text:
Talk:Bonsai

User: Croujay - I contributed information regarding the habitat, geographic location, and feeding habits of the citrus long-horned beetle with a focus on the beetle as a parasite and invasive species outside of its location of origin in China. I discussed how its parasitism is affecting the fruit tree industry. I also focused on its sensory receptors, specifically the olfactory receptors that are specifically chemosensory and detect pheromones. I gathered my research through scientific articles on the beetle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croujay (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

2 Images
Very poor selection of first two photos of article. The "classic" Japanese photos are not a bunch of bonsai on a bench. The Brooklyn Botanical Bonsai does not have a solid backround, needs a hair cut and is not necessarily the "front" of the tree. We can do much better than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.235.2 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed - changed to somewhat more representative bonsai photos at top of article. Sahara110 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

History split
There has been an extensive new section on bonsai history added, with a lot of detail and references. What are our feelings about placing the bulk of the bonsai history in a stand-alone article, with a reference pointing to it from the main article? Sahara110 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * See WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY for guidance. (There's about 50KB worth of total prose here, currently).
 * I'd tentatively agree. The history section currently needs a summary-style explanation/pointer for penjing added, and some more images. No rush though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I will tuck it into my thinking cap for a later review. Sahara110 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I have put in place an alternative approach: the current article has been shortened by splitting the Cultivation and care material out to a separate article. This change has the effect of making the current article focus much more closely on the Japanese history and culture of bonsai, while taking the majority of the culture-free materials out where they can be referenced equally comfortably by articles on related practices like penjing. Sahara110 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive
I've archived the 2003-2009 threads, at Talk:Bonsai/Archive 1. Feel free to un-archive any threads that still needed attention. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose Merge with Penjing articles
Penjing contains largely the same material, there are very little differences in the essence of the article. Bonsai and Penjing is essentially the same art practiced in different countries: All of them are derived from the same Chinese art. Now, you might argue otherwise, but what makes this art different is that they can't be too different, and the reason is very obvious: plants can only react in so many ways to different handling techniques. Splitting the article would be like having two different articles for dandelions under different names.

I will say this but this is only my personal feelings. I was reading the Chinese Penjing site, and I clicked the English redirect, as the English site, with more contributers usually had more information. I wasn't surprised that the article was under the name Bonsai, but I was surprised that this art is somehow made completely and exclusively Japanese. It was only as I finished the article did I see a link to the article Penjing with exactly those "missing" informations. (history, etc.)

Now, I'm don't feel that the article should be somehow exclusively or predominately Chinese, I believe that the Japanese people contributed as much to the development of this art. I only feels that it is redundant and confusing to split them into two articles.

So I have two things I'd like to propose. First, I feel that this article should be merged with the Penjing article on the grounds of simplicity and less confusion. It is just as well to redirect the words Pengjing to Bonsai, since Bonsai is how this art is known in the English language along with many other things. And two, I know I didn't state this above, but anyhow, I suppose that this art is practiced elsewhere in the world and not only in Japan and China, so perhaps another section on practice of this art in other countries is nessesary.

If you have any comments, proposals, or concerns, you are welcomed to discuss this here or on my page.

p.s. I posted this same proposal on the Penjing discussion board as well, repetition was intentional.

Gw2005 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Bonsai and Penjing not the same. Therefore should be separate. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the styles are sufficiently different, the penjing article is well focused - and the resulatnat article would be big enough to merit splitting.μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with merging the two articles
If I may address the contents and organization of the English-language articles only, I would like to suggest that merging is not appropriate for these two topics. The development history of the Penjing and Bonsai articles in Wikipedia (EN) has focused on organizing the available information to appropriately concentrate information on the Chinese penjing tradition under the Penjing article, and similarly focus on the Japanese bonsai tradition in the Bonsai article. At this time, there is a good deal of material unique to each subject, and therefore separate articles are indicated. (See below, however, for comments on the possible sharing of material on care, cultivation, and display.)

Comments on your discussion
I have a few specific comments on some of your points:
 * "Penjing contains largely the same material . . ."
 * The current versions of the two articles in Wikipedia (EN) are quite distinct in their contents. Please see below for a section-by-section comparison of the articles.

 * "Bonsai and Penjing is essentially the same art practiced in different countries."
 * Penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, and possibly others are art forms using similar materials (e.g., trees, containers). But they are practiced in different cultures with well-established and different historical, cultural, and aesthetic values represented using those materials. The Wikipedia content is best organized to provide a clear narrative on the distinct history, values, and expressions of each art form in its own article or articles.

 * "It was only as I finished the article did I see a link to the article Penjing with exactly those 'missing' informations."
 * Although one or both articles may have been obscure in their linking when you viewed them, as of now both articles link to the other at the beginning and the end. An interested reader can find and use either or both articles as needed. Links can be found in the opening paragraphs, as well as in the See also sections at the end of both articles.

 * "Splitting the article would be like having two different articles for dandelions under different names."
 * I think it might be more like having (two or more) separate articles on:
 * * Two-handed swords: Zhanmadao and Nodachi
 * * Hardy containers: Chinese ceramics and Japanese pottery and porcelain
 * * Refreshing beverages: Chinese tea ceremony and Japanese tea ceremony
 * The list of examples is nearly endless. A shared history or other similarities do not argue for merged articles. If sufficient unique elements appear in the descriptions of two terms, the reader will find two articles more focused and usable than one.

The real issue at discussion is whether the two topics contain, or should contain, substantially the same material. This analysis deserves some room, and the following section contains my evaluation of the current article contents.

Structure and content of the two articles
An argument could be made for separating the information on cultivation and care, which is in the most part culture-neutral, and pointing to the new article(s) from both Penjing and Bonsai. This work has already occurred, for example, in separating out the cultivation and care of indoor bonsai. Removing the term "bonsai", or adding references to "penjing" and "hon non bo", might make the Indoor bonsai article more useful. An alternative approach would be to add information to the Penjing article outlining unique penjing practices in cultivation and care. For example, there may be no penjing tradition of using Japanese Akadama soil in potting trees, as described under Care in the Bonsai article. If there are significant differences in cultivation and care, Wikipedia would be best served by expanding the Penjing article to describe them. There may also be culture-independent material under Display that could be separated out and used by both articles.

But based on the significant differences between the history, culture, and aesthetics of the two traditions, there appears to be no justification for merging the English Wikipedia articles on Penjing and Bonsai. Sahara110 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Incredibly useful overview. Much thanks for the efforts to lay it out. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks

 * As noted above, the Bonsai page needs additional content, so that might be a suitable location for the "Care" information. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 * If Care content would be suitable for Wikibooks, then so much the better. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the exact same thing about bookifying.μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It should be as easy as copy&pasting from here to there. We just need to add wikibooks:Template:WikipediaCredit to the bottom of any page there, that receives copied material from here. Regarding editing-conventions there, vs here, Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikimedians looks like the best primer.
 * I'll try copying some details across now, to the Bonsai/Care page.
 * I'm not sure what all deserves to be retained here (at the very least the images, but probably a lot more), so will not attempt any removals myself. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with "How to"-ness of article
I would like to look at the "How to" material as a possible separate article (continuing the discussion above), based on a proposition to see the Bonsai article focusing on the Japanese tradition of bonsai, rather than containing generic information on cultivating small trees in containers. The sections in question from the current article are primarily 2 - Cultivation and 3 - Care. These sections contain relatively little material unique to the Japanese bonsai tradition, although I believe that an understanding of bonsai (and of penjing, saikei, hon non bo, and so on) requires an understanding of the cultivation techniques as well as of the history and culture of the art forms.

At the same time, I believe the current Cultivation and Care material is encyclopedic - that is, I believe it belongs in Wikipedia. The material in Bonsai has been systematically drafted as a description of the unique or unusual features of plant cultivation for bonsai and similar arts (we really need a generic word or phrase for "cultivation of miniature trees in small containers" that is not the word "bonsai", and I am at a loss). There is a place in the encyclopedia for a description of processes, procedures, and special techniques, handled not as "How to" material but rather as encyclopedia-style description. I would call attention to articles such as: I don't want to suggest these articles are exact parallels for the Bonsai article, or to compare the number of techniques or their organization in detail. But I do think the reader expects this type of information in the encyclopedia, and that Wikipedia can provide it in a compact, useful form that does not cross the line into the "How to" zone.
 * hydroponics - contains useful descriptions of hydroponic techniques and discussions of growing media, similar (as one might expect) to the Bonsai article's Cultivation and Care contents
 * mining - the section Mining methods and procedures lists various techniques used in mining and provides a useful jumping-off point for related articles
 * Integrated circuits - a fairly technical but still useful and interesting list of manufacturing approaches appears in the manufacturing section

Wikibooks and "How to"
Speaking to Quiddity's point above, Wikibooks may benefit from similar material, clearly cast in a "How to" style. But I believe it would take a different and much more lengthy, detailed form. The Cultivation and Care sections of the Bonsai article provide a very brief and schematic overview of the the actual subjects of bonsai cultivation and care, compared to the popular literature on this subject. An example "How to" resource for bonsai now takes up three linear feet (~ one metre) in my bookshelves, or roughly 10,000 pages. A typical book on bonsai (please don't take these metrics too seriously, though I think the case can be made) has 2 pages on the Japanese history and cultural tradition of bonsai, 30 pages on keeping bonsai alive between stylings, and 150 pages on cutting, pinching, bending, wiring and otherwise styling an aesthetically effective bonsai specimen. That's a lot of "How to" material which Wikipedia's Bonsai article does not contain, and which would extend the Wikibooks contents very significantly were it ever converted over.

Proposal
To recap (with some emendations) an earlier post of mine:
 * There's a request on the Bonsai talk page to merge the Wikipedia (EN) articles on Bonsai and Penjing. I've already given my response, but when I was drafting it I began to wonder whether in fact the historical and cultural material for Bonsai constitutes a focused, Japan-oriented article (which would remain under Bonsai), while the relatively culture-free information on cultivation, care, tools, and perhaps display (each of which has a section in the current Bonsai article) might best be split out into one or more separate articles, which could be referenced by the Penjing article and by other articles about similar practices or art forms (e.g. Hòn Non Bô).

 * The reason for doing so is that there seems to be a continuing confusion over whether the Bonsai article refers specifically to the Japanese tradition in artful cultivation of trees in containers, or whether it is a generic term for potted plants that can be expanded to cover other similar practices. It's clear that the Japanese history of bonsai is unique to Japan, as is the Japanese tradition in bonsai aesthetics (already split into its own article). The Japanese terms for bonsai styles and sizes would also belong in a Japan-oriented Bonsai article, even though they are used by a wide range of non-Japanese practitioners. But cultivation practices, the unique care requirements for potted trees, display techniques, and probably the tools used by bonsai practitioners are likely to appear the same for a penjing enthusiast - hence the potential for confusion in the aim of the Bonsai article.

 * Unfortunately there is no other encyclopedic term in English for "the artful cultivation of small trees in containers", so labeling new articles without using the word "bonsai" could be problematic. It would be a shame to move material out of the Bonsai article only to render it difficult to find because of neologisms or other forms of unclear titling.

 * I do believe that the current care, cultivation, tools, and display sections are encyclopedic and should remain in Wikipedia. But I am not sure whether they should continue in the Bonsai article itself now. If these topics are to be moved out, I am not sure what the new articles would best be called.

If my suggestions about the current Bonsai article took hold, I would hope to see:
 * the Cultivation and Care material in roughly its current form split to one or more new articles, which would have brief but useful titles that did not confuse this set of plant-cultivation techniques with the history and culture of penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, and other related arts
 * similarly, the material on tools and display split into new articles
 * the articles Bonsai, Bonseki, Penjing, and Hòn Non Bô pointing to the new article(s), just as Bonsai now points to Indoor bonsai (an overview of the techniques and suitable subjects for indoor cultivation of small trees in a container, and another article that - if we agree to separation of content regarding the Japanese bonsai tradition from the techniques of small-tree-in-pot cultivation - should probably not have "bonsai" in the title) and Penjing points to Bonsai

If this approach is acceptable, I'm happy to tackle the editing. But I'm still at a quandary about naming the new article(s) so that we do not confuse readers or inadvertently conceal information that many would search for under the term "bonsai". Comments? Sahara110 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Bonsai as strictly applied in the Japanese use of the term has a fairly strict definition and has been exported worldwide. The positive connotation of the term has led it to being misapplied to other practices that are probably best classified as under a broad aegis of container gardening. Penjing is also tied closely with the theory and art of chinese gardens. Both articles can be independent if they focus on the culture and tenets as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I have put a good part of the proposed new structure in place. The Cultivation and Care sections have been split to a new article, Bonsai cultivation and care. In the original Bonsai article, these two sections have been summarized and there is a reference link to the new article. I was not able to determine a workable replacement for the word "bonsai", which has entered English as the generic term for "artistic cultivation of small trees in containers", so the new article will need some wording in the introduction to emphasize that the contents are equally valid for similar practices not descended from the Japanese tradition of bonsai. I have left the Display section in place and unmodified for now, in part because the material there is drawn from externally references specifically on bonsai (the Japanese tradition) and may not apply to penjing, hon non bo, etc., as written. Sahara110 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Page for a bonsai tree?
Now that WP has a page for a lion, how about a page for a tree? see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/centuries-old-bonsai-that-survived-atomic-bomb-gets-honored-70-years-later/ juanTamad 04:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Maybe... but that may be a bit much Ajrules30670 AJ (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bonsai. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bonsai-wbff.org/shimpaku/shim2.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No Spam
Really, no posting random words... Ajrules30670 AJ (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pre GA comments
Hi and thanks for nominating this article for GA. But GA criteria require that the nominator should be the major contributor of the article. You barely have two edits to this article. I understand that are major content contributors on this article and hence their opinion on if the article is ready for GA or not is needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for requesting my input. I am not sure the article Bonsai is ready for GA (Good Article) status. It has been reviewed by the WikiProject Japan team and found to meet only the "C" class standard at that time. I did ask for suggestions to improve it then, but did not receive any enlightenment, so the article's approach and content remain substantially as they were. If clear editorial direction for the needed repair and refinement can be listed, I am glad to contribute content and organization, as I'm sure other editors are as well.

 * Until the weaknesses identified by the WikiProject Japan team (and by some others - I see that the WikiProject China and WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening teams also rate this article a "C") are addressed, I can't see it being promoted as a GA. Perhaps User:RJBaran may feel differently.

 * Sahara110 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tackling some of the GA (Good Article) review comments
I'd like to work on some of the items mentioned in the Good Article review that concluded this was not a Good Article (Talk:Bonsai/GA1).

(1) The first item with a concrete fix is this observation:

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some strange use of bolding, e.g. "Slant-style conifer".

I have removed the unnecessary formatting from the image captions as indicated.

(2) Reference did not impress reviewer:

Unclear why "Pyramid Dancer" is a reliable source for bonsai issues (NB: the links are broken, so I can't tell who they were originally).

 * (a) The "Pyramid Dancer" references appear to be early links to Robert Baran's (User:RJBaran) published articles on bonsai history and culture. It would appear that the source location has changed from "Pyramid Dancer" (now not found) to "MagiMiniLand" (found at http://www.magiminiland.org/), and it seems the same articles appear in the new location. Someone more hep to the Wikipedia external link legalities should decide whether MagiMiniLand can be used as an accepted source. In the meantime, I will check each "Pyramid Dancer" reference and verify that a valid link is included, as well as change the appearances of "Pyramid Dancer" in URL references to so that the confusion raised by naming the missing site does not continue.

 * (b) I can't speak to the quality of the one missing reference identified by the reviewer, but the link noted is indeed dead. I removed the sentence supported by the broken link, which is in any case redundant to an explication of the term "bon" that appears earlier in the article.

 * (c) The link for this reference was dead: "Hachi-No-Ki". Pyramid Dancer. Retrieved 2010-04-07. I found what appears to be the matching article on the MagiMiniLand site and substituted it into the reference,

 * (d) After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for several references.
 * Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints, to 1600
 * Japanese Paintings: to 1600
 * Tokugawa Iemitsu's Pine
 * George Meister's dwarf tree observations
 * Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints, 1600 to 1800

Sahara110 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Continuing from bullet (d) above:

 * After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:
 * The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts
 * Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints
 * Earliest Known Photograph from Japan that includes a Dwarf Potted Tree by Pierre Rossier, c.1861
 * Expositions Known to Have Had Bonsai Present
 * Bonsai Book of Days for February

Sahara110 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
 * After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:
 * Dwarf Trees from Current Literature
 * Bonsai and Other Magical Miniature Landscape Specialty Magazines
 * "Count Okuma's Dwarf Trees" from Francis E. Clark in The Independent
 * The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts, 1900 - 1949
 * Bonsai Book of Days for September
 * Kokufu Bonsai Ten Shows, Part 1
 * Kyuzo Murata, the Father of Modern Bonsai in Japan, Part 1
 * The Imperial Bonsai Collection, Part 1
 * Kyuzo Murata, the Father of Modern Bonsai in Japan, Part 1
 * Some of the Serious Conditions in Japan After World War II
 * The Conventions, Symposia, Demos, Workshops, & Exhibitions, Part VI
 * Yuji Yoshimura, the Father of Popular Bonsai in the Non-Oriental World (also corrected faulty reference URL)
 * The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts
 * Saburō Katō, International Bridge-builder, His Heritage and Legacy, Part 1
 * Bonsai Book of Days for April
 * The Conventions, Symposia, Demos, Workshops, and Exhibitions, Part 6 (also corrected faulty reference URL)
 * About Bonsai Pots and Potters
 * The Nations -- When Did Bonsai Come to the Various Countries and Territories?
 * Club Newsletter On-Line (also corrected faulty reference URL)
 * To Boldly Grow: Some Celluloid Bonsai (An Overview)
 * How Many Bonsai Enthusiasts Are There? (also corrected faulty reference URL)

 * This completes the replacement of previous publisher "Pyramid Dancer" with current publisher "Magical Miniature Landscapes" in web references for this section. Note that some reference page titles were updated silently to match the current page titles at the referred-to site.

Sahara110 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
 * After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:
 * About Bonsai Pots and Potters
 * Japanese Styles of Bonsai

 * That seems to be it - I see no more references to "Pyramid Dancer" in the article. I hope this addresses the reviewer's concern about the superceded publisher, and I am glad to have rehabilitated a few outdated links as well. As time permits, I will take a look at other observations from the Good Article reviewer and see whether I can address any of them.

Sahara110 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Time to address a larger challenge. The reviewer suggested a copy-edit, particularly to the History section:

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; The prose needs some work for GA standard. The history sections use a lot of short, stubby paragraphs - often only one sentence apiece - which don't flow together. I'd strongly recommend a heavy copy-edit.

I have created the page Bonsai history to contain the full content of the current article's History section. The current History is to be summarized, with some minor rewriting to smooth the flow as suggested by the reviewer.

Sahara110 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The History section in Bonsai has been reduced in size roughly from 3,650 to 2,350 words, or about 35%. The first two sub-sections were mainly reduced through strategic removal of sentences, but the third required both removals and additions to appear cogent. The fourth sub-section has not yet been addressed. More can doubtless be removed, as the new Bonsai history article contains the full original content. But this reduction should suggest the "section too long" warning be removed, and I have done so.

Sahara110 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Further reductions of the History section bring it down to just under 2,000 words, leaving it about 55% of its original length (roughly 71K to 53K characters).

Sahara110 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

State of references
Glad to see this work to improve the quality of the article! Looks like the references need some work. I'll try to set aside some time if no one gets to it first. Tracking my observations so I don't forget to look into them: --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reference 11 is "Nippon Bonsai Association, pg. 144". I assume this is another citation of "Nippon Bonsai Association. Classic Bonsai of Japan" that's cited twice elsewhere. This needs verification and the citation fixed accordingly. I'd also assume that more information about the publication is available and should be added to the references. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added for other content, then  for the current content. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Has there been any discussions about Robert Baran's (User:RJBaran) references? Not all are self-published, and those that aren't need the full citation information added. For those that are, they certainly seem well-written and researched... Given the coi, I'd hope there was some discussion somewhere about their reliability. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the separation out into its own article of the history. All of my references are documented and I encourage review to help be sure they are correct.--RJBaran — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJBaran (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

bonsai: tray planting or japanese tray planting?
Bonsai in Oxford dictionary : The art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bonsai). It doesn't mean japanese tray planting specifically. Bonsai is a art form of tray planting, and Japan has their own art form of tray planting. However, it is totally wrong to say that bonsai is japanese art form. As we known, the art form of tray planting was created in China, and then spreaded to Japan.

Therefore, if you think bonsai is japanese art form, please ask the dictionary to change the explanation of bonsai to The japanese art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots and don't translate bonsai to 盆栽（In chinese 盆栽 just means the art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots, and it doesn't mean the japanese art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots. Maybe, you can translate bonsai to 日本盆栽， which is japanese + bonsai）. If you think japanese bonsai is just a branch of bonsai, please change the title of this item "Bonsai" to "Japanese Bonsai". Because the whole content is just about japanese tray-planting art.

--Zuimozhaizhu (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the bonsai article remove "Japanese" from its definitions and descriptions?

 * Every so often, Bonsai or its related pages are visited by an editor eager to make it known that other cultures have similar art forms, as you are doing here. I think that fact is clearly stated in the Bonsai article (and related ones, particularly History of bonsai and Penjing). But as a quick reminder that Wikipedia recognizes this concept, I'd like to introduce you to some of the existing Wikipedia discussions that address the Japanese connection to bonsai.

 * First, from Bonsai, Wikipedia says that "[t]he term bonsai is generally used in English as an umbrella term for all miniature trees in containers or pots". I believe this statement addresses your point about the dictionary definition of bonsai. In English, it is a term that may casually be applied to any small, potted tree. But in Wikipedia, the art of bonsai is defined much more carefully and accurately in the article on bonsai, where it refers explicitly to the Japanese art form. Casual conversation in English may conflate bonsai and hon non bo, or bonsai and penjing, or bonsai and saikei. Wikipedia does not.

 * In August 2010, an editor proposed placing the Penjing article contents within the bonsai article (see Talk:Bonsai). Wikipedia editors (including myself) suggested otherwise, in part for the following reasons - reasons that apply to your suggestion as well:

 * 1 - The styles of penjing and bonsai are sufficiently different, the penjing article is well focused, and the resulting article would be big enough to merit splitting. Diminishing or removing (even a few) references to Japan and its culture, as you suggest, could reduce the distinctions between these related articles, diffuse their focus, and make them less useful.

 * 2 - Penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, bunjae (Korea - no Wikipedia article yet), and possibly others are art forms using similar materials (e.g., trees, containers). But they are practiced in different cultures with well-established and different historical, cultural, and aesthetic values. Removing references to the Japanese from the bonsai articles, in whole or in part as you have suggested, would obscure fundamental information about the essentially Japanese art of bonsai, as would removing references to the Vietnamese from the article on hon non bo, or to the Chinese from the article on penjing.

 * 3 - A shared history or other similarities do not argue for merged articles. If sufficient unique elements appear in the descriptions of two terms, the reader will find two articles more focused and usable than one. In relation to your request about removing some references to Japan from the bonsai article, we would be obscuring a useful distinction: the article Bonsai is about the Japanese art, not about similar arts in other cultures. Japan's centuries developing the art of bonsai do not deprecate or obscure the Vietnamese development of hon non bo, nor the Chinese development of penjing. Diminishing or removing the Japanese references in the Bonsai article would greatly reduce its truthfulness and usefulness. Let all three articles prosper, and let all three properly reference the related country and culture.

 * As an aside, you may have seen that the Chinese art of penjing does have its own Wikipedia article. It might be worth taking some time to work on it. A great deal of penjing history seems under-represented in the penjing article, particularly 20th-century history, which should be the segment most easily accessible from contemporary records and news. Similarly, the visual esthetics of penjing might be described more clearly and given more visual examples. Other areas could doubtless benefit from a keen eye and eager hand. A more detailed and informative penjing article could do much more to communicate the unique history and value of penjing than suggesting the removal of references to Japan and Japanese culture from the article on Japanese bonsai.

Sahara110 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

bonsai trees
how much is bonsai tree Megannerussell (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 * This page is for discussing how to improve the article. If you are commenting on the lack of prices, see WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOPRICES. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bonsai used as an umbrella term
A few weeks back, a roving editor removed the following sentence from the Bonsai article: "The word bonsai is often used in English as an umbrella term for all miniature trees in containers or pots." The reason given: "No evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread. Just wrong and confusing." I would like to propose returning that sentence to the article, as it has helped the article maintain the distinction between the Japanese art of bonsai on the one hand, and the various colloquial Western applications of the word on the other.

If the editor's true reason for deleting the original sentence was that there is "[n]o evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread", I feel a vast cultural and commercial pressure pushing back. A few minutes on Google searching for "bonsai " brought me hundreds of disheartening counter-examples. The word "bonsai" has been treated by English-speakers like many borrowed terms from other cultures: variously simplified, generalized, parodied (*bonsai kittens*), misrepresented, and turned to commercial use to capitalize on its positive associations. Western use of the word "bonsai" is about as careful, focused, and respectful of the original meaning as its use of "sushi", "ninja", or "samurai".

Here is a minute fraction of the "bonsai thing" grab-bag, in which "thing" would not show up in the Tokyo bonsai exhibitions. Ever.

"Bonsai" vegetables

 * Carrot Bonsai
 * Growing a Bonsai Potato
 * Vegetable Bonsai to be Shown at Chinese New Year Flower Market
 * Day of the bonsai vegetables

"Bonsai" herbs

 * Edible bonsai
 * Bonsai basil
 * Fabulous Bonsai Herbs
 * Basil Bonsai – You Can Grow That!
 * Rosemary Bonsai Care
 * Texas Sage Bonsai Tree (catalog page)
 * Lavender Star Bonsai (catalog page)

"Bonsai" tropical and desert houseplants

 * The Bonsai Plants Beautiful Adenium (Dessert Rose) Bonsai Plant (catalog page)
 * IKEA Ficus Microcarpa Ginseng (catalog page)
 * Resin Small Flower Pot Planter Corgi Garden Plants Succulents Bonsai Potted Flowers Desk Garden Supplies (catalog page)
 * Cactus Combo Bonsai
 * All Indoor Bonsai and Money Trees (catalog page)

Assorted other "bonsai"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdzfly (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Growing Cannabis Bonsai Trees: Separating Fact From Fiction
 * Bonsai: Various (catalog page)
 * Artificial Dracaena Bonsai Plant in a Ceramic Vase (catalog page)
 * Miniture [sic] Rose Bonsai (catalog page)
 * Jasmine Seeds Bonsai flower Seeds Home Garden Bonsai Flower Seeds Potted Plants Flowers 30 Particles
 * Grow a bonsai blueberry tree!
 * Afghan Pine Trees Growth Rate

The editor's assertion that there is "[n]o evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread" does not seem to be well-founded. "Bonsai" in Western use is not just an umbrella, it's an entire circus-spanning big top. It covers a multitude. Of sins.

This article is about a Japanese term and practice, and many of its contents are useful and true only in that restricted sense. The current section on classical bonsai styles makes no sense when discussing the bonsai potato or carrot. The Japanese history of bonsai does not apply to Resin Small Flower Pot Planter Corgi Garden. The three words "Cannabis Bonsai Trees" should never appear together. It does not hurt the article to make that clear. I would like to reinstate the prior wording.

Any comments?

Sahara110 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I have pressed forward to address the peculiar focus of the Wikipedia article, viz., that it presents information primarily on the Japanese art of bonsai, and only tangentially refers to "bonsai vegetables" and other popular usages of the word "bonsai" in English:

 * The Japanese loanword "bonsai" has become an umbrella term in English, attached to many forms of potted or other plants, and also on occasion to other living and non-living things (e.g., Bonsai kitten). According to Stephen Orr in The New York Times, "the term should be reserved for plants that are grown in shallow containers following the precise tenets of bonsai pruning and training, resulting in an artful miniature replica of a full-grown tree in nature." In the most restrictive sense, "bonsai" refers to miniaturized, container-grown trees adhering to Japanese tradition and principles.

 * Sahara110 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Poor Writing
These sentences that start the third paragraph under HISTORY, Modern Bonsai do not make sense: "The First World Bonsai Convention was held in Osaka during the World Bonsai and Suiseki Exhibition in 1980.[40] Nine years later, the first World Bonsai Convention was held in Omiya...." How can the first World Bonsai Convention take place nine years after the first World Bonsai Convention? Also, in the first sentence "First" is capitalized, which it should not be. Dkelber (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Chinese and Korean names for bonsai
This article mentions Chinese and Korean bonsai names, are these necessary? Since Japanese bonsai and Chinese penjing exist as separate articles, I think there is no need to write Chinese or Korean names in this article. For example, penjing in China is called bonkei (盆景) in Japanese, and bokei still exists in Japan as a separate genre from bonsai. However, the penjing article does not mention the Japanese name bonkei. --薔薇騎士団 (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * After more than a week and no objections, Infobox Chinese was removed. Bonsai is a Japanese art form. If necessary, mention it in the penjing article.--薔薇騎士団 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Bonsai
Is the part in the article's headline that bonsai is the "East Asian art" appropriate? There is a separate article on Chinese penjing, where penzai (Chinese pronunciation of bonsai) is also mentioned, but it is described as the "Chinese art." There is also bonkei (Japanese pronunciation of penjing) in Japan. In the interest of fairness, I suggest that bonsai be described as "Japanese art." --薔薇騎士団 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 * More than a week has passed and no objections have been received, so the article description was changed as suggested above. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bonsai


text:
Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin

Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, (20 July 1766 – 14 November 1841), often known as Lord Elgin, was a British nobleman, diplomat, and collector, known primarily for the controversial procurement of marble sculptures (known as the Elgin Marbles) from the Parthenon and other structures on the Acropolis of Athens.

Early life
A member of the formerly royal house of Bruce, Elgin was born at the family seat, Broomhall House, near Dunfermline, Fife. He was the second son of Charles Bruce, 5th Earl of Elgin and his wife Martha Whyte, governess to Princess Charlotte of Wales. He succeeded his older brother William Robert Bruce, the 6th Earl, in 1771 when he was only five.

He was educated at Harrow and Westminster. After several years at St Andrews, he proceeded to the Continent where he completed his studies at Paris.

Military career
Elgin entered the army as an ensign in the Scots Guards in 1785. He transferred to 65th Foot in 1789, as captain of a company, by purchase. In 1793, he was appointed to the staff as a major of foot by brevet, holding the rank on the Continent only. In 1795, he transferred to 12th Regiment of Foot as a major. Later in 1795, he raised a regiment of Fencible Infantry and was appointed its colonel, with the permanent rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army. He was promoted to colonel in the Army in 1802, to major general in 1809 and to lieutenant general in 1814.

Public life
Elgin was elected as a Scottish representative peer in 1790. In 1799, he was appointed to the Privy Council (PC). He attended parliament whenever his other duties allowed until he lost his seat in 1807. He held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Fife.

Diplomatic career
In 1791, he was sent as a temporary envoy-extraordinary to Austria, while Sir Robert Keith was ill. He was then sent as envoy-extraordinary in Brussels from 1792 until the conquest of the Austrian Netherlands by France. After spending time in Britain, he was sent as envoy-extraordinary to Prussia in 1795.

Elgin was appointed as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in December 1798. On 11 March 1799, shortly before setting off for Constantinople, Elgin married Mary, daughter and heiress of William Hamilton Nisbet, of Dirleton. Elgin arrived at Constantinople on 6 November 1799. As ambassador to the Sublime Porte he showed considerable skill and energy in fulfilling a difficult mission, the extension of British influence during the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and France. The Treaty of Amiens was signed by Britain and France in March 1802. His embassy at an end, Elgin departed Constantinople on 16 January 1803.

The Elgin Marbles
Following discussions with the diplomat and archaeologist Sir William Hamilton, Elgin decided he would engage, at his own expense, a team of artists and architects to produce plaster casts and detailed drawings of ancient Greek buildings, sculptures and artefacts. In this way he hoped to make his embassy, "beneficial to the progress of the Fine Arts in Great Britain."

Elgin procured the services of a Neapolitan painter, Lusieri, and of several skilful draughtsmen and modellers. These artists were dispatched to Athens in the summer of 1800, and were principally employed in making drawings of the ancient monuments. Elgin stated that about the middle of the summer of 1801, he had received a firman from the Sublime Porte which allowed his agents not only to "fix scaffolding round the ancient Temple of the Idols [the Parthenon], and to mould the ornamental sculpture and visible figures thereon in plaster and gypsum," but also "to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon". The document exists in an Italian translation made by the British Embassy in Constantinople and now held by the British Museum, but no official copy of it has yet been found in the Turkish government archives from the imperial era. There is debate over the legal status of the document.

The actual procurement of ancient marbles from Athens formed no part of Elgin's first plan. The decision to remove marbles attached to structures was made on the spot by Philip Hunt, Elgin's chaplain and one of his representatives in Athens. Elgin's agents removed about half of the Parthenon frieze, fifteen metopes, and seventeen pedimental sculpture fragments, in addition to a caryatid and a column from the Erechtheion, sculptured slabs from the Athenian temple of Nike Apteros, and various antiquities from Attica and other districts of Hellas.

Part of the Elgin collection was prepared for embarkation for Britain in 1803, and considerable difficulties were encountered at every stage of its transit. Elgin's vessel, the Mentor, was wrecked near Cerigo with its cargo of marbles, and it was not till after the labours of three years, and the expenditure of a large sum of money, that the marbles were successfully recovered by the divers. On Elgin's departure from the Ottoman Empire in 1803, he withdrew all his artists from Athens with the exception of Lusieri, who remained to direct the excavations, which were still carried on, though on a much reduced scale. Additions continued to be made to the Elgin collections, and as late as 1812, eighty fresh cases of antiquities arrived in England.

Elgin's procurement of the marbles was supported by some, including Goethe, and censured by others in Britain as vandalism, most famously Lord Byron, who wrote the following lines ::Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
 * Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
 * By British hands, which it had best behoved
 * To guard those relics ne'er to be restored.
 * Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,
 * And once again thy hapless bosom gored,
 * And snatch'd thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorred!

Elgin defended his actions in a pamphlet Memorandum on the Subject of the Earl of Elgin's Pursuits in Greece, published in 1810. On the recommendation of a British parliamentary select committee, the marbles were purchased by the British government in 1816 for £35,000, considerably below their cost to Elgin (estimated at £75,000), and transferred in trust to the British Museum, where they went on display in 1817.

Britain's ownership of the Elgin Marbles is disputed by Greece. Discussions between UK and Greek officials about the future of the marbles are ongoing.

Detention in France
After leaving Constantinople, the Elgins decided to return to Britain via Italy and France. When, on 18 May 1803, war again broke out between Britain and France, they were in Lyon. Elgin was declared a prisoner of war and was released on parole on condition that he not leave France. In November, Elgin was imprisoned in the fortress of Lourdes and the French offered to release him in exchange for a French general in detention in England. The British refused, and Elgin was again released on parole. In October 1805, the French gave Lady Elgin, who was pregnant, permission to return to England on compassionate grounds. Elgin himself was finally allowed to leave France in June 1806 following a direct appeal to Napoleon by British Prime Minister Lord Grenville. As a condition of his release, Elgin agreed to return to France whenever the French government demanded.

Return to Britain and later life
Soon after returning to Britain, Elgin discovered that his wife was having an affair with Robert Ferguson, one of his oldest friends. In December 1807, Elgin successfully sued Ferguson for seduction in the English courts and was awarded £10,000 in damages. In March 1808, he brought a successful divorce action in Edinburgh against his wife on grounds of adultery. The marriage was formally dissolved by a private act of parliament. The court cases were widely reported and caused considerable public scandal.

In 1807, Elgin lost his seat in the House of Lords, and the resumption of a military or diplomatic career was ruled out by the terms of his parole in France, which Elgin felt honour bound to observe while Napoleon was in power. Elgin was deeply in debt due to the costs associated with his embassy, his procurement of the Elgin marbles, and his court actions. He virtually retired from public life.

In September 1810, Elgin married Elizabeth Oswald of Dunnikier. That year, he offered his collection of antiquities for sale to the government, but withdrew when he was offered only £30,000.

During 1815 Elgin became embroiled in the Tweddell remains affair, a controversy over the possessions of John Tweddell, a classical scholar who had died in 1799 in Athens. Elgin was accused of having appropriated some of Tweddell's papers after his death, during his term as British ambassador in Constantinople. Some of Tweddell's papers had been destroyed in a fire and others lost at sea. The remaining papers were misplaced when Elgin arranged for them to be sent back to England. The matter was settled in late 1816 with the return of some of the items to Tweddell's family.

In 1820, Elgin was again elected to the House of Lords, but his requests for a peerage were unsuccessful. He eventually moved to France to escape his creditors and died in Paris on 4 November 1841. His widow, the Dowager Countess of Elgin, died in Paris 1 April 1860.

Family
Lord Elgin married twice. On 11 March 1799, he married Mary Nisbet (1778–1855), the only child of William Hamilton Nisbet, of Dirleton. They had a son and three daughters:
 * George Charles Constantine Bruce, Lord Bruce (5 April 1800 – 1840)
 * Lady Mary Bruce (died 21 December 1883).
 * Lady Matilda Harriet Bruce (died 31 August 1857)
 * Lady Lucy Bruce (1806 – 4 September 1881)

After her marriage to Elgin ended in divorce, Mary married Ferguson.

Elgin, on 21 September 1810, married Elizabeth Oswald (1790–1860), the youngest daughter of James Townsend Oswald of Dunnikier. They had four sons and three daughters:
 * James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin (20 July 1811 – 20 November 1863), governor-in-chief of British North America and viceroy of India
 * Robert Bruce (15 March 1813 – 27 June 1862), lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards.
 * Sir Frederick Wright-Bruce (14 April 1814 – 19 September 1867), barrister and diplomat
 * Lady Charlotte Christian Bruce (9 September 1817 – 27 April 1872)
 * Thomas Charles Bruce (15 February 1825 – 23 November 1890), MP for Portsmouth
 * Lady Augusta Frederica Elizabeth Bruce (died 1 March 1876), Lady-in-Waiting to the Duchess of Kent and Resident Bedchamber Woman to Queen Victoria
 * Lady Frances Anne Bruce (died 16 August 1894), Lady-in-Waiting to the Duchess of Edinburgh.

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

title: Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin


text:
Talk:Shirley Ann Jackson

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 20 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): THawthorne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Talk Wikipedia Contribution: Expansion of Inspiration for Becoming a Physicist

•Bets117 (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)The “Talk Forum” comment which is already in place brings about points of inconsistency between the articles brought forth as sources. That is clearly the main point which would need to be addressed; however there are more possible changes that could be made to strengthen the content of the page. As a successful woman of color, Shirley Ann Jackson’s page includes plenty of professional career decisions and mentions of her success as an African American woman in the STEM field. I question the structure used in Jackson’s page seeing as there aren’t many other attributes mentioned. This leads me to believe that the only reason why Jackson has a page is to emphasize the difference between her and other physicist. They fail to provide the proper foundation, like the background and childhood information, with as much importance as the fact that she is a black, successful, intelligent woman of color in the STEM field. Jackson’s roots are just as important as the fact that she was a well-known African American, woman physicist. By giving us more background information from Jackson’s childhood, we are able to better understand the reasoning behind Jackson’s motive to become a physicist. It seems as if they attempted to touch on the subject by bringing up Jackson’s father briefly, yet they abandoned the idea. I believe that it is important to cover the basics in order to make it easier for the reader to follow along the storyline of a person’s life.

Article needs to be rewritten
This article needs to be rewritten. It copies straight from the link specified and had numerous mistakes. I corrected a few. But much needs to be done. Эйрон Кинни 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some work has been done so as not to make it a direct copy, and credit was given where due. Any more improvements are welcome. Danski14 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not much has been done to rewrite this to improve the sourcing and tone. Should it be more color-blind? Obviously it it historically significant that Dr. Jackson was one of the first black women to achieve the Ph.D in Phyisics, but I too cannot find any original work listing her as lead or secondary author in her field. I find it troublesome that the article tone is that before her tenure as President, she was well known for her wort in physics. Perhaps I need to look at a wider body of professional abstracts or an earlier time period. Can someone point to her body of original or collaborative work in more detail than " she worked at Fermilab or CERN?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkiller (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability
The article may not be great, but I can't see how she isn't notable. Just look at the article. I'm tempted to consider the notabiltiy template vandalism and remove it. —Ben FrantzDale 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course she's notable. Gzuckier 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Hi,

I just removed the controversy section, which read In March of 2008, Jackson used her authority as president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to censor artist Wafaa Bilal's on campus installation of a controversial anti-war piece. Jackson ordered the exhibit shut down. When it moved to an off-campus site, the city of Troy used code enforcement to shut down that site as well. Jackson has not commented on the issue since her initial act of censorship. since it was unsourced. Feel free to re-insert a section on the controversy, but please, especially as we are dealing with a living person bio (see the links at the top of this page!), cite reliable sources (cf. WP:RELIABLE). Markus Poessel (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, it is possible to source this, but it shouldn't be included, since nobody is sure if the decision was really Jackson's. More likely other administrators recommended the decision, or there may even have been Trustee board involvement. WE just don't know. Danski14(talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

EMPAC
Having the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center as a separate second-level subheading in this article is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the subheading for "Scientific career" also includes her career in administrative positions. I'm going to reorganize this article a bit within a few days, if someone doesn't get to it first. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, EMPAC does not warrant it's own section here. Shirley Ann undoubtedly had major influence on the project, but it is debatable and unclear how big of a role she actually played. Certainly other administrators, and the director of EMPAC, Johannes Goebel helped promote the project as well, as well as the campus planning team. I think we should reduce it to one or two sentences and merge with the previous paragraph. I would like to see some improvements on the EMPAC page, though Danski14(talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * So I made some improvements. I think there's a sentence in the RPI section about a teach-in that doesn't belong in this article either. Also I ran across some heavily physics-related stuff in "Career" which probably should be pared down or made less technical. I'll be taking care of these issues in a few days if I don't hear any opposes. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Salary
Her salary is given in the first paragraph, along with a mention that it's the highest among American university professors. I don't think this information belongs in the lead. Dewey Finn (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Also the salary information is four years old, so it's not even current.) Dewey Finn (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Why is her salary even important, as high or as little as it may be? Who cares?  Good example of how basically anything gets on Wiki these days.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pipes v. Jackson in Order of Succession
Why does the article for RPI president Pipes list him as 20th, but for Jackon (after Pipes) as 18th? Can you 'editors' do a better job of listing your information here? It's bad enough Wikipedia is a poor source of information as it is.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * That is a tricky point : it depends whether you count acting Presidents (Presidents who held office while a new President was being sought by the board of Trustees). It seems that most literature does not include acting Presidents in the ranking of presidents. I will change the Pipes article and check the other articles to follow this convention. Danski14(talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the sections on the presidential guest house and the CLASS Initiative belong here?
I don't think that the discussion of the presidential guest house (beginning with "Following the weekend, the Board of Trustees announced they would support construction of a new guest house on Dr. Jackson's property . . .") and the CLASS Initiative belong in an article about Shirley Jackson.

For one thing, it's inaccurate to say that the guest house is being constructed on "Dr Jackson's property", since as far as I know, she doesn't own the existing president's house. Second, this is really something that's not about her, but the university president.

Similarly, the CLASS Initiative is not about her, but about the university. If the CLASS Initiative is discussed anywhere, it should be next to the discussion of the [| First Year Experience] in the article about the university.Dewey Finn (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Good points. Personally I think the issue with the house is an interesting saga. Since it is well cited, I don't see any reason to remove it, although it might be worth considering the tone of the section, which may be a bit antagonistic. As far as whether it is "her property", I'm not sure. That is a technical point that may need to be corrected and better explained. It is noted that the house "will be used for future presidents and is a long term thing". As far as the CLASS Initiative, I have removed that section. I don't think its accurate to say it was "Dr. Jackson's Initiative". Rather it was something studied and developed by the Jackson Administration and especially the Student Life office. And also, that section was almost libelous. It isn't fair to say the administration "broke promises", rather they made a few mistakes in a few cases during the transitional period into the CLASS program. I think whoever wrote that section was probably an angry parent who wanted to go on a rant. Danski14(talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Shirley Ann Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141210044659/http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S1041136.shtml?cat=300 to http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S1041136.shtml?cat=300
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018123116/http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3387449 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3387449
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225225555/http://timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=754050&category=REGION to http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=754050&category=REGION
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091215112325/http://www.timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=875141 to http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=875141

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shirley Ann Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/SciAm/GW_CC/ScienceEducation2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123180930/http://www.rpi.edu/about/celebration/ to http://www.rpi.edu/about/celebration/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.rpi.edu/campusnews/update.do?artcenterkey=2136&setappvar=page%281%29&setappvar=issueSet%282136%2C2124%2C2131%2C2127%2C2117%2C2118%2C2132%2C2133%2C2130%2C2126%29&setappvar=pos%281%29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630131905/http://www.iwaswondering.org/shirley_homepage.html to http://www.iwaswondering.org/shirley_homepage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201025812/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9027 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9027

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) 10:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of False Narrative regarding Caller ID, etc.
Regarding this edit I made. I think there may be some merit to the content that I removed, but I really don't think we can include it without violating the original research policy. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To avoid conflict with WP:NOR I removed the sentence "Consequently she could not have had any such role in enabling these advancements." But the rest of this material is wholly factual and serves an important purpose in deterring false information that has been posted into this particular Wikipedia article across many years. The absence of this section will invite reappearances of the false narrative, as you saw a few days afterward from an overzealous supporter. I know there are many citations here, but they are necessary to properly describe the scope of the false narrative, and to explain the actual timeframe for each of these inventions.Dglowny^^^ 23:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTOR which explains that "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." Likewise, "Routine calculations do not count as original research." This is exactly what I have done here in citing the conflicting claims, and the actual timeframes of the inventions in question. I have attempted to do so in a minimalistic way, and in the spirit of maintaining a neutral "just the facts" tone. Nevertheless, it ought not to be ignored, because even major news outlets frequently cite the false narrative due to its apparent ubiquity. Dglowny^^^ 05:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

To help reduce WP:OVERKILL I removed roughly half of the previously-existing citations here, while leaving sufficient reference for each named invention to substantiate that they all occurred prior to Jackson's arrival at Bell Labs. This is not opinion, it is fact based on proven calendar dates. Jackson did not arrive at Bell Labs until well after all of these inventions occurred.Dglowny^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Then to further minimize the visual impact of WP:OVERKILL I used the "citation bundling" technique to encapsulate several into a single footnote.Dglowny^^^ 08:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don’t think this meets the letter of WP:NOR. But I do recognize the usefulness of this content, so I’m not planning to fight over it. Zagal e jo^^^ 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
Unless I am reading this incorrectly somehow, the infobox says "Born: August 5, 2011 (age 9) Washington, DC, US" Obviously she wasn't born then so what is this date representing? Is this a typo or supposed to be the date for some other category? Apathyash (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the IP editor who fixed this.Apathyash (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Solar home charging station
Hi this is Patty Belleville Michigan and I was wondering if you had a black intercom encased by a copper receptive field with magnified which would be a fiber optics but in a magnification with a collector to collect it as though it is like a pill that you can put into the side of your car charge another one to take with you and use it as a future enhancement to vehicles so you don't have to rely on gas or cutting down on the grid for backup energy for the home could that be 174.247.208.162 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shirley Ann Jackson


text:
Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years. It was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne and others. It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower (Pilgrim Hall Museum has collected several Bibles of Mayflower passengers), and its frontispiece inspired Benjamin Franklin's design for the first Great Seal of the United States.

The Geneva Bible was used by many English Dissenters, and it was still respected by Oliver Cromwell's soldiers at the time of the English Civil War, in the booklet The Souldiers Pocket Bible.

Because the language of the Geneva Bible was more forceful and vigorous, most readers strongly preferred this version to the Great Bible. In the words of Cleland Boyd McAfee, "it drove the Great Bible off the field by sheer power of excellence".

History
The Geneva Bible followed the Great Bible of 1539, the first authorized Bible in English, which was the authorized Bible of the Church of England.

During the reign of Mary I (1553–1558), who restored Catholicism and outlawed Protestantism in England, a number of English Protestant scholars fled to Geneva, which was then a republic in which John Calvin and, later, Theodore Beza, provided the primary spiritual and theological leadership. Among these scholars was William Whittingham, who supervised the translation now known as the Geneva Bible, in collaboration with Myles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole; several of this group later became prominent figures in the Vestments controversy. Whittingham was directly responsible for the New Testament, which was complete and published in 1557, while Gilby oversaw the Old Testament.

The first full edition of this Bible, with a further revised New Testament, appeared in 1560, and was published by Sir Rowland Hill of Soulton,    but it was not printed in England until 1575 (New Testament ) and 1576 (complete Bible ). Over 150 editions were issued; the last probably in 1644. The first Bible printed in Scotland was a Geneva Bible, which was first issued in 1579. In fact, the involvement of Knox (1514–1572) and Calvin (1509–1564) in the creation of the Geneva Bible made it especially appealing in Scotland, where a law was passed in 1579 requiring every household of sufficient means to buy a copy.

Some editions from 1576 onwards included Laurence Tomson's revisions of the New Testament. Some editions from 1599 onwards used a new "Junius" version of the Book of Revelation, in which the notes were translated from a new Latin commentary by Franciscus Junius.

The annotations, a significant part of the Geneva Bible, were Calvinist and Puritan in character, and as such were disliked by the ruling pro-government Anglicans of the Church of England, as well as by James I, who commissioned the "Authorized Version", or King James Bible, in order to replace it. The Geneva Bible had also motivated the earlier production of the Bishops' Bible under Elizabeth I for the same reason, and the later Rheims–Douai edition by the Catholic community. The Geneva Bible nevertheless remained popular among Puritans and was in widespread use until after the English Civil War. The last edition was printed in 1644.

The Geneva notes were surprisingly included in a few editions of the King James Version, as late as 1715. Benjamin Franklin is understood to have been inspired by the frontispiece of the Geneva Bible in his design proposal for the first Great Seal of the United States.

Translation and format
The Geneva Bible was the first English version to be translated entirely from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Though the text is principally just a revision of William Tyndale's earlier work of 1534, Tyndale had only fully translated the New Testament; he had translated the Old Testament through 2 Chronicles before he was imprisoned. The English refugees living in Geneva completed the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to English for the first time. The work was led by William Whittingham.

Textual basis
The Geneva Bible was translated from scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures that comprise the Old Testament. The English rendering was substantially based on the earlier translations by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale (the Genevan Bible relies significantly upon Tyndale).

Size

The Geneva Bible was also issued in more convenient and affordable sizes than earlier versions. The 1560 Bible was in quarto format (218 × 139 mm type area), but pocketable octavo editions were also issued, and a few large folio editions. The New Testament was issued at various times in sizes from quarto down to 32º (the smallest, 70×39 mm type area).

Breeches Bible
Here are both the Geneva, Tyndale and the King James versions of Genesis 3:7 with spellings as in their originals (not modernized):

King James I and the Geneva Bible

King James I's distaste for the Geneva Bible was not caused by the translation of the text into English, but rather the annotations in the margins. He felt strongly many of the annotations were "very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits". In all likelihood, he saw the Geneva's interpretations of some biblical passages as anti-clerical "republicanism", which could imply church hierarchy was unnecessary. Other passages appeared particularly seditious: notably, references to monarchs as "tyrants".

Example of the commentary in conflict with the monarchy in the Geneva Bible (modern spelling) include:

 * Daniel 6:22 – "For he [ Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured."
 * Daniel 11:36 – "So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish his people: but he shows that it is but for a time."
 * Exodus 1:19 – To the Hebrew midwives lying to their leaders, "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil."
 * 2 Chronicles 15:15-17 – King Asa "showed that he lacked zeal, for she should have died both by the covenant and by the law of God, but he gave place to foolish pity and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law."

When toward the end of the conference two Puritans suggested that a new translation of the Bible be produced to better unify the Anglican Church in England and Scotland, James embraced the idea. He would not only be rid of those inconvenient annotations but have greater influence on the translation of the Bible as a whole. He commissioned and chartered a new translation of the Bible which would eventually become the most famous version of the Bible in the history of the English language. Officially known as the Authorized Version to be read in churches, the new Bible would come to bear his name as the so-called King James Bible or King James Version (KJV) elsewhere or casually. The first and early editions of the King James Bible from 1611 and the first few decades thereafter lack annotations, unlike nearly all editions of the Geneva Bible up until that time. Initially, the King James Version did not sell well and competed with the Geneva Bible. Shortly after the first edition of the KJV, King James banned the printing of new editions of the Geneva Bible to further entrench his version. However, Robert Barker continued to print Geneva Bibles even after the ban, placing the spurious date of 1599 on new copies of Genevas which were actually printed between about 1616 and 1625.

Legacy
Although the King James Version was intended to replace the Geneva Bible, the King James translators relied heavily upon this version. Bruce Metzger, in Theology Today 1960, observes the inevitable reliance the KJV had on the Geneva Bible. Some estimate that twenty percent of the former came directly from the latter. He further revels in the enormous impact the Geneva Bible had on Protestantism. "In short, it was chiefly owing to the dissemination of copies of the Geneva version of 1560 that a sturdy and articulate Protestantism was created in Britain, a Protestantism which made a permanent impact upon Anglo-American culture."

The Puritan Separatists or Pilgrim Fathers aboard the Mayflower in 1620 brought to North America copies of the Geneva Bible. German historian Leopold von Ranke observed that "Calvin was virtually the founder of America."

title: Geneva Bible


text:
Highland single malts

Highland single malts are single malt Scotch whiskies produced in the Highland region of Scotland. This categorisation includes the whiskies produced on the islands around the perimeter of Scotland (the Island single malts), except for Islay (see Islay whisky). Incongruously, the area also includes certain lowland areas in the North-East of the country such as Banffshire and Aberdeenshire.

Legal status
Highland is a "protected locality" for Scotch Whisky distilling under UK Government legislation.

List of Highland single malt distilleries

 * AnCnoc
 * Aberfeldy
 * Ardmore
 * Balblair
 * Ben Nevis
 * Blair Athol
 * Clynelish
 * Dalmore
 * Dalwhinnie
 * Deanston
 * Drumguish
 * Edradour
 * Glencadam
 * Glen Deveron
 * Glen Eden
 * Glendronach
 * Glenfoyle
 * Glen Garioch
 * Glengoyne
 * Glenmorangie
 * Singleton of Glen Ord
 * Glenturret
 * Knockdhu
 * Loch Lomond
 * Loch Morar
 * The Macallan
 * Macphail
 * McClelland
 * Millburn
 * Oban
 * Old Fettercairn
 * Old Pulteney
 * Royal Brackla
 * Royal Lochnagar
 * Teaninich
 * Tullibardine
 * Tomatin
 * Wolfburn

title: Highland single malts


text:
Bead stringing

Bead stringing is the putting of beads on string. It can range from simply sliding a single bead onto any thread-like medium (string, silk thread, leather thong, thin wire, multi-stranded beading wire, or a soft, flexible wire) to complex creations that have multiple strands or interwoven levels. The choice of stringing medium can be an important point in the overall design, since string-type mediums might be subject to unwanted stretching if the weight of the beads is considerable. Similarly, certain bead types with sharp edges, such as hollow metal beads or some varieties of stone or glass, might abrade the string and cause the strand to eventually break.

The simplest design is a single bead centered as a focal point on the string medium. The ends of the string can be simply knotted together or components of a clasp may be attached to each end.

Next in complexity would be stringing multiple beads onto a single strand. Here alone are numerous opportunities for adding elements to the design concept. All the beads might be identical. The beads might be varied (in shape, color, type or any combination thereof) and used either in a random assortment or in a deliberate repeating pattern. Items not strictly defined as beads, such as pendants or "drops", might be placed within the strand to serve as focal points or accent elements in the design.

Knotting is a next level of proficiency in creating strands. Here the stringing medium (traditionally silk thread or another similar, synthetic medium) has knots tied into it as a means of separating the individual beads from each other. The traditional strand of pearls is a well-known example of this technique. Pearls are threaded onto silk, and a knot is tied between each one to not only space them for greater individual prominence but to also keep them from rubbing directly against each other and risking the abrasion of the nacre that gives them their luster. This classic design can be varied by adding or using other varieties of beads or varying the number and placement of knots used.

Multiple strands can be created using either the simple stringing or the knotting technique. Here, depending on the overall design, more planning may be called for. If the bead pattern is random, the only concern is that one strand be sized shorter than the next, so they will all lie flat and not interfere with each other when worn or displayed. However, if a specific repeating pattern is planned, then careful planning will be required so that the placement of matching portions of the pattern between the strands is aligned properly. A beading board, generally a flat panel with measured curved indentations in several staggered lengths, is a useful tool for spacing the beads to work out the desired pattern. Once the design has been worked out, joining the strands together might require special multiple-strand clasp fixtures unless there is a single knotting point or specific design element that will accommodate it.

There is another way of using the smallest size of beads which is naive and in Pakistan it is called Motikaari (an Urdu word for "beadwork"). It is a medium for artistic expression e.g. calligraphy or portraiture by arranging patterns of smallest size of beads of different textures and hues in the length of adjoined strings. Motikaari is a craft as well as an art. The craftsperson/artist who work on motikaari is called 'Motikaar'. The method of making a pattern involves three stages. The first stage in this art form is to prepare a desired pattern on paper. Then it is pasted on a flat panel hardboard sheet. Preparation of hardboard sheet is the second important stage of the work. In the third stage, the beads of different colors are strung together according to the sketched pattern into the thread with the help of needle in the form of independent but parallel columns of strings. (This method discovered by Motikaar Malik Nisar Ahmed of Pakistan is the simplest and easiest so far. Malik Nisar Ahmed claimed to be the creator of this form of bead stringing as he made countless items of Motikaari compared to anybody else in the world. He is the member of Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA).) Finally, after the consummation of the artistic pattern, it is removed from the hardboard so that it can be displayed in the shape of hanging strings of beads.

Among the types of wire used for bead stringing, tiger tail wire is the most common.

title: Bead stringing


text:
Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Several articles should be removed
I think the Vic Viper, Wall Street Crash of 1929, Holy Week, Flourescent Lamp, Marathon Trilogy, Transverse Doppler effect, Quintilis,  and YMCA Camp Manito-wish  articles should be removed from the Astronomy: needs cleanup list. They aren't an astronomy article. Creelbm 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindi "Related Changes" needs attention
While browsing around I stumbled upon the Hindi equivalent of "Related Changes". Even without knowing Hindi, I can tell that it needs formatting attention. I don't know enough about advanced WikiMedia to consider repairing it myself. I don't know that the content is wrong, but can see that the way it is displayed in Firefox 1.5 and IE 7 is wrong. Bill Smith 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

need new category
The article Billy Meier was recently added under Astronomy as needing attention. However, I don't think that is the right category for it. Moreover, there is a large number of articles on UFOs, pseudocscience, and the paranormal that need attention, and I don't see any good category for these. Can someone more knowledgeable about this page create one? Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Beland 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Calabi-Yau dimension
Well, I couldn't find The Calabi-Yau dimension anywhere on this site. Or any strings theories for that matter. Does anybody knows where they are, or just open a category so I may start on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aptspire (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

 * If you type "Calabi-Yau" into the "search" box at the left, it will take you to an article on Calabi-Yau manifolds which may be what you're looking for. -R. S. Shaw 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reform
OK, I think we're finally getting around to cleaning up this page. See Cleanup_process/Cleanup_sorting_proposal. -- Beland 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Todo

 * Portal/Directory - Make sure all of these are listed on PNA in the new format, and that all of them have a link to the PNA subpage, or transclude it. -- Beland 19:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types - Make sure all of the stub categories are listed on PNA in the new format, and that the category intro has a link to the PNA subpage.

What's going on?
I've seen manually edited lists at Wikipedia%3APages_needing_attention/Physics being replaced with bot-generated long lists:.

What's the rationale behind this? Aren't the long lists not available by category query? I've always considered the PNA subpages places for article needing very special attention, for example because the regular tags to mark them are always removed by POV-pushers. If we just duplicate the info already available using categories, where should we put those special cases?

Pjacobi 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It looks like the manually-maintained physics list still exists, but has been moved to WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Most PNA lists were essentially "cleanup" lists by a different name, specific to a particular topic.  Most of them were being neglected, both in that articles needing attention were not being added (resulting in a backlog of over ten thousand articles in the general cleanup queue), and repaired articles were not being removed.  The automated lists will hopefully make it a lot easier for editors to find interesting articles to work on.  This is something which I see as supporting existing WikiProject efforts, and I certainly wouldn't the upgrade to interfere with whatever complementary processes the projects use. We have been transcluding PNA subpages into WikiProject homepages, on the assumption that the projects will find the PNA listings useful, but of course they should feel free to structure themselves as the participants see fit. -- Beland 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Genetics
What about genetics? :) NCursework 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Created Pages needing attention/Genetics, which should get updated on the next go-round. - Beland 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated now. -- Beland 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Instructions?
I can't find directions anywhere for how to use the bot to do this? I'd like to make extensive use for this for WikiProject Biography.... Thanks! plange 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See the Summary section of Cleanup_process/Cleanup_sorting_proposal for an overview. The talk page there may help too.  Only Beland runs the bot, but pages still need to be set up to be processed by the bot.  -R. S. Shaw 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Article.
I found an article that seems incomplete, maybe someone would take a look; []--Rookie Rover 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to note such things; the appropriate thing would be to add to the article text.  BTW, the article was only created 17 minutes before you posted your comment here; within hours it had been substantially expanded beyond what you saw.  -R. S. Shaw 02:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject California
What do I need to do to get a page created for Category:California so that it can be used by the California WikiProject? Blank Verse 08:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * As it says at the top of the project page, see Cleanup sorting for how this is done. If you can't do it all yourself, you might be able to get someone to do some of it, but you'd need to at least figure out the list of relevant categories.  For the latter, you'd need to understand at least the Using categories for sorting and Identifying articles for listing sections. There's already a Pages needing attention/United States page, but obviously this is not optimal for your purposes.  -R. S. Shaw 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that I've done all the basics, including creating Pages needing attention/California and putting it on my watchlist. Do you know when the bot is scheduled to run again? Blank Verse 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * That's the biggest problem with this bot-based approach: only a single user, the bot-meister User:Beland, can run the update, and Beland seems to be a very busy person. The last run was 2 Nov, and 22 July before that; I don't know when the next will be.  Perhaps Beland can be encouraged.
 * One further thing needed is to inform the bot-meister of the new page(s); for California, I've now done that. When the page is processed it should probably also be linked into the hierarchy of pages under Pages needing attention. -R. S. Shaw 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It also looks like the bot runs are dependent upon database dumps, which are pretty irregular. The bot runs probably don't need to be done more than once per quarter, except, perhaps, for categories with very active WikiProjects.

 * I do plan to add the page to Pages needing attention once the bot has updated it, as well as adding it to the California WikiProject (although I won't be transcluding it, like I've seen one WikiProject do--that's how I found out about this project in the first place). Blank Verse 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrarily-named new topic
Meanwhile, Portal:Current Events/United States needs some truly dedicated editors here. For goodness, can someone get there? This... after all... is Pages needing attention. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Make that Portal:Current events/United States. Blasted capitalization.~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused about portal page
Is there a reason why the Portal:Architecture page is still listed as needing attention? It's listed as a featured portal.

Sorry, forgot the timestamp; I'm new here :-)

GordonJTaylor 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It doesn't need attention; it is listed under "Portals" on Pages needing attention/Architecture because it is one of the pages defining the subject area of "Architecture". The pages needing attention are listed lower down, starting at "Cleanup needed (updated by bot)".  It would be an improvement to make this distinction clear on each PNA page so that editors new to the layout aren't misled as you were. -R. S. Shaw 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Special:Recentchanges link
Could someone remove the link to this from the Special:Recentchanges page? Plrk (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

out of date
The lists in this project page seem out of date--the classification of articles here do not match the articles themselves. Can someone run an update process periodically? Hmains (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity...?
How is this article inactive? I may be new, but I feel that articles like this are incredibly important. Should a WikiProject be set up to help keep this article running? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguykalem (talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

?
I found this page from a link on my talk page, "Pages needing attention". But it's inactive! Is there somewhere else where "pages needing attention" can be found? IsambardBrunel (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, its seven years sinvce you posted this, and there is still an inactive title on it. Someone should work on bringing it back I Am Chaos (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Event mislabeled as mass shooting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Saanich_shooting 2001:569:6FEE:21B0:0:54:2CB1:6A01 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention