub for regional or international connections, commerce, and communications". - Metropolis
 * "A metropolitan area or metro is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core (which is the Metropolis) and its less-populated surrounding territories under the same administrative division." - Metropolitan area
 * Both are different things. Danloud (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, the Helsinki metro area is also a metropolis, since it's a conurbation, and fits the rest of the description as well. So it's the northernmost metropolis with a population of over 1 million.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed it to city. There you go. List of northernmost items -- Danloud (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Construction serfs
The footnote citing the nuber of serf deaths is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:1180:4320:D8CF:F57B:F449:28F5 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2017 img01 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Spb 06-2017 img01 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 16, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-03-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to Moscow
I believe this article's first mention of Moscow in the overview, as well as the first mention in the history section, should be linked. Apparently people feel strongly it should not be linked (my edit was reverted, as was a previous edit to linkify them, I now see). But why? As a reader, I was looking for that link and found it very strange that the current capital of Russia was not linked in an article on the previous capital. The articles are clearly closely related and it's useful to a reader to have the context of reading both.

MOS:OVERLINK in particular states,

 * A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... The names of [locations] with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar

Emphasis added. Moscow may be a well-known location, but its article is especially relevant to, and helpful for understanding, the history of the previous Russian capital before Moscow. Graue (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is not unusual for a reader of Saint Petersburg to be also interested in Moscow. However, I don't think this is what Wikilinks are for.  We should be making better use of navboxes or, perhaps, series boxes.  Saint Petersburg in fact has the navbox "Capitals of Russia", but to even know that it's there, let alone use it, you have to first click the "show" button on the navbox "Articles Related to Saint Petersburg", and then click on the "show" button on the navbox "History".  Then you will see "Capitals of Russia", and click its "show" button, and it is very handy indeed, showing the historical sequence of capitals from the 9th century, including links to Moscow and others.

 * This looks like way too much pointing and clicking to me, but I am not sure of the best way to fix that. But I think that navboxes are for clicking around among related articles, while Wikilinks are for getting further information on terms with which one is unfamiliar.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 * It's a textbook case of WP:OVERLINKING. Double-clicking on Moscow, then right mouse button and so on is trivial. And no, it's just supplementary, it will NOT help understand Saint Petersburg better. Greetings from Biryulyovo Zapadnoye District! ;-) — Mike Novikoff 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Etymology" as a section title is not correctly applied, shouldn't the Etymology section be named "Toponymy"?
The section titled "Etymology" is not correctly named. The information it contains concerns the name of the city and how it changed through time, however, it is not an etymological analysis.

Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. It is the study of the history of a word. The several "words" that have been names of the city are not subject to an etymological analysis, they are of course "historical" but not in an etymological way. The origin of its original name and the name that it currently holds lacks the "logical" etymology of a word that starts with its origin followed by its development as a "word" throughout history. The word "development" is most operative in this situation. The city name does not "develop", it just changes according to politics (for the lack of a better word). Etymology is a "linguistic discipline". The changing of the city name through time does reflect a "linguistic" progression.

Toponymy (there is a section with this title that contains appropriate toponymic information) is a taxonomic study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information. A place-name is a word or words used to indicate, denote, or identify a geographic locality such as a town, river, or mountain.

The "Etymology" section should be renamed to "Toponymy" and the existing "Toponymy" should be included so that all information about the city name is in one location, in one section.

As an aside, if and when the two sections are joined as "Toponymy", it should be edited to make it more logical and readable.

Osomite hablemos  19:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Good point, you're perfectly right. For most cities, we do have a section on etymology that actually deals with etymology, but of course not so much of an issue for St Petersburg (being a 'young' city with a picked name. Renaming to toponymy seems the best option. Jeppiz (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Russia Link
Shouldn't there be a link to Russia at the start of the article? Pineappman (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:OVERLINK says that you don't need to link well-known countries. Links like this are to help people who don't know what Russia is, but everybody knows what Russia is.  This article has some navigation boxes at the bottom.  Most of them don't have links to Russia, but there is a Russia portal down there.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Toponymy and Toponymy
There are two sections called “Toponymy”. Should they be merged, one renamed, or all of the other sections renamed “Toponymy” too for consistency? boffy_b (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint Petersburg


text:
Modern pentathlon

The modern pentathlon is an Olympic sport consisting of fencing (one-touch épée), freestyle swimming, equestrian show jumping, pistol shooting, and cross country running. The event was first held in 1912, inspired by the traditional pentathlon held during the ancient Olympics, and designed to model skills needed by a soldier of that time. As well as being an Olympic event, a world championships has been held annually since 1949.

The rules of the modern pentathlon have changed several times since its creation over the years, including condensing the event down into a single day. The latest structure, as of the 2024 Olympics, consists of separate events for fencing, swimming, and equestrian, which earn the athletes points to determine each athlete's starting time in the final event. The last event, called the laser-run, alternates four legs of laser pistol shooting and running.

Modern pentathlon's inclusion in the Olympics has frequently been criticised for being obscure, unpopular, and complex. The 2028 Olympics initially removed modern pentathlon from its events, but has been reinstated with a changed format where obstacle racing replaces the equestrian event.

The governing body, Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM), administers the international sport in more than 90 countries.

Format
The format of the modern pentathlon has changed frequently through the sport's history. Described below is the format that will be used in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris:

 * Fencing, ranking round: In the first round of the fencing, every athlete faces every other athlete in one-on-one fencing bouts. Bouts use an electric epee with the target being the whole body, and end after one hit, though if neither athlete scores a hit within one minute the bout ends with both registering a defeat. Athletes that win 70 percent of their bouts score 250 points; each win above is worth 5 more points, each below is 5 points less.
 * Riding: Athletes attempt a show-jumping course with 12 obstacles. Athletes do not bring a horse to the event; they are assigned an unfamiliar horse and have 20 minutes to practice with the animal. Completing the course scores 300 points with points deducted for penalties and for taking longer than a set time limit for the course.
 * Swimming: This is a single 200 meter freestyle swim. A time of 2 minutes 30 seconds scores 250 points; each second faster than that earns 2 points and each second below loses 2 points.
 * Fencing, bonus round: In the second round of fencing, athletes are ordered based on the first round's results. The last-place athlete goes against the next-placed athlete. The winner receives two bonus points and advance to compete against the next best-ranked athlete; the loser is eliminated from this round of fencing (for double-defeats, the winner of the bout is the athlete who was higher-ranked going into the round). This continues until all but one athlete is eliminated. (The athlete who enters this round in the top of the fencing order can only have one bout; they win four points if they win that bout.)
 * Combined running and shooting: At this final event, athletes' starting times are determined by their total scores from the first three events, so that the highest scorer starts first, and each successive athlete then starts with a delay of one second for each point by which they trail the leader. Athletes run 3000 meters, stopping at four locations to shoot at targets with a laser pistol. Each round, they must remain at the target until scoring five hits (with an unlimited number of shots) or until 50 seconds have elapsed. Final placement in the overall modern pentathlon is determined by order across the finish line.

Creation
Most sources state that the creator of the modern pentathlon was Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games. However, researcher Sandra Heck concluded that Viktor Balck, the President of the Organizing Committee for the 1912 Games, made use of the long tradition of Swedish military multi-sports events to create the modern pentathlon. In addition, in the Olympic games of the year 1912, athletes from countries on all continents competed.

The name derives from the Greek péntathlon "contest of five events". The addition of modern to the name distinguishes it from the original pentathlon of the ancient Olympic Games, which consisted of the stadion foot race, wrestling, long jump, javelin, and discus. And the location of the first Olympic Games was Olympia during 776 BCE. As the events of the ancient pentathlon were modeled after the skills of the ideal soldier to defend a fortification of that time, Coubertin created the contest to simulate the experience of a 19th-century cavalry soldier behind enemy lines: he must ride an unfamiliar horse, fight enemies with pistol and sword, swim, and run to return to his own soldiers. Originally, only amateur competitors, i.e. upper-class cavalry officers, were allowed to compete in the modern pentathlon at the Olympics. Specifically, for a decade after the year 1890, athletic competitions for amateurs began to develop in many different places. In the 1912 Games, as only amateur officers competed, the competitors were permitted to use their own horses. Up to the 1952 Olympics the ordinary cavalry soldier was considered a professional athlete, as he was riding and training horses for a living, and as such unable to participate, while the officer was considered the amateur and therefore allowed to compete.

Olympic Games
The event was first held at the 1912 Olympic Games and has been on the Olympic program continuously since 1912. Modern pentathlon, despite its long Olympic history, has had to justify its inclusion in the modern Olympic Games several times. On February 11, 2013, in Lausanne, the IOC confirmed modern pentathlon once again as one of the 25 core sports of the Olympic program through to 2020.

A team event was added to the Olympic Games in 1952 and discontinued in 1992. In 1997, the United States was given a gold medal for a winning a competition in an event of the modern pentathlon. An event for women was added to the Olympic Games in 2000. There was a gold medal award given to Britain during the Olympics of the year 2006 in Athens, Greece.

Originally, the competition took place over four or five days. In 1996, a one-day format was adopted in an effort to be more audience-friendly. The switch to a one-day format was criticised for changing the steady character of modern pentathlon to a more fast-paced competition. To enhance the experience for spectators, the UIPM proposed that all five events should be held in a single venue. This was planned for the 2016 Summer Olympics but held for the first time at the 2020 Summer Olympics. For the 2024 Summer Olympics, a condensed format of 90 minutes with eliminations is planned. The initial program for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles does not include the modern pentathlon while the sport finalises its replacement of showjumping, but it could be added at a later date. Modern pentathlon is also part of the Youth Olympic Games since 2010.

Modern pentathlon's inclusion in the Summer Olympics has frequently been criticised for being obscure, unpopular, and complex, especially as the IOC limits each Summer Olympics to 28 disciplines.

Governance
As long as there was no official international federation for Modern Pentathlon an IOC committee was set up for the sport making use of the expertise of IOC members. The governing body, Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM) was founded in 1948.

International competitions
A world championship has been held every year since 1949. The competitions include men and women's individual and team events together with relay events for men and women and, since 2010, a mixed relay event. After much lobby work of the president of the German Modern Pentathlon Federation, Wilhelm Henze, women were for the first time admitted at the world championships in 1977, and at the official world championships in 1981.

The Modern Pentathlon World Cup is an annual series of modern pentathlon competitions. It was first held in 1999.

Format changes over time
Modern pentathlon has been the subject of numerous changes since its creation.

Fencing
In 2015 — and for the first time in the 2016 Summer Olympics — a system of an additional bonus round was added to épée fencing in international competitions. Before that, there was only the round-robin format.

Swimming
Until the 2000 Olympics, the distance for swimming was 300 metres; at that time it was changed to 200 metres.

Riding
The distance of the cross-country riding event was reduced from 5 km to 4 km in 1972. For the 1988 Summer Olympics cross-country riding was changed to show jumping.

Shooting and running
From 1912 to 1988 regular pistols or later sport pistols were used for shooting. From 1989 until 2009, the shooting discipline involved firing a 4.5 mm (.177 cal) air pistol in the standing position from 10 metres distance at a stationary target. The format was that of the 10 metre air pistol competition: each competitor had 20 shots, with 40 seconds allowed for each shot. Beginning with the World Cup events in 2011, laser pistols were used instead of pistols with actual projectiles. There is a slight delay between the trigger pull and the laser firing, simulating the time it would take for a pellet to clear the muzzle. Air pistols with laser transmitters were introduced during the transitional period and are still in use. Purpose-built laser pistols are developed and commonly used since the middle of the 2010s. Laser pistols and targets have to be certified by the UIPM.

Until the 2000 Olympics, the running distance was 4 kilometres. The running discipline was shortened to a 3 km cross-country run afterwards.

In 2009, the running and shooting events were combined into three 1000 m laps with each preceded by laser shooting at five targets in 70 seconds or less. From the start of the 2013 season, the laser-run was changed to consist of four 800 m laps (increasing the distance to 3.2 kilometres) each preceded by laser shooting at five targets in 50 seconds or less. This change was intended to restore some of the importance of the shooting skill felt to have been lost in the original 2009 combined event.

The laser-run has been criticized as altering too radically the nature of the skills required. The New York Times asked whether the name ought to be changed to "tetrathlon" given that two of the five disciplines had been combined into a single event.

Overall scoring and operation
Scoring was originally done by a points-for-place system with the lowest score winning. Since the 1954 World Cup points tables are used for each of the five events and points are added for the final score. This scoring was first used in the 1956 Summer Olympics. The five disciplines were held on a single day — instead of four to six — from the 1996 Summer Olympics onwards. In the 2024 Olympics, the event – other than the fencing ranking round – will all take place within 90 minutes.

Replacement of riding with obstacle course racing
The riding discipline attracted criticism during the 2020 Summer Olympics after multiple athletes in the women's event struggled to control their randomly-assigned horses. This culminated in the German team's coach, Kim Raisner, being removed from the event after striking a horse with her fist. Following the Games, in November 2021 it was reported that the UIPM was opening consultations on the proposed replacement of riding with another discipline. The decision was ratified during the UIPM's Congress on 27 November 2021, with the changes intended to be implemented for the 2028 Summer Olympics. The UIPM voted for the change without consulting athletes, claiming force majeure.

The decision was met with criticism from various athletes and bodies, who considered riding to be integral to modern pentathlon. Some also accused the UIPM of hindering debate in favor of riding during the congress. More than 650 modern pentathletes signed a letter calling for the UIPM executive board to resign in November 2021. A group known as "Pentathlon United" called for the IOC to investigate the UIPM's governance, and proposed a plan to maintain riding with rule changes to bring them in line with those of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (FEI), and a focus on animal welfare.

In May 2022, the UIPM announced it would hold an obstacle racing test event alongside the 2022 Modern Pentathlon World Cup final in Ankara, citing that it had received the most support out of the over 60 disciplines proposed, was more cost-effective, would help make the event more attractive to a younger audience, and was "compatible with the DNA of modern pentathlon". The competition course was developed with input from World Obstacle, and the event featured a mix of athletes from both the obstacle racing and modern pentathlon communities. The UIPM also entered into a collaboration agreement with Tokyo Broadcasting System Television (TBS) to use a Ninja Warrior obstacle course.

On 9 July 2022, Pentathlon United shared a survey of 213 responses from 40 countries, with 68.5% being current athletes, that indicated more than 92% of current modern pentathlon participants wanted to preserve the equestrian discipline as part of the sport. The group stated, "A total of 74.18% chose the reformed version of equestrian, which puts horse welfare among the central themes, while concern over the cost and accessibility of the equestrian discipline is also acknowledged in the 16-point plan." Of those polled, only athletes from the United Kingdom showed any support for an obstacle race, with athletes from the United States overwhelmingly voting for a reformed version of equestrian sport.

In November 2022, the UIPM Congress voted 69–11 in favor of replacing riding with obstacle course racing; an associated motion established that the changes would take effect for junior competition in 2023. Its implementation at the senior level is unlikely to occur until after the 2024 Summer Olympics.

On 22 June 2023, the UIPM shared a poll of 1,500 Americans by YouGov that they commissioned in support of their decision to replace riding with obstacle course racing, citing that the survey showed that "45% of Gen Z and 41% of Millennials more likely to watch the Olympics on television if it featured a ninja-style obstacle race...taken as a percentage of the U.S. population, this would equate to nearly 45 million more people watching the Games". The UIPM also stated, "More than two-thirds (37%) of survey respondents said they would be more likely to watch the new-look Modern Pentathlon at the Olympic Games, and 46% of those cited enjoying ninja-style obstacle races as the reason, with 34% describing the reason for their answer: 'I think the Modern Pentathlon needs to embrace change'." The article also indirectly referenced the popular TV show American Ninja Warrior.

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

title: Modern pentathlon


text:
French Equatorial Africa

French Equatorial Africa (Afrique équatoriale française, or AEF) was a federation of French colonial territories in Equatorial Africa which consisted of Gabon, French Congo, Ubangi-Shari, and Chad. It existed from 1910 to 1958 and its administration was based in Brazzaville.

History
Established in 1910, the Federation contained four colonial possessions: French Gabon, French Congo, Ubangi-Shari and French Chad. The Governor-General was based in Brazzaville with deputies in each territory.

In 1911, France ceded parts of the territory to German Kamerun as a result of the Agadir Crisis. The territory was returned after Germany's defeat in World War I, while most of Cameroon proper became a French League of Nations mandate not integrated into the AEF.

French Equatorial Africa, especially the region of Ubangi-Shari, had a similar concession system as the Congo Free State and similar atrocities were also committed there. Writer André Gide traveled to Ubangi-Shari and was told by inhabitants about atrocities including mutilations, dismemberments, executions, the burning of children, and villagers being forcefully bound to large beams and made to walk until dropping from exhaustion and thirst. Gide's book Travels in the Congo, published in 1927, was fiercely critical of the system of the concession companies in French Equatorial Africa. The book had an important impact on the anti-colonialist movement in France. The number of victims under the French concession system in Ubangi-Shari and other parts of French Equatorial Africa remains unknown. Adam Hochschild estimates a population decrease of half in the French Congo and Gabon, similar to his estimate of the population decline in the Congo Free State.

During the late 1920s and early 1930s an anti-colonial movement Société Amicale des Originaires de l'A.E.F. was established by André Matsoua, seeking French citizenship for the territory's inhabitants.

During World War II, French Cameroun and the entirety of the AEF except for Gabon rallied to the Free French Forces in August 1940, Gabon instead remained loyal to Vichy France until 12 November 1940 when the Vichy administration withdrew following the Battle of Gabon. The federation became the strategic centre of Free French activities in Africa. Félix Eboué was installed as Governor-General of AEF. A separate administrative structure was established under the auspices of Free French Africa grouping both AEF and Cameroun.

Under the Fourth Republic (1946–58), the federation was represented in the French parliament. When the territories voted in the September 1958 referendum to become autonomous within the French Community, the federation was dissolved. In 1959 the new republics formed an interim association called the Union of Central African Republics, before becoming fully independent in August 1960.

Administration
French Equatorial Africa began with the concept of association, which was implemented through treaties promising French protection by the Italian-French explorer Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza during the mid-1800s, who convinced indigenous communities to cooperate with the French in exchange for greater trade opportunities. This association eventually led to French indirect rule in the region. However, France's attempts at indirect rule faced consistent resistance from local leaders.

The AEF was perceived by France as an unstable colony. Therefore, France granted private companies contracts for the exploitation of natural resources like ivory and rubber, rather than sustainable investment. Private companies implemented heavy taxation with little to no pay and cruel treatment towards workers and the local communities.

In 1908 French Equatorial Africa was divided into four colonies in hopes of strengthening French authority within the region. Until 1934, French Equatorial Africa was a federation of French colonies like French West Africa. That year, however, the AEF became a unitary entity, its constituent colonies becoming known as regions, and later became known as territories in 1937. There was a single budget for the unified colony; prior to unification, each member had had its own finances.

As of 1942, the AEF was administered by a governor-general, who had "the supreme direction of all services, both civil and military." However, the difference in numbers between administrators and the local populace made it difficult for the French to exercise power outside of their headquarters without voluntary or involuntary indigenous cooperation. Additionally, the governor-general's power was limited in practice by France's centralizing colonial policy. "Most important legislation is enacted in Paris," wrote the authors of the 1942 British naval intelligence handbook for the colony, "whilst the governor-general fills in minor details and penalties." The governor-general was assisted by a consultative council of administration (Conseil d'Administration) composed of important local officials and some members, both African and European, elected indirectly. All major administration positions were appointed by French government and were not accountable to officials elected by the African people. Additionally, France held complete control over diplomacy, defense, and politics.

Under the unified colony, three of the constituent territories, Chad, Gabon, and Ubangi-Shari, were administered by a governor, while Moyen-Congo was under the purview of the governor-general. Each had a council of local interests (Conseil des Intérêts Locaux) similar to the council of administration. Locally, the territories were subdivided into départements and subdivisions overseen by appointed officials. The only municipalities were the capitals of the territories, which were classified as communes mixtes as opposed to Senegal's communes de plein exercice, which had democratically elected councils. Although these municipalities possessed certain powers of local self-government, their mayors and councils—which included African representatives—were appointed.

Geography
Accounting for a little less than an eighth of Africa, across modern day Central African Republic, Republic of Chad, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Gabon, and most of Cameroon, the greater part of French Equatorial Africa extended over a granite plateau, framed by the Tibesti, Ouadaï, and Fertit massifs to the northeast, Darfur to the east and the Crystal mountains and Mayombe in the southwest. Two basins occupied the central and southern parts of the territory: the basin of Chad, a former inland sea of which Lake Chad is a remnant, and the basin of Congo, traversed by the river of the same name and its main tributaries (Oubangui River, Sangha River, and Alima River). A coastal plain stretched from mainland Spanish Guinea (now Equatorial Guinea) to the Congo River. The highest point in French Equatorial Africa was Mount Emi Koussi (3,415 meters) in Tibesti.

Due to the very size of the territory, the climate varied extremely from one point to another, going from a particularly arid Saharan climate in the north to a humid tropical climate in the southern part. The vegetation was affected by these differences: in the north, the virtual absence of rain made it nearly impossible for vegetation to develop, apart from a few thorny shrubs; in the center lay the domain of the savannahs, where millet, peanuts and cassava were grown; finally to the south were the humid tropical forests, from which various species such as ebony and okoumé were taken. In the coastal regions, vanilla, cocoa and coffee trees were grown.

French Equatorial Africa was bounded by British Nigeria, French West Africa, Italian Libya, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and the Belgian Congo. To the west, it bordered the Atlantic Ocean.

Territories:
 * French Chad
 * Ubangi-Shari
 * French Congo
 * French Gabon

Postage stamps
The postal administrations of the four territories were separate until 1936, each issuing its own stamps. In that year, stamps of Gabon and Middle Congo were overprinted AFRIQUE / ÉQUATORIALE / FRANÇAISE. A definitive series for the colony followed in 1937, featuring local scenes and key French figures in the formation of the colony, with various color and value changes each year through 1940.

The 1937 series was overprinted AFRIQUE FRANÇAISE / LIBRE or just LIBRE in 1940 by the Free French, and in 1941 they issued a series depicting a phoenix rising from the flames.

A new definitive series, featuring local scenery and people, was issued in 1946, and another twenty-odd stamps came out during the 1950s, with the last being the omnibus Human Rights issue on 10 December 1958.

title: French Equatorial Africa


text:
Talk:Kahanism

Fascism
I removed the fascism cat and bar as this is not supported by any sources - please introduce sources prior to introducing. I don't quite see academic sources defining them as such outright (I do see sources contrasting). Unlike Fascism, which is generally secular, Kahanism (to which one can tie many adjectives - ultra-nationalist, extreme far right, etc.) is rooted in hardcore religious fundamentalism (mirroring perhaps some Islamic fundamentalist groups). In any case - sources please. Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "Kahanism" is merely Torah Judaism based on Halakha (Jewish Law, Torah Law)
Can we add these pertinent, basic principles to the lede? Rabbi Meir Kahane (ordained Orthodox Rabbi) asserted "Kahanism" is merely Torah Judaism based on Halakha (Jewish Law, Torah Law), and proposed enforcing halakha as codified by Maimonides in Israel. Here is a source, as well as a 'better source needed' in the bottom of the ideology section of the article. ShivatTzion (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2022
Concerned about this bit:

"the majority of Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself"

As far as I know, Meir Kahane made it very clear that every Arab (not just most Arabs) are fundementally the enemies of the Jewish state and advocated for the expulsion of Arabs in general, not just the Arabs that could be considered "unloyal". HistoryResearcher101 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant remove "the majority of" in this part:
 * Kahane maintained the view that the majority of Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself HistoryResearcher101 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization
I think the sentence about the US Classifying Kach as a terror organization should be removed, since that was revoked earlier this year. Mr manor11 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 * It should be amended. It has been un-blacklisted because they have simply been inactive, but it remains a 'specially designated global terrorist' entity. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Iskandar323, IRL, I validate sanctions solutions providers to U.S. commercial and retail banks for AML/BSA and KYC compliance required by FinCEN & OFAC. Lists of SDFNs (specially designated foreign nationals) and entities that are deemed "terrorist organizations" can change often, and more so since sanctions on Russia as of 2022. State Dept. has a watchlist. Treasury has multiple watchlists. State and Treasury don't match 1:1 nor are they each unique. Anyway, entities (individuals and organizations) can be removed, or "un-blacklisted" from watchlists as appropriate by the US government, e.g. due to inactivity because all members are dead. Yet some old, inactive entities, e.g. Bader-Meinhoff group, Japanese sarin gas terrorists (forgot their name) are still on lists. How can an organization, e.g. Kach, remain a Specially Designated Terrorist group without remaining on the watchlist? Being an SDFN or SDT is what puts them on the watchlist, no? If they are deemed inactive, then they would be removed, I would think. Can you or another editor explain?--FeralOink (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is simply the state of affairs per US statements. See this article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Iskandar323, I understand now, after re-reading my own comment! There are many idiosyncrasies in the U.S. terrorist watchlists. Thank you for providing that helpful link in your reply.--FeralOink (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2023
add Fascism sidebar Gorgonopsi (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 * https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-meir-kahane-the-extremist-kahanist-movement
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0031322X.1985.9969820 Gorgonopsi (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. While the fascism portal is already present on this page, the sidebar is far more visible and so editors may have WP:WEIGHT concerns regarding it's inclusion. — Sirdog (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kahanism


text:
Stone–Čech compactification

In the mathematical discipline of general topology, Stone–Čech compactification (or Čech–Stone compactification ) is a technique for constructing a universal map from a topological space X to a compact Hausdorff space βX. The Stone–Čech compactification βX of a topological space X is the largest, most general compact Hausdorff space "generated" by X, in the sense that any continuous map from X to a compact Hausdorff space factors through βX (in a unique way). If X is a Tychonoff space then the map from X to its image in βX is a homeomorphism, so X can be thought of as a (dense) subspace of βX; every other compact Hausdorff space that densely contains X is a quotient of βX. For general topological spaces X, the map from X to βX need not be injective.

A form of the axiom of choice is required to prove that every topological space has a Stone–Čech compactification. Even for quite simple spaces X, an accessible concrete description of βX often remains elusive. In particular, proofs that βX \ X is nonempty do not give an explicit description of any particular point in βX \ X.

The Stone–Čech compactification occurs implicitly in a paper by  and was given explicitly by  and.

History
Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov introduced completely regular spaces in 1930 in order to avoid the pathological situation of Hausdorff spaces whose only continuous real-valued functions are constant maps.

In the same 1930 article where Tychonoff defined completely regular spaces, he also proved that every Tychonoff space (i.e. Hausdorff completely regular space) has a Hausdorff compactification (in this same article, he also proved Tychonoff's theorem). In 1937, Čech extended Tychonoff's technique and introduced the notation βX for this compactification. Stone also constructed βX in a 1937 article, although using a very different method. Despite Tychonoff's article being the first work on the subject of the Stone–Čech compactification and despite Tychonoff's article being referenced by both Stone and Čech, Tychonoff's name is rarely associated with βX.

Universal property and functoriality
The Stone–Čech compactification of the topological space X is a compact Hausdorff space βX together with a continuous map iX : X → βX that has the following universal property: any continuous map f : X → K, where K is a compact Hausdorff space, extends uniquely to a continuous map βf : βX → K, i.e. (βf)iX = f. As is usual for universal properties, this universal property characterizes βX up to homeomorphism.

As is outlined in, below, one can prove (using the axiom of choice) that such a Stone–Čech compactification iX : X → βX exists for every topological space X. Furthermore, the image iX(X) is dense in βX.

Some authors add the assumption that the starting space X be Tychonoff (or even locally compact Hausdorff), for the following reasons: The Stone–Čech construction can be performed for more general spaces X, but in that case the map X → βX need not be a homeomorphism to the image of X (and sometimes is not even injective).
 * The map from X to its image in  βX is a homeomorphism if and only if X is Tychonoff.
 * The map from X to its image in βX is a homeomorphism to an open subspace  if and only if X is locally compact Hausdorff.

As is usual for universal constructions like this, the extension property makes β a functor from Top (the category of topological spaces) to CHaus (the category of compact Hausdorff spaces). Further, if we let U be the inclusion functor from CHaus into Top, maps from βX to K (for K in CHaus) correspond bijectively to maps from X to UK (by considering their restriction to X and using the universal property of βX). i.e.
 * Hom(βX, K) ≅ Hom(X, UK),

which means that β is left adjoint to U. This implies that CHaus is a reflective subcategory of Top with reflector β.

Examples
If X is a compact Hausdorff space, then it coincides with its Stone–Čech compactification.

The Stone–Čech compactification of the first uncountable ordinal $$\omega_1$$, with the order topology, is the ordinal $$\omega_1 + 1$$. The Stone–Čech compactification of the deleted Tychonoff plank is the Tychonoff plank.

Construction using products
One attempt to construct the Stone–Čech compactification of X is to take the closure of the image of X in

 * $$\prod\nolimits_{f:X\to K} K$$

where the product is over all maps from X to compact Hausdorff spaces K (or, equivalently, the image of X by the right Kan extension of the identity functor of the category CHaus of compact Hausdorff spaces along the inclusion functor of CHaus into the category Top of general topological spaces). By Tychonoff's theorem this product of compact spaces is compact, and the closure of X in this space is therefore also compact. This works intuitively but fails for the technical reason that the collection of all such maps is a proper class rather than a set. There are several ways to modify this idea to make it work; for example, one can restrict the compact Hausdorff spaces K to have underlying set P(P(X)) (the power set of the power set of X), which is sufficiently large that it has cardinality at least equal to that of every compact Hausdorff space to which X can be mapped with dense image.

Construction using the unit interval
One way of constructing βX is to let C be the set of all continuous functions from X into [0, 1] and consider the map $$ e: X \to [0,1]^{C} $$ where

 * $$ e(x): f \mapsto f(x) $$

This may be seen to be a continuous map onto its image, if [0, 1]C is given the product topology. By Tychonoff's theorem we have that [0, 1]C is compact since [0, 1] is. Consequently, the closure of X in [0, 1]C is a compactification of X.

In fact, this closure is the Stone–Čech compactification. To verify this, we just need to verify that the closure satisfies the appropriate universal property. We do this first for K = [0, 1], where the desired extension of f : X → [0, 1] is just the projection onto the f coordinate in [0, 1]C. In order to then get this for general compact Hausdorff K we use the above to note that K can be embedded in some cube, extend each of the coordinate functions and then take the product of these extensions.

The special property of the unit interval needed for this construction to work is that it is a cogenerator of the category of compact Hausdorff spaces: this means that if A and B are compact Hausdorff spaces, and f and g are distinct maps from A to B, then there is a map h : B → [0, 1] such that hf and hg are distinct. Any other cogenerator (or cogenerating set) can be used in this construction.

Construction using ultrafilters
Alternatively, if $$X$$ is discrete, then it is possible to construct $$\beta X$$ as the set of all ultrafilters on $$X,$$ with the elements of $$X$$ corresponding to the principal ultrafilters. The topology on the set of ultrafilters, known as the, is generated by sets of the form $$\{ F : U \in F \}$$ for $$U$$ a subset of $$X.$$

Again we verify the universal property: For $$f : X \to K$$ with $$K$$ compact Hausdorff and $$F$$ an ultrafilter on $$X$$ we have an ultrafilter base $$f(F)$$ on $$K,$$ the pushforward of $$F.$$ This has a unique limit because $$K$$ is compact Hausdorff, say $$x,$$ and we define $$\beta f(F) = x.$$ This may be verified to be a continuous extension of $$f.$$

Equivalently, one can take the Stone space of the complete Boolean algebra of all subsets of $$X$$ as the Stone–Čech compactification. This is really the same construction, as the Stone space of this Boolean algebra is the set of ultrafilters (or equivalently prime ideals, or homomorphisms to the 2 element Boolean algebra) of the Boolean algebra, which is the same as the set of ultrafilters on $$X.$$

The construction can be generalized to arbitrary Tychonoff spaces by using maximal filters of zero sets instead of ultrafilters. (Filters of closed sets suffice if the space is normal.)

Construction using C*-algebras
The Stone–Čech compactification is naturally homeomorphic to the spectrum of Cb(X). Here Cb(X) denotes the C*-algebra of all continuous bounded complex-valued functions on X with sup-norm. Notice that Cb(X) is canonically isomorphic to the multiplier algebra of C0(X).

The Stone–Čech compactification of the natural numbers
In the case where X is locally compact, e.g. N or R, the image of X forms an open subset of βX, or indeed of any compactification, (this is also a necessary condition, as an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact). In this case one often studies the remainder of the space, βX \ X. This is a closed subset of βX, and so is compact. We consider N with its discrete topology and write βN \ N = N* (but this does not appear to be standard notation for general X).

As explained above, one can view βN as the set of ultrafilters on N, with the topology generated by sets of the form $$\{ F : U \in F \}$$ for U a subset of N. The set N corresponds to the set of principal ultrafilters, and the set N* to the set of free ultrafilters.

The study of βN, and in particular N*, is a major area of modern set-theoretic topology. The major results motivating this are Parovicenko's theorems, essentially characterising its behaviour under the assumption of the continuum hypothesis.

These state:

 * Every compact Hausdorff space of weight at most $$\aleph_1$$ (see Aleph number) is the continuous image of N* (this does not need the continuum hypothesis, but is less interesting in its absence).
 * If the continuum hypothesis holds then N* is the unique Parovicenko space, up to isomorphism.

These were originally proved by considering Boolean algebras and applying Stone duality.

Jan van Mill has described βN as a "three headed monster"—the three heads being a smiling and friendly head (the behaviour under the assumption of the continuum hypothesis), the ugly head of independence which constantly tries to confuse you (determining what behaviour is possible in different models of set theory), and the third head is the smallest of all (what you can prove about it in ZFC). It has relatively recently been observed that this characterisation isn't quite right—there is in fact a fourth head of βN, in which forcing axioms and Ramsey type axioms give properties of βN almost diametrically opposed to those under the continuum hypothesis, giving very few maps from N* indeed. Examples of these axioms include the combination of Martin's axiom and the Open colouring axiom which, for example, prove that (N*)2 ≠ N*, while the continuum hypothesis implies the opposite.

An application: the dual space of the space of bounded sequences of reals
The Stone–Čech compactification βN can be used to characterize $$\ell^\infty(\mathbf{N})$$ (the Banach space of all bounded sequences in the scalar field R or C, with supremum norm) and its dual space.

Given a bounded sequence $$a\in \ell^\infty(\mathbf{N})$$ there exists a closed ball B in the scalar field that contains the image of $$a$$. $$a$$ is then a function from N to B. Since N is discrete and B is compact and Hausdorff, a is continuous. According to the universal property, there exists a unique extension βa : βN → B. This extension does not depend on the ball B we consider.

We have defined an extension map from the space of bounded scalar valued sequences to the space of continuous functions over βN.

 * $$ \ell^\infty(\mathbf{N}) \to C(\beta \mathbf{N}) $$

This map is bijective since every function in C(βN) must be bounded and can then be restricted to a bounded scalar sequence.

If we further consider both spaces with the sup norm the extension map becomes an isometry. Indeed, if in the construction above we take the smallest possible ball B, we see that the sup norm of the extended sequence does not grow (although the image of the extended function can be bigger).

Thus, $$\ell^\infty(\mathbf{N})$$ can be identified with C(βN). This allows us to use the Riesz representation theorem and find that the dual space of $$\ell^\infty(\mathbf{N})$$ can be identified with the space of finite Borel measures on βN.

Finally, it should be noticed that this technique generalizes to the L∞ space of an arbitrary measure space X. However, instead of simply considering the space βX of ultrafilters on X, the right way to generalize this construction is to consider the Stone space Y of the measure algebra of X: the spaces C(Y) and L∞(X) are isomorphic as C*-algebras as long as X satisfies a reasonable finiteness condition (that any set of positive measure contains a subset of finite positive measure).

A monoid operation on the Stone–Čech compactification of the naturals
The natural numbers form a monoid under addition. It turns out that this operation can be extended (generally in more than one way, but uniquely under a further condition) to βN, turning this space also into a monoid, though rather surprisingly a non-commutative one.

For any subset, A, of N and a positive integer n in N, we define

 * $$A-n=\{k\in\mathbf{N}\mid k+n\in A\}.$$

Given two ultrafilters F and G on N, we define their sum by

 * $$F+G = \Big\{A\subseteq\mathbf{N}\mid \{n\in\mathbf{N}\mid A-n\in F\}\in G\Big\};$$

it can be checked that this is again an ultrafilter, and that the operation + is associative (but not commutative) on βN and extends the addition on N; 0 serves as a neutral element for the operation + on βN. The operation is also right-continuous, in the sense that for every ultrafilter F, the map

 * $$\begin{cases} \beta \mathbf{N} \to \beta \mathbf{N} \\ G \mapsto F+G \end{cases}$$

is continuous.

More generally, if S is a semigroup with the discrete topology, the operation of S can be extended to βS, getting a right-continuous associative operation.

title: Stone–Čech compactification