text:
Denton, Greater Manchester

Denton is a town in Tameside, Greater Manchester, England, five miles (8 km) east of Manchester city centre. Historically part of Lancashire, it had a population of 36,591 at the 2011 Census.

Toponymy
Denton probably derives its name from Dane-town, an etymology supported by other place names in the area such as Danehead-bank and Daneditch-bourne. The word 'Dane' is itself derived from Anglo-Saxon denu, dene, daenland, meaning a valley. So literally Denton means valley town.

Prehistory
A Byzantine coin was discovered in Danesheadbank, dating from the sixth or seventh century, as part of the Denton coin hoard. The early medieval linear earthwork Nico Ditch passes through Denton; it was probably used as an administrative boundary and dates from the 8th or 9th centuries. A 300 m stretch is still visible on Denton golf course, about 4 m wide and 1.5 m deep.

Middle Ages
In the early 13th century it lay within the Manor of Withington, a feudal estate which also encompassed the townships of Withington, Didsbury, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Moss Side, Rusholme, Burnage and Haughton, ruled by the Hathersage, Longford, Mosley and Tatton families.

Hat industry
Felt hatting was recorded in Denton as early as 1702 and Denton gained supremacy in the hatting industry towards the end of the 19th century. The increasing importance of Denton and Haughton as centres of felt hat production is demonstrated by the increase of manufacturers in the area: in 1800 there were 4 hatting firms in Denton and Haughton, but by 1825 there were 25 manufacturers, making it the third largest hat making centre in the north west. By 1840, 24,000 felt hats were produced in Denton a week. The prosperity of the hatting industry is reflected in the growth of the town from 2,501 in 1801 to 6,759 in 1841.

During the 1840s, the felt hat industry went into depression; the recession affected Denton, with wages in the area falling by 35% and only 12 hat manufacturers remaining in Denton. The depression was partially due to changes in fashion away from felt towards silk hats. The revitalisation of the felt hat industry came in the 1850s, once again on a whim of fashion but also the increased use of machinery led to reduced production costs. The resurgence was demonstrated by the doubling of the number of hat manufacturers in the town between 1861 and 1872. At its peak in the Edwardian period, Denton's felt hat industry was the largest felt hat manufacturing centre in Britain. There were 36 firms directly involved in the felt hat making industry. In 1907 the majority of the 16,428,000 felt hats made in England (worth £2,068,000) were made in Denton and Stockport. In 1921, the working population of Denton was 9,653 with about 41% of those people in occupations related to the hatting industry. The last hat factory in Denton closed in 1980.

Although the felt hat industry in Denton and Haughton was prosperous and an integral part of the town, working conditions in the factories were not risk free. One of the problems workers faced was mercury poisoning; mercury was used to separate the fur from the rabbit hide and workers were in regular contact with fur impregnated with mercury or exposed to mercury vapour. Inadequate ventilation in some parts of the hat making process led to other sorts of dangers; solvents were also used and on 14 January 1901 there was an explosion at the factory of Joseph Wilson & Sons in Denton, killing 13 people and injuring many more. The explosion was of vapour from methylated spirits used in the dying process.

Throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century, a wide range of hats was manufactured to suit all tastes and purses. The names used by the competing manufacturers to describe their products was bewildering and some of these were; felt hats, silk hats, fur hats, wear fur hats, soft hats, stiff hats, velour hats, wool hats, straw hats and, of course, the ubiquitous cloth cap. In the 1930s the 'Attaboy' trilby hat was introduced by the Denton Hat Company. This brand quickly became famous and it was in production for many years. Ladies' hats were not forgotten either and at least one works specialised in making these and the hat master's wife designed them at home. Hats were made for home consumption and for export. The well-known slogan "If you want to get ahead, get a hat" arose in Denton and, needless to say, anyone attending for a job interview not wearing a hat was quickly shown the door. Similarly, until the early 20th century, anyone entering a Denton shop without a hat would receive much cursing. The term, "mad as a hatter" also arose in Denton because the mercury used in the felting process led to mercury poisoning.

In 2003, the prominent Wilson's Hat Factory on Wilton Street, together with the adjacent mill-workers' houses, other factories, Wilton Street Chapel and Mainstream Studios was demolished to make way for a new retail shopping park 'Crown Point North'.

Coal mining
Denton is on the Lancashire coalfield and once had a number of collieries. These included the Ellis Colliery (which became Denton Colliery), Top Pit, Hard Mine Pit and, further south and near to the River Tame, Hulmes Pit. Much of the coal that they produced was consumed by local industry, there being an abundance of steam powered mills in the area.

Denton Colliery was the largest of these mines and eventually absorbed the other local pits, often using their shafts for ventilation or, in the case of Hulmes Pit, as a pumping station to drain water from the main workings. Denton Colliery was connected to the London & North Western Railway's line from Guide Bridge to Stockport by a standard gauge tramway. The tramway was worked by steam power, rather than horses, as evidenced by a photograph held in the Tameside Local History Library archives.

In 1926, miners at Denton Colliery joined the national strike against reduced wages and longer working hours. This dispute led to the General Strike (3–12 May 1926). When the General Strike was called off, coal miners stayed out for several more months.

As the strike started to crumble, miners at Denton Colliery remained steadfast, not returning to work until 5 November 1926, some 6 weeks and one day after their colleagues at the nearby Ashton Moss Colliery, the only other significant colliery left in Tameside at that time. They returned to face longer working hours and their pre-strike rates of pay.

Unfortunately, months without maintenance during the strike had taken their toll on many coal mines. Denton Colliery had flooded to the extent that it was no longer workable and the Denton Colliery Co. went into voluntary liquidation in 1929. The headstock was demolished in 1932 and the shaft was finally filled and capped in 1974.

Some traces of Denton Colliery can still be found. The colliery offices on Stockport Road still stand and are now the showroom of a company of monumental stonemasons. Behind the office building is a small section of wall from the colliery. On the opposite side of the road and slightly nearer to Crown Point is the building that once housed the local mines rescue station, now two private houses. Two miner's cottages, much altered and now converted into one house, stand near the junction of Stockport Road and Cemetery Road. The foundations of Hulmes Pit were excavated in the early 1970s and can still be seen. Parts of the track bed of the tramway to Denton Colliery can still be traced, both on modern maps and on the ground, as can traces of a canal, known as the Beat Bank Branch, intended to link local collieries to the Stockport branch of the Ashton Canal at Reddish, which was partially built and then abandoned.

Oldham Batteries
After hatting, the most important industry in Denton was the manufacture of lead-acid batteries by Oldham Batteries (Oldham & Son Ltd). In 1865, Joseph Oldham established a millwright general engineering shop and by 1887 this company was manufacturing machinery for the hat-making industry. Another important industry in the area was coal mining and shortly after 1887 the company began making machinery and equipment for this industry, which included miners' portable lamps. Up to this time, miners had always used the safety lamp devised in 1815 by Sir Humphry Davy (1778–1829) but this new battery-powered Davy lamp eventually replaced the traditional safety lamp.

In 1920, the manufacture of automotive batteries for commercial vehicles, cars and motorcycles commenced and over the years this business expanded into the manufacture of traction batteries, which also included submarine batteries.

Nonetheless, the company never converted exclusively to the manufacture of batteries and they still continued to make machinery for the hatting industry, general engineering equipment, portable lamps and lighting systems as well as helmet-lamps and other related equipment for the mining industry. It also produced attachments for the mechanical handling industry.

Oldham Batteries became a major Denton employer with over 1,000 employees, but by the beginning of 2002 the decision to close the factory had been made. The factory, which used to be off Lime Grove, Denton, is no longer there. It has been demolished, and a planning application for a further housing and a Wellness centre agreed, the latter of which was completed and opened in early 2020. The housing is still currently (as of 2022) being built. Both of these projects required considerable clean up of the ground, given the previous use and the associated lead and other chemical contamination.

Civic history and councillors
Denton was originally one of the townships of the ancient parish of Manchester in the Salford Hundred of Lancashire. In 1866 it became a civil parish in its own right. The parish was expanded in 1894 by the inclusion of the Haughton township, the former area of which now covers the eastern part of the town. The name of Haughton survives as local place names at Haughton Green and Haughton Dale, both in south Denton. Clues to the former township do still exist at Haughton Street, Haughton Hall Road, the Parish Church of St. Anne, Haughton, and etched onto an ancient boundary marker on Broomstair Bridge on the A57 Hyde Road – (CHESHIRE Township of Hyde | Township of Haughton LANCASHIRE). Also in 1894 the enlarged parish became Denton Urban District in the administrative county of Lancashire.

In 1974 Denton's Urban District status was abolished and its assets and area were transferred to form part of the new Metropolitan Borough of Tameside in the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester.

Since 1974, Denton has consisted of three council wards on Tameside Council; Denton North East, Denton South and Denton West, each returning three councillors. The new wards took the same format as the original six Denton UDC wards (which were East, North, South-east, South, South-west and West). There have been minor ward boundary changes in 1982 and 2004. Denton West is the most Conservative-inclined of the three wards, and from 1975 to 1991 had Conservative Party representation. No Conservative councillor has been elected since 1987 in the town, although the party came within 13 votes of re-gaining the Denton West seat in 2008 on the back of government unpopularity over the abolition of the 10p tax rate and the proposals for a congestion charge in Greater Manchester with the proposed outer charging zone cutting the ward in two.

After the most recent local elections held in May 2022, the nine councillors for the town are:

Since 1998 there has been a degree of devolution, with District Assemblies established in the Tameside townships and consisting of the councillors and an advisory group. Assembly meetings are open to the public. Each Assembly has a town manager and devolved staff and budgets to deal with local services such as grounds maintenance, road repairs, parks, Britain in Bloom, community events, youth services, crime and disorder and town centre regeneration. The Denton and Audenshaw District Assembly controls an annual budget in excess of £1.5m. The old council chamber in Denton Town Hall was refurbished to provide a permanent home and meeting place for the Denton and Audenshaw District Assembly as the town's millennium project in 2000.

Since its formation the District Assembly Chairs have been: Andrew Gwynne (1998–2001); Mike Craven (2001–2004); Allison Gwynne (2004–2005); Margaret Downs (2005–present).

Twinning

On 5 December 1992, Denton became a twin-town to Montigny le Bretonneux, near Paris, France. On one side of the town hall, there is a 'French road sign' which was a gift from the Municipal Authority in Montigny and states how far it is to Montigny le Bretonneux from Denton. There is a similar 'English road sign' outside Montigny's Town Hall pointing to Denton. Denton celebrated 20 years of twinning in September 2012.

For ten years the French sign on Denton Town Hall pointed north, implying that Denton's French twin-town is located in the sea somewhere to the west of Orkney. However, Tameside MBC installed a 'mock' French road sign, pointing left (i.e. south) in February 2007.

Since September 2012, Denton has been twinned with Kierspe in north west Germany, near Cologne, which in itself has been twinned with Montigny for 25 years.

There is a similar road sign to Kierspe displayed on the wall of the town hall building that points in a southerly direction, indicating that you may find it close to Le Mans in France, rather than Germany where Kierspe is currently located.

The town twinning is run independently of the local authority and is run by volunteers who sit on the Denton Town Twinning Association. The group fundraise and rely on generous donations to continue cultivating educational, cultural, and commercial links between Denton and its twin towns.

Parliamentary representation
The area of the former Denton urban district initially formed part of the Gorton Parliamentary Division of South East Lancashire from 1885 to 1918; it then became part of the Lancashire, Mossley Parliamentary Division from boundary changes effective in that year's election until 1950. From 1950 to 1955 the town was contained within the short-lived Droylsden constituency. From 1955 to 1983 Denton was re-grouped with Gorton to form the Manchester, Gorton constituency. Since the 1983 boundary changes, Denton has formed part of the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency. Andrew Gwynne is Denton's current Member of Parliament. He was elected in 2005 to represent the Denton and Reddish seat, after long-serving MP Andrew Bennett retired.

Members of Parliament representing Denton since 1885:

Landmarks
There is one main war memorial, or cenotaph, in Denton, located in Victoria Park. This memorial commemorates people from Denton and Haughton who served in two world wars. The names on the war memorial were collected from their relatives who wrote to the council with details of their loved ones who served in either war. The war memorial was unveiled on 23 July 1921. Figures from the Denton section of the Tameside council website, state that 3,500 Denton men served in the Great War (1914–1918), of that number, 369 people were killed.

The oldest church in Denton is St. Lawrence's. It is almost 500 years old, originally built in 1531. It is a listed Grade II* building. The church is also known locally as "Th'owd Peg" (the old peg) due to the fact, as a timber-framed building, it was constructed with wooden pegs rather than nails. It is more commonly known as the black and white church, because of its appearance. A local myth is also said to have a pirate buried within its grounds because of a grave stone marked with a skull and crossbones at its front door. In a more thorough investigation and article printed by Denton Local History Society (1995), it was found that the gravestone was actually a masonic gravestone belonging to a deceased Soldier named Samuel Bromley from the Royal Artillery.

The magnificent Victorian St Anne's Church, Haughton, is a Grade I listed building, and is built in the Gothic Revival style.

Transport

The town is served by Denton railway station on the Stockport-Stalybridge Line. There is only a threadbare service, with only two passenger trains a week on Saturday mornings; these are known as Parliamentary trains. The line is used regularly by goods and charter trains.

The area's bus services are provided by Stagecoach Manchester, with links to Hattersley, Manchester city centre, Gee Cross, Stockport, Haughton Green and Ashton-under-Lyne. Local routes include:
 * 201: between Hattersley and Manchester city centre, via Hyde, Denton and Gorton
 * 202: between Gee Cross and Manchester city centre, via Hyde, Haughton Green, Denton and Gorton
 * 322: between Haughton Green and Stockport, via Denton, Brinnington and Portwood
 * 324: between Stockport and Haughton Green, via Portwood, Brinnington and Denton
 * 327: between Denton and Stockport, via Brinnington and Portwood
 * 335: between Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton, via Dukinfield
 * 345: between Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton, via Dukinfield and Audenshaw
 * 347: between Ashton-under-Lyne and Haughton Green, via Guide Bridge, Audenshaw and Denton.

The M67 Denton Relief Road motorway was constructed between 1978 and 1981, running east to west through Denton; originally, this was planned to be part of a motorway running from central Manchester to Sheffield. At Denton Island, the M67 (J1) connects with the M60 Manchester Ring Road (J24).

Primary schools

 * Corrie Primary and Nursery School
 * Denton West End Primary School
 * Greswell Primary School
 * Linden Road Primary School
 * Manor Green Primary and Nursery School
 * Russell Scott Primary School
 * St Anne's Primary School
 * St John Fisher RC Primary School
 * St Mary's RC Primary School

Secondary schools

 * Denton Community college (formerly Egerton Park Arts College and Two Trees Sports College)
 * St Thomas More RC College

Sport
Cricket

Denton is home to three semi-professional cricket clubs, all of which play in the Greater Manchester Cricket League.

Denton CC play at Egerton Street. They were league champions in 1994 and 1995 and runners up in 1998; their previous professionals include West Indies players Malcolm Marshall and Kenneth Benjamin.

Denton West CC, known as Reddish & Gorton CC until 1947, play at Windsor Park in the Dane Bank area of Denton. Denton West had a long history of Sri Lankan professionals including the first, Test Player Tony Opatha, in 1976. They were league champions in 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010 and 2013, and Walkden Cup winners in 1975, 1998, 2009, 2012 and 2014.

Denton St Lawrence CC play at Sycamore Park and their 2005 professional was West Indian Ryan Nurse. In July 2005, they won the Walkden Cup for the first time in 30 years defeating Flowery Field Cricket Club.

Football

Denton Town FC currently play in the Cheshire Football League Division One, after winning the Division Two championship in 2011. The club was formed in 1920 as Bradford Parish and was a force in local non-league football for many years before relocating with a change of name in the mid-1990s; their ground is now on the Whittles Park Estate in south-east Denton.

Notable people

 * Jimmy Armfield, Freeman of the Borough of Blackpool
 * Thomas Bowler (17 September 1826 – 15 September 1893) and his uncle William (25 January 1808 – 1878), hatters
 * Mick Hucknall, lead singer of Simply Red
 * Geoff Hurst, West Ham United and England 1966 World Cup footballer
 * Zach Clough, Professional footballer for Adelaide United
 * Paul Lake, played for Manchester City
 * Alan "Reni" Wren, drummer for The Stone Roses
 * Col Needham, creator of the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)
 * Jean Stubbs, British author
 * Colin Haughton, badminton singles player

title: Denton, Greater Manchester


text:
Xebec

A xebec ( or ), also spelled zebec, was a Mediterranean sailing ship that was used mostly for trading. Xebecs had a long overhanging bowsprit and aft-set mizzen mast. The term can also refer to a small, fast vessel of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, used almost exclusively in the Mediterranean Sea.

Description
Xebecs were ships similar to galleys primarily used by Barbary pirates, which have both lateen sails and oars for propulsion. Early xebecs had two masts while later ships had three. Xebecs featured a distinctive hull with pronounced overhanging bow and stern, and rarely displaced more than 200 tons, making them slightly smaller and with slightly fewer guns than frigates of the period.

Use by Barbary corsairs
These ships were easy to produce and were cheap, and thus nearly every corsair captain (Raïs) had at least one xebec in his fleet. They could be of varying sizes. Some ships had only three guns while others had up to forty. Most xebecs had around 20–30 cannons, and the overwhelming majority had swivel guns equipped.

After the 18th century, galleys became increasingly outdated and xebecs became the preferred ships of Barbary pirates thanks to their heavy and effective use of wind power, reduced need for slaves to row, ability to carry more cannons than a galley, and overall cheapness, speed, and maneuverability.

Xebecs were generally faster than contemporary ship types until the introduction of steamships.

Corsairs built their xebecs with a narrow floor to achieve a higher speed than their victims, but with a considerable beam in order to enable them to carry an extensive sail-plan. The lateen rig of the xebec allowed the ship to sail close hauled to the wind, often giving it an advantage in pursuit or escape. The use of oars or sweeps allowed the xebec to approach vessels who were becalmed. When used as corsairs, the xebecs carried a crew of between 90 and 400 men.

The use of square rig among pirates was initially rare, although after the 1750s a mix between lateen and square rigs became much more widespread.

Use by European powers
Some victorious xebecs of the Spanish Navy, about 1770 (see Antonio Barceló campaigns... in the Spanish version of the page of Wikipedia):
 * Andaluz, 30 guns (4 × 8-pounders)
 * Africa, 18 guns (4-pounders)
 * Atrevido, 20 guns
 * Aventurero, 30 guns (3 × 8-pounders)
 * Murciano, 16 guns, 4 pedreros (light swivel guns)
 * San Antonio

Notable xebecs of the French Navy include four launched in 1750:
 * Ruse, 160 tons, 18 guns
 * Serpent, 160 tons burthen, 18 guns
 * Requin, 260 tons burthen, 24 guns
 * Indiscret, 260 tons burthen, 24 guns

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a large polacre-xebec carried a square rig on the foremast, lateen sails on the other masts, a bowsprit, and two headsails. The square sail distinguished this form of a xebec from that of a felucca which is equipped solely with lateen sails. The last of the xebecs in use by European navies were fully square-rigged and were termed xebec-frigates.

The British brig-sloop Speedy's (14 guns, 54 men) defeat of the Spanish xebec-frigate El Gamo (32 guns, 319 men) on 6 May 1801 is generally regarded as one of the most remarkable single-ship actions in naval history. It was the foundation of the legendary reputation of the Speedy's commander, Lord Cochrane, which has in turn provided the inspiration for sea fiction such as Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander.

Etymology
Xebec is also written as xebeck, xebe(c)que, zebec(k), zebecque, chebec, shebeck ; from (xabec, chabec, now chebec, xabeque, now jabeque, enxabeque, now xaveco, sciabecco, zambecco, stambecco, xambekk, σεμπέκο, sebeco sciabécco, شباك, šabbāk and sunbeki). Words similar in form and meaning to xebec occur in Catalan, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic and Turkish. The Online Etymology Dictionary regards the Arabic shabbak (meaning "a small warship") as the source form; however, the Arabic root means 'a net', implying the word originally referred to a fishing boat.

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

title: Xebec


text:
Talk:List of birds

Thankyou for the reordering, Jimfbleak. Much better. Tannin 16:11 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately there is still a great deal to do to make this potentially very useful page worthwhile. It needs much more revision to break it into correctly ordered and named taxonomic groups, preferably with scientific orders added, but what time I have, my priority is (re)writing the bird accounts. jimfbleak 16:35 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the new look to the page, Jimfbleak.

 * It is rather daunting now. The scientific names (I suspect) will tend to scare the casual reader off, and the space they consume is non-trivial. It makes it harder for the non-specialist to find things. (Particularly as the sequence of families seems, unless you are already familiar with it, random. And if you are familiar with it, then you probably own several books that you'll resort to before you try Wikipedia anyway.)
 * On the other hand, it's a big improvement just the same, and (I think) the only rational way to try to impose some order on the bewildering variety of bird species.

In short, I have mixed feelings. I don't like it but I think it's needed. On balance, this is the way to go. Maybe, after this takes shape a little more, we can devote some thought to thinking about a way to lay it out such that it's easier for the non-expert to navigate.

A question: what authority are you using for the sequence of orders and families? I know that the blessing/curse of DNA analysis and consequent reclassification is continuing to turn things inside out, but the ordering in the entry at present doesn't seem to be the same as any of the lists I have here. Of course, nearly all my references are to the birds of Australia, New Zealand and/or Antarctica, so they tend to leave out slabs of stuff that isn't relevant over here, and that makes me still more confused!

Is there an on-line listing that you can point me at which we can use to resolve any questionable classifications or orderings? I know that debate and change are constants, but it's probably best to pick a particular authority and simply agree to use that one for now.

Tannin 10:08 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Tannin, I agree with many of the points above, but I'm not sure what the answer is, except that it has to be better than the original random list of a few bird species. I would welcome any suggestions on a single source, given the wide disparity that is beginning to arise from DNA.

 * I've used Birds of the Western Palaearctic for species in that region, but a variety of sources elsewhere. For the time being, I'll add some comments regarding alternative taxonomic arrangements, but I don't think that there is much to be gained by listing full alternative taxonomies, especially as nearly all the links are from the English names, which non-specialists would use.jimfbleak

 * Mav would probably know, I think this is his field. I'll pop a note on his user page. Tannin

In a little while I'm going to start some fairly major changes to this.

 * For the large Southern Hemisphere flightless types I'll use the current Southern Hemisphere taxonimies. The South African one can be found here and here (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to mention orders, only families). The combined Australian and New Zealand one is HANZAB.

 * Adding a little information about each order: geographic location and approximate number of species

I think I can do this without making the page more difficult to use. If not, well, we can always revert. Tannin 00:53 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Some random notes:

Sphenisciformes (Antarctic and southern waters; 16 species.) - HANZAB lists 14 species (well, 13 actually, as the Royal Penguin is now reduced to a sub-species) and these are all penguins. Are there any members which are not penguins?

The Phoenicopteridae flamingos I have listed on their own in order Phoenicopteriformes - what is the consensus on these?

I ain't even going to touch the Galliformes!

 * all penguins. Ithink the flamingos are generally accepted, although I've just read a scary article where a american (of course) gene study links them to the grebes!

 * You were probably wondering what the point of my question about the penguins was. Well ... last night I read Sphenisciformes (Antarctic and southern waters) and thought it said Antarctic and southern waders. Slip of the eye. Huh? I thought they were all penguins? (I said to myself.) And whatever else you might describe a penguin as, a "wader" it ain't. But, being late at night, and not being very bright, I figured that maybe there were one or two species in the order, not mentioned on my Oz/NZ/Antarctic list, that really were waders, and that (in this brave new DNA world) the penguins had suddenly been grouped with them. (Don't laugh. Any day now, we are going to wake up and discover that hummingbirds are closely related to the ostrich.)

 * So I thought I better ask on the talk page first before I edited out someone's carefully researched work.

 * But here's the kicker: guess who wrote that "Antarctic and southern waters" sentence in the first place? Yup. Me.

 * Tannin

I removed:
 * Ephthianuridae	Australian chats which are clearly honeyeaters and part of the Meliphagidae.
 * Acanthizidae	Australian warblers which are now lumped with the Pardalotes and form part of the Pardalotidae. The pardalotes may at some time be split off again, in which case the name 'Acanthizidae' will apply to the remainder once again
 * Corvidae	crows and jays because it was duplicated
 * Grallinidae	mudnest-builders These are now part of the Dicruridae

Added:
 * Petroicidae: the Australian robins

At some stage, we need to make a list of alternative, mistaken, or obsolete bird families. Sure, there is no such thing as Ephthianuridae, but a great many texts and web pages will still mention them, so we should have something that shows up in search engines and redirects the reader to the correct place. Tannin

 * What I've been doing, when I think of it, is to add synonyms to the Article's talk page, and redirect from there. jimfbleak

I have reverted major changes by anon user. Although the changes could be partially justified, to dismiss what is still standard taxonomy for most of the world as "silly" at the very least needs discussion involving the people who actually write the bird articles.

There are literally a couple of thousand taxoboxes by now using the Linnaean classicification - is anon going to change all those? jimfbleak 06:51, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requested move
Original mover already Moved the page back, closing proposal. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of orders and families of birds → List of birds — Move back to original title. The list was moved to make way for the article List of famous birds by User:UnitedStatesian apparently without any prior discussion. This caused the many links from scientific articles on birds to redirect to that inappropriate page. While "famous" may not be desirable in the name of a title, I'm sure another can be found since this scientific list of bird types should retain the primary title "List of birds". — Dougie WII (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think the Survey is necessary. I will kick off the reversal of my move. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Taxonomy of birds would be better than either; that's what this article is. It has much more structure than list suggests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Change name
I don't like how 'List of Birds' redirects to this article as I have no idea what the birds' group name is. I find it hard to find the one I'm searching for, though I find List of birds by common name very useful as they are organised it a more know ay to me.

If its possible, could someone change it?

What has happen to this page? Somebody did changes to match resent research although some of them are a bit controversial. Then somebody changed it back and lots of the important information was lost. There were several remarks to clarify the situation for many families and they are gone now. Those changes should be at least discused before doing anything. Now the page is much worse than it used to be. So, what new changes in taxonomy should be included in here and what are so widely percived as possible that there should be at least a mention of it? Who would like to look for the old page as it was couple of months ago? That should be the starting point. I'm not really up to it myself, because my native language is not English as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.119.3 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelicaniformes
I'm no expert, but isn't Pelicaniformes missing from the list? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Paleognathae
''The flightless and mostly giant Struthioniformes lack a keeled sternum and are collectively known as ratites. Together with the Tinamiformes, they form the Paleognathae or "old jaws", one of the two superorders recognized within the taxonomic class Aves. '' This short description of the Paleognathae seems to be outdated, as the Struthioniformes now only contain Ostriches, while Tinamiformes are classed with all the others in Notopalaeognathae. I'm not an expert, but somebody could perhaps rewrite it.193.190.253.144 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated the content, although it could do with better phrasing. —  Jts1882 | talk 14:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"List of birds on Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of birds on Wikipedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  17:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of birds


text:
Boeing E-6 Mercury

The Boeing E-6 Mercury (formerly Hermes) is an airborne command post and communications relay based on the Boeing 707-300. The original E-6A manufactured by Boeing's defense division entered service with the United States Navy in July 1989, replacing the EC-130Q. This platform, now modified to the E-6B standard, conveys instructions from the National Command Authority to fleet ballistic missile submarines (see communication with submarines), a mission known as TACAMO ("Take Charge And Move Out").

The E-6B model deployed in October 1998 has the ability to remotely control Minuteman ICBMs using the Airborne Launch Control System. The E-6B replaced Air Force EC-135Cs in the Looking Glass role, providing command and control of U.S. nuclear forces should ground-based control become inoperable. With production lasting until 1991, the E-6 was the final new derivative of the Boeing 707 to be built.

Design and development

Like the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, the E-6 is adapted from Boeing's 707-320 airliner. Rolled out at Boeing's Renton Factory in December 1986, the first E-6 made its maiden flight in February 1987, when it was flown to nearby Boeing Field in south Seattle for fitting of mission avionics. It was delivered to the Navy for testing in July 1988.

The E-6B is an upgrade of the E-6A. It includes a battlestaff area and updated mission equipment. The flight deck systems were later replaced with an off-the-shelf 737 Next Generation cockpit. This greatly increases the situational awareness of the pilot and saves significant cost over the previous custom avionics package. The first E-6B was accepted in December 1997. All 16 E-6A aircraft were modified to the E-6B standard, with the final delivery taking place in December 2006.

The E-6 cannot use the probe-and-drogue in-flight refueling method that most other US Navy aircraft use. It uses a flying boom receptacle on the upper-forward fuselage, making it, like the Navy's Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft, reliant upon specific U.S. Air Force aircraft (KC-135 Stratotanker, KC-10 Extender, and KC-46 Pegasus) for in-flight refueling.

Operational history
Codenamed Looking Glass, the E-6 is United States Strategic Command's (USSTRATCOM) Airborne Command Post (ABNCP). It is designed to take over in case the Global Operations Center (GOC), located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, is destroyed or incapable of communicating with strategic forces. The term "Looking Glass" is used because the ABNCP "mirrors" the abilities of the US Strategic Command GOC to control nuclear forces.

The E-6A, which was initially named Hermes, entered service with squadron VQ-3 in August 1989. A second squadron, VQ-4, received its first E-6As in January 1991, allowing the EC-130Q to be phased out in June 1991. The E-6A was renamed Mercury in autumn 1991 by request of the Navy. Sixteen E-6A planes were delivered from 1988 to 1992.

The E-6 fleet is based at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and operated by Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 3 (VQ-3), VQ-4, and VQ-7.

In 2021, one of the E-3D Sentry aircraft that had been in service with the Royal Air Force was purchased for conversion into a dedicated E-6 trainer. This was done as a means to extend the life of the operational fleet by reducing the need for E-6s to be used for training missions.

Replacement
In 2015, both the Air Force and Navy realized that they needed new aircraft to serve the missions of both the E-4 and the E-6. At one point, they considered building one plane to replace both aircraft, but by 2020, the Navy decided to go its own way and develop an aircraft specifically for the TACAMO mission, leaving the Air Force to develop the Survivable Airborne Operations Center for its Airborne Launch Control Mission. Selecting the Lockheed EC-130J-30, initial orders were placed in late 2020 with development beginning in earnest in 2022. The project, known as the E-XX TACAMO as of November 2023, is expected to be fielded in the late 2020s. The Navy expects the E-6 to fulfill the TACAMO role into the 2030s as the E-XX is transitioned into service.

title: Boeing E-6 Mercury


text:
User:Abcde~enwiki

.

title: User:Abcde~enwiki


text:
Front-side bus

The front-side bus (FSB) is a computer communication interface (bus) that was often used in Intel-chip-based computers during the 1990s and 2000s. The EV6 bus served the same function for competing AMD CPUs. Both typically carry data between the central processing unit (CPU) and a memory controller hub, known as the northbridge.

Depending on the implementation, some computers may also have a back-side bus that connects the CPU to the cache. This bus and the cache connected to it are faster than accessing the system memory (or RAM) via the front-side bus. The speed of the front side bus is often used as an important measure of the performance of a computer.

The original front-side bus architecture has been replaced by HyperTransport, Intel QuickPath Interconnect, Direct Media Interface and nowadays by Intel Ultra Path Interconnect in modern Intel CPUs for personal computers.

History
The term came into use by Intel Corporation about the time the Pentium Pro and Pentium II products were announced, in the 1990s.

"Front side" refers to the external interface from the processor to the rest of the computer system, as opposed to the back side, where the back-side bus connects the cache (and potentially other CPUs).

A front-side bus (FSB) is mostly used on PC-related motherboards (including personal computers and servers). They are seldom used in embedded systems or similar small computers. The FSB design was a performance improvement over the single system bus designs of the previous decades, but these front-side buses are sometimes referred to as the "system bus".

Front-side buses usually connect the CPU and the rest of the hardware via a chipset, which Intel implemented as a northbridge and a southbridge. Other buses like the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP), and memory buses all connect to the chipset in order for data to flow between the connected devices. These secondary system buses usually run at speeds derived from the front-side bus clock, but are not necessarily synchronized to it.

In response to AMD's Torrenza initiative, Intel opened its FSB CPU socket to third party devices. Prior to this announcement, made in Spring 2007 at Intel Developer Forum in Beijing, Intel had very closely guarded who had access to the FSB, only allowing Intel processors in the CPU socket. The first example was field-programmable gate array (FPGA) co-processors, a result of collaboration between Intel-Xilinx-Nallatech and Intel-Altera-XtremeData (which shipped in 2008).

CPU
The frequency at which a processor (CPU) operates is determined by applying a clock multiplier to the front-side bus (FSB) speed in some cases. For example, a processor running at 3200 MHz might be using a 400 MHz FSB. This means there is an internal clock multiplier setting (also called bus/core ratio) of 8. That is, the CPU is set to run at 8 times the frequency of the front-side bus: 400 MHz × 8 = 3200 MHz. Different CPU speeds are achieved by varying either the FSB frequency or the CPU multiplier, this is referred to as overclocking or underclocking.

Memory
Setting an FSB speed is related directly to the speed grade of memory a system must use. The memory bus connects the northbridge and RAM, just as the front-side bus connects the CPU and northbridge. Often, these two buses must operate at the same frequency. Increasing the front-side bus to 450 MHz in most cases also means running the memory at 450 MHz.

In newer systems, it is possible to see memory ratios of "4:5" and the like. The memory will run 5/4 times as fast as the FSB in this situation, meaning a 400 MHz bus can run with the memory at 500 MHz. This is often referred to as an 'asynchronous' system. Due to differences in CPU and system architecture, overall system performance can vary in unexpected ways with different FSB-to-memory ratios.

In image, audio, video, gaming, FPGA synthesis and scientific applications that perform a small amount of work on each element of a large data set, FSB speed becomes a major performance issue. A slow FSB will cause the CPU to spend significant amounts of time waiting for data to arrive from system memory. However, if the computations involving each element are more complex, the processor will spend longer performing these; therefore, the FSB will be able to keep pace because the rate at which the memory is accessed is reduced.

Peripheral buses
Similar to the memory bus, the PCI and AGP buses can also be run asynchronously from the front-side bus. In older systems, these buses are operated at a set fraction of the front-side bus frequency. This fraction was set by the BIOS. In newer systems, the PCI, AGP, and PCI Express peripheral buses often receive their own clock signals, which eliminates their dependence on the front-side bus for timing.

Overclocking
Overclocking is the practice of making computer components operate beyond their stock performance levels by manipulating the frequencies at which the component is set to run, and, when necessary, modifying the voltage sent to the component to allow it to operate at these higher frequencies with more stability.

Many motherboards allow the user to manually set the clock multiplier and FSB settings by changing jumpers or BIOS settings. Almost all CPU manufacturers now "lock" a preset multiplier setting into the chip. It is possible to unlock some locked CPUs; for instance, some AMD Athlon processors can be unlocked by connecting electrical contacts across points on the CPU's surface. Some other processors from AMD and Intel are unlocked from the factory and labeled as an "enthusiast-grade" processors by end users and retailers because of this feature. For all processors, increasing the FSB speed can be done to boost processing speed by reducing latency between CPU and the northbridge.

This practice pushes components beyond their specifications and may cause erratic behavior, overheating or premature failure. Even if the computer appears to run normally, problems may appear under a heavy load. Most PCs purchased from retailers or manufacturers, such as Hewlett-Packard or Dell, do not allow the user to change the multiplier or FSB settings due to the probability of erratic behavior or failure. Motherboards purchased separately to build a custom machine are more likely to allow the user to edit the multiplier and FSB settings in the PC's BIOS.

Evolution
The front-side bus had the advantage of high flexibility and low cost when it was first designed. Simple symmetric multiprocessors place a number of CPUs on a shared FSB, though performance could not scale linearly due to bandwidth bottlenecks.

The front-side bus was used in all Intel Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core 2, and Xeon processor models through about 2008. Originally, this bus was a central connecting point for all system devices and the CPU.

The potential of a faster CPU is wasted if it cannot fetch instructions and data as quickly as it can execute them. The CPU may spend significant time idle while waiting to read or write data in main memory, and high-performance processors therefore require high bandwidth and low latency access to memory. The front-side bus was criticized by AMD as being an old and slow technology that limits system performance.

More modern designs use point-to-point and serial connections like AMD's HyperTransport and Intel's DMI 2.0 or QuickPath Interconnect (QPI). These implementations remove the traditional northbridge in favor of a direct link from the CPU to the Platform Controller Hub, southbridge or I/O controller.

In a traditional architecture, the front-side bus served as the immediate data link between the CPU and all other devices in the system, including main memory. In HyperTransport- and QPI-based systems, system memory is accessed independently by means of a memory controller integrated into the CPU, leaving the bandwidth on the HyperTransport or QPI link for other uses. This increases the complexity of the CPU design but offers greater throughput as well as superior scaling in multiprocessor systems.

Transfer rates
The bandwidth or maximum theoretical throughput of the front-side bus is determined by the product of the width of its data path, its clock frequency (cycles per second) and the number of data transfers it performs per clock cycle. For example, a 64-bit (8-byte) wide FSB operating at a frequency of 100 MHz that performs 4 transfers per cycle has a bandwidth of 3200 megabytes per second (MB/s):

 * 8 bytes/transfer × 100 MHz × 4 transfers/cycle = 3200 MB/s

The number of transfers per clock cycle depends on the technology used. For example, GTL+ performs 1 transfer/cycle, EV6 2 transfers/cycle, and AGTL+ 4 transfers/cycle. Intel calls the technique of four transfers per cycle Quad Pumping.

Many manufacturers publish the frequency of the front-side bus in MHz, but marketing materials often list the theoretical effective signaling rate (which is commonly called megatransfers per second or MT/s). For example, if a motherboard (or processor) has its bus set at 200 MHz and performs 4 transfers per clock cycle, the FSB is rated at 800 MT/s.

The specifications of several generations of popular processors are indicated below.

title: Front-side bus


text:
Thermal history modelling

Thermal history modelling is an exercise undertaken during basin modelling to evaluate the temperature history of stratigraphic layers in a sedimentary basin.

The thermal history of a basin is usually calibrated using thermal indicator data, including vitrinite reflectance and fission tracks in the minerals apatite and zircon.

The temperatures undergone by rocks in a sedimentary basin are crucial when attempting to evaluate the quantity, nature and volume of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) produced by diagenesis of kerogens (a group of chemicals formed from the decay of organic matter).

Fourier's Law provides a simplified one-dimensional description of the variation in heat flow Q as a function of thermal conductivity k and thermal gradient dT/dz:

 * $$Q=-k\frac{dT}{dz}$$

(The minus sign indicates that heat flows in the opposite direction to increasing depth, that is, towards the Earth's surface.)

If the assumptions used to justify this simplified approximation (i.e. steady-state heat conduction, no convection or advection) are accepted, we define the simple 1-dimensional heat diffusion equation where temperature T at a depth z and time t is given by the equation:

 * $$T_{z,t} = T_{t}^0 + Q_t \int_0^z\frac{dz'}{k_{z'}}$$

where Tt0 is the surface temperature history, Qt is the heat flow history and k is thermal conductivity. The integral thus represents the integrated thermal conductivity history of a 1-dimensional column of rock.

Thermal history modelling attempts to describe the temperature history Tz,t and therefore requires a knowledge of the burial history of the stratigraphic layers which is obtained through the process of back-stripping.

title: Thermal history modelling


text:
Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu

- is a hill near Pōrangahau, south of Waipukurau in southern Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. The height of the hill is 305 m. The hill is notable primarily for its unusually long name, which is of Māori origin; it is often shortened to Taumata for brevity. It has gained a measure of fame as it is the longest place name found in any English-speaking country, and possibly the longest place name in the world, according to World Atlas. The name of the hill (with 85 characters) has also been listed in the Guinness World Records as the longest place name. Other versions of the name, including longer ones, are also sometimes used.

Name
The name "-" translates roughly as "The summit where Tamatea, the man with the big knees, the slider, climber of mountains, the land-swallower who travelled about, played his kōauau (flute) to his loved one".

When parsed into individual words, the name reads: Taumata whaka tangi hanga koauau O tamatea turipukaka piki maunga horo nuku pokai whenua ki tana tahu.

In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the name may be transcribed as. In the Māori language, the digraph "wh" is pronounced as, a voiceless bilabial fricative, akin to an sound made with pursed lips.

Other versions
Some forms of the name are longer still: "-" has 92 letters. An even longer version, Taumata-whakatangihanga-koauau-o-Tamatea-haumai-tawhiti-ure-haea-turi-pukaka-piki-maunga-horo-nuku-pokai-whenua-ki-tana-tahu, has 105 letters and means "The hill of the flute playing by Tamatea – who was blown hither from afar, had a slit penis, grazed his knees climbing mountains, fell on the earth, and encircled the land – to his beloved one".

Maps from 1929 published by the Department of Lands and Survey use a 28-character name "-". In 1941, the Honorary Geographic Board of New Zealand renamed the hill to a 57-character name "-", which has been an official name since 1948, and first appeared in a 1955 map. The New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database, maintained by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), shows the official name with macrons "-".

Tamatea, explorer of the land
Tamatea-pōkai-whenua (Tamatea the explorer of the land) was the father of Kahungunu, ancestor of the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi (tribe). Mention of Tamatea's explorations of the land occur not only in Ngāti Kahungunu legends, but also in the traditions of iwi from Northland, where he is said to have explored the Hokianga and Kaipara harbours.

In traditions from the Bay of Plenty Region, he left a son, Ranginui, who is the ancestor of Ngāti Ranginui of Tauranga. Legends from the East Coast of the North Island tell of his explorations in Tūranga-nui (Gisborne), Māhia, Wairoa, Ahuriri (Napier), Heretaunga (near Hastings) and Pōrangahau. He travelled via the Mangakopikopiko River, over the Tītī-o-kura saddle via Pohokura to Taupō-nui-a-Tia (Lake Taupō). The Ōtamatea River and swamp is named after him. Tamatea is also the name of a place in Napier.

Early South Island legends say that Tamatea sailed down the east coast. His canoe was wrecked in the far south, and transformed into Tākitimu mountain range. Tamatea then returned to the North Island, and travelled via the Whanganui River.

In popular culture
The name is featured in a Mountain Dew jingle and a SEEK Learning TV ad in Australia. It also appears in the 1976 (re-released in 1979) single "The Lone Ranger" by British band Quantum Jump, which featured in the title sequence of the second series of The Kenny Everett Video Show. It is the subject of a 1960 song by the New Zealand balladeer Peter Cape. Tennis star Martina Navratilova learned to say the word when she was ten years old.


text:
Talk:Sex differences in medicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SWillow. Peer reviewers: Haileewright.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Straw poll on removing side point about transgender identity from bullet point about female reproductive system
I propose to remove the underlined text from the following bullet point under "Females":

 * Ovarian cancer, endometriosis and other diseases of the female reproductive system occur mostly in women (except in the rare instances where other genders have said organs, such as trans men.  )

None of the sources are about the topic of sex differences. It is just an off-topic tangent of the sort that could be appended to any discussion of sex differences. There is no reason to shout-out different small subgroups like that here. We're obviously not going to add asides about gender identity to every point about sex differences, but keeping this makes it look like some do want that. Removing it in no way implies anything regarding any other text in the article present or future. There are much more weighty discussions going on above, and this text distracts from and confuses all of that. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Support as proposer. also said above that they originally added it and that they now agree it should be removed. Crossroads -talk- 22:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not just say women (and trans men) as a much shorter compromise. And perhaps most importantly, what is the citation for the claim about women? I also know it to be true, but right now there are no citations for that fact aside from the transgender citations... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the compromise is to not mention gender at all. In fact, isn't that basically your position for other text - to separate sex and gender? Why not just say "female reproductive system" under the Females heading and be done with it? Crossroads -talk- 00:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about sex, then we shouldn't use the term "woman." That's my position. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Shibbolethink already elsewhere answered "no" to including this. Crossroads -talk- 05:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I reassess each situation as it comes, and offer compromises to try and achieve consensus, regardless of what I may personally feel about the answer. I would appreciate it if you struck this comment and allowed me to answer on my own. Thanks. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Let’s just say female and not mention woman. Saying female just makes things easier.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested this previously except on a wider basis, that this article should only use male/female and avoid usage of man/woman altogether. Needless to say the discussion on that has been long. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would adhere to the AMA's guidelines... The sex-gender language is outdated in social sciences (we use sex assignment at birth more often) but it's still normal in medical research. I think I argued for something like this on Wikipedia a long time ago...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a side point, just noting for the record that while that link does talk about "sex assigned..." in a transgender context, it does also simply state, Which term means the classification of people as male or female? Sex. Crossroads -talk- 05:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Support per Crossroads. Maneesh (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Crossroads.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Ditto. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 08:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. If it already says the diseases occur in the female reproductive system, is any further description necessary? Isn't it understood that only people with female reproductive systems can have those diseases? Female, women, or any other term would be redundant if so. Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @A. C. Santacruz I think, likely, the issue to some users around here is the use of "female reproductive system" and then immediately after, "women" to refer to the same set of people.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Support per Crossroads. Masterhatch (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Such wording doesn't make much sense in a medical article as opposed to a social-sciences one, and in this context is more confusing than helpful.  I have no objection to shifting more toward using "male" and "female" over "men" and "women", especially given that many M or F conditions also affect boys and girls, respectively. But it is clear that the medical literature routinely uses, respectively, "women" or "men" to mean humans with female genetics and biology, or those with male.  WP follows the sources and does not engage in language-change advocacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal, but also do not include the word "woman" in the sentence. it's confusing, unnecessary, and not supported by the sources currently provided — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support according to Shibbolethink's objections Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - if this is the language that gets everyone in agreement, hell yes I support it. It also is what's being used by professional organizations. Like Shibbolethink, this support include the removal of "woman".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - How'd I miss this? Anyways, adding to the consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been removed now per clear agreement above. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, "removing it in no way implies anything regarding any other text in the article present or future". Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should "female human" link to woman and "male human" link to man ?
This is with regards to the first sentences in the sections "Females" and "Males" Options:
 * (1) - Keep it as it is. (female humans, male humans)
 * (2) - Link to the sex-based article (subsection on mammals) (1 link). (female humans, male humans)
 * (3) - Link to the female and human articles (2 links) (female humans, male humans)
 * (4) - Have no link. (female humans, male humans)
 * (5) - change the plug to the gender-based term (women, men)
 * (6) - Use 'females' and 'males' and link to 'Woman#Health' and 'no link'. (females, males )

Feel free to add your own options (directly below these), and please restrict your responses/discussion to this question whenever possible. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Options 2, 3, or 4 - When describing sex-differences, we should not link to articles about gender. It's confusing and gives the impression that these are one and the same. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 - As Shibbolethink said, sex is not gender. With these wikilinks on this article we should be linking to sex related pages, not gender related pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2, 3 is an unnecessary chain link.  nableezy  - 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 - Human adult males are men & Human adult females are women. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4 or 2. Per WP:OVERLINK. we're not supposed to be linking everyday words used in their normal manner, so links are not necessary for this.  If we do it anyway, then don't link to a social-gender-related article but to a biological one (and just one, not two).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2, 3, or 4  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6 - "humans' is rather implicit here. Very simple and straight forward since, as has been demonstrated in the threads on this page, MEDRS uses man/woman synonymously with male/female. Woman is important opens with discussion on sex differences (and should link back here). The disparities between women's health and men's health is why prominent agencies that have led work in sex differences (which the article does not reflect) in medicine are tied to women, see Sex as a Biological Variable: A 5-Year Progress Report and Call to Action, in Journal of Women's Health with authors from the NIH's Office of Research on Women’s Health. The prominence of Women's Health organizations in sex differences is reflected in the content of the cite in Woman. There is, naturally, no symmetrical cite for men's health organizations. SMcCandlish's comment on overlink is important. EDIT: To be sure woman is not a "gender" article, it unambiguously focuses on female biology and defines "woman" in terms of "female". Maneesh (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How long will it stay that way is kind of an open question, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 Linking to man and woman is the least ambiguous. Definately don't link to a subsection. Masterhatch (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4 - "No link". Tewdar (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's some support for "Sex differences in health" and variations, but little for the proposed name. (t · c)  buidhe  01:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sex differences in medicine → Sex differences in disease – "sex differences in disease" (1890 hits) is more common than "sex differences in medicine" (223 hits), the scope of the material is identical (look at an article with "sex differences in medicine" in the title). Using "sex differences in disease" will cover sex differences in terms of risk, diagnosis and treatment and makes it easier to cover both sex differences in diseases that both sexes can be diagnosed with as well as "sex specific" diseases that only one sex can be diagnosed with (source like this). You can also find "sex differences in disease" in top-tier source like this but can't find "sex differences in medicine". Current use of "sex-related diseases" in article is not supported by sources; article needs to be coherent with title and "sex differences in disease" makes that much easier to do. Maneesh (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose Sex differences in disease, Support Sex differences in health and medicine & Sex differences in health. The proposed title would narrow the scope of the article, and, as a rule, it is generally not a good idea to pick new names that change article scope without first changing that scope. Medicine involves more than just diseases. We reassure people about benign conditions, natural variations, etc. We also treat disorders, syndromes, conditions, and yes, diseases. But these things are not interchangeable, they have actual meanings, regardless of how often the words are misused. For example, disease is typically used in medicine to refer to a pathological state for which we have an identified cause . Versus a syndrome, which is a recognizable complex of symptoms and findings which indicate a specific condition for which a direct cause is not necessarily understood (ibid,  ). This is as opposed to a disorder which is used to describe a perturbation in the normal functioning of different systems in the body. Some disorders are not considered diseases, as there is not enough of a "smoking gun" to determine the causative process (the prime mover). Psychiatry, for example, rarely, if ever uses the term "disease" and prefers "disorder" as it is more easily and aptly applied to most of its conditions  . There are also many syndromes which are more and more being referred to as "conditions" so as to lessen the pathologizing nature of our labels. Many users would agree that many flavors of Autism, Downs, and Klinefelter's are non-pathological and largely benign. Describing these as "diseases" is reductionist and pathologizing, and, truthfully, inaccurate as these are "syndromes" in the technical sense . Here are many other examples where these terms are used in a distinct manner by authoritative sources:
 * CDC: "Diseases and Conditions"
 * MO Dept of Health: "Health Conditions & Diseases"
 * Johns Hopkins: "Conditions and Diseases"
 * National Cancer Institute: "Disorders may be caused by genetic factors, disease, or trauma"
 * All of which to say, we should not use "disease" in the title because it excludes a great many of the health conditions discussed on the page already. (edited 15:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - while syndrome has a stable definition, disease and disorder don't (and the stable definition of syndrome gets ignored by everyone anyway, in favour of established naming). For your citations, the first that you gave for disorder is a symposium. It also explicitly notes that disease doesn't have a clear definition (as does the second). Both are attempts to establish a definition. With your examples, you have also ignored the literal standard - the International Classification of Diseases. Which, if you examine the current ICD-11 throughly, contains every single diagnosis and even situation listed in this article. For some further examples, now simply demonstrating that the definition is not as clear as how you've presented it: AHRQ and AIHW do not define distinct scopes for the terms. In fact, of the organisational examples you presented, the CDC, the MO Dept of Health and Hopkins either do not define terms or actively define them as synonymous. And the NIH Cancer Institute doesn't actually define "disease", so you are simply assuming that its inclusion in this list means that the terms used are mutually exclusive whereas they also could've simply chosen to include overlapping or synonymous terms for the purpose of clarification. A more appropriate interpretation of the evidence we have presented would be that there are no real definitions of these terms, and that generally people understand that the use of "conditions and diseases" or often even just "diseases" can cover everything. (also pinging as they made the same argument below). --Xurizuri (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The ICD is not the standard for what counts as a "disease." If it were, then there would be no trauma codes in the ICD, as diseases are physiological disruptions of normal functioning by any of many definitions, trauma (e.g. getting hit by a bus) would not apply. Pregnancy would also not appear, as agreed upon below by other participants here and standards set elsewhere. But it does: Encounter for supervision of normal pregnancy, unspecified, unspecified trimester. (Z34. 90). The ICD has morphed and changed into a system of billing codes, a purpose for which it was not intended, but which it has been manipulated and distorted to fill . You may find that few, if any clinical professionals consider the ICD when making any decisions or writing about health conditions. It is used almost entirely for purposes of epidemiology and business. We laugh about it in the clinic probably on a weekly basis, basically every time we need to hunt down a code for billing purposes, because the options are so overlapping and contradictory and absurd. So I wouldn't personally say it has much, if anything, to do with the medical or clinical definitions of "disease." There's an ICD code for "Accidental striking against or bumped into by another person, sequela" (W51.XXXA) and "Activities involved arts and handcrafts" (Y93.D) and "Problems in relationship with in-laws" (Z63.1) and "Bizarre personal appearance" (R46.1) and I could go on and on. None of these are diseases.As for the sources in question, I disagree with your interpretations. I think I may have not given enough by just linking, so here are the quotes I noted in particular:Although the terms syndrome, disease, and disorder are commonly used interchangeably, they are in fact distinct and reflect different levels of conceptual understanding....A syndrome is the most basic and is a constellation of specific signs and symptoms which commonly co-occur but that have no known etiology. A disorder is also a collection of signs and symptoms without a known cause, but it does have associated features that are assumed to play a role in its development. A disease is also composed of signs and symptoms but has a known etiology
 * disease: A physical or mental disturbance involving symptoms (such as pain or feeling unwell), dysfunction or tissue damage, especially if these symptoms and signs form a recognisable clinical pattern."
 * You are right that disease has (to a degree) a malleable definition. But the most commonly used definition in medicine involves a single pathological process.Compared with disease, disorder is less restrictive: Merriam-Webster’s defines it simply as “an abnormal physical or mental condition,”2(p360) a definition with which Dorland’s largely concurs.3(p555) The Oxford English Dictionary emphasizes that disorder involves a disturbance of function but again further stresses structural change, this time in negative terms, stating that disorder is “usually a weaker term than DISEASE, and not implying structural change.”1(p449) These other terms, however, have much more fixed definitions:Diagnosis of a syndrome (such as Tourette's syndrome or sarcoidosis) depends on identification of possible combinations of signs and symptoms displayed by a patient   These classifications are also per the DSM, which is a direct descendent of the ICD.   Strictly speaking, the terms 'diagnosis' and 'disease' are both best avoided in psychiatric discourse unless they are completely justified. Clinical psychiatrists make few diagnoses in the sense of identifying known abnormalities which underlie the presenting symptoms. Instead, for most patients they have to make do with identifying disorders by assessing the number and severity of individually non-diagnostic symptoms from an agreed list   I was referring to these other sources (MO DoH, CDC, etc) as a way to show how they delineate "Disease" vs other "conditions." Not because I was citing them for any particular definition or quotation. You'll notice this is why I said: examples where these terms are used in a distinct manner not "here are some more quotes or definitions."  Overall, it seems you have misread my comment. I am sorry you disagree with my interpretation of these sources, I do not think that is a matter we will resolve here in any reasonable course of time. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Feminism, and WikiProject Women's Health have been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It needlessly narrows the scope of the article, which already contains examples of conditions that are explicitly not diseases. If we are to keep those examples, either we would be pathologising those conditions or we would have to remove content due to the narrower scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment comments about the differentiation between notions like "syndrome" etc. are pretty easily shown to be, somehow archaic. Search MEDRS for "sex differences in disease" "syndrome" (948 hits) and you'll easily find sentences like: "...tics, and Tourette's syndrome (TS) display sex differences in disease susceptibility...", "First, there are those diseases, such as WiskottAldrich syndrome....", "Sex differences in Sjögren’s syndrome:..SS is diminished secretory production from the primary exocrine gland and the lacrimal or salivary glands resulting in symptoms of dry eye and mouth. The disease is believed...", ~1/10th number of hits with "sex differences in medicine" "syndrome" (95 hits). EDIT: Look at any specific disease: "sex differences in disease" "Sjögren’s syndrome" (78 hits) vs. differences in medicine" "Sjögren’s syndrome" (6 hits). EDIT AGAIN: Same with "disorder" "In this review, we describe the sex differences in prevalence, onset, symptom profiles, and disease outcome that are evident in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.", "Sex differences in a disease or trait can provide insight into its causes, risk factors, and consequences. The aims of this paper are to: (a) summarize the sex-specific lifetime prevalence of the most common psychiatric disorders among adults and youth; (b) enumerate hypotheses for sex differences in mental disorders; (c) describe the use of the concepts and tools of genetic epidemiology to evaluate...". No "sex differences in medicine" in those articles. The scope of the article is appropriately expanded with "sex differences in disease". Maneesh (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * had previously suggested Sex differences in health and medicine, which I think should be at least considered. Perhaps Sex differences in health as well. Both would enable an expansion in this article's scope, which has long been mostly a couple of lists tied together with a minimal amount of prose. "Sex differences in health" has 5,320 results, FYI. Firefangledfeathers 07:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "sex differences in health and medicine" has a paltry 3 hits. This page is currently a list of diseases ("disease" or "illness" begins each section) and their relative prevalence between sexes (and the underlying causes). It would be odd to discuss a long list of diseases in with an article titled "health". Risk, diagnosis and treatment are all associated with disease. The fact that you see a lot of google scholar hits for "sex differences in health" doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot here, since e.g.: "sex differences in health" "Sjögren's syndrome" (and even in those 9 hits, the phrasing at the top is: "...sex differences in health and a wide range of diseases". Diseases that have an age association will give you more hits with "sex differences in health" since "health and aging" often come together. That might be a fine article, but it isn't this one. Hard to assess the entire query, but hits I get from the things like "sex differences in disease" cancer match the information here more than "sex differences in health" cancer, the latter doesn't even sound like the right way to find the information here (even though there are more hits in this case).  Maneesh (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers I would support either of these options. (Sex differences in health and medicine and Sex differences in health) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Sex differences in health". I think this title would be much more appropriate to help the article become more comprehensive and free from many of the issues it currently has (e.g. list style, expert jargon). Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  11:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "health" only occurs once in the body of the article, "disease" occurs ~22 times. How do you figure this article is more about "health" than "disease"? Maneesh (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that is what the article is, but what I believe it should be. In any case, there are health conditions other than diseases that do not fit the "disease" category that differ either in existence, presentation, or frequency between both sexes and thus renaming to disease would mean there is no place in WP for description of those differences (unless we make an article for sex differences in syndromes, etc.). I think health is an umbrella term that would allow for an article of higher quality. Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  16:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But this is about moving this article, which I don't think you can deny is about "disease". If you think there is an article about sex differences in health, you can just create it (and presumably use the word "health" more than once). See my above comments if you are not familiar with MEDRS, disease/syndrome/disorder are often used syonymously. Maneesh (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, several editors here appear to disagree with what you believe the scope of the article is, and I would very explicitly disagree with your interpretation of MEDRS and the word "disease." Please do not continue to claim something is obvious when others disagree, it prevents a collaborative editing environment. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, actually, I would very strongly argue that collaboration is not a vote. If you disagree with Maneesh, you should respond to the issues they've raised rather than simply saying they shouldn't raise them at all. (I will note that you have responded to the issues raised in this comment, just that the points in Maneesh's other comments haven't been.) --Xurizuri (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, never said Maneesh shouldn't raise the issue. I said he should not raise it as though it is the obvious only choice, when clearly many different views exist in this discussion. I also never said that this is a vote, I would agree with you that it is not. Both of these appear to be straw men arguments.Further, it is not my job to refute whatever Maneesh says in every one of his comments, and doing so would be wp:bludgeoning the process. This is not high school/college forensics or policy debate, where spreading is the way to win. In these discussions, arguments are judged on their merits, not how often they go unanswered. For many of the arguments I have encountered on this site (in all manner of places), it is better to not respond at all. Readers can view the arguments made here and decide for themselves what they do and do not find persuasive, and then they can respond accordingly. That is the nature of consensus. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the query "sex differences" disease gives all the heavy citation counts for review sex differences across disease areas, analogous to the current content of the article. Maneesh (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer sex differences in health or perhaps sex differences in medical conditions. When you use the word disease, people outside the medical profession often think primarily of infectious diseases, and then maybe it will occur to them that heart disease, diabetes, and cancer probably count, too.  But they won't necessarily tell you that their back pain or their need for reading glasses is "a disease".  Also, a person's capacity for pregnancy is a medical condition that is dependent upon biological sex, and it's definitely not "a disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This page should also have entries for "sex differences in infectious disease", "sex differences in lower backpain". Pregnancy is not a disease, and is not listed here; it will show up as a common factor in sex differences in disease. "Health" is an oddly inverted way of discussing these things. Maneesh (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support changing to "disease" version that makes the scope explicitly match what is in the article. Current title "medicine" is too general (e.g., do doctors dismiss information from female patients) and "health" becomes outright sociological.  Maybe in the future somebody will write a great article on a grand unified theory of sex (and gender!) differences in health, medicine, disease, etc but for now it will invite scope creep in a focused article. Less is more. State the actual focus accurately, don't expand it or obfuscate it as all of "medicine". Sesquivalent (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the widening of scope being described by many here will significantly duplicate the scope of the existing Gender disparities in health article. I would strongly suggest that everyone look at the scope of the health article before making a decision. I'll also quickly list some alternatives to what has been mentioned already: merge into the health article, merge the health article into this medicine article, merge both articles under a different name, delete this article, or turn this article into a list. I don't overly care what's decided and I'm not necessarily arguing that any of these are good ideas, but this discussion has gotten overly fixated on terms rather than considering alternatives. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merges cannot be the outcome of a move discussion. Such a decision would need to arise from the consensus built in an AfD or Merge Discussion. Different parameters, different criteria, different closers. We should not muddy the waters with so many options that a consensus becomes impossible. Such ideas can be worked out in future discussions. At this point, we are talking only about article name. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is still a policy. Merges can be the outcome of any discussion, including this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the most important unanswered question about this proposal: This article has existed at this name for almost 19 years. Since February 12, 2003. Per the move log, it has never had another name.What has changed recently that means this article requires a new name? And why did it change? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 07:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actionable side issues frequently come up as a result of other ongoing talk page activity. Now that it has come up, it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal.  Are you suggesting there is some problem with that, or is this just further litigation (by insinuation, which only makes it worse) of the campaign now in progress at AE? Sesquivalent (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't see anything wrong with asking why a proposal is necessary. I've usually found such questions help the discussion be more concise and purposeful than before. There is no need to make insinuations about a neutral question. Santacruz  ⁂  Please ping me!  14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, just a heads up: I never said it was an unreasonable proposal. Simply that I disagree with its conclusions. I think it's a reasonable proposal that deserves to be answered in good faith. I would characterize that part of your comment as a possible straw man .This comment is also creating a false dichotomy, presenting only two possible choices of what I could be suggesting. The truth is actually neither. I am simply echoing the enduring rule of thumb: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In this case, I am asking: Is it broke? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a strange question. There are many things broke on wikipedia, and have been for long periods of time; to find something that has been broke for decades isn't particularly surprising. This article is low quality: there is no real body here, lead doesn't follow the body, the terms used there don't line up with the sources, the sources that support the content are about "sex differences in disease", there is relatively little RS out there for "sex differences in medicine". Maneesh (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I agree with the above comment that this title change would restrict the scope of this article unnecessarily. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support to stop using "Sex differences in medicine". It made me believe the article was about gender differences. I support "Sex differences in disease", or "in health", or "in health and medicine". Hosortyr (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose per Rreagan007--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The person who made the proposal claims the two names are interchangeable. This is incorrect. Things like Autism and ADHD are NOT diseases, but they are subject to the topic medicine and would therefore belong in one article but not the other. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would not place too much weight on search results of verbatim uses of the whole phrase "sex differences in medicine", "sex differences in disease", etc. We are not looking for the verbatim phrase to be a common name; the article title is of a descriptive nature. Sources tend to write about sex differences in whatever specific thing they're interested in. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sex differences in medicine