text:
Talk:Disney Channel/Archive 1

'This page is to discuss Disney Channel, not the channel itself. Only for the WP page.'

Out of order
Disney Channel Shows are out of order. Can someone rearange the Phil of the Future episodes so they are in order, and the Hannah Montana episodes are still confusing me.

Playhouse Disney Page
The Playhouse Disney Page is off to a good start but it has no history and is just a list of programs so...if anyone could help...:)

Explaining Revert
The fact that this entity is owned by the Walt Disney Company is mentioned in the article and in the article's catigorization. Therefore, the items added to the see also section are unnecessary. Gentgeen 06:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

there was a movie in the late 80s/ early 90s that was about tom sawyer and huck finn. it wasnt the one with elijish wood either. it was with a few no name stars in it and i loved it. i cant find it anywhere...there was a scene in the beginning of it where tom and huck help people cheat in a card game by hiding in the attic and looking at other players cards through holes in the ceiling....i dont know if that rings any bells but it was an awesome flick and i cant find it anywhere and i know i saw it on the disney channel as a kid....if anyone knows anything about it email me @ jdasla@aol.com

thank you

Hey, I'm trying to find some information on something that just popped into my head but I'm not so sure about it and I was wondering if anyone older than me (or with a better memory) might be able to help. When I was younger, I'm not sure how young exactly, but it was somewhere in the early 90s, I seem to remember there being a show on the Disney Channel that was... a live action Alice in Wonderland? I'm not really sure. It was a series, and I remember it being Alice in Wonderland, but I could be wrong... I just know that I loved it very much and I don't remember anything about it. If it really was an Alice show, I would love to know more information as I am going through a little Alice phase right now and searching for information on Alice and different versions of it. If you know anything about it, please e-mail me at hermionebubble@aol.com and help me out! Thanks! <3 Shivers

Hi! Being a fan of the old Disney Channel stuff, I have the answers to your questions right here.
 * 1) The movie described in the first comment is Tom and Huck from 1995, starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas.
 * 2) Adventures in Wonderland was the name of the show (I used to love it!).

Well, anyway, I'm listing shows for a new category in progress (see shows like DuckTales and Even Stevens for examples) that will partly help to revive the memory of the better channel of the past.

I'll let you know when the new category is created. See you all soon! --Slgrandson 19:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)--

Disney Channel Original Movies
Apparently some editors for this page consider it a significant distinction that in 1997, Disney Channel started labeling its original movies as "Disney Channel Original Movies" (DCOMs). Thus, the list of the 45 original movies made for the channel from 1983 to 1997 (Tiger Town, Gone Are the Dayes, and many others) have been deleted from this page because they were not referred to as DCOMs. Does it make a major difference that the DCOM phrase is used to refer to post-1997 movies, or is this just a technicality? --Metropolitan90 03:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the usage of the term probably would've applied to earlier movies, had the term have been around then. Therefore, the 1983-1996 TV movies that premiered on the Disney Channel should also be listed, but perhaps they should be in a different list. --Nintendo Maximus

DCOM Fraud
Entry Data 9.12.05>> = There's someone on here that keeps making horrible pages for DCOM. Like the last two movies listed. I would fix them and all, but it's taking up valuable time. Getting the posters, info, cast, and the box at the bottom. The other pages were good though. It's the first time in months somebody besides me did some pages. The TWITCHES page was the worse. I've never seen such trash. I know I wasn't such hot stuff when I started out but at least I could spell. (no offense to fraud) --User:Allenk893--

'Promo logo'
I've copied this from Image talk:Disneyident.jpg:

What does a 'promo logo' mean? It doesn't fit in with any of the other logos on the Disney Channel page...isn't it one of the idents used by the Disney Channel UK when they launched? BillyH 16:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Response: By 'Promo', what I mean is that it was used temporarily by Disney Channel during 1995. Probably to promote a happy halloween perhaps.

User:Allenk893 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Disney Channel Changes
I don't know what to do. Most of these pages were worked hard by everyone. Why are the movie pages being erased? They've been there for months. Especially the Twitches page. Since it was a wreck at first, I simply trie to fix it by adding a summarization,cast, and external links. As usual. I don't know why whoever tried to erase it. It was better than the previous deleted ones.

User:Allenk893 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Brother, I agree. Something is wrong with Disney Channel. We don't need "Lizzie McGuire" or "Kim Possible". NO! Bring us back to the good old days when we could look forward to the Mickey Mouse Club or Adventures in Wonderland! Stop messing with our Disney Channel!

Logos
Is it really necessary to show every Disney Channel logo ever used? I say show the current one, maybe the original one, and that's it. tregoweth 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

BRING THE 80's LOGOS BACK! It's a reminder of what Disney Channel once was (and hopefully will be again someday).

Fate of Jetix
What's going on with Jetix???? Is it REALLY moving to Disney Channel? Will this chaos ever stop??????

What is Disney thinking????
As you may not know, I am a silent advocate for this network (The Disney Channel). I grew up with the old logo (when free previews were on). Mom taped movies from the channel when they had these previews. When Disney changed its logo the first time, I thought it was OK. When they took away some great shows, I didn't like it as much. But NOW, Disney Channel's going to have actual COMMERCIALS! That's the dumbest thing I've EVER heard! Forgive me for shouting but: WHAT IS DISNEY THINKING???????? What are they doing to itself????? Does it have to be like every kids channel in the world? What is going on? 71.111.209.99 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Are they Reeally going to have real commercials that advertise things that are not advertising disney channel stuff? Do you know when they are going to start showing real commercials? I wish they would not play playhouse disney channel, I think they should make a new channel for that. They should do that. --Sirideroo

Jetix and Commercials
I can't believe there will be commercials. Jetix on Disney? What the heck? This is so wrong.

I can't believe it either. What happened to the carefree days of the early 90's Disney Channel? Our network is corrupted! 71.111.209.99 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I read that only WITCH will be on Disney Channel. That's a relief. I never liked that show anyway. 71.111.209.99 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like our troubles may be over. ALL RIGHT! 71.111.209.99 12:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. I really don't like W.I.T.C.H though. I guess it's a small price to pay. I wish they would make a large variety of shows before repeating them. Like have shows air on certain days at certain times so all can be seen. Why have the same shows on abc, disney, Toon disney, and abc family?

Disney is funny like that. They figure the more shows they air on different networks, the more money they get. It all boils down to the almighty dollar. Would Walt Disney (bless his soul) want it that way? 206.211.69.253 12:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

--67.0.199.186 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Boo== PLAYHOUSE DISNEY PAGE ==

If anyone could contribute and build up the Playhouse Disney Page that would be cool

I know we would have more things to learn from Disney channel page, also we would learn alot more about the history of Disney from this page, and alot more interesting things we never knew!

The Campaign to Save Disney Shows
Does this section belong in Wikipedia? I think it was just inserted as part of the "Save Phil of the Future" campaign. The IP who added it (64.231.72.50), has contributed almost exclusively to the "The Campaign to Save Disney Shows" section of this article and Phil of the Future (and specifically the "The Campaign to Save Phil of the Future" section). His/her only other contribution was inserting negative (and false), now removed information in Hannah Montana, the show which many feel is POTF's replacement. Does anyone else see any reason why this section should or should not be removed or edited, or links to the campaign's website deleted? Gaagaagiw 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Haversham Hall is the show that is replacing Phil, not Hannah Montana. --Sirideroo

Hannah Montana favority
Do not add people to the Circle of stars that have not even sung a song with them. Someone added Jason Earles, Miley Cyrus, Emily Osment, and Mitchel Musso to the circle of stars. Please do not do this again!!

Where did Future Disney on Disney Channel Page Go?
Who Deleted the part in the page Disney Channel Page go that was entiled Future Disney? Where it showed the new shows coming out nad The Movies. Well Somone Answer me soon please. --Sirideroo
 * This is not a blog, therefore it was deleted.82.155.175.214 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Buzz Lightyear and Timon and Pumbaa
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command and Timon and Pumbaa are now back on disney at 12:30 and 1:00. So Don't Delete them from Disney Channel today.

WHo changed it
Who changed the names of the sections, these new ones suck —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.110.50.1 (talk • contribs). --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I did it. The old ones were WAAAY bad. - Tracker  TV  03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoogs and Money
You barely see any Non disney commercials, how does this channel make any money? Also Zoogs should be explained more. Also, what happened to the Zoogs? They took them off Disney.

I believe that happened when Disney changed logos. I would assume that given the fact that there are no Zoog traces in the channel today.

I do not know how Disney makes money, but the ABC and ESPN commercials help, most likely. I don't even know why they don't have commercials: I think it's because of the controversy with junk food sales. - Tracker  TV  23:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
Shouldn't there be a section that describes the criticism that Disney Channel gets?

Classic Disney Channel
I recall, around 2004, at the same time VH-1 Mega Hits used to be on digital cable, that there were two very-low tier Disney digital stations. One was showing nothing but old cartoons, and the other was showing nothing but old TV shows and movies. I remember the name of one channel to be Classic Disney or Disney Classic, but I can't remember the other one. These channels were on the Cox Cable system in Las Vegas, NV. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Disney Afternoon was NOT on the Disney channel
Simple. The Disney Afternoon was syndicated, not on the Disney channel. I'm not sure who is going around with this misinformation but they are obviously more committed to spreading misinformation than i am in fixing it. But i did want to point it out if someone wants to get to the bottom of it.Wickedjacob (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Disney Channel/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Boy Meets World (Disney)

This article isn't needed. -- Zoe

Please explain why. What is presently here is a stub, & it needs more content, but are there some television shows that deserve an entry & others that do not? If so, what is the criteria? (I'm asking this to start a discussion: I have no opinion about this show either way -- I'm not sure if I have even seen an episode.) -- llywrch 04:15 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

I explained at Disney Channel. Boy Meets World is the same show, originally a Disney production which aired on ABC, which is owned by Disney. What is now airing on the Disney Channel is the show's reruns. -- Zoe

 * A link to your explanation at Talk:Disney Channel would have avoided my question. -- llywrch 05:05 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Boy Meets World (Disney)


text:
English numerals

English number words include numerals and various words derived from them, as well as a large number of words borrowed from other languages.

Cardinal numbers
Cardinal numbers refer to the size of a group. In English, these words are numerals.

If a number is in the range 21 to 99, and the second digit is not zero, the number is typically written as two words separated by a hyphen.

In English, the hundreds are perfectly regular, except that the word hundred remains in its singular form regardless of the number preceding it.

So too are the thousands, with the number of thousands followed by the word "thousand". For the number one thousand it may be written 1 000 or 1000 or 1,000, for larger numbers they are written for example 10 000 or 10,000 for ease of human reading. European languages that use the comma as a decimal separator may correspondingly use the period as a thousands separator. As a result, some style guides recommend avoidance of the comma as either separator and only to use the period (.) as a decimal placement. Thus a half would be written 0.5 in decimal, base ten notation, and fifty thousand as 50 000, and not 50.000 nor 50,000 nor 50000.

In American usage, four-digit numbers are often named using multiples of "hundred" and combined with tens and ones: "eleven hundred three", "twelve hundred twenty-five", "forty-seven hundred forty-two", or "ninety-nine hundred ninety-nine". In British usage, this style is common for multiples of 100 between 1,000 and 2,000 (e.g. 1,500 as "fifteen hundred") but not for higher numbers.

Americans may pronounce four-digit numbers with non-zero tens and ones as pairs of two-digit numbers without saying "hundred" and inserting "oh" for zero tens: "twenty-six fifty-nine" or "forty-one oh five". This usage probably evolved from the distinctive usage for years; "nineteen-eighty-one", or from four-digit numbers used in the American telephone numbering system which were originally two letters followed by a number followed by a four-digit number, later by a three-digit number followed by the four-digit number. It is avoided for numbers less than 2500 if the context may mean confusion with time of day: "ten ten" or "twelve oh four".

Intermediate numbers are read differently depending on their use. Their typical naming occurs when the numbers are used for counting. Another way is for when they are used as labels. The second column method is used much more often in American English than British English. The third column is used in British English but rarely in American English (although the use of the second and third columns is not necessarily directly interchangeable between the two regional variants). In other words, British English and American English can seemingly agree, but it depends on a specific situation (in this example, bus numbers).

Note: When a cheque (or check) is written, the number 100 is always written "one hundred". It is never "a hundred".

In American English, many students are taught not to use the word and anywhere in the whole part of a number, so it is not used before the tens and ones. It is instead used as a verbal delimiter when dealing with compound numbers. Thus, instead of "three hundred and seventy-three", "three hundred seventy-three" would be said. Despite this rule, some Americans use the and in reading numbers containing tens and ones as an alternative variant.

Very large numbers
For numbers above a million, three main systems name numbers in English (for the use of prefixes such as kilo- for a thousand, mega- for a million, milli- for a thousandth, etc. see SI units):
 * the long scale (formerly used in British English but now less so) designates a system of numeric names in which a thousand million is called a milliard, and billion is used for a million million. This system is still used in several other European languages.
 * the short scale (always used in American English and almost invariably in British English) designates a system of numeric names in which a thousand million is called a billion, and the word milliard is not used.
 * the Indian numbering system, used widely in Indian subcontinent.

Many people have no direct experience of manipulating numbers this large, and many non-American readers may interpret billion as 1012 (even if they are young enough to have been taught otherwise at school); moreover, usage of the "long" billion is standard in some non-English speaking countries. For these reasons, defining the word may be advisable when writing for the public.

The numbers past one trillion in the short scale, in ascending powers of 1000, are as follows: quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, decillion, undecillion, duodecillion, tredecillion, quattuordecillion, quindecillion, sexdecillion, septendecillion, octodecillion, novemdecillion and vigintillion (which is 10 to the 63rd power, or a one followed by 63 zeros). The highest number in this series listed in modern dictionaries is centillion, which is 10 to the 303rd power. The interim powers of one thousand between vigintillion and centillion do not have standardized names, nor do any higher powers, but there are many ad hoc extensions in use. The highest number listed in Robert Munafo's table of such unofficial names is milli-millillion, which was coined as a name for 10 to the 3,000,003rd power.

The googolplex was often cited as the largest named number in English. If a googol is ten to the one hundredth power, then a googolplex is one followed by a googol of zeros (that is, ten to the power of a googol). There is the coinage, of very little use, of ten to the googolplex power, of the word googolplexplex.

The terms arab, kharab, padm and shankh are more commonly found in old books on Indian mathematics.

Here are some approximate composite large numbers in American English:

Often, large numbers are written with (preferably non-breaking) half-spaces or thin spaces separating the thousands (and, sometimes, with normal spaces or apostrophes) instead of commas—to ensure that confusion is not caused in countries where a decimal comma is used. Thus, a million is often written 1 000 000. In some areas, a point (. or ·) may also be used as a thousands separator, but then the decimal separator must be a comma. In English the point (.) is used as the decimal separator, and the comma as the thousands separator.

Special names
Some numbers have special names in addition to their regular names, most depending on context.

 * 0:
 * zero: formal scientific usage
 * nought: mostly British usage, common in science to refer to subscript 0 indicating an initial state
 * naught: archaic term for nothingness, which may or may not be equivalent to the number; mostly American usage, old-fashioned spelling of nought
 * aught: proscribed but still occasionally used when a digit is 0 (as in "thirty-aught-six", the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge and by association guns that fire it). Aughts also refers to the decade of 2000–2009 in American English.
 * oh: used when spelling numbers (like telephone, bank account, bus line [British: bus route]) but can cause confusion with the letter o if reading a mix of numbers and letters
 * nil: in general sport scores, British usage ("The score is two–nil.")
 * nothing: in general sport scores, American usage ("The score is two–nothing.")
 * null: to an object or idea related to nothingness. The 0th aleph number ($$\aleph_0$$) is pronounced "aleph-null".
 * love: in tennis, badminton, squash and similar sports (origin disputed, said by the Oxford English Dictionary to be from the idea that when one does a thing "for love", that is for no monetary gain, the word "love" implies "nothing". The previously held belief that it originated from l'œuf, due to its shape, is no longer widely accepted)
 * zilch, nada (from Spanish), zip: used informally when stressing nothingness; this is true especially in combination with one another ("You know nothing—zero, zip, nada, zilch!"); American usage
 * nix: also used as a verb; mostly American usage
 * cypher / cipher: archaic, from French chiffre, in turn from Arabic sifr, meaning zero
 * goose egg (informal)
 * duck (used in cricket when a batsman is dismissed without scoring)
 * blank the half of a domino tile with no pips
 * 1:
 * ace in certain sports and games, as in tennis or golf, indicating success with one stroke, and the face of a die, playing card or domino half with one pip
 * birdie in golf denotes one stroke less than par, and bogey, one stroke more than par
 * solo
 * unit
 * linear the degree of a polynomial is 1; also for explicitly denoting the first power of a unit: linear metre
 * unity in mathematics
 * protagonist first actor in theatre of Ancient Greece, similarly Proto-Isaiah and proton
 * 2:
 * couple
 * brace, from Old French "arms" (the plural of arm), as in "what can be held in two arms".
 * pair
 * deuce the face of a die, playing card or domino half with two pips
 * eagle in golf denotes two strokes less than par
 * duo
 * quadratic the degree of a polynomial is 2
 * also square or squared for denoting the second power of a unit: square metre or metre squared
 * penultimate, second from the end
 * deuteragonist second actor in theatre of Ancient Greece, similarly Deutero-Isaiah and deuteron
 * 3:
 * trey the face of a die or playing card with three pips, a three-point field goal in basketball, nickname for the third carrier of the same personal name in a family
 * trio
 * trips: three-of-a-kind in a poker hand. a player has three cards with the same numerical value
 * cubic the degree of a polynomial is 3
 * also cube or cubed for denoting the third power of a unit: cubic metre or metre cubed
 * albatross in golf denotes three strokes less than par. Sometimes called double eagle
 * hat-trick or hat trick: achievement of three feats in sport or other contexts
 * antepenultimate third from the end
 * tritagonist third actor in theatre of Ancient Greece, similarly Trito-Isaiah and triton
 * turkey in bowling, three consecutive strikes
 * 4:
 * cater: (rare) the face of a die or playing card with four pips
 * quartet
 * quartic or biquadratic the degree of a polynomial is 4
 * quad (short for quadruple or the like) several specialized sets of four, such as four of a kind in poker, a carburetor with four inputs, etc.,
 * condor in golf denotes four strokes less than par
 * preantepenultimate fourth from the end
 * 5:
 * cinque or cinq (rare) the face of a die or playing card with five pips
 * quintet
 * nickel (informal American, from the value of the five-cent US nickel, but applied in non-monetary references)
 * quintic the degree of a polynomial is 5
 * quint (short for quintuplet or the like) several specialized sets of five, such as quintuplets, etc.
 * 6:
 * half a dozen
 * sice (rare) the face of a die or playing card with six pips
 * sextet
 * sextic or hectic the degree of a polynomial is 6
 * 7:
 * septet
 * septic or heptic the degree of a polynomial is 7
 * 8:
 * octet
 * 9:
 * nonet
 * 10:
 * dime (informal American, from the value of the ten-cent US dime, but applied in non-monetary references)
 * decet
 * decade, used for years but also other groups of 10 as in rosary prayers or Braille symbols
 * 11: a banker's dozen
 * 12: a dozen (first power of the duodecimal base), used mostly in commerce
 * 13: a baker's dozen
 * 20: a score (first power of the vigesimal base), nowadays archaic; famously used in the opening of the Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago..." The Number of the Beast in the King James Bible is rendered "Six hundred threescore and six". Also in The Book of Common Prayer, Psalm 90 as used in the Burial Service—"The days of our age are threescore years and ten; ...."
 * 25: a pony is a bet of £25 in British betting slang.
 * 50: half-century, literally half of a hundred, usually used in cricket scores.
 * 55: double-nickel (informal American)
 * 60: a shock: historical commercial count, described as "three scores".
 * 100:
 * A century, also used in cricket scores and in cycling for 100 miles.
 * A ton, in Commonwealth English, the speed of 100 mph or 100 km/h.
 * A small hundred or short hundred (archaic, see 120 below)
 * 120:
 * A great hundred or long hundred (twelve tens; as opposed to the small hundred, i.e. 100 or ten tens), also called small gross (ten dozens), both archaic
 * Also sometimes referred to as duodecimal hundred, although that could literally also mean 144, which is twelve squared
 * 144: a gross (a dozen dozens, second power of the duodecimal base), used mostly in commerce
 * 500:
 * a ream, usually of paper.
 * a monkey is a bet of £500 in British betting slang.
 * 1000:
 * a grand, colloquially used especially when referring to money, also in fractions and multiples, e.g. half a grand, two grand, etc. Grand can also be shortened to "G" in many cases.
 * K, originally from the abbreviation of kilo-, e.g. "He only makes $20K a year."
 * Millennium (plural: millennia), a period of one thousand years.
 * kilo- (Greek for "one thousand"), a decimal unit prefix in the Metric system denoting multiplication by "one thousand". For example: 1 kilometre = 1000 metres.
 * 1728: a great gross (a dozen gross, third power of the duodecimal base), used historically in commerce
 * 10,000: a myriad (a hundred hundred), commonly used in the sense of an indefinite very high number
 * 100,000: a lakh (a hundred thousand), in Indian English
 * 10,000,000: a crore (a hundred lakh), in Indian English and written as 100,00,000.
 * 10100: googol (1 followed by 100 zeros), used in mathematics
 * 10googol: googolplex (1 followed by a googol of zeros)
 * 10googolplex: googolplexplex (1 followed by a googolplex of zeros)

Combinations of numbers in most sports scores are read as in the following examples:
 * 1–0   British English: one-nil; American English: one-nothing, one-zip, or one-zero
 * 0–0   British English: nil-nil or  nil all; American English: zero-zero or nothing-nothing, (occasionally scoreless or no score)
 * 2–2   two-two or two all; American English also twos, two to two, even at two, or two up.

Naming conventions of Tennis scores (and related sports) are different from other sports.

The centuries of Italian culture have names in English borrowed from Italian:
 * duecento "(one thousand and) two hundred" for the years 1200 to 1299, or approximately 13th century
 * trecento 14th century
 * quattrocento 15th century
 * cinquecento 16th century
 * seicento 17th century
 * settecento 18th century
 * ottocento 19th century
 * novecento 20th century
 * ventesimo 21st century

When reading numbers in a sequence, such as a telephone or serial number, British people will usually use the terms double followed by the repeated number. Hence 007 is double oh seven. Exceptions are the emergency telephone number 999, which is always nine nine nine and the apocalyptic "Number of the Beast", which is always six six six. In the US, 911 (the US emergency telephone number) is usually read nine one one, while 9/11 (in reference to the September 11, 2001, attacks) is usually read nine eleven.

Multiplicative adverbs and adjectives
A few numbers have specialised multiplicative numbers (adverbs), also called adverbial numbers, which express how many times some event happens:

Compare these specialist multiplicative numbers to express how many times some thing exists (adjectives):

English also has some multipliers and distributive numbers, such as singly.

Other examples are given in the Specialist Numbers.

Negative numbers
The name of a negative number is the name of the corresponding positive number preceded by "minus" or (American English) "negative". Thus −5.2 is "minus five point two" or "negative five point two". For temperatures, North Americans colloquially say "below"—short for "below zero"—so a temperature of −5° is "five below" (in contrast, for example, to "two above" for 2°). This is occasionally used for emphasis when referring to several temperatures or ranges both positive and negative. This is particularly common in Canada where the use of Celsius in weather forecasting means that temperatures can regularly drift above and below zero at certain times of year.

Ordinal numbers
Ordinal numbers refer to a position (also called index or rank) in a sequence. Common ordinals include: Zeroth only has a meaning when counting starts with zero, which happens in a mathematical or computer science context. Ordinal numbers predate the 0|invention of zero and positional notation.

Ordinal numbers such as 21st, 33rd, etc., are formed by combining a cardinal ten with an ordinal unit. Higher ordinals are not often written in words, unless they are round numbers (thousandth, millionth, billionth). They are written with digits and letters as described below. Some rules should be borne in mind.
 * The suffixes -th, -st, -nd and -rd are occasionally written superscript above the number itself.
 * If the tens digit of a number is 1, then "th" is written after the number. For example: 13th, 19th, 112th, 9,311th.
 * If the tens digit is not equal to 1, then the following table could be used:
 * For example: 2nd, 7th, 20th, 23rd, 52nd, 135th, 301st.

These ordinal abbreviations are actually hybrid contractions of a numeral and a word. 1st is "1" + "st" from "first". Similarly, "nd" is used for "second" and "rd" for "third". In the legal field and in some older publications, the ordinal abbreviation for "second" and "third" is simply "d".
 * For example: 42d, 33d, 23d.

NB: "D" still often denotes "second" and "third" in the numeric designations of units in the US armed forces, for example, 533d Squadron, and in legal citations for the second and third series of case reporters.

Dates
There are a number of ways to read years. The following table offers a list of valid pronunciations and alternate pronunciations for any given year of the Gregorian calendar and Julian calendar.

Twelve thirty-four would be the norm on both sides of the Atlantic for the year 1234. The years 2000 to 2009 are most often read as two thousand, two thousand (and) one and the like by both British and American speakers. For years after 2009, twenty eleven, twenty fourteen, etc. are more common, even in years earlier than 2009 BC/BCE. Likewise, the years after 1009 (until 1099) are also read in the same manner (e.g. 1015 is either ten fifteen or, rarely, one thousand fifteen). Some Britons read years within the 1000s to 9000s BC/BCE in the American manner, that is, 1234 BC is read as twelve (hundred and) thirty-four BC, while 2400 BC can be read as either two thousand four hundred or twenty four hundred BC.

Collective numbers
Collective numbers are numbers that refer to a group of a specific size. Words like "pair" and "dozen" are common in English, though most are formally derived from Greek and Latin numerals, as follows:

Fractions and decimals
Numbers used to denote the denominator of a fraction are known linguistically as "partitive numerals". In spoken English, ordinal numerals and partitive numerals are identical with a few exceptions. Thus "fifth" can mean the element between fourth and sixth, or the fraction created by dividing the unit into five pieces. When used as a partitive numeral, these forms can be pluralized: one seventh, two sevenths. The sole exceptions to this rule are division by one, two, and sometimes four: "first" and "second" cannot be used for a fraction with a denominator of one or two. Instead, "whole" and "half" (plural "halves") are used. For a fraction with a denominator of four, either "fourth" or "quarter" may be used.

Here are some common English fractions, or partitive numerals: Alternatively, and for greater numbers, one may say for $1/2$ "one over two", for $5/8$ "five over eight", and so on. This "over" form is also widely used in mathematics.

Fractions together with an integer are read as follows:

 * $1 1/2$ is "one and a half"
 * $6 1/4$ is "six and a quarter"
 * $7 5/8$ is "seven and five eighths"

A space is placed to mark the boundary between the whole number and the fraction part unless superscripts and subscripts are used; for example:

 * 9 1/2

Numbers with a decimal point may be read as a cardinal number, then "and", then another cardinal number followed by an indication of the significance of the second cardinal number (mainly U.S.); or as a cardinal number, followed by "point", and then by the digits of the fractional part. The indication of significance takes the form of the denominator of the fraction indicating division by the smallest power of ten larger than the second cardinal. This is modified when the first cardinal is zero, in which case neither the zero nor the "and" is pronounced, but the zero is optional in the "point" form of the fraction.

Some American and Canadian schools teach students to pronounce decimaly written fractions (for example, .5) as though they were longhand fractions (five tenths), such as thirteen and seven tenths for 13.7. This formality is often dropped in common speech and is steadily disappearing in instruction in mathematics and science as well as in international American schools. In the U.K., and among most North Americans, 13.7 would be read thirteen point seven.

For example:

 * 0.002 is "point zero zero two", "point oh oh two", "nought point zero zero two", etc.; or "two thousandths" (U.S., occasionally)
 * 3.1416 is "three point one four one six"
 * 99.3 is "ninety-nine point three"; or "ninety-nine and three tenths" (U.S., occasionally).

In English the decimal point was originally printed in the center of the line (0·002), but with the advent of the typewriter it was placed at the bottom of the line, so that a single key could be used as a full stop/period and as a decimal point. In many non-English languages a full-stop/period at the bottom of the line is used as a thousands separator with a comma being used as the decimal point.

Whether or not digits or words are used
With few exceptions, most grammatical texts rule that the numbers zero to nine inclusive should be "written out" – instead of "1" and "2", one would write "one" and "two".

 * Example: "I have two apples." (Preferred)
 * Example: "I have 2 apples."

After "nine", one can head straight back into the 10, 11, 12, etc., although some write out the numbers until "twelve".
 * Example: "I have 28 grapes." (Preferred)
 * Example: "I have twenty-eight grapes."

Another common usage is to write out any number that can be expressed as one or two words, and use figures otherwise.

 * Examples:
 * "There are six million dogs." (Preferred)
 * "There are 6,000,000 dogs."
 * "That is one hundred and twenty-five oranges." (British English)
 * "That is one hundred twenty-five oranges." (US-American English)
 * "That is 125 oranges." (Preferred)

Numbers at the beginning of a sentence should also be written out, or the sentence rephrased.

The above rules are not always followed. In literature, larger numbers might be spelled out. On the other hand, digits might be more commonly used in technical or financial articles, where many figures are discussed. In particular, the two different forms should not be used for figures that serve the same purpose; for example, it is inelegant to write, "Between day twelve and day 15 of the study, the population doubled."

Empty numbers

Colloquial English's small vocabulary of empty numbers can be employed when there is uncertainty as to the precise number to use, but it is desirable to define a general range: specifically, the terms "umpteen", "umpty", and "zillion". These are derived etymologically from the range affixes:
 * "-teen" (designating the range as being between 13 and 19 inclusive)
 * "-ty" (designating the range as being between 20 and 90 inclusive)
 * "-illion" (designating the range as being above 1,000,000; or, more generally, as being extremely large).

The prefix "ump-" is added to the first two suffixes to produce the empty numbers "umpteen" and "umpty": it is of uncertain origin. A noticeable absence of an empty number is in the hundreds range.

Usage of empty numbers:
 * The word "umpteen" may be used as an adjective, as in "I had to go to umpteen stores to find shoes that fit." It can also be used to modify a larger number, usually "million", as in "Umpteen million people watched the show; but they still cancelled it."
 * "Umpty" is not in common usage. It can appear in the form "umpty-one" (paralleling the usage in such numbers as "twenty-one"), as in "There are umpty-one ways to do it wrong." "Umpty-ump" is also heard, though "ump" is never used by itself.
 * The word "zillion" may be used as an adjective, modifying a noun. The noun phrase normally contains the indefinite article "a", as in "There must be a zillion pages on the World Wide Web."
 * The plural "zillions" designates a number indefinitely larger than "millions" or "billions". In this case, the construction is parallel to the one for "millions" or "billions", with the number used as a plural count noun, followed by a prepositional phrase with "of", as in "There are zillions of grains of sand on the beaches of the world."
 * Empty numbers are sometimes made up, with obvious meaning: "squillions" is obviously an empty, but very large, number; a "squintillionth" would be a very small number.
 * Some empty numbers may be modified by actual numbers, such as "four zillion", and are used for jest, exaggeration, or to relate abstractly to actual numbers.
 * Empty numbers are colloquial, and primarily used in oral speech or informal contexts. They are inappropriate in formal or scholarly usage.

See also Placeholder name.

title: English numerals


text:
Talk:Victor Emmanuel III

Religion
The article is contradictory.Was he a Roman Catholic or an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.3.178 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I do not see any support for the atheism, so maybe it is time to remove him from cathegory "Italian atheists"? It has been bothering me since I first noticed. Knize.Vladivoj (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I think, though I am open to correction here, that Victorio Emanuele was proclaimed 'Emperor of Abbysinia' rather than calling the country Ethiopia, which the overthrown and arguably legitimate emperor, Haile Selassie, called it in his address to the League of Nations. (It also called its war the Ethiopian War. It is something I am going to double-check but as it is mentioned by that title in a textbook in front of me, If anyone else has any more information on the point, or can definitively establish by what name the state was called in Victorio Emanuele's title, by all means make whatever adaptions necessary. JTD 04:36 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Abissinia and Etiopia, in Italian, are synonimous. Simply.

 * Your idea that Victor Emmanuel should have abdicated in 1943, could be common to many people. But it is a conjecture, a speculation, not a historical fact, therefore it cannot hide behind the article as if it was a fact of general consensus. And against this pretendedly preferable vision, there is in fact the consideration that giving the Crown to his son in that precise moment, given the special context, the overwhelming confusion, the many foreign troops on the national territory, the little and not objective information available (and we could go on for hours...), he would have allowed the general impression that monarchy was already over. It would have irrevertibly separated Italians from their kings. So, from a different point of view, it is said instead that V.E. was wise in keeping on the throne, despite our eventual objections.
 * I believe the article will soon reflect, in the usual Wikipedia's style, the consideration of the two interpretations, not assuming our (maybe emotional) vision as the main historical one.
 * Once again I have to recall that if the major source about Italian kings is Mack Smith, it would be quite fair to mention that he had personal positions, which are clearly intelligible in his works (which are however of essential importance in the study of that epoque). For the same reason, we, who don't even are Mack Smith, could as well keep somehow more neutral on these arguments. The article, as now it is, shows a certain judgment on the fellow, especially in the last paragraphs. G

Abbysinia and Ethiopia may be the same, but that is irrelevant. We need in reference to the King's title to use the exact formal word used, so that it is 100% accurate. JTD 02:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

"Imperatore d'Etiopia". Called "Imperatore d'Abissinia" by Fascists with the same formal relevance and value.G

If Ethiopia was the version used in the formal title then that is the one that should be used.

As regarding the failure of Victor Emmanuel to abdicate in 1943, it is not merely the general opinion of historians, politicians and others, but even of many members of the Royal Family, that he made a monstrous misjudgment in not abdicating there and then. The monarchy's only hope of survival was in not having it tainted by association with the fascist regime. Victor Emmanuel was universally so tainted; in the eyes of the public, of politicians, of world leaders, of the Allies and of the anti-fascist forces. Every time his name was mentioned, that link between Crown and fascism was re-inforced. The sooner he was off the stage permanently so to speak, the sooner the post-fascist monarchy could evolve. If Umberto had had three years as king to break those links, at that stage largely psychological in the eyes of others, there is little doubt but that an additional 1million, maybe up to three million, who voted for the republic in 1946 would have voted for the monarchy instead. Victor Emmanuel's misjudgment left the Crown in an almost impossible state in 1946. If he was still king, and a pro-monarchy vote meant keeping Victor Emmanuel on the throne, then perhaps another couple million potential pro-monarchist voters would either have voted against the monarchy or abstained. But by abdicating on the eve of the referendum, he undid all of Umberto's good work by reminding people of the one thing Italian monarchists hoped people were forgetting, the House of Savoy's association with Mussolini.

Politicians know all too well that phenomenon. That's why Trent Lott was axed as Majority Leader in the US Senate, because no matter how non-rascist he was (and that is debatable), everytime he'd appear as the public face of US republicanism, he'd remind people of the one thing the party desparately didn't want people to remember; its poor record on race. That's why Thatcher's ex-ministers were all axed from front-line politics immediately by their party, why Albert Reynolds quit immediately as Fianna Fáil leader in 1994, why Jospin quit public life immediately after his French presidential election defeat, etc etc. Because they knew that for their party to regain credibility, they had to go and go immediately, to allow its image to change under a less tainted successor. Victor Emmanuel's blunder in not following that basic rule of image management cost the Savoy dynasty the throne. It was monumentally stupid in the extreme, and members of the Royal Household and the Royal Family knew it. As long as he was king, the Family would remain tainted. A man who took plenty of unwise decisions, having over his toleration of fascism almost destroyed his country, his failure to abdicate destroyed the monarchy. JTD 03:28 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Tantris's complaints
...if the major source about Italian kings is Mack Smith...

Whoever Mack Smith may be, he may be a "major source on Italian Kings" to those who can't read Italian; to those who can, I recommend Bartoli's La fine della monarchia; there are various editions; it is a classic, as well as an excellent synthesis on a very complex theme.

 * Denis Mack Smith is the most important living English language historian of modern Italy. There are 10,000 google hits on his name in the Italian language.  I am highly impressed by your decision to parade your ignorance as though it is superior knowledge. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever took it upon himself to re-write my revision of the Victor Emmanuel article, bringing back the semi-literate nonsense that was there before, knows little about the history of this 46-year reign. (Victor Emmanuel had been king for nearly a quarter of a century before anybody had heard of Benito Mussolini.)

The retro-editor softened my characterisation of the Italian political class c. 1920 to a bland, Middle American inefficient... but unless one understands the hatred evoked by this vile group, it is impossible to understand why Fascism arose, or why Italy's king accommodated it. It is not that he felt that the Army—the army of Caporetto!—could not have supressed the March on Rome (from the standpoint of 1922, a perfectly legitimate form of political dissent not unlike marches on Washington during the Depression or Viet Nam eras;) it just didn't seem a good thing to save such such political class. He, and the Italian people with him, wanted something else. NO ONE in 1922 could know that that something else would actually turn out to be even worse.

 * You are clearly advancing a POV with this interpretation. And what's so horrific about Giolitti, et al, anyway? At any rate, my understanding was that fear of communism had more to do with the turn to fascism than hatred of the Italian political class (of which VEIII was surely himself a most prominent part).  john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But the dead giveaway was the revisor's insitence in comparing Victor Emmanuel's and Elena's departure from Rome before the advancing German army with the much-advertised permanence of the Windsors at Buckingham palace under bombardment. (The fact is that they actually spent much more time at Windsor than in London during that period.) But of course Britain was not being invaded by a conquering army. It is hard to imagine George VI allowing himself to fall into the hands of the Germans if a German army had been advancing on London.

A much more logical comparison, which I included in my revision but which was arbitrarily removed by the person bringing back the nonsense that was there before, would be to monarchs who DID flee before actual conquering armies, like Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands of King Haakon VII of Norway. Nobody ever critisised them, and they made triumphant re-entries into their capitals in 1945.

 * The fact that the Germans were a conquering army had much to do with the fact that VEIII and his government made absolutely no effort to get the army to resist the Nazi advance, and they all basically ended up surrendering without a fight. The behavior of the royal family and Italian government in the period between the overthrow of Mussolini and the German invasion has been frequently criticized.  Comparing it to the British royal family is silly and not very aposite, but nor is comparing it to the royal families of other countries. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The retro-editor just wanted to keep all that gibberish about the Windsors in, even as in the previous treatment of Victor Emmanuel's assumption of the Ethiopian and Albanian crowns, which was all about the George VI not recognising it, as though that were the defining issue. The fact that the ETHIOPIANS didn't recognise wasn't even mentioned.

 * This is rather silly. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini in 1943 and had him arrested, thereby earning Hitler's odium. That is why Victor Emmanuel and Elena could not allow themselves to fall into the hands of the Germans: Hitler would simply had had them shot. That is certainly why his daughter Mafalda, margravine of Hesse, was sent to Buchenwald and killed there. (How many Windsors ever died in Nazi concentration camps??) She was under reach of the Nazis and so they took their revenge on her. This is now nowhere mentioned in the re-revised article. There is just some nonsense about the pope visiting a bombed site in 1945: a site bombed by the Americans !

 * I'm sure if Hitler had had any members of the British royal family at his disposal, they would have been put in a concentration camp (also worth noting that many members of German royal families were also put in camps - the former Crown Prince of Bavaria, for instance). Also, Mafalda was not murdered by the Nazis, as you seem to imply, but was killed by an allied bombing raid. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel had switched sides in the middle of the War, as the house of Savoy had done so many times in previous centuries: he couldn't understand that this was not an XVIII Century kind of war. He took on Mussolini when he seemed useful, and dismissed him like a footman when he was no longer so: just as if he had been an XVIII Century king. This was a very revealing facet of his personality, nowhere mentioned in this sad article.

 * This is an interpretation, I think, that could be disputed. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, there was my mention that the republican side won the 1946 referendum by a small margin, and that the Savoy monarchy won many more votes than any party has ever won in any election since. I think this is an important detail. The leftist parties who viciously criticised Victor Emmanuel III in 1945-46 never managed to win even a tiny fraction of the votes that the monarchy garnered in the Referendum.

 * The first fact should be mentioned. I don't know why the pro-monarchy vote should be compared to a political party.  The Republicans also won more votes than any party has ever won in any election since.  And the Popular Front won 31% of the vote in 1948, which was, well, a fairly sizeable fraction of the votes that the monarchy garnered in the referendum.  And that election was widely held to have been tampered with by the CIA to keep the leftist vote down.  At any rate, all this proves is that a lot of centrists and conservatives voted against the monarchy. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For certain people, Victor Emmanuel III will always be the king who tolerated Mussolini. This is perhaps unavoidable but meaningless, unless the circumstances of this whole period are at least minimally understood. At the battle of Caporetto, 100,000 Italians died in a few days. Many froze to death, because the democratic polititians back in Rome somehow neglected to get them the proper clothes. King Victor Emmanel III, who spent the entire World War I in a modest dwelling at General Headquarters near the front, never, ever got over the sight of this epic tragedy. As he lay dying in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1947, this is what he raved about.

Tantris 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Surely Victor Emmanuel bears the blame for Caporetto nearly as much as he does for Mussolini. Salandra and Sonnino could never have started a war without the king's acquiescence.  I don't think Victor Emmanuel was a bad man, necessarily (his grandson, on the other hand, seems rather horrifyingly awful...), but that doesn't mean that we should whitewash his failings, which were numerous. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a dumb and bad king
With some shoots Mussolini could be defeated easily,in 1922, but this king accepted fascism.When Etiopia and Albania were invaded by italian forces, this despicable king became "king" of both of these countries.I read in a book, that this king didn't read any book, in his long life.He wasn't just wicked and dumb.This king was also a coward.In 1943, he fled all his doomed people, for safety, again without giving any order, for any shoot.With the possible exception of Benito Mussolini any other italian was so bad, as this despicable king. When this royal family was deposed and exiled, Italian miracle began.He deserved to be hanger by his awfull crimes and mistakes.Agre22 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Poorly sourced
I previously added a template regarding the need for improving the sources of this article. That was undone as "intrminable gibberish," with the editor suggesting that such "hinders human editors from improving and referencing it." I am not sure how exactly that template hinders anyone, but the addition and removal of the template certainly have not helped the references on this page. I think one solution might be to be bold and just gut everything that is not sourced, but that would not leave much of an article, would not solve the problems, and I have a feeling would result in an undo as well. Anyone out there with good reference material on the subject is encouraged to improve the citations. Frankly, I am bowing out as I do not want to get in a fight over this article's editing as I do not know anything about the subject at hand. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a point, but my point in reverting it was that your edit added the following to the start of the article:

 * The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, seemed not to be served by such a prologue-;) Ian Spackman (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate Children
Is it known if he had any illegitimate children and if so are there ant records of there names and where they were born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.149.192 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This Material is Un-Cited and Very POV!! Look and see for yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.220 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel did have illegitimate children born to his mistress or mistresses. One had been removed from their mother at birth and sent to live in the northern regions high in the mountains where he was raised by a family who accepted him for a small payment and raised him till he became of age. Once he had became of age, he was told to choose a last name and was given a small amount of money to begin his life anew. I know this, because my great-grandfather was one of those illegitimate children. The husband and wife that raised him felt obligated to tell him his true birth parents because they had loved him like their own son, but wanted him to know the truth. He never had their last name nor could he choose his rightful name being illegitimate. He chose instead the name of the trees that surrounded the only home and family he had ever known - "Cipressi" meaning cypress. I can not say anything bad about this man that no one in my family ever knew because I, myself, would have never been here had my great-grandfather never been born. He missed out on a lot not knowing any of these children or their children. My great-grandfather, grandmother and mother all were amazing and talented people with enormous generosity and compassion. His life was filled with power and priviledge, but he did not seem to use it to do much good for his people. He left most of his historically extensive coin collecton to the people of Italy, hardly payment for all that was suffered by them including his own daughter, Mafalda, that died in 1944 at the Buchenwald concentration camp. [Special:Contributions/24.34.102.202|24.34.102.202]] (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The bombing of Rome
In the section on his final efforts to save the crown it mentions that Rome was bombed for the first time in it's 2,500 year history. I don't think it being bombed for the "first" time in a history that spans 2,500 years is really accurate. The city of Rome may have been directly bombed for the first time in WWII by modern explosives but the city has been attacked, bombed (via cannon), and sacked multiple times by many different powers including the Italian government itself when taking the city from the Pope. So I think simply keeping it "Rome was bombed for the first time during the war.." would be more accurate.Coinmanj (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Death
There is nothing here about his death.

(112.118.141.233 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Above discussions
It is a low quality article, it lacks any reference, it is full of misbegotten halftruths and tedious commonplaces.

As for Denis Mac Smith: it is true he is very much read in Italy (and elsewhere) but this is only a sign of the provincialism of the Italian public. Serious Italian scholars do not consider his works as authoritative. He misunderstood most of what he wrote about. Even though I am not a historian I attended lessons of Italian scholarly historians. E. g.: he wrote Cavour's main worry was Garibaldi, whereas documents prove Cavour's main worry was with his elder brother, the Marquis, who did not allow him in their ancestral home because he was a liberal and a freemason; he never gave much weight to Garibaldi's political chances as he knew Italy was in the hand of the moderati, not of the democrats. In a sense this is also relevant here. VE III did not refuse to sign the decree of siege for fear of a civil war (as he claimed), he had lost confidence in the Italian parliament and its ability to manage the long standing political and social crisis of the country and perhaps most importantly he was afraid of being put in a difficult position within his own family as the Duke of Aosta (former haed of the III Army) was a conviced supporter of fascism.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel or Vittorio Emanuele?
This section is to properly discuss the question posed, without text or signature, in the preceding section heading (which the history shows was added by an IP editor in 2012).

I believe prior versions of WP:SOVEREIGN required names of non-British European monarchs prior to the 20th century to be anglicized, while the names of such monarchs of the 20th century and later are not translated (i.e., Philip V of Spain vs. Felipe VI of Spain). Not only is this apparently the usual rule in most present media stylebooks (as suggested by the note on Felipe VI's article); but it apparently was also the rule during this king's reign in at least one U.S. newspaper, as per this June 6, 1944 front page from the Arkansas Gazette (republished by its successor the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) containing an AP article whose text begins "King Vittorio Emanuele III abdicated as king of Italy". (This was actually his relinquishing power, but not title, after the fall of Rome; he did not formally abdicate until 1946, a month before the monarchy was abolished.) I assume this was in accordance with the AP Stylebook of that day, though I know in the decades closer to its 1991 demise the Gazette tended to follow an unwritten stylebook.

On the other hand, the present text of WP:SOVEREIGN says to use "the most common form used in current English works of general reference", or if that cannot be determined the anglicized name. (The note on Felipe VI's article I mentioned above was probably added to comply with this; though it links to one source calling him Philip VI, I agree that most sources use Felipe VI.) Though I don't claim to have the skills needed to confirm this (i.e., the complex Google searches used in most disputes of this type), most current English references I've seen call him Victor Emmanuel III, as this article does. I would suggest that an editor with more experience look into this to confirm whether most current sources use his anglicized name or his Italian name. --RBBrittain (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Would you discuss his religion about Roman Catholicism in Italy and the Balkans, but it was unsourced, please explain.

Unfortunately, I found only source. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:140D:ED1A:AEBC:4278 (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not designed for complexity or nuance. If there is debate, uncertainty or a confused chronology over whether he was an atheist or Catholic, then that should be explained in the article text not contradicted or ignored by an over-simplified infobox parameter. DrKay (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:RELIGION policy, none of the evidence were the King of Italy was an atheist, because he was a Catholic member of the House of Savoy. The religion of Kingdom of Italy during the fascist period were traditionally Roman Catholic as a state religion. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per policy, all content on wikipedia must be explicitly supported by reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But it's a false claim, because the King of Italy was only a Catholic to hold the position, while Mussolini was acting himself as a atheist. --49.150.108.5 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's unsourced, then it shouldn't be in the article. I've made that clear repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I should concern right here. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Found paragraph that needs splitting
Specifically, the first paragraph of this section. Others in that section may need it too. Could anyone please tell me where to split it (or them)? Thylacine24 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * CB000894.jpg
 * E0982d37.jpg
 * S-l1600 (7).png
 * Victor emmanuel III in 1939.png
 * Victor-emmanuel-iii-takes-the-salute-1939.png

Requested move 4 August 2023

 * 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: no consensus. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how to apply WP:NCROY here. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel III of Italy → Victor Emmanuel III – WP:Unnecessary disambiguation and per WP:TITLECON with Victor Emmanuel II. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - VEII should be moved to be consistent with this one, not the other way around. WP:NCROY et al. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose- Victor Emmanuel II wasn't only "King of Italy" . He was King of Sardinia originally. It's debatable as to whether he's most notable as being the first "of Italy" or the "of Sardinia" who united Italy. Nonetheless, Victor Emmanuel III should be consistent with the other two kings of Italy alone (Umberto I of Italy and Umberto II of Italy). estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thought this might crop up. If one were to be picked, I'd go for "of Italy". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two should be moved as well. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Umbertos are primary topics, as our redirects Umberto I and Umberto II show. Srnec (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Best we stay with the "Monarch # of country" style. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no good reason for the suggested move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I already cited two good reasons. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see them as sufficient to justify the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Unlike Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Louis XIV and Victor Emmanuel II. --2001:4451:8209:7B00:4D18:1ADE:7D91:EC30 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NCROY. If consistency is important, we should move VE2's article.  SnowFire (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The results across recent RMs of royalty are quite confusing to me:
 * Talk:Elizabeth II
 * Talk:George I of Great Britain
 * Talk:Charles the Bald
 * There is strong opposition to George III → George III of the United Kingdom but also to George II of the United Kingdom → George II. Likewise, there is strong opposition to adding "of France" to Louis XI, but here there is no appetite for dropping "of Italy" from Victor Emmanuel III. Likewise, two attempts to move Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria to a shorter title have been shot down. This is Wikipedia's systematic bias. Names as distinctive as "Franz Joseph" and "Victor Emmanuel" should be disambiguated, but "William IV" and "Charles X" are clear enough. Of course, part of the problem is that there is no consistency of participants from one RM to the next. Srnec (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're one-hundred percent right about Wikipedia's systemic bias. Editors time and time again seem to insist that British monarchs special simply because they reign in the English-speaking world and 'this is English wikipedia'.
 * First of all, Charles III is far more ambiguous than Harald V. But for some reason Charles III of the United Kingdom is a redirect not the article title, but Harald V of Norway is the title while Harald V is a redirect, when there hasn't been another Harald V, anywhere. A similar situation exists as Mary I redirects to Mary I of England with Mary I (disambiguation) on the side.
 * Many of these pages were moved based on language of WP:NCROY that was removed in this RFC. But now suddenly If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. (emphasis my own) applies to Charles III, when it was clearly intended to prevent widely unused titles like William I of England or Mary I of Scotland, which are used by almost nobody. Even more so with the WP:COMMONNAME problem is the claim that COMMONNAME is a policy, NCROY is a guideline. Yet, NCROY is a guideline born from the policy of WP:CONSISTENT.
 * The current situation is a complete disaster where titles such as the above example of William IV, used by numbers of other monarchs, exist simultaneously alongside completely unambiguous names like "Isabella II" require disambiguation as Isabella II of Spain. It's been pointed out time and time again that this is a WP:GLOBAL issue. Quite frankly, I believe its getting to be a borderline WP:NPOV issue.
 * Personally, I prefer Monarch # of country, as it may help those who don't know who a certain monarch is/was, no matter how unambiguous their regnal name and number are, and doesn't harm WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for those who do know. Obviously if you know who Carl XVI Gustaf is, you'll know he's king of Sweden, but if you don't know who he is then there could be the added qualifier of "of Sweden" to aid you.
 * I'm getting so off topic so I'm just going to end it there. Perhaps it's time for a more wide-ranging discussion of NCROY (more so than the village-pump RfC by @Tim O'Doherty and @GoodDay), and perhaps even COMMONNAME and the WP:CRITERIA. I'm going to close this off with something that I've said before and I'll say it again until we have some sort of agreed-upon solution (because this is just madness): Elizabeth II should be the exception (to WP:AT as applied with WP:NCROY, not the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II should be the exception, not the standard. I respectfully disagree. We need to have consistency across all pages if "[regnal name] of [country name]" is to be used for all Western and some Middle Eastern/African monarchs (Far Eastern monarchs like Hirohito or Wu Zetian do not really need territorial designations). What I think really happened is that people started to look at pages on British monarchs that have no territorial labels and began moving all the other ones which they thought were primary topic or common enough. I personally think that territorial designations could be added back to the pages of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, George III, George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, and Edward VII. The pages on George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III should remain as they are because not only are they primary topics, but the Statute of Westminster 1931 established the basis for many of the Dominions to become independent and as such these five monarchs were not only monarchs of the United Kingdom but a number of other independent and equal countries. In short, adding the "United Kingdom" to their names as a territorial designation would constitute an actual form of bias, and an exception should be made for all five of them, not just Elizabeth II. Keivan.f  Talk 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. But we also should not forget that WP:SOVEREIGNS also states Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state., and it's not hard to know what sovereign state the Windsors are most commonly associated with. Queen Victoria and Edward VII are actually the only two who were only king/queen of the United Kingdom (not counting Edward VII as king in the Dominions). Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I were kings and queen of Ireland (yes Ireland was technically subordinate to England, but the Parliament of the UK also technically had the power to legislate in Australia until 1986. Georges III & IV and William IV were kings of Hanover. And lest we forget that the Stuart monarchs (save for James VI & I and Queen Anne) all have "of England" in their titles. They were also kings and queen of Scotland and Ireland.
 * I fail to see how "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", which excludes her other realms and territories, is any different from "James II of England", excluding his other two realms. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already given my input, concerning the British monarchs bio pages & indeed bios of monarchs-in-general :) GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Victor Emmanuel III


text:
Iterative and incremental development

Iterative and incremental development is any combination of both iterative design (or iterative method) and incremental build model for development.

Usage of the term began in software development, with a long-standing combination of the two terms iterative and incremental having been widely suggested for large development efforts. For example, the 1985 DOD-STD-2167 mentions (in section 4.1.2): "During software development, more than one iteration of the software development cycle may be in progress at the same time." and "This process may be described as an 'evolutionary acquisition' or 'incremental build' approach." In software, the relationship between iterations and increments is determined by the overall software development process.

Overview
The basic idea behind this method is to develop a system through repeated cycles (iterative) and in smaller portions at a time (incremental), allowing software developers to take advantage of what was learned during development of earlier parts or versions of the system. Learning comes from both the development and use of the system, where possible key steps in the process start with a simple implementation of a subset of the software requirements and iteratively enhance the evolving versions until the full system is implemented. At each iteration, design modifications are made and new functional capabilities are added.

The procedure itself consists of the initialization step, the iteration step, and the Project Control List. The initialization step creates a base version of the system. The goal for this initial implementation is to create a product to which the user can react. It should offer a sampling of the key aspects of the problem and provide a solution that is simple enough to understand and implement easily. To guide the iteration process, a project control list is created that contains a record of all tasks that need to be performed. It includes items such as new features to be implemented and areas of redesign of the existing solution. The control list is constantly being revised as a result of the analysis phase.

An iteration involves redesign and implementation, which is meant to be simple, straightforward, and modular, supporting redesign at that stage or as a future task added to the project control list. The level of design detail is not dictated by the iterative approach. In a light-weight iterative project the code may represent the major source of documentation of the system; however, in a critical iterative project a formal Software Design Document may be used. The analysis of an iteration is based upon user feedback and the program analysis facilities available. It involves analysis of the structure, modularity, usability, reliability, efficiency, and achievement of goals. The project control list is modified in light of the analysis results.

Phases
Incremental development slices the system functionality into increments (portions). In each increment, a slice of functionality is delivered through cross-discipline work, from the requirements to the deployment. The Unified Process groups increments/iterations into phases: inception, elaboration, construction, and transition. Each of the phases may be divided into 1 or more iterations, which are usually time-boxed rather than feature-boxed. Architects and analysts work one iteration ahead of developers and testers to keep their work-product backlog full.
 * Inception identifies project scope, requirements (functional and non-functional) and risks at a high level but in enough detail that work can be estimated.
 * Elaboration delivers a working architecture that mitigates the top risks and fulfills the non-functional requirements.
 * Construction incrementally fills-in the architecture with production-ready code produced from analysis, design, implementation, and testing of the functional requirements.
 * Transition delivers the system into the production operating environment.

Usage/History
Many examples of early usage are provided in Craig Larman and Victor Basili's article "Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History", with one of the earliest being NASA's 1960s Project Mercury.

Some of those Mercury engineers later formed a new division within IBM, where "another early and striking example of a major IID success [was] the very heart of NASA’s space shuttle software—the primary avionics software system, which [they] built from 1977 to 1980. The team applied IID in a series of 17 iterations over 31 months, averaging around eight weeks per iteration. Their motivation for avoiding the waterfall life cycle was that the shuttle program’s requirements changed during the software development process."

Some organizations, such as the US Department of Defense, have a preference for iterative methodologies, starting with MIL-STD-498 "clearly encouraging evolutionary acquisition and IID". The DoD Instruction 5000.2 released in 2000 stated a clear preference for IID: "There are two approaches, evolutionary and single step [waterfall], to full capability. An evolutionary approach is preferred. … [In this] approach, the ultimate capability delivered to the user is divided into two or more blocks, with increasing increments of capability...software development shall follow an iterative spiral development process in which continually expanding software versions are based on learning from earlier development. It can also be done in phases." Recent revisions to DoDI 5000.02 no longer refer to "spiral development," but do advocate the general approach as a baseline for software-intensive development/procurement programs. In addition, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also employs an iterative and incremental developmental approach to its programming cycle to design, monitor, evaluate, learn and adapt international development projects with a project management approach that focuses on incorporating collaboration, learning, and adaptation strategies to iterate and adapt programming.

Contrast with Waterfall development
The main cause of the software development projects failure is the choice of the model, so should be made with a great care.

For example, the Waterfall development paradigm completes the project-wide work-products of each discipline in one step before moving on to the next discipline in a succeeding step. Business value is delivered all at once, and only at the very end of the project, whereas backtracking is possible in an iterative approach. Comparing the two approaches, some patterns begin to emerge:

 * User involvement: In the waterfall model, the user is involved in two stages of the model, i.e. requirements and acceptance testing, and possibly creation of user education material. Whereas in the incremental model, the client is involved at each and every stage.
 * Variability: The software is delivered to the user only after the build stage of the life cycle is completed, for user acceptance testing. On the other hand, every increment is delivered to the user and after the approval of user, the developer is allowed to move towards the next module.
 * Human resources: In the incremental model fewer staff are potentially required as compared to the waterfall model.
 * Time limitation: An operational product is delivered after months while in the incremental model the product is given to the user within a few weeks.
 * Project size: Waterfall model is unsuitable for small projects while the incremental model is suitable for small, as well as large projects.

Implementation guidelines
Guidelines that drive software implementation and analysis include:
 * Any difficulty in design, coding and testing a modification should signal the need for redesign or re-coding.
 * Modifications should fit easily into isolated and easy-to-find modules. If they do not, some redesign is possibly needed.
 * Modifications to tables should be especially easy to make. If any table modification is not quickly and easily done, redesign is indicated.
 * Modifications should become easier to make as the iterations progress. If they are not, there is a basic problem such as a design flaw or a proliferation of patches.
 * Patches should normally be allowed to exist for only one or two iterations. Patches may be necessary to avoid redesigning during an implementation phase.
 * The existing implementation should be analyzed frequently to determine how well it measures up to project goals.
 * Program analysis facilities should be used whenever available to aid in the analysis of partial implementations.
 * User reaction should be solicited and analyzed for indications of deficiencies in the current implementation.

Use in hardware and embedded systems
While the term iterative and incremental development got started in the software industry, many hardware and embedded software development efforts are using iterative and incremental techniques.

Examples of this may be seen in a number of industries. One sector that has recently been substantially affected by this shift of thinking has been the space launch industry, with substantial new competitive forces at work brought about by faster and more extensive technology innovation brought to bear by the formation of private companies pursuing space launch. These companies, such as SpaceX and Rocket Lab, are now both providing commercial orbital launch services in the past decade, something that only six nations had done prior to a decade ago. New innovation in technology development approaches, pricing, and service offerings—including the ability that has existed only since 2016 to fly to space on a previously flown (reusable) booster stage—further decreasing the price of obtaining access to space.

SpaceX has been explicit about its effort to bring iterative design practices into the space industry, and uses the technique on spacecraft, launch vehicles, electronics and avionics, and operational flight hardware operations.

As the industry has begun to change, other launch competitors are beginning to change their long-term development practices with government agencies as well. For example, the large US launch service provider United Launch Alliance (ULA) began in 2015 a decade-long project to restructure its launch business—reducing two launch vehicles to one—using an iterative and incremental approach to get to a partially-reusable and much lower-cost launch system over the next decade.

title: Iterative and incremental development


text:
60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment

The 60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment is an air defense unit of the United States Army.

World War I
The regiment was constituted on 23 December 1917 in the Regular Army as the 60th Artillery, Coast Artillery Corps and organized at Fort Monroe, Virginia, comprising Regular Army companies and National Guard companies from Virginia and the District of Columbia. The regiment was sent to France to fight with the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front in World War I, participating in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne Offensive armed with 24 155 mm GPF guns. It was demobilized on 24 February 1919 at Fort Washington, with its National Guard companies reverting to state control.

Interwar period and World War II
The regiment was reconstituted on 26 October 1922 in the Regular Army as the 60th Artillery Battalion, Antiaircraft and organized at Fort Crockett, Texas. It was expanded, reorganized, and redesignated as the 60th Coast Artillery, with 1st Battalion organized at Fort William McKinley in Manila, Philippine Islands. The regimental headquarters was activated at the fort on 31 August 1925, with the 1st Battalion, without Batteries A and B, being simultaneously inactivated, and Battery E activated at the fort. On 1 April 1929, 1st Battalion and Battery F were activated at Fort Mills on Corregidor. The rest of the regiment was activated at Fort Mills on 30 May 1941.

It was part of USAFFE's Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays, under the Philippine Coast Artillery Command. The 60th was to provide air defense over Manila Bay and the southern tip of the Bataan Peninsula, and was equipped with 3-inch guns (an older model with a vertical range of 8,200 m), 37mm Guns, .50-caliber machine guns, and 60 in Sperry searchlights. A battery, with a platoon of searchlights, was located at Fort Wint, in Subic Bay. Following the Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December of that year, the Japanese invaded the Philippines. The regiment served in the Battle of Bataan and the Battle of Corregidor, and surrendered to the Japanese at the end of the latter on 6 May 1942. However, the 60th was not officially inactivated until 2 April 1946.

Cold War and parent regiment
On 1 August 1946, it was redesignated as the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion and activated at Fort Bliss, Texas. It was redesignated as the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion Automatic Weapons Battalion, Mobile on 7 December 1949, and became simply the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion on 27 July 1950. The 60th was again inactivated on 17 June 1957 at Southampton, England. On 31 July 1959, it was reorganized and redesignated as the 60th Artillery, a parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System. The regiment was redesignated as the 60th Air Defense Artillery on 1 September 1971.

Battery B and 1st Battalion
The unit that became Battery B was constituted on 8 March 1898 in the Regular Army as Battery G, 7th Regiment of Artillery, and organized on 29 March at Fort Slocum. On 13 February 1901, it was reorganized and redesignated as the 77th Company, Coast Artillery, Artillery Corps. It became the 77th Company, Coast Artillery Corps on 2 February 1907, and was redesignated as the 3d Company, Fort Barrancas on 6 July 1916. It became the 3d Company, Coast Defenses of Pensacola on 31 August 1917, and was disbanded at Pensacola on 30 November 1919.

On 1 June 1922, the company was reconstituted in the Regular Army, and at the same time consolidated with the active 3rd Company, Coast Defenses of Key West (organized at Key West on 9 August 1921) to become the 77th Company, Coast Artillery Corps. On 26 October 1922, it was reorganized and redesignated as Battery B, 60th Artillery Battalion (Antiaircraft). The battery served with the unit, surrendering with it at Corregidor, and was inactivated along with the rest of the regiment in 1946. The battery was reactivated at Fort Bliss with the 60th Battalion in 1946, and inactivated at Southampton with it on 17 June 1957.

On 12 August 1958, it was redesignated as the Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Missile Battalion, 60th Artillery, with its organic elements simultaneously constituted. The battalion was activated on 1 September 1958 at Gary, and dropped the Missile designation on 20 December 1965. It was redesignated on 1 September 1971 as the 1st Battalion, 60th Air Defense Artillery, before being inactivated on 30 September 1974 at Munster, Indiana.

Battery C and 2nd Battalion
The unit that became Battery C was constituted on 8 March 1898 as Battery K, 7th Regiment of Artillery, and organized on 29 March at Fort Slocum. On 13 February 1901, it was reorganized and redesignated as the 80th Company, Coast Artillery, Artillery Corps. On 2 February 1907, it transferred to the new Coast Artillery Corps. It became the 1st Company, Key West Barracks on 6 July 1916, and transferred to the Coast Defenses of Key West on 31 August 1917. It became 80th Company of the CAC again on 1 June 1922. On 26 October, it was consolidated with Battery C, 60th Artillery (Coast Artillery Corps) to become Battery C, 60th Artillery Battalion (Anti-Aircraft). It served with the regiment and was inactivated on 31 August 1925 at Fort William McKinley. Reactivated on 1 April 1929 at Fort Mills, it surrendered on Corregidor and was inactivated along with the rest of the 60th. The battery was reactivated at Fort Bliss with the 60th Battalion in 1946, and inactivated at Southampton with it on 17 June 1957.

On 12 August 1958, it was redesignated as the Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 2nd Missile Battalion, 60th Artillery, with its organic elements simultaneously constituted. The battalion was activated on 1 September 1958 at Nike Missile Base C-54 (Orland Park, Illinois), as a Nike Ajax missile-equipped unit, part of the Chicago-Gary Defense Area. Battery A was at Base C-49 (Homewood), Battery C at Base C-46 (Munster), and Battery D at Base C-84 (near Barrington). It later became a Nike-Hercules unit, after which Battery D moved to Base C-61 (Lemont). The battalion inactivated at Base C-54 on 15 December 1961.

On 12 January 1970, it was activated at Fort Bliss as the 2nd Battalion, 60th Artillery (60th Air Defense Artillery from 1 September 1971). After training at Fort Bliss, the battalion was deployed to Europe in the summer of 1970, part of the 32d US Army Air Defense Command. It became part of the 108th Air Defense Artillery Group in 1974, which became the 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade in 1982. Armed with the short range M167A1 towed Vulcan Air Defense System and long range MIM-72 Chaparral surface-to-air missile launcher, the battalion provided airbase defense for Ramstein Air Base. It included three firing batteries, each with four firing platoons (two Vulcan and two Chaparral), eight Vulcans, and eight Chaparrals.

A Battery was initially located at Husterhoeh Kaserne and Zweibrücken Air Base, and eventually was completely relocated to the latter. Headquarters & Headquarters Battery, the 92d Ordnance Detachment, and B Battery were located at Ramstein, while C Battery at Daenner Kaserne defended the Kaiserslautern Army Depot. On 8 January 1985, the battalion was relieved from its assignment to the 108th Brigade and transferred to the 94th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, swapping places with the 94th's 2nd Battalion, 62d Air Defense Artillery.

Coat of arms

 * Blazon
 * Shield: Per fess embattled Sable and Gules fimbriated Or a pile in bend of the third the lower portion obscured by the second tincture, in sinister chief a mullet of the third.
 * Crest: On a wreath of the colors Or and Sable a carabao skull Sable horned Or.
 * Motto: Coelis Imperamus (We Rule The Heavens).
 * Symbolism
 * Shield:The shield is divided horizontally into two parts, the dividing line being embattled to represent defense. The lower half is red for Artillery; the upper half bears the colors of black and gold, significant of the Orient where the unit had its pioneer service.  A searchlight beam pierces the darkness of this portion of the shield signifying the never ending vigilance which this organization exercises in searching for enemy aircraft.  The star has a double significance. It is symbolic of the state of Texas, the Lone Star State, where the unit was reorganized after World War I, and its battleground in the heavens.
 * Crest The carabao horns are symbolic of service in the Philippine Islands where the 60th Battalion, Coast Artillery Corps served.
 * Background: The coat of arms was originally approved for the 60th Coast Artillery Regiment on 1924-05-21. It was amended to change the blazon of the shield and correct the motto on 1924-10-03. It was redesignated for the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion and amended to correct the description on 1949-11-16. The insignia was redesignated for the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion (Automatic Weapons) on 1954-09-08.  It was redesignated for the 60th Artillery Regiment on 1958-12-15.  It was redesignated for the 60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment effective 1971-09-01.

Distinctive unit insignia

 * Description: A Gold color metal and enamel device 1+1/8 in in height overall blazoned as follows: Per fess embattled Sable and Gules fimbriated Or a pile in bend of the third the lower portion obscured by the second tincture, in sinister chief a mullet of the third. Attached below and to the sides a Red scroll inscribed "COELIS IMPERAMUS" in Gold letters.
 * Symbolism: The insignia is divided horizontally into two parts, the dividing line being embattled to represent defense. The lower half is red for Artillery; the upper half bears the colors of black and gold, significant of the Orient where the unit had its pioneer service. A searchlight beam pierces the darkness of this portion, signifying the never ending vigilance which this organization exercises in searching for enemy aircraft. The star has a double significance. It is symbolic of the state of Texas, the Lone Star State, where the unit was reorganized after World War I, and its battleground in the heavens. The motto translates to "We Rule the Heavens".
 * Background: The distinctive unit insignia was originally approved for the 60th Coast Artillery Regiment on 1924-05-31. It was amended to correct the motto on 1924-10-03. It was redesignated for the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion and amended to correct the description on 1949-11-16. The insignia was redesignated for the 60th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion (Automatic Weapons) on 1954-09-08. It was redesignated for the 60th Artillery Regiment on 1958-12-15. It was redesignated for the 60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment effective 1971-09-01.

Campaign streamers
World War I World War II
 * St. Mihiel
 * Meuse-Argonne
 * Philippine Islands

Decorations

 * Presidential Unit Citation (Army) Streamer Embroidered BATAAN
 * Presidential Unit Citation (Army) Streamer Embroidered MANILA AND SUBIC BAYS
 * Presidential Unit Citation (Army) Streamer Embroidered DEFENSE OF THE PHILIPPINES
 * Philippine Presidential Unit Citation Streamer Embroidered 7 December 1941 TO 10 May 1942

title: 60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment


text:
The Famous Jett Jackson

The Famous Jett Jackson is a coming-of-age television series for the Disney Channel. The show is about a boy named Jett Jackson (Lee Thompson Young) who plays a teenage secret agent on a fictional show-within-a-show called Silverstone.

Premise
Jett Jackson previously lived with his actress mother in Los Angeles, but missed his home and his friends. Longing for a relatively normal life, Jett succeeds in getting the production of Silverstone moved to the fictional city of Wilsted, North Carolina, thus providing jobs to townspeople while affording Jett the chance to live with his father, Sheriff Woodrick "Wood" Jackson, and his great-grandmother, Miz Coretta (whom Jett calls Nana). Keeping in touch with his mother Jules by video link on his computer (though by the third season she also moved to Wilsted), Jett now spends part of his time with family, friends and school, and the rest living the life of a working actor and celebrity. In doing so, Jett often ends up in sticky situations, usually aided and abetted by his childhood friend, J.B., his not-quite girlfriend Kayla, and sometimes by Cubby, Silverstone's wacky special effects wizard. In the second half of the series, Jett's new co-star, Riley Grant, is added to the mix.

The show within the show, Silverstone, is about a spy who works for Mission Omega Matrix (the acronym being a pun on the word "Mom") in order to save the world from villains like Dr. Hypnoto and The Rat. In contrast to Jett, Silverstone has no family, only his mentor, Artemus, and eventually his partner "Hawk" (surname Hawkins) ("played" by Riley Grant). From the second season onward, the action sequences and Silverstone subplots became more prominent.

The relative realism of Jett's home life sometimes gave way to fantasy or paranormal elements, such as one episode in which Jett learns about a shameful incident in Wilsted's history with a little prodding from the ghost of a key figure in the buried scandal. Other episodes dealt with issues in a more realistic and contemporary way, such as when J.B.'s father's family-owned store is threatened by the arrival of high-powered, "big box" competition, and another in which Jett's English teacher, Mr. Dupree, runs afoul of local attempts at censorship of a class reading assignment. Other episodes dealt with such topics as bulimia and the question of whether Jett, with his relatively sheltered and pampered home life, can truly understand or cope with the problems of other African Americans.

The series was followed by a Disney Channel original movie in which Jett finds himself trapped in Silverstone's world, and vice versa. In that movie, he takes on Silverstone's role for real and is able to muddle through while Silverstone does the same thing in Jett's world until Miz Coretta finds out the truth and he returns home and sends Jett back as well. The movie ends with Jett returning to Silverstone's world and helping him complete his mission by rescuing Silverstone from Kragg and then defeating Kragg alongside his hero alter-ego.

Main

 * Lee Thompson Young as Jett Jackson/Silverstone
 * Ryan Sommers Baum as J.B. Halliburton
 * Kerry Duff as Kayla West
 * Gordon Greene as Woodrick Jackson
 * Montrose Hagins as Miz Coretta
 * Melanie Nicholls-King as Jules Jackson

Recurring

 * Jeffrey Douglas as Cubby
 * Lindy Booth as Riley Grant/Hawk
 * Nigel Shawn Williams as Nigel Essex/Artemus
 * Andrew Tarbet as Deputy Booker Murray
 * Robert Bockstael as Mr. Dupree

History and related series
Show creator Fracaswell Hyman reportedly devised the character before casting Lee Thompson Young for the role. Like Jett, Young was raised in a single parent home in the South, and decided on an acting career at an early age. Young went on to write one of the episodes produced for the series.

The series included both young guest stars such as Hayden Christensen, Rachel McAdams, Britney Spears, and Destiny's Child and veteran stars such as Eartha Kitt, the latter of whom played the new coach of Wilsted's minor league baseball team in one episode.

The series ended on June 22, 2001, due to Disney's unstated policy of producing 65 episodes per series.

The show's end theme, "It's Not What You Think", was performed by the band Youngstown in 1999; the full song includes lyrics from Young. The song was used for show credits in seasons 2 and 3.

One of the producers, Jim Steyer of company JP Kids, would go on to found Common Sense Media in 2003.

Film
Jett Jackson: The Movie premiered on Disney Channel on June 8, 2001.

Syndication
After the series ended in 2001, it continued to air in reruns. The Famous Jett Jackson was removed from the Disney Channel schedule in June 2004. The show briefly aired on ABC Family from December 2003 to January 2004. The show was briefly seen again on Disney XD in 2009.

Critical reaction
Response to the show was generally positive. Laura Fries of Variety, the Hollywood trade paper, noted in her review of Jett Jackson: The Movie that "Young serves as an appealing role model, much like Sarah Michelle Gellar's Buffy the Vampire Slayer --someone who can fulfill young, action craving audiences without the gratuitous violence. There's a sense of empowerment associated with these sort of roles, and handled correctly, they function as an excellent allegory for the confusing teenage years." Although she mentions "contrived plot devices", she also refers to the series as "clever" and "an extremely entertaining concept".

Awards and nominations
The series The Famous Jett Jackson and its young cast were nominated for Young Artist Awards, presented by the nonprofit Young Artist Foundation, in several categories in the course of the show's run:

title: The Famous Jett Jackson


text:
Talk:Kim possible

Is it "Kim Possible" or is it "Kimpossible" (no spaces)?

Because "Kim Possible" is how it appears on the Disney Channel website...

title: Talk:Kim possible