text:
Wikipedia talk:Vote

Summary of positions (mark your name against a choice, comments in brackets - don't bother adding up scores because this is not a democracy)

 * 1 Susan's variation on borda count / approval voting
 * Susan Mason
 * 2 approval voting
 * Martin, Sfmontyo
 * 3 first past the post
 * 4 Some other kind of variation on approval voting/runoff elections/cumulative or prioritized voting
 * Susan Mason (second choice)
 * Susan Mason (second choice)

Talk: List of United States people
from Talk:List of United States people

The following discussion about how to reach a consensus through voting was moved from talk:List of United States people.

Susan Mason proposed a voting system prior to a suggestion by Martin that we use the approval voting. Below is a description of Susan's system:

Susan's Proposed Voting System
Numbers in parenthesis reflect the number of votes made where a 1st choice=10 points (as there are 10 options), 2nd choice=9 points, 3rd choice=8 points, and so on, and in which a lone unpreferentiated vote equals 10 points, two unpreferentiated votes equal 9.5 points each (10+9/2), three unpreferentiated votes get 9 points each (10+9+8/3), four votes equal 8.5, and in the case of Infrogmations 7 votes each vote equals 7 points each (10+9+8+7+6+5+4/7). In beside each name is the number of votes cast and the (preference) and the # of points each vote is worth.

Beside each vote are two numbers in parenthesis, the first is the number of points given to each choice in the above-described system, the second is the number of points given if this were pure approval voting whereby each vote is worth 10 points regardless of preference.

 * (74) (80) -- List of people from the United States: mav (1-#10), TUF-KAT (1-#10), Infrogmation (7-#7), Ortolan88 (1-#10), Danny (1-#10), AstroNomer (1-#10), Susan Mason (7(4)-#7), Eloquence (1-#10)
 * (49) (50) -- List of Americans: sfmontyo(3(1)-#10), Zoe (1-#10) (and, as of right now, only acceptable choice), Tannin(2(1)-#9), Rmhermen (1-#10), Someone else (1-#10)
 * (29) (40) -- List of Americans(US) or List of Americans(USA): sfmontyo(3(2)-#9), Susan Mason (7(7)-#4), Infrogmation (7-#7), Mkweise (2(2)-#9)
 * (26) (30) -- List of US nationals: Susan Mason (7(1)-#10) Tannin (2(2)-#9), Infrogmation (7-#7)
 * (18) (20) -- List of U.S. Americans: Mkweise (1-#10), Susan Mason (7(3)-#8)
 * (16) (20) -- List of US citizens: Infrogmation(7-#7), Susan Mason (7(2)-#9)
 * (13) (20) -- List of people from the USA: - Infrogmation (7-#7), Susan Mason (7(5)-#6)
 * (8) (10) -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : sfmontyo (3(3)-#8)
 * (7) (10) -- List of United States people: Infrogmation (7-#7)
 * (5) (10) -- List of Usians: Susan Mason (7(6)-#5)

Moved Discussion about the Susan Voting System
Sfmontyo-You havent taken the time to see what this system is doing. You cannot place all your votes on one choice. Susan Mason
 * I just noticed it and was crafting a response. I got an edit conflict with you, but you're right I missed his comments. Sfmontyo

 * Whoa there-- I was voting on a strictly binary "That one sounds okay by me" v/s "No, I think we can do a lot better" basis. I (and perhaps some others?) didn't know it would be tallied as above and would have adjusted them had I known. -- Infrogmation (Note: this comment was related to an earlier version of the votes here)

 * First off, you can change them all you like. This certainly isnt a final tally but merely an example of how I think voting could work. The 6 points you have per vote reflects nothing more than "That one sounds ok by me", with emphasis decreasing as you find more and more options to be ok. Its far better to vote with (1st choice) (2nd choice); unless you honestly dont care which is chosen, as long as it isnt those which u havent voted for.

 * In essence, some people were using 1st choice/2nd choice voting and I simply tallied everything up so people would see what is meant by 1st choice/2nd choice. Of course such tallying is not the only way to do this, but at the moment it seems like a good way to me.

 * In addition, should u wish to tier your votes, then u could introduce a Infromagation (8-8th choice), in that case your first 7 votes would all be equal at 6 points, and your 8th vote would be at 2 points. In any case, your votes are currently tallied as all being your 1st choice as you indicated no preference. Susan Mason

Susan Mason

 * Umm. Is there a reason why approval voting is unacceptable for this vote? The ideosyncratic system you propose is harder to work out and suffers from the spoiler effect. Plus wikipedia is not a democracy - in my experience people don't follow votes slavishly, but instead work to achieve consensus. Martin

 * Ooops, I didn't see your entry Martin. Yes, the approval system is much preferred to the current system as a way of generating consensus. I withdraw my ad hock alternate voting system with the added bonus of having learned about a new topic approval voting. - Sfmontyo

 * Approval voting sounds reasonable to me too. -- Infrogmation`

And in my experience I havent been ordering you to do anything, merely presenting a more informative tally of the votes made. You say the system I suggested is harder to work out...but nobody asked you to work it out. I did that for you. Susan Mason

Susan, I've read your system, but looked at the results and I'm not certain that I understand. I believe it goes something like this: my first choice, I get to assign 9 pts for my second choice, I get to assign 8 pts third, 7 fourth, 6 if and only if I pick one.

If I have no preference betwen my 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices, I may average the numbers 8, 7, and 6 assign 7 to each of those choices. Is that correct? Then I'm confused as to why my first choice is 3 and not 9
 * (45) -- List of Americans: sfmontyo(3- 1st choice), Zoe

What does the 3 mean? Evidently, I don't understand what is going on here. - Sfmontyo

sfmontyo-you made 3 votes, with your 1st choice curently listed as List of Americans-so you have contributed 9 points to the final tally. The 3 indicates the number of votes u made. Susan Mason

Yes, I figured it out, thanks. I had just finished adding points to each entry in order to be clear, but got another edit conflict. I could redo this, but before I do, how do you feel about the approval voting system? Want to withdraw yours? - Sfmontyo

Does pure approval voting allow one to distinguish that Option A is not ideal, but is certainly preferable to Option B, however, Option C is considered to be the best option? My system is approval voting, but it it allows one to weight the votes to a degree. Susan Mason

 * Before we get totally off-topic, perhaps we should move this discussion to the newly created vote and let people get on with the business of reaching consensus without this added distraction. Martin

A couple of points:

1. The person who creates a vote block may attempt to guess other people's positions, from what they've said in Talk, by placing their names in the vote block in an appropriate place - This is _a bad idea_! If people can't bother to vote by themselves then their opinion doesn't count. Simple as that. People being able to sign for other people will just create new controversies and unproductive discussion (and we've got enough of those as is on wikipedia).

2. As much as it is annoying we'll have to have a way to deal with close decisions, and whether changes to decisions are possible (think percentage approval by parliament needed for ammending a constitution.) --snoyes 23:38 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Good point in (1) snoyes - you've convinced me, at least.

 * I was hoping to merrilly skate away from (2), which is a more fundamental point. This is really just discussing a reasonably commonly used tool

Sorry Susan, but your proposed voting system, innovative and interesting though it is, produces absurd and very undemocratic results. Consider the following - for the sake of clarity, just using the example of my own vote here.

 * -- List of Americans: 9
 * -- List of Americans(US) or List of Americans(USA): 8
 * -- List of US nationals: 7
 * -- List of US citizens: 6
 * -- List of people from the USA: 5
 * -- List of people from the United States: 4
 * -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : 3
 * -- List of United States people: 2
 * -- List of Usians: 1

The totals are:

 * Names which I support: 9 points
 * Names which I consider bearable but sub-optimal: 8 points
 * Names to which I am fully opposed: 28 points

A voting system that winds up assigning more than three times as many votes to the names I wish to vote against as to the one that I support ain't democatic! Tannin

 * Tannin, you aren't understanding the system. You do not have to vote for everything. In the above example, you would assign 9 points to names which u support, 8 points to those which u consider bearable but sub-optimal, and 0 to those in which you are opposed. While I doubt my system is exactly what we want, I think its in the right direction. Susan Mason

Question: Does setting up such a system discourage anonymous edits? newbie edits? Would it encourage long-standing users to get upset with newbies editing articles? Just wondering. Atorpen 00:12 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

If a vote is necessary about the title of list of [Americans/United States People/etc.], I think you should try instant runoff voting. It avoids the problem of having Tannin contribute points to outcomes he hates. It also means you can vote for your top choice without fear. On the other hand, all the vote will really do--no matter how conducted--is shed light on all our beliefs. I keep reading that wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if there's a winner in the vote, you still need to come to concensus.

The other funny thing in this conversation is that people keep referring to "unregistered" contributors and voters as if they are second class voters or second class contributors. That seems very outside the spirit of wikipedia to me.

Arthur

 * I agree very strongly with Arthur's second comment. :) Atorpen

Tannin does not have to contribute points to choices he opposes. Susan Mason

''removed duplicate content from Susan - see "My system, being a variant on approval voting, ..." below''

I take your point, Susan, but let's think it through, asuming that I take your advice and only vote for things I am in favour of. Let's also say you are against using "Americans", which leads you to favour "List of people from the USA" and the other ones like it - "List of US Nationals", "List of US citizens" and so on. (I'm not saying you do favour those, just assuming it for the sake of an example.) Now, let's count the votes:

Me:
 * -- List of Americans: 9
 * -- no other votes unless I count "List of Americans (US)"

My total votes: 9 (or possibly 17)

You:

 * -- List of US nationals: 9
 * -- List of US citizens: 8
 * -- List of people from the USA: 7
 * -- List of people from the United States: 6
 * -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : 5
 * -- List of United States people: 4
 * -- List of Usians: 3

Your total votes: 42 (or possibly 44 if we count ""Americans (US)). A voting system that gives you up to four times as many votes as me is a scam! Tannin

 * Its about time... a bit idealistic, perhaps, after all the way it really works is somebody whines to a sysop and they get around eventually to putting a foot down. This only problem with this vote thing is it inefficient: Its easier to just INSULT someone until Mav comes along. -&#35918&#30505

Well Tannin, first off this issue you point at exists in approval voting, which was what was being used before I offered my modified approval voting. For example, if you only vote for the one choice, and I approve of 7 others, than I have voted 7 times as much as you. However, Im not so sure its a problem because we are only chosing X (usually X=1) options, for example, lets say I voted 60,000 times for Josef Stalin and 50,000 times for Karl Marx, while you voted 60,000 times for Roosevelt. Granted, I voted 110,000 times (while u voted 60,000) but I didn't vote 110,000 times for the same person, in essence all I did was vote ONCE for either Joseph Stalin OR Karl Marx, with a priority for Stalin.

Imagine that we were voting on something and you just KNOW the correct choice is going to have an A in it, and you KNOW everything else is bad, but u dont know or care which A choice is selected. In traditional voting you would have this:

Please select 1:
 * A
 * B
 * AA
 * C
 * AB
 * D
 * ACD

And everybody gets just one vote. However, do u want A, AA, AB, or ACD? Approval voting argues that one shouldnt be limited in such a fashion, and granted somebody who votes for A, AA, AB, and ACD makes 4 votes, whilst somebody who votes for D only makes 1, is the person who voted once each for A, AA, AB, and ACD really scamming the other person?

In my version, I tried to introduce some means by which u could distinguish that you want A above all others, but AA, AB, and ACD are also acceptable. I agree that my version probably isnt the best method of doing so, but certainly we want a version that does something of that nature.

Susan Mason

If this was to be a software implementation - Ive suggested it b'fore... using the "committee" consensus in a larger and quantified way... but.. LOL.. look at the average edit war, etc.. maybe four people involved... - &#35918&#30505

-

I strongly object to giving the same weight to 3rd and 4th choices as to 1st choices. They should only be counted as .33 and .25 of a vote, if at all. For that reason, I will not vote for my second choice unless the votes are weighted more fairly. -- Zoe

This voting system sucks, sucks, sucks. Gah. You make me wish to start hacking on wiki-integrated voting again .. --Eloquence 02:50 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * My system, being a variant on approval voting, gives essentially the same results. The primary difference is that my system does something which Zoe should approve of since she feels that second/third choices deserve less points, in that, my system does give those second/third/fourth choices less points.

 * The main difference between these systems is that mine has yet to create any ties, for example the last 3 options are ranked in my version instead of tied as in the approval system. Likewise, options 5-7 are also tied in the approval version, but ranked seperately in my version.

 * The option List of US Americans is in 5th place in my version, and ranked above options 6 and 7 because users have expressed an especial interest in that option, said interest not being represented in the purely (yes/no) system of pure approval voting.

 * Also, my version has a wider gap between 2nd and 3rd place, because the people voting for Option #2 were more likely to refer to it as the #1 choice, whereas Option #3 was not the first choice of any voter.

 * To sum this up, the primary (and perhaps only) difference between my version and approval voting is this: consider an approval vote where Option A received 10 votes and Option B received 10 votes and Option C received 0 votes. Obviously Option A and B are tied, and a runoff must be held. In my version, what if Option A was everybodys 1st choice (and thus has 30 points) and option B was everybodys 2nd choice (and thus has 20 points). In such a situation, my voting system does not result in a tie.

Susan Mason

Susan, I got a bit behind in following this page (which is practically a full-time job right now!) so forgive me if I have picked your name up where I maybe should be directing my comments to someone else. No matter: you are putting forward the most articulate and thoughtful case, so I'll stay with my miscasting (if that's what I did).

I'll try to offer a proper analysis a little later - I have to go and play cricket in a moment - but for now I'll just say that it all depends on who's "standard voting" we are talking about. Over here in Oz "standard voting" means preferential voting. In general, it is the fairest way of achieving a result. (At least the fairest way that I know of). I'll explain how it works, and compare it with the "Susan Mason Method" shortly. First, though, I'm off to play some cricket. Wish me luck! Tannin 07:05 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on this issue. As I've noted before, and will again, wikipedia is not a democracy. In practice, people's votes do not count equally - many wikipedians will put more weight on the views of people they trust and respect. This means that it's not so much about the tallying method as it is about the ballots - how you encourage people to express their viewpoints. In essence, there are three ballots you can use: single vote (as used in first past the post), multiple vote (as used in approval voting, and preferential vote (as used in instant runoff voting, borda count, etc).

I think that single vote simply isn't expressive enough - in the example of the list of US people, quite a few people were happy with a number of options, and wanted to make that clear. I also think that single votes would discourage compromise, because people only express what they prefer most, not what they're happy with. Preference votes are, I feel, over complex for our needs. It's not immediately obvious which choice has the most support, and the lists are complicated by the addition of strange brackets and things. Also, I think it would discourage people from the current tradition of putting extra comments in brackets, and this makes it harder, not easier, to guage support.

Multiple votes (as in approval voting) are to my mind the ideal compromise between expressiveness and simplicity. It's generally easy to see which choice has the most support, and it requires no complex notation. On the other hand it adequately expresses the common situation - that there are options that one is happy with, and options that one would be unhappy with. If someone needs to express preferences, they can always do so with brackets - IE

 * list of Dominicans
 * Martin (strongly!)
 * list of Dominicans (country)
 * list of people from the Dominican Republic
 * Martin (acceptable)
 * Martin (acceptable)

I've used multiple votes in wikipedia a number of times and, to put it bluntly, they work. Nobody has ever expressed confusion at how to vote, or had a problem with working out the current "winner", or accused it of being undemocratic, or whatever. Why make things more complicated than they have to be? Martin

---

My version isn't complicated. Here is the above example translated into my version:

 * (2) list of Dominicans
 * Martin (2(1)-#2)
 * (0) list of Dominicans (country)
 * (1) list of people from the Dominican Republic
 * Martin (2(2)-#1)
 * Martin (2(2)-#1)

Susan Mason

 * *shrug* De gustibus non disputandem Martin

I think an inprovement on my version would be to allow the user to allocate 1-10 points for every vote he wishes to approve of. For example, I may wish to allocate 10 points to American Nationals but only 5 points to People from the USA' Susan Mason

 * A voting system also known as range voting, incidentally Martin

Use PR.STV to reach decision
Incorrect. (And BTW the House of Commons regrettably doesn't use PR.STV, which is why it was possible for Thatcher and Blair to win a massive majority on a minority vote, something deeply undemocratic.) PR.STV works for any number of winners, including one. All you would do here is have each person after their name list the temps and beside it their order of preference, eg

FearÉIREANN Temp 1: 1 Temp 2: 4  Temp 3: 3  Temp 4: 2

That means Temp 1 is my first choice. If it is not available, I would choose Temp 4. If it is not available Temp 3, and Temp 2 is my least favourite, which I am going all out to stop.

You use the Droop Quota to calculate a quota after all the voting is done. So if 20 people voted, and there is one result, you get

(20/2) +1 = 11.

So the quota is 11. You tot up all the number1s. If no temp gets 11 votes, you see which one of the temps got the lowest total. Say it was Temp 1 which got 4 votes. You look at those 4 votes, ignore their number 1 and look to see their number 2s. In my case my second choice was Temp 4. So in a second count, you exclude Temp 1 as it had the lowest vote, and redesignate its 4 votes based on the second preferences. Again if no one has 11 votes, you exlude the lowest, redesignate its votes. (If for the sake of argument, my second choice, Temp 4 had the lowest then. You look at my choices, and move my vote to the one I gave my number 3 to. In the third count you are left with two choices. The higher one wins.

For example: 1st Count Temp 3: 6 votes Temp 2: 5 votes Temp 4: 5 votes Temp 1: 4 votes

2nd Count Temp 3: (6 + 1) = 7 Temp 2: (5 + 2) = 7 Temp 4: (5 + 1) = 6 eliminated Temp 1

3rd Count Temp 3: (7 + 4) = 11 winner Temp 2: (7 + 2) = 9 Temp 4 Temp1

So in that example: Temp 3 is the choice which is most popular or least unpopular with everyone, earning it consensus acceptance. There is a methodology for dealing with draws - but it would be impractical on wiki. (How would you draw a name out of a hat? BTW the one drawn out is the loser not the winner, as you are presuming to be selecting the person to be eliminated, with the last person surviving, ie in the hat, being the winner!) If you had a draw, then everyone votes again from that point, ie, if the slatemate occured when there were three names left, you vote on those three names, the fourth is no longer on the ballot.

It is the most democratic method because it everyone gets to influence the winner. The election works on the principle - If you had to choose from the following four, which would you choose? If you had to choose from the following three, which would you pick? If you had to choose from two, which would you pick? If in my case my preferred option of 4 was the least popular, I get to choose from 3, if my choice then was least popular, I get to influence the choice of 2.

Doing lists like at the top of the page are indecisive and if I vote for the least popular option, I have no impact on the final result among the other options. Using a Single Transferable Vote, I get to influence the result every step of the way, even if it only at the end by using by vote against the one I least want, by voting for its rival in the last count.

It is dead easy to do, very simple to calculate and everyone gets to participate right to the end in reaching a decision. Nobody gets excluded. Everyone has a say every step of the way, right down to the end when the issue is, if you had to pick one of these two, which would you pick? In the case of JF or Oliver, as they intensely dislike Temp 1, even if their first choice lacks support, they can vote in a way which makes it difficult for Temp1 to win, their vote potentially helping every other option against it. FearÉIREANN 00:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * PR.STV is equivalent to instant-runoff voting (IRV) for single winner elections. IRV has a number of deficiencies which I really should get round to adding to the Wikipedia article on the subject. Hence, I feel it should be avoided. Martin 01:39 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

notification of votes

 * (regards talk:Main Page/layout discussion) I wonder how many Wikipedians know there is a vote going on.

It was advertised at the village pump, on recent changes, on list of ongoing votes, and on some relevant talk pages... but there's a limit to how much you can advertise before it's spam. :-/ Do you have any suggestions? Martin

 * My first reaction was 'the discussion page for the Main Page', but I checked and its been there all along. I must have missed it, although it is on my watch list. Still if I missed it many others will have too (I'm pretty much a wikiholic, though my attention is divided between en: and nl:). Its hard to keep track of everything thats going on. I follow Wikipedia-l and Wikitech daily, started to follow Village pump recently. Maybe the logo contest is a good example, that one is very hard to miss. It was on the announcements page as well. I agree that not every discussion that turns into a vote should be announced there or even shown prominently on the main page, but I think many people are interested in the content and layout of the Main Page (which is shown by the number of voters that did indeed find their way to your page), so maybe worth an announcement after all? Erik Zachte 10:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Vote


text:
Calabi–Yau manifold

In algebraic and differential geometry, a Calabi–Yau manifold, also known as a Calabi–Yau space, is a particular type of manifold which has properties, such as Ricci flatness, yielding applications in theoretical physics. Particularly in superstring theory, the extra dimensions of spacetime are sometimes conjectured to take the form of a 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, which led to the idea of mirror symmetry. Their name was coined by, after who first conjectured that such surfaces might exist, and  who proved the Calabi conjecture.

Calabi–Yau manifolds are complex manifolds that are generalizations of K3 surfaces in any number of complex dimensions (i.e. any even number of real dimensions). They were originally defined as compact Kähler manifolds with a vanishing first Chern class and a Ricci-flat metric, though many other similar but inequivalent definitions are sometimes used.

Definitions
The motivational definition given by Shing-Tung Yau is of a compact Kähler manifold with a vanishing first Chern class, that is also Ricci flat.

There are many other definitions of a Calabi–Yau manifold used by different authors, some inequivalent. This section summarizes some of the more common definitions and the relations between them.

A Calabi–Yau $$n$$-fold or Calabi–Yau manifold of (complex) dimension $$n$$ is sometimes defined as a compact $$n$$-dimensional Kähler manifold $$M$$ satisfying one of the following equivalent conditions:
 * The canonical bundle of $$M$$ is trivial.
 * $$M$$ has a holomorphic $$n$$-form that vanishes nowhere.
 * The structure group of the tangent bundle of $$M$$ can be reduced from $$U(n)$$, the unitary group, to $$SU(n)$$, the special unitary group.
 * $$M$$ has a Kähler metric with global holonomy contained in $SU(n)$.

These conditions imply that the first integral Chern class $$c_1(M)$$ of $$M$$ vanishes. Nevertheless, the converse is not true. The simplest examples where this happens are hyperelliptic surfaces, finite quotients of a complex torus of complex dimension 2, which have vanishing first integral Chern class but non-trivial canonical bundle.

For a compact $$n$$-dimensional Kähler manifold $$M$$ the following conditions are equivalent to each other, but are weaker than the conditions above, though they are sometimes used as the definition of a Calabi–Yau manifold:
 * $$M$$ has vanishing first real Chern class.
 * $$M$$ has a Kähler metric with vanishing Ricci curvature.
 * $$M$$ has a Kähler metric with local holonomy contained in $SU(n)$.
 * A positive power of the canonical bundle of $$M$$ is trivial.
 * $$M$$ has a finite cover that has trivial canonical bundle.
 * $$M$$ has a finite cover that is a product of a torus and a simply connected manifold with trivial canonical bundle.

If a compact Kähler manifold is simply connected, then the weak definition above is equivalent to the stronger definition. Enriques surfaces give examples of complex manifolds that have Ricci-flat metrics, but their canonical bundles are not trivial, so they are Calabi–Yau manifolds according to the second but not the first definition above. On the other hand, their double covers are Calabi–Yau manifolds for both definitions (in fact, K3 surfaces).

By far the hardest part of proving the equivalences between the various properties above is proving the existence of Ricci-flat metrics. This follows from Yau's proof of the Calabi conjecture, which implies that a compact Kähler manifold with a vanishing first real Chern class has a Kähler metric in the same class with vanishing Ricci curvature. (The class of a Kähler metric is the cohomology class of its associated 2-form.) Calabi showed such  a metric is unique.

There are many other inequivalent definitions of Calabi–Yau manifolds that are sometimes used, which differ in the following ways (among others):
 * The first Chern class may vanish as an integral class or as a real class.
 * Most definitions assert that Calabi–Yau manifolds are compact, but some allow them to be non-compact. In the generalization to non-compact manifolds, the difference $$(\Omega\wedge\bar\Omega - \omega^n/n!)$$ must vanish asymptotically. Here, $$\omega$$ is the Kähler form associated with the Kähler metric, $$g$$.
 * Some definitions put restrictions on the fundamental group of a Calabi–Yau manifold, such as demanding that it be finite or trivial. Any Calabi–Yau manifold has a finite cover that is the product of a torus and a simply-connected Calabi–Yau manifold.
 * Some definitions require that the holonomy be exactly equal to $$SU(n)$$ rather than a subgroup of it, which implies that the Hodge numbers $$h^{i,0}$$ vanish for $$0 < i < \dim(M)$$. Abelian surfaces have a Ricci flat metric with holonomy strictly smaller than $$SU(2)$$ (in fact trivial) so are not Calabi–Yau manifolds according to such definitions.
 * Most definitions assume that a Calabi–Yau manifold has a Riemannian metric, but some treat them as complex manifolds without a metric.
 * Most definitions assume the manifold is non-singular, but some allow mild singularities. While the Chern class fails to be well-defined for singular Calabi–Yau's, the canonical bundle and canonical class may still be defined if all the singularities are Gorenstein, and so may be used to extend the definition of a smooth Calabi–Yau manifold to a possibly singular Calabi–Yau variety.

Examples
The fundamental fact is that any smooth algebraic variety embedded in a projective space is a Kähler manifold, because there is a natural Fubini–Study metric on a projective space which one can restrict to the algebraic variety. By definition, if ω is the Kähler metric on the algebraic variety X and the canonical bundle KX is trivial, then X is Calabi–Yau. Moreover, there is unique Kähler metric ω on X such that [ω0] = [ω] ∈ H2(X,R), a fact which was conjectured by Eugenio Calabi and proved by Shing-Tung Yau (see Calabi conjecture).

Calabi–Yau algebraic curves
In one complex dimension, the only compact examples are tori, which form a one-parameter family. The Ricci-flat metric on a torus is actually a flat metric, so that the holonomy is the trivial group SU(1). A one-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold is a complex elliptic curve, and in particular, algebraic.

CY algebraic surfaces
In two complex dimensions, the K3 surfaces furnish the only compact simply connected Calabi–Yau manifolds. These can be constructed as quartic surfaces in $$\mathbb{P}^3$$, such as the complex algebraic variety defined by the vanishing locus of

"$x_0^4 + x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 = 0$ for $[x_0:x_1:x_2:x_3] \in \mathbb{P}^3$"

Other examples can be constructed as elliptic fibrations, as quotients of abelian surfaces, or as complete intersections.

Non simply-connected examples are given by abelian surfaces, which are real four tori $$\mathbb{T}^4$$ equipped with a complex manifold structure. Enriques surfaces and hyperelliptic surfaces have first Chern class that vanishes as an element of the real cohomology group, but not as an element of the integral cohomology group, so Yau's theorem about the existence of a Ricci-flat metric still applies to them but they are sometimes not considered to be Calabi–Yau manifolds. Abelian surfaces are sometimes excluded from the classification of being Calabi–Yau, as their holonomy (again the trivial group) is a proper subgroup of SU(2), instead of being isomorphic to SU(2). However, the Enriques surface subset do not conform entirely to the SU(2) subgroup in the String theory landscape.

CY threefolds
In three complex dimensions, classification of the possible Calabi–Yau manifolds is an open problem, although Yau suspects that there is a finite number of families (albeit a much bigger number than his estimate from 20 years ago). In turn, it has also been conjectured by Miles Reid that the number of topological types of Calabi–Yau 3-folds is infinite, and that they can all be transformed continuously (through certain mild singularizations such as conifolds) one into another—much as Riemann surfaces can. One example of a three-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold is a non-singular quintic threefold in CP4, which is the algebraic variety consisting of all of the zeros of a homogeneous quintic polynomial in the homogeneous coordinates of the CP4. Another example is a smooth model of the Barth–Nieto quintic. Some discrete quotients of the quintic by various Z5 actions are also Calabi–Yau and have received a lot of attention in the literature. One of these is related to the original quintic by mirror symmetry.

For every positive integer n, the zero set, in the homogeneous coordinates of the complex projective space CPn+1, of a non-singular homogeneous degree n + 2 polynomial in n + 2 variables is a compact Calabi–Yau n-fold. The case n = 1 describes an elliptic curve, while for n = 2 one obtains a K3 surface.

More generally, Calabi–Yau varieties/orbifolds can be found as weighted complete intersections in a weighted projective space. The main tool for finding such spaces is the adjunction formula.

All hyper-Kähler manifolds are Calabi–Yau manifolds.

Constructed from algebraic curves
For an algebraic curve $$C$$ a quasi-projective Calabi-Yau threefold can be constructed as the total space $$V = \text{Tot}(\mathcal{L}_1\oplus\mathcal{L}_2)$$ where $$\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2 \cong \omega_C$$. For the canonical projection $$p: V \to C$$ we can find the relative tangent bundle $$T_{V/C}$$ is $$p^*(\mathcal{L}_1\oplus\mathcal{L}_2)$$ using the relative tangent sequence

"$0 \to T_{V/C} \to T_V \to p^*T_C \to 0$"

and observing the only tangent vectors in the fiber which are not in the pre-image of $$p^*T_C$$ are canonically associated with the fibers of the vector bundle. Using this, we can use the relative cotangent sequence

"$0 \to p^*\Omega_C \to \Omega_V \to \Omega_{V/C} \to 0$"

together with the properties of wedge powers that

"$\omega_V = \bigwedge^3\Omega_V \cong f^*\omega_C\otimes\bigwedge^2\Omega_{V/C}$"

and $$\Omega_{V/C} \cong \mathcal{L}_1^*\oplus\mathcal{L}_2^*$$ giving the triviality of $$\omega_V$$.

Constructed from algebraic surfaces
Using a similar argument as for curves, the total space $$\text{Tot}(\omega_S)$$ of the canonical sheaf $$\omega_S$$ for an algebraic surface $$S$$ forms a Calabi-Yau threefold. A simple example is $$\text{Tot}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(-3))$$ over projective space.

Applications in superstring theory
Calabi–Yau manifolds are important in superstring theory. Essentially, Calabi–Yau manifolds are shapes that satisfy the requirement of space for the six "unseen" spatial dimensions of string theory, which may be smaller than our currently observable lengths as they have not yet been detected. A popular alternative known as large extra dimensions, which often occurs in braneworld models, is that the Calabi–Yau is large but we are confined to a small subset on which it intersects a D-brane. Further extensions into higher dimensions are currently being explored with additional ramifications for general relativity.

In the most conventional superstring models, ten conjectural dimensions in string theory are supposed to come as four of which we are aware, carrying some kind of fibration with fiber dimension six. Compactification on Calabi–Yau n-folds are important because they leave some of the original supersymmetry unbroken. More precisely, in the absence of fluxes, compactification on a Calabi–Yau 3-fold (real dimension 6) leaves one quarter of the original supersymmetry unbroken if the holonomy is the full SU(3).

More generally, a flux-free compactification on an n-manifold with holonomy SU(n) leaves 21−n of the original supersymmetry unbroken, corresponding to 26−n supercharges in a compactification of type II supergravity or 25−n supercharges in a compactification of type I. When fluxes are included the supersymmetry condition instead implies that the compactification manifold be a generalized Calabi–Yau, a notion introduced by. These models are known as flux compactifications.

F-theory compactifications on various Calabi–Yau four-folds provide physicists with a method to find a large number of classical solutions in the so-called string theory landscape.

Connected with each hole in the Calabi–Yau space is a group of low-energy string vibrational patterns. Since string theory states that our familiar elementary particles correspond to low-energy string vibrations, the presence of multiple holes causes the string patterns to fall into multiple groups, or families. Although the following statement has been simplified, it conveys the logic of the argument: if the Calabi–Yau has three holes, then three families of vibrational patterns and thus three families of particles will be observed experimentally.

Logically, since strings vibrate through all the dimensions, the shape of the curled-up ones will affect their vibrations and thus the properties of the elementary particles observed. For example, Andrew Strominger and Edward Witten have shown that the masses of particles depend on the manner of the intersection of the various holes in a Calabi–Yau. In other words, the positions of the holes relative to one another and to the substance of the Calabi–Yau space was found by Strominger and Witten to affect the masses of particles in a certain way. This is true of all particle properties.

Calabi-Yau algebra
A Calabi–Yau algebra was introduced by Victor Ginzburg to transport the geometry of a Calabi–Yau manifold to noncommutative algebraic geometry.

Beginner articles

 * An overview of Calabi-Yau Elliptic fibrations
 * Lectures on the Calabi-Yau Landscape
 * Fibrations in CICY Threefolds - (complete intersection Calabi-Yau)

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

title: Calabi–Yau manifold


text:
Midland Counties Railway

The Midland Counties' Railway (MCR) was a railway company in the United Kingdom which existed between 1839 and 1844, connecting Nottingham, Leicester and Derby with Rugby and thence, via the London and Birmingham Railway, to London. The MCR system connected with the North Midland Railway and the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway in Derby at what become known as the Tri Junct Station. The three later merged to become the Midland Railway.

The part of the MCR line between Nottingham, Derby and Leicester is still in use as part of the Midland Main Line, the part of the route from Leicester to Rugby however was closed in the 1960s.

Origin
The East Midlands had for some years been at centre of plans to link the major cities throughout the country. However, the MCR came about as a result of competition to supply coal to Leicester, a town which was rapidly industrialising and was a valuable market for coal. The competition was between the Coalville area of Leicestershire, and the Erewash Valley area of Nottinghamshire.

For many years, the Nottinghamshire coal miners had enjoyed a competitive advantage over their counterparts in Leicestershire, but in 1832 the latter opened the Leicester and Swannington Railway.

On 16 August 1832, at one of the Nottinghamshire miner's regular meetings at the Sun Inn, at Eastwood the idea was mooted to extend the Mansfield and Pinxton Railway to Leicester. The decision was taken to involve outside finance, and, on 27 August 1832, a public meeting to attract subscriptions was held at the George Inn at Alfreton and on 26 September 1832 the scheme was formally approved at Eastwood, though at that time the possibility of using steam locomotives had not been discussed. In the Derby Mercury of 17 October 1832, the new railway was referred to as the Midland Counties' Railway.

Josias Jessop was retained as engineer, and reporting in 1833, noted that it would not be possible to put it before Parliament that year. Subscriptions had been obtained from Lancashire investors and with the imminent completion of the London and Birmingham Railway, they insisted that the line should continue to join it at Rugby, Warwickshire. George Rennie was brought in to assess the scheme and plan the southward extension.

Not surprisingly there had been opposition from Leicestershire to the proposal. In October an alternative plan was proposed of bringing in Nottingham and Derby, as well as Leicester, using a junction at Long Eaton, with the stated aim that it would reduce any differences in coal prices between them.

At last the plans were ready to put before Parliament in its 1834 session. However investment fell far short of the expected cost of over £125,000. The scheme was delayed for yet another year, during which time Charles Vignoles was asked to review the plans and become the company's engineer.

At this point, the citizens of Northampton campaigned for the line to pass through their town rather than Rugby. Not surprisingly, at that late stage, it was refused. It has been suggested that, having opposed the London and Birmingham, they had seen the error of their ways. Such a line would have been longer and more expensive, shortening the journey to London by very little, but extending that to Birmingham excessively.

By that time, the North Midland Railway and Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway had been formed with the intention of meeting at Derby. The line to Pinxton threatened it, particularly as, in 1834, the Midland Counties had mooted the possibility of an extension to Clay Cross.

At the same time, the Birmingham and Derby link with the London and Birmingham Railway in a southwards direction at Hampton-in-Arden, threatened the Midland Counties. The two railways came to a private agreement to withdraw the competing lines from their Bills.

At last in 1836 the Midland Counties' Railway Bill went before Parliament and survived its passage through the House of Commons. However, there were still powerful interests ranged against it. Firstly there were the canal owners with which it was being built to compete. Secondly, the Bill still included the Pinxton line, to the extreme annoyance of the Birmingham and Derby line's directors. There was a distinct possibility that the Lords would insist that the North Midland was connected to it instead of proceeding to Derby, losing the NMR some twenty miles of line and its connection to Birmingham and the West Country. Accordingly, it was dropped.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 21 June 1836 without the connection to Pinxton. Since this was the original reason for building the railway, one can imagine the feelings of the Nottinghamshire miners.

Nottingham to Derby
In January 1837 the company issued invitations to tender for three contracts, Derby to Trent Junction, Nottingham to Trent Junction and Trent Junction to Sutton Bonington. By February 1837, the engineers had marked out the whole of the line. The principal contractors struggled to meet the deadline of 22 February to quote for the construction of 22 miles of railway, so the deadline was extended to 28 February, with the additional requirement of a cast-iron bridge over the River Trent at Thrumpton.

Contracts were awarded for the Derby to Trent Junction portion by April 1837 for £3,000 under the estimate with an forecast of completion by September 1838. The contract for the section from Trent Junction to Sutton Bonington was let in May 1837. The contract for the works in Nottingham were signed in June 1837 and construction started immediately. By September 1837 it was reported that 400 men were employed in three different places on the line between Nottingham and Derby.

The engineer was Charles Blacker Vignoles, and the superintendent was Thomas Jackson Woodhouse. The contractor for the works between Derby, Long Eaton and Loughborough was William MacKenzie of Chorley, Lancashire. The contractor for Long Eaton to Nottingham was Messrs. Taylor, Sharpe and Johnson.

The only obstacle was the Derby Canal which would need to be diverted at Borrowash, the canal owners asking £2 for every hour that it was closed. However quick action allowed the work to be completed, when a drought fortuitously occurred, closing the canal.

Initially the railway ran into a temporary platform at Derby, but at Nottingham a magnificent terminus had been built in Carrington Street. The inaugural run took place from Nottingham on 30 May 1839, with a timetabled public service beginning on 4 June.

To Leicester and Rugby
The portion of the contract from Leicester to the Trent Viaduct was let in December 1837 at which point it was reported that 900 men were engaged in the construction. The contractor for Loughborough to Syston was Messrs. Gordon and Hector McLeod, and the contractor for the Syston to Leicester, and Leicester to Rugby portions was Messrs David Macintosh. It had three main obstacles, the first being the crossing of the Trent. This was done by means of an elegant three arched bridge built by the Butterley Company. Immediately following this was Redhill Tunnel, provided with elegant castellated portals to placate the local landowner. The bridge was replaced with the present girder bridge in 1900 when the line was quadrupled, and a second bore was provided for the tunnel with identical portals. Finally a substantial cutting was needed at Sutton Bonington.

While the Derby-Nottingham tracks had been supported on stone blocks, the section to Rugby used kyanised timber sleepers. At Leicester there was another magnificent station in Campbell Street, originally planned as a terminus on a spur from the main line. However, it was built as a loop with a single long platform next to the through running lines. It was replaced by the present London Road station in 1892.

Progress to Rugby was hampered by wet weather and the need for several long cuttings and embankments. There were two tunnels, at Knighton and near Ullesthorpe and a bridge over the River Avon and the Oxford Canal at Rugby. This last was not completed in time for the opening and, for seven weeks, passengers had to alight at a temporary platform, to be taken by road into Rugby.

Engineering
There were 148 bridges in all, and three tunnels. The rails were double headed in 15 ft lengths at 77 lb/yd at a gauge throughout of. These were laid either on gritstone blocks from Cromford, laid diagonally, or on embankments, timber sleepers of oak or kyanised larch. For a length near Rugby, Evans's dovetailed bridge rails of 57 lb/yd, were tried, mounted on longitudinal Memel fir timbers with pine cross sleepers.

The earthworks ensured that the maximum gradient of the line was 1 in 330 (0.3 %). The largest were on the Rugby line at the Leire cutting and embankment. The whole project required approximately 5700000 cuyd of earthworks. There were only two significant bridges and viaducts, one being that over the River Trent, which comprised three cast iron arches of 100 ft each and the viaduct over the valley of the Avon (now Grade II listed ) which consisted of 11 arches of 50 ft each, elevating the line 40 ft above the valley floor.

The total cost of construction was just under £1,400,000.

Opening
The line was finally opened in three stages:

 * Derby to Nottingham 4 June 1839
 * Trent Junction to Leicester 4 May 1840
 * Leicester to Rugby 1 July 1840

On 4 June 1839 the company provided four trains at Nottingham for passenger services on opening day. The first two with six coaches, and the others with two coaches each. Each train was headed by a separate engine, Ariel, Mersey, Hawk and Sunbeam. The brass band of the 5th Dragoon Guards entertained the passengers, and played God Save the Queen as each train departed. The first train headed by Sunbeam with four first class and two second class carriages departed for Derby at 12:30 pm. Five minutes later Ariel was attached to a train and departed for Derby. Ariel arrived at Long Eaton at 12:48 pm, and Derby by 1:19 pm. After a wait in Derby of just over an hour, the trains returned to Nottingham, where the band of the Dragoons struck up See, the Conqu'ring Hero Comes.

One notable event was the first large organised excursion by rail, "got up by the Nottingham Mechanics' Institute. A week later the Leicester Mechanics' Institute returned the compliment to Nottingham." After Thomas Cook began the tourist business, the MCR began organising excursions on its own account, on one occasion conveying some 2,400 people in a single train of 65 four-wheeled carriages and wagons. The fact that MCR's locomotives were all either single driving-wheeled or 0-4-0s, and small at that meant that the heavier the train, the more were added. The excursion must have been a sight to behold.

Competition
Initially the Midland Counties' Railway did not prosper due to competition from the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway which also transported coal from the East Midlands to London, via Hampton-in-Arden. An ensuing price war between the two companies almost drove both of them out of business.

The MCR made an agreement with the North Midland for exclusive access to its passengers. In retaliation the Birmingham board opposed a bill that the MCR had submitted to Parliament. Both lines were in dire straits and paying minuscule dividends.

The North Midland was also suffering severe financial problems arising from the original cost of the line and its buildings. At length George Hudson took control of the NMR and adopted Robert Stephenson's suggestion that the best outcome would be for the three lines to merge.

Hudson foresaw that the directors of the MCR would resist the idea and made a secret agreement with the B&DJR for the NMR to take it over. This would of course take away the MCR's customers from Derby and the North and, when news leaked out, shares in the B&DJR rose dramatically.

Hudson was able to give the MCR directors an ultimatum, and persuaded the line's shareholders to override their board and the stage was set for amalgamation.

Midland Railway
In 1844, the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway, the Midland Counties' Railway and the North Midland Railway merged to form the new Midland Railway.

The Mansfield and Pinxton Railway was finally connected in 1847, and the extension to Chesterfield was built in 1862. Now known as the Erewash Valley Line, it joined near where the three original lines met at Trent Junction, crossing to the up (London) line on the level at Platt's Crossing. This potentially dangerous arrangement was removed when Trent station was built in 1862 and the whole junction was remodelled.

This underwent many changes over the years, the station finally closing in 1968.

Legacy
Most of the original Midland Counties' Railway line between Nottingham, Derby and Leicester is still operating today as part of the Midland Main Line. The original line into Derby, through what later became the site of Chaddesden Sidings, closed in 1969. Also part of the original route was abandoned when track alterations were put in with the opening of Trent Station in the 1860s. The stretch between Leicester and Rugby was closed in 1961. The line between Trent Junction and Chesterfield, known locally as the Erewash Valley Line, is still today the second most busy in the East Midlands, with freight to the south east of the country. The daily southbound Master Cutler travels along it directly from Sheffield to London, while a few expresses divert at Trowell just north of Trent, to call at Nottingham, before travelling to London. Although the old North Midlands through Derby is the main express line (since trains have to reverse at Nottingham), there is still a half-hourly service from Nottingham itself to London.

In January 2019, Campaign for Better Transport released a report identifying the line between Rugby and Leicester which was listed as Priority 2 for reopening. Priority 2 is for those lines which require further development or a change in circumstances (such as housing developments).

title: Midland Counties Railway


text:
Talk:Frauenkirche, Dresden

Paragraph copied from U.S. government web page

 * The second paragraph is directly copied from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html - I haven't done this sort of thing before, but I have heard rumours that unless they specify otherwise, US government (".gov") webapges are in the public domain. Please remove the second paragraph if I have misunderstood this. -- Oliver P. 23:39 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed split

 * Since the Dresden Frauenkirche and Munich Frauenkirche are both equal in notoriety and historical significance, both articles need to be split off and the main Frauenkirche namespace should be a diasmbiguation page redirecting readers to the two main articles. The disambiguation page would also allow for the listing of other minor Frauenkirche as the name is somewhat popular for churches throughout Europe.  --Gerald Farinas 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other issues
I request the last sentence to be striken from the article. No doubt this is a way to describe the outcome, but it's pathetic and therefore not suited for a dictionary which should base on facts. Madayar, --80.171.188.176 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Guenter Blobel
Is there a reason why Guenter Blobel and his contribution needs to be mentioned twice? It's very redundant. Zeus1233 09:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I found a copyright violation from The Boston Globe:Boston Globe article. The following parapgraph appears word-for-word in the wikipedia text: ''The project employed a small army of architects, engineers, stress analysts, acoustics designers, woodworkers, art restorers, surveyors, musicologists, computer modelers, and other specialists. Team leaders had only three incomplete -- and maddeningly imprecise -- sets of schematic drawings of the church to serve as rough building guides.'' - 66.69.144.142

 * Well spotted, 66.69.144.142. In addition to that paragraph, there are several others contributed by 24.180.147.71 that are taken from that Globe article, and from other sources, such as the New York Times.

From the Wiki article: ''At the time, the effort seemed quixotic. The project caused controversy and neither the Dresden city government nor the state-related Lutheran Church of Saxony supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruin. People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses.''

From the NYT: ''At the time, it seemed quixotic. Neither the city government nor the Protestant church supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruins. "People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses," said the mayor of Dresden, Ingolf Rossberg, who, as deputy mayor in 1990, was an early supporter.''

By entering passages into Google, other sources that can be identified include, , , , , , and.

It's going to take some major revision to sort out what is copyvio and what isn't! - Gobeirne 17:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I've worked from the assumption that everything that 24.180.147.71 submitted was a probable copyvio, and therefore requires removal. I've reinstated changes made since 24.180.147.71's last edit, but more work is required to sift through the intervening contributions to see what is salvagable. Perhaps some passages may be included if relevant references are cited. Talk about frustrating! - Gobeirne 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

reproducing a facsimile
"Reproducing a facsimile of the original" - tautology? Dan --80.42.208.53 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
Is it really appropriate to have the page under a name -- the English translation -- by which few people know the church? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, put it back under 'Frauenkirche'. It's embarrassing to think that someone feels he must translate 'Frau' and 'Kirche' into english before I can understand it.  ChrisRed 08:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, I think that the minor edits are getting a bit pedantic now. Inanimate objects can wait (trains can wait at signals, and there's a grave waiting for us all), and if I had stood in the open air for two days and nights during the bombing of Dresden, I would consider it miraculous beyond opinion if I was still alive.  It's O.K. to use 'colour and mood', lets not make Wiki language too dull and sterile. ChrisRed 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Use English rules are pretty clear on this case and we should move this article to an English name. Besides, there's a wikipedia convention of translating the names of the churches. See for instance the St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk, St. Mary's Church, Kraków, Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul, Poznań, Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar, Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Belgium, Saint Stephen's Basilica, Sanctuary of Our Lady of Licheń, Basilica of the Holy House, St John The Baptist Church, Bombay, St Mark's Basilica, Church of Intercession upon Nerl, Church of St. John the Warrior, Church of St. Nicholas of the Weavers, Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, St Volodymyr's Cathedral, Church of All Nations, Church of the Holy Sepulchre and hundreds of others.

 * So, we have two options now: either translate this name to English, or move all the articles on other churches to their local names. Halibutt 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Option three - Change the rules. Even the BBC news calls it 'The Frauenkirche in Dresden'.  If we apply the rules over-zealously, what are we to do with Notre Dame Cathedral, the Taj Mahal, the Bundestag, the Côte d'Azure, Mont Blanc etc. which English-speakers all refer to in their original languages?. The German language entry for St.Paul's Cathedral, for example, is called "St.Pauls Cathedral", because that's what the Germans call it.  I agree that I would not translate any of your good examples above back into the original language on the 'English' page, but we need to relax (or ignore) the rule for things which are universally known to English-speakers by their name in the original language.  (ChrisRed) 09:25 01NOV05)

 * Sorry, Halibutt, but you just moved it with no consultation. As native English speakers, I'm afraid we will have to 'pull rank' on you.  Please leave this page under the heading which is universally known as to us.  (p.s. Love your home page. Please stop using better English than like wot we do :-)

 * The rule says use the English name, not an uncommon English translation of the Name. From the discussion and from the official website, it seems that the name used in English materials is "Dresden Frauenkirche", that should be the title, and there's no violation. --Vsion 08:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, the "Use English" rules also state
 * If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language
 * which seems to apply here. I have never heard it called anything but the Frauenkirche. This is about as silly as that guy going around changing all the monarchs to "so and so of country", as if ordinary people ever use such honorifics. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop moving this article on your own !!! Use Requested moves if you feel this should be moved. --Denniss 09:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move Why isn't Notre Dame in Paris under "Our Lady"? Because that's a silly thought. Keep the current name. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I listed this German-language title on the requested move page. However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names. Either we obey the rules in all cases or we don't obey them at all. Is that satisfactory to all? Halibutt 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not. There is no hard and fast rule on the way a church in a foreign land is called in English. But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "Frauenkirche" follows WP:UE conventions - to quote:Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in "Torino" even though most English texts still call the city "Turin". However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world never do this and still say Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article.  and also the rules on WP:NC - Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. (my use of bold letters) Saint|swithin 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The example on Turin seems very unlikely, and a bad basis for comparison. I have only seen Frauenkirche; but Google results suggest the two usages are about tied. Weak Keep. Septentrionalis 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose move. The German name was used over the weekend in the media reports I head and read of the reconsecration. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. (Do we have to do it here?) Most articles in English write "The Frauenkirche (Church of Our Lady)" and then go on to use "Frauenkirche" alone. This is why "Church of Our Lady" gets so many Google hits. Turin is only an example of how we should use judgment as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article (WP:UE). Saint|swithin 08:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the move. I guess most of the respectable wikipedians so far missed the point. The problem is that the exact translation of the German name is available and it was done already in the case of numerous churches - I believe that for good. However, if we decide that the term Frauenkirche (pronunced Froon-ker-chee, apparently) is an English word, then we should also accept Kościół najświętszej Marii Panny as an English term. Absurd, but that's what results from this. As I said, the rules should apply equally to all languages, otherwise we'd have POV-pushing. Halibutt 09:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NC Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. I've listed some examples of how "Frauenkirche" is used in English here. Saint|swithin 09:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose the move. Why, exactly, should this be named any other way? I think there should also be a common usage test that applies here, like for other names--Dresden Frauenkirche is clearly the predominantely used term among English speakers and publications. There is no reason for a translation. Zeus1233 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As already mentioned, "Our Lady's Church" is not the term used in English to refer to the church- Frauenkirche is. On Dresden's English webpage, the church is referred to as Frauenkirche and is not translated, unlike other buildings promoted on that page. In comparison, on Kraków's English webpage, Bazylika Mariacka is translated into St. Mary's Church, as the Polish name for it is not widely used in English. I agree with Dhartung and Saintswithin's interpretation of the Naming Conventions. Olessi 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose: I'd have to stop and think to work out what the "Church of Our Lady" referred to, but Frauenkirche makes immediate sense. I have a suspicion that it should perhaps be under Dresdner Frauenkirche, however… --Stemonitis 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Dresden Frauenkirche differs from the also famous Munich Frauenkirche because the Dresden church is Protestant. That separates it from all of the other Catholic churches sharing the name.  Thus, Dresden's Frauenkirche is mostly refered to as the Frauenkirche, not the Church of Our Lady because it is unique. Jazz1979 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * To 'Halibutt'. Just accept that English-speakers 'steal' foreign words into English.  When we say 'The Frauenkirche in Dresden' we are still speaking in English, otherwise we would switch to German and actually say 'Die Dresdener Frauenkirche'.  To us the thing is called 'The Frauenkirche'. (Pronounced 'Frowen-kirsh' by the way)....there is no alternative English word for it.
 * I think the best solution would be for you to write an excellent Polish-language article about this church, and call it whatever you want to. We promise not to meddle or interfere with it.  There was no problem here until you created one, and I regret to say that what you are doing now almost borders on trolling.
 * Your 'threat' "take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Oh!, Oppose, by the way, otherwise we will need to change the English entry for Gdansk to 'Town on Gdania River', then get busy on Los Angeles, Casablanca, Deja-Vu, Michael Schumacher and Ursa Major :-) ChrisRed 10:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, although I seriously doubt that most of English speakers pronunce it the way you suggest as most of them do not speak German. Also, do not assume my bad will, I did not make any threats to anyone. I merely pointed to the fact that we should be consistent in applying (or not, as in this case) the rules of Wikipedia. If German church names are ok, so are Japanese or Polish. Halibutt 12:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I find it funny that most of those to take part here are actually Germans... Halibutt

Well, I am English, but I (now) speak reasonable German. Any English speaker who saw the word 'Frauenkirche' would pronounce it roughly as I said, but a few would mis-translate it as 'wifes-church'. (The problem is of course, I have no way of knowing how a Polish-speaker pronounces 'Frowen-kirsh' :-) Most English speakers know plenty of German words, we just find grammar is a nightmare, especially if words such as 'weil', 'obwohl' etc. make an appearance. Somewhere near the Brenner Pass, a shopkeeper is probably still wondering why - 20 years ago - a scruffy English student walked into her shop and said "Haben sie (oil for) fruhstuck kuchen?" ("Have you owl before breakfast cake?"), before buying a bottle of Mazola. ChrisRed

 * I noted the wrong pronunciation as Froon-ker-chee because I actually hear it in the BBC radio (channel 5) some days ago. Of course I know how it should be pronunced in German, but I doubt most of the English speakers do. In fact I have yet to hear any Brit to pronunce it the German way you suggested. But perhaps it's just me... Anyway, I started moving the churches to where they apparently belong. Halibutt 14:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are bound to meet the exception, but most Brits can still read German off a page, even if they don't understand it, because the 'sound' of our language is based (in part) on Old German (or rather Saxon, which I suppose makes us saxophones). Of course, the last time large numbers of Germans came to England, they were flying at 8000 metres, so we didn't really get a chance to talk :-).  ChrisRed 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree because most English speakers do not know where to break up the boundaries of long German words. They can only do it if the recongnise some of the sub words in a long German words. As to how this word is pronunced I suspect that the word Kirche will as often as not be pronunced by Scots and some others as Kirk. Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I was referring to people who speak English. How the Scots pronounce it (and their motive for deliberately mis-pronouncing 'church' if it happens not to be a 'papist' one) is definitely outside the scope of this article. ChrisRed 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, have you read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?
 * What has the way British people pronounce Frauenkirche got to do with how the article should be named? Saint|swithin 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (British and living in Dresden since 1992.)

 * Well, it's quite helpful in determining whether it is indeed an English name or just a foreign name used by some journalists in the titles for the sake of brevity. As to the rest of your comments - I did read it and have no intention to break it in any way. I intended to prove my point here at the talk page, but apparently I failed to convince anyone and I'm fine with it, no wikistress involved whatsoever. Also, apparently there's a consensus to use local names for churches and such an option is also supported by a number of articles on churches (most notably German and Italian), so I'll simply move some of the articles to conform with that convention. I see nothing wrong with that, it's all a matter of consistency. Halibutt 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As was written above:
 * Ok, I listed this German-language title on the requested move page. However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names. Either we obey the rules in all cases or we don't obey them at all. Is that satisfactory to all? Halibutt 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not. There is no hard and fast rule on the way a church in a foreign land is called in English. But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibu are you sticking to "However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names." or do you now accept from the arguments given above, that whether this page is moved or not moved, it does not set a general rule for all foreign church names. Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "Also, apparently there's a consensus to use local names for churches and such an option is also supported by a number of articles on churches (most notably German and Italian), so I'll simply move some of the articles to conform with that convention. I see nothing wrong with that, it's all a matter of consistency. Halibutt 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

As I said above "But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide." Polish is more outlandish than German, (because French and German are the root of English), so it is more likely that names of Polish Churches will be translated. You should not draw infrences from this debate that any rule exists for all churches in all languages. Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to stop and think to work out what the "Church of Our Lady" referred to, but Frauenkirche makes immediate sense. I have a suspicion that it should perhaps be under Dresdner Frauenkirche, however… --Stemonitis 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it should not be under "Dresdner" because it is not a German name it is an English name and just as it is Westminster Abbey it is the "Dresden Frauenkirche" Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome

 * Move request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Halibutt, please do not violate WP:POINT as you mention above. Rob Church Talk 02:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
A lovely article. I'd never heard of the Frauenkirche before, and am horrified at the damage it took. It truely brings home the horror of the Dresden firebombing. It could be beefed up some more, but nice work. More, please! Fergananim 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, and well done everybody. As soon as the hubbub and vandalism has died away, I'll pull some photos of the equally-staggering interior across. (The German language page is growing nicely too - they are rightfully very proud - If I see anything there that would be nice here, I'll translate it across). ChrisRed 22:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedantry
I dropped the word "miraculously" from the description of the church surviving two days of firebombing in WWII; somebody reverted this edit. A comment was made above:

 * Hmmm, I think that the minor edits are getting a bit pedantic now. Inanimate objects can wait (trains can wait at signals, and there's a grave waiting for us all), and if I had stood in the open air for two days and nights during the bombing of Dresden, I would consider it miraculous beyond opinion if I was still alive. It's O.K. to use 'colour and mood', lets not make Wiki language too dull and sterile. ChrisRed 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's OK to use colorful language, but I think one should be very careful when decribing something as "miraculous," especially when the building at issue is a church.

I've changed "miraculously" to "impressively." Let the reader decide for him/herself if he/she thinks this does, in fact, represent some kind of miracle. Scrutchfield

Terror
I see there's some reverting going on about the phrase "a British goldsmith whose father, Frank, was a member of one of the aircrews who helped to end the terror of national socialism by / took part in the bombing of Dresden"

The question is not whether or not the Nazi regime was one of terror. Instead, the reason this is a NPOV problem is that some people believe the purpose of the bombing was mainly to end the war, and others believe it was mainly to get revenge for the bombing of Coventry. See Bombing of Dresden. Using the phrase "helped to end the ..." assumes the first of these two points of view is correct, thus it is not NPOV. This controversial subject can not be summed up in one or two sentences here, but it is discussed at great length at Bombing of Dresden so the "helped to end..." can be left out here. Saint|swithin 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * For a lot of people it is Terror that a nazi building in nazi germany was rebuilt almost completely with good American money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.181.219 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For even more people Morons can be Terror as well.79.205.107.223 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"650,000 incendiary bombs"
I know next to nothing about the bombing of Dresden or anything related to it, and I haven't checked any sources, but that number seems absurdly high, doesn't it? That would be 5 bombs per inhabitant of Dresden, 200 or so bombs per second, or -- I don't know -- a few thousand? -- bombs per RAF plane, or roughly one bomb per plane and second. Maybe somebody confused this with the total number of bombs dropped on Germany in WW II? Multi io 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It does sound a lot, but it's probably true. The incendiaries were glorified fire-lighter sticks using phosphorus, that spewed-out from a casing when it left the bomber (see Incendiary device).  On a typical bombing raid: the first bombers were 'Pathfinders' who marked the target, the second wave would then blow all the roofs off with high-explosive, then later bombers dropped huge numbers of incendiaries into the de-roofed buildings. A grim business ChrisRed 07:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, after checking your link and some sources I think the number may indeed be correct. Thanks for the insight. Multi io 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The RAF dropped 80,000,000 (eighty million) 4lb incendiaries - see image - in the period 1939-45.

Replica Building
This monument should be listed under a new category for replica buildings. See St Mark's Campanile discussion page. Roberrt Schediwy 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Isn't there a difference between a 'replica' and a 'Reconstruction'? Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral is a replica, this is a reconstruction, Like HMS Victory.Sigma-6 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"
The presence of a criticism section seems appropriate but its current contents are far from objective and border on stupidity. The stones were "placed, to a large extent, arbitrarily around the building with the help of a computer program"???? Computer-aided design is one of the most mature of computer sciences and I'm sure its contributors would be curious, to say the least, to hear someone call it "arbitrary." Let's lose this section until we can get some supported content for it.

 * Agreed. The first question that comes to mind is, who has these criticisms "about what it means actually to 'reconstruct' old buildings"?  There are no references or any factual basis for these particular "criticisms." Musiclover (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No kidding. It's full of weasel-words and inaccuracies, and it's amazingly poorly written.  The conclusion is patently absurd; the building is a beautiful restoration, and it recreates the building (I've long loved the Canaletto print) gorgeously.  Obviously the 'image being created here' is, as near as possible, the Frauenkirche, lovingly, by a community that was sad to lose it. I'm going to delete the section, feel free to revert. Sigma-6 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "raised interesting philosophical questions about the status of this building and its embedded memory." Oh, please, tell us these interesting question about a building's memory! – Does that sentence make any sense? No, seriously, these are vague philosophical ramblings about reconstructing in general and should have no place in this article...-- megA (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * But the 'reconstructed' church has 1) a modern public lift going up halfway to the top and 2) quite a lot of steel and glass construction in the dome for visitors to walk around and look down in safety ... I am pretty certain that neither was there in the original. It is simply not true that is a reconstruction that is 'as close as possible', despite all the sentimental gush you might want to apply to it. There must be an accurate account somewhere of the non-historical aspects of the 'reconstruction', of which there are many. --Tdent (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * That's your opinion, Tdent, and you may have good reasons for it, but this article needs verifiable facts and quotations, not opinions. I have stripped the section down to a quotation from Jarzombek and (I hope) an objective summary. I think that's quite generous to an author who can't spell and writes titles like Urban Heterology: Dresden and the Dialectics of Post-Traumatic History. --Heron (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral
Why do you call the Frauenkirche a "cathedral"? It has never been one. The responsible Evangelical Church in Germany bishop for Dresden seems to consider a church in Meissen to be his cathedral http://www.landeskirche-sachsen.de/landeskirche/index.html Mk4711 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening section
"The Dresden Frauenkirche survived the firebombing of Dresden during World War II but was totally burned out and collapsed the next day."

If it was totally burned out and then collapsed, then clearly it didn't survive the bombing. The fact that it took a few hours actually to collapse dooesn't change that. This sentence should be changed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree: quibbling over a few hours seems pointless when we're talking about an historic building. I've rewritten the intro. --Heron (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cost of Reconstruction
The cost of the reconstruction is given in Euros and then in GBP and Dollars. I think the cost should be given ONLY in euros, since the exchange rates change every day. --Karljoos (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

virtual tour
Are these Links useful for this article? its not english, but there are nice pics… --Gsälzbär (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was there to see the collapse of the church?
The main article here says the following: "The temperature surrounding and inside the church eventually reached 1,000 degrees Celsius. The dome finally collapsed at 10 a.m. on 15 February. The pillars glowed bright red and exploded.." Now, and realistically, if the temperature had reached 1,000 degrees, then who was still alive there to see this and then live to related that the "pillars glowed bright red and exploded"??

The article then proceeds to state: "The altar, a relief depiction of Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives by Johann Christian Feige, was only partially damaged during the bombing raid and fire that destroyed the church." How can any delicate relief, painted of course--or even a fresco, survive 1,000 degrees celsius, where the solid stone pillars around it "glowed bright red and exploded", with only partial damage?

Are all the dramatic details like this not just myths? I wonder what else about this church and the fate of the city has just been made up by subsequent generation of people who were not even there to see the apocalypse that befell the poor beautiful city?

 * The temperature of the pillars must have reached around 1,000 degrees Celsius. Nobody will have measured that at this time. There are plenty of eyewitnesses of the bombing of Dresden (in fact, my grandmother traveled through Dresden after the bombing, want any details about how the city looked like?). Also, the pillars didn't have to be right next to the altar (which was in a OK state after the bombing, a big part of it was later used for the reconstruction of the church). How can you criticize historical facts without even researching them? I didn't research them either and could easily invalidate your theories with my own. Sgo.ger (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * This page says:
 * Der von Johann Christian Feige geschaffene Altar wurde wie durch ein Wunder unter den Trümmern vor der gänzlichen Zerstörung bewahrt: Herabtropfendes Zinn der schmelzenden Silbermann-Orgel konservierte den Altar und die Holzteile der Orgel milderten die Wucht der herabstürzenden Kuppeltrümmer ab. -
 * Created by Johann Christian Feige, the Altar miraculously survived complete destruction. The tin of the melting Silbermann organ preserved the altar and paintings, and the wooden structure of the organ moderated the damage of the falling cupoula debris
 * BTW, thats also what they tell visitors on the tour thru the building. Maybe this could be integrated. --Captndelta (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030202195356/http://www.loc.gov:80/exhibits/dres/dres10.html to http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407012039/http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print to http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Munich Frauenkirche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust of Dresden?
Is the use of the word "holocaust", in the section Destruction, appropriate? Kiwigpz (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Never mind, it appears to be some vandalism that I have reverted. Feel free to delete this comment though I imagine the bots will undo my change. Kiwigpz (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frauenkirche, Dresden