text:
The Wee Free Men

The Wee Free Men is a 2003 comic fantasy novel by British writer Terry Pratchett, which takes place in his Discworld setting. It is labelled a "Story of Discworld" to indicate its status as children's or young adult fiction, unlike most of the books in the Discworld series. A sequel, A Hat Full of Sky, appeared in 2004 (both books were republished in a combined edition, The Wee Free Men: The Beginning, in August 2010); a third book called Wintersmith appeared in 2006; and the fourth, I Shall Wear Midnight, was released in September 2010. The final book in the series, The Shepherd's Crown, was released in 2015.

While Terry Pratchett's first Discworld book for children, The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents had swearing translated to rat language, in this book it is in the dialect of the Nac Mac Feegle which is taken from Scots and Scottish Gaelic.

An illustrated edition of the novel, with pictures by Stephen Player, appeared in print on 2 October 2008.

Plot summary
Tiffany Aching is a 9-year-old girl who literally sees things differently from others. While playing by the river near her home, she sees two tiny blue, kilted men who warn her of a "green heid" in the water. Suddenly a vile green monster, Jenny Greenteeth, appears in the water. Using her brother Wentworth as bait, Tiffany ambushes the beast and cracks it with a frying pan, while Wentworth is completely unfazed, as he is unable to see either the little men or the monster. She goes into town to visit a travelling teacher and comes upon Miss Tick, a witch who has been watching her. Tiffany is told that these little men are the Nac Mac Feegles, who are rough and rowdy fae folk who speak in Scots. Miss Tick informs her that she is likely the witch of the wold she resides in, and gives her the toad familiar she carries as a guide before tricking Tiffany out of the tent and disappearing.

Tiffany returns home to discover that the Nac Mac Feegles are not only incredibly fast and strong, but afraid of her, as she catches them stealing eggs from under a chicken and a sheep right out of the field. When Wentworth is kidnapped by the Queen of the Fairies, Tiffany seeks out the help of the Nac Mac Feegles to rescue him, as they are the most powerful otherworldly things she knows and they're more than willing to submit to her will, terrified by one who is not only a witch but one who can read and write. Rob Anybody, and a group of other Feegles including Big Yan and Daft Wullie take her back to their home where she meets the buzzard-aviator Hamish, the bard-Feegle William, and their clan leader the Kelda. Tiffany is told that her brother has been taken by the Queen to her domain in Fairyland, and not only must she take the Feegles to go rescue him, but she must also take up the reins as Kelda, as the current one is about to die. After worming her way out of marrying Rob Anybody, Tiffany goes out of the mound to the field where the Feegles test her First Sight and Second Thoughts by letting her find the entrance to the queen's domain.

Once in, Tiffany and the Feegles face several large wolves who the Feegles handily clobber, and several dream-causing blob-people called dromes. Going through drome-caused dreams, she finds Roland, the son of the Baron of her homeland. Tiffany and Roland go through several dreams and the normal dreamscape to eventually find a dream with both Wentworth and the Queen in it. Tiffany narrowly escapes defeat at the hands of the Queen's dream-minions by having Roland release the Feegles from their trapping in a large walnut, and they escape from that dream into one of Tiffany's imagining. Once in that dream, the Feegles and Wentworth are presumed to have perished at the hands of the Queen's trickery, and Tiffany escapes with Roland's unconscious body out back into the dreamscape, heading for the exit, full of regret that she could not save her friends. The Queen mocks her inability to save them and her insecurities, but Tiffany reconnects with her homeland's heritage to gain the strength to defeat the Queen at her own game of dreams in the darkest hour. The Feegles who she later meets back up with reveal that the trap the Queen had set was not nearly enough to stop the Feegles, and that they and Wentworth are both fine. Tiffany, Roland, Wentworth and the Feegles all return to their homeland, where the Baron mistakenly gives his son all of the credit for saving them, which Tiffany ends up being okay with.

Another large influence on the narrative of the story and development of Tiffany's character is her Granny Aching, a hard working, silent, and knowledgeable shepherd. She was the book's definition of a witch. Stories and memories of her are mentioned here and there in the book, and her memory helps Tiffany defeat the Queen at the end.

Characters

 * Tiffany Aching
 * Wentworth Aching
 * Granny Aching
 * Perspicacia Tick
 * The Nac Mac Feegle
 * The Chalk Hill Clan
 * Rob Anybody
 * Daft Wullie
 * William the Gonnagle
 * The Kelda of the Chalk Hill Clan
 * Toad
 * The Queen
 * The Baron
 * No'-As-Big-As-Medium-Jock-But-Bigger-Than-Wee-Jock-Jock

Film
In January 2006, reports emerged that director Sam Raimi had signed up to make a movie based on this novel with a script by Pamela Pettler, the writer of Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. Sony Pictures Entertainment had recently acquired the rights to the book. In a June 2008 interview, Pratchett said "I saw a script that I frankly thought was awful. It seemed to be Wee Free Men in name only. It had all the hallmarks of something that had been good, and then the studio had got involved. It probably won't get made." In December 2009, Pratchett said that he had "got back The Wee Free Men".

In 2013, Terry Pratchett's daughter Rhianna Pratchett announced that she would be adapting Wee Free Men into a film. In 2016 it was confirmed that the film will be developed in association with The Jim Henson Company.

Reception
The Wee Free Men was listed in TIME's "THE 100 BEST FANTASY BOOKS OF ALL TIME", the only novel by Pratchett alone to make that list (his other entry being Good Omens, a collaboration with Neil Gaiman).

title: The Wee Free Men


text:
Robert Rosen (biologist)

Robert Rosen (June 27, 1934 – December 28, 1998) was an American theoretical biologist and Professor of Biophysics at Dalhousie University.

Career
Rosen was born on June 27, 1934, in Brownsville (a section of Brooklyn), in New York City. He studied biology, mathematics, physics, philosophy, and history; particularly, the history of science. In 1959 he obtained a PhD in relational biology, a specialization within the broader field of Mathematical Biology, under the guidance of Professor Nicolas Rashevsky at the University of Chicago. He remained at the University of Chicago until 1964, later moving to the University of Buffalo — now part of the State University of New York (SUNY) — at Buffalo on a full associate professorship, while holding a joint appointment at the Center for Theoretical Biology.

His year-long sabbatical in 1970 as a visiting fellow at Robert Hutchins' Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California was seminal, leading to the conception and development of what he later called Anticipatory Systems Theory, itself a corollary of his larger theoretical work on relational complexity. In 1975, he left SUNY at Buffalo and accepted a position at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, as a Killam Research Professor in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, where he remained until he took early retirement in 1994. He is survived by his wife, a daughter, Judith Rosen, and two sons.

He served as president of the Society for General Systems Research, now known as the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), in 1980-81.

Research
Rosen's research was concerned with the most fundamental aspects of biology, specifically the questions "What is life?" and "Why are living organisms alive?". A few of the major themes in his work were:
 * developing a specific definition of complexity based on category theoretic models of autonomous living organisms
 * developing Complex Systems Biology from the point of view of Relational Biology as well as Quantum Genetics
 * developing a rigorous theoretical foundation for living organisms as "anticipatory systems"

Rosen believed that the contemporary model of physics - which he showed to be based on a Cartesian and Newtonian formalism suitable for describing a world of mechanisms - was inadequate to explain or describe the behavior of biological systems. Rosen argued that the fundamental question "What is life?" cannot be adequately addressed from within a scientific foundation that is reductionistic. Approaching organisms with reductionistic scientific methods and practices sacrifices the functional organization of living systems in order to study the parts. The whole, according to Rosen, could not be recaptured once the biological organization had been destroyed. By proposing a sound theoretical foundation for studying biological organisation, Rosen held that, rather than biology being a mere subset of the already known physics, it might turn out to provide profound lessons for physics, and also for science in general.

Rosen's work combines sophisticated mathematics with potentially radical new views on the nature of living systems and science. He has been called "biology's Newton." Drawing on set theory, his work has also been considered controversial, raising concerns that some of the mathematical methods he used could lack adequate proof. Rosen's posthumous work Essays on Life Itself (2000) as well as recent monographs by Rosen's student Aloisius Louie have clarified and explained the mathematical content of Rosen's work.

Relational biology
Rosen's work proposed a methodology which needs to be developed in addition to the current reductionistic approaches to science by molecular biologists. He called this methodology Relational Biology. Relational is a term he correctly attributes to his mentor Nicolas Rashevsky, who published several papers on the importance of set-theoretical relations in biology prior to Rosen's first reports on this subject. Rosen's relational approach to Biology is an extension and amplification of Nicolas Rashevsky's treatment of n-ary relations in, and among, organismic sets that he developed over two decades as a representation of both biological and social "organisms".

Rosen's relational biology maintains that organisms, and indeed all systems, have a distinct quality called organization which is not part of the language of reductionism, as for example in molecular biology, although it is increasingly employed in systems biology. It has to do with more than purely structural or material aspects. For example, organization includes all relations between material parts, relations between the effects of interactions of the material parts, and relations with time and environment, to name a few. Many people sum up this aspect of complex systems by saying that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Relations between parts and between the effects of interactions must be considered as additional 'relational' parts, in some sense.

Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism, replication and repair. Yet, you're still you --with all your memories, your personality... If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely."

Rosen's abstract relational biology approach focuses on a definition of living organisms, and all complex systems, in terms of their internal organization as open systems that cannot be reduced to their interacting components because of the multiple relations between metabolic, replication and repair components that govern the organism's complex biodynamics.

He deliberately chose the `simplest' graphs and categories for his representations of Metabolism-Repair Systems in small categories of sets endowed only with the discrete "efficient" topology of sets, envisaging this choice as the most general and less restrictive. It turns out however that the efficient entailments of $$(M{,}R)$$systems are "closed to efficient cause", or in simple terms the catalysts ("efficient causes" of metabolism, usually identified as enzymes) are themselves products of metabolism, and thus may not be considered, in a strict mathematical sense, as subcategories of the category of sequential machines or automata: in direct contradiction of the French philosopher Descartes' supposition that all animals are only elaborate machines or mechanisms. Rosen stated: "I argue that the only resolution to such problems [of the subject-object boundary and what constitutes objectivity] is in the recognition that closed loops of causation are 'objective'; i.e. legitimate objects of scientific scrutiny. These are explicitly forbidden in any machine or mechanism." Rosen's demonstration of "efficient closure" was to present this clear paradox in mechanistic science, that on the one hand organisms are defined by such causal closures and on the other hand mechanism forbids them; thus we need to revise our understanding of nature. The mechanistic view prevails even today in most of general biology, and most of science, although some claim no longer in sociology and psychology where reductionist approaches have failed and fallen out of favour since the early 1970s. However those fields have yet to reach consensus on what the new view should be, as is also the case in most other disciplines, which struggle to retain various aspects of "the machine metaphor" for living and complex systems.

Complexity and complex scientific models: (M,R) systems
The clarification of the distinction between simple and complex scientific models became in later years a major goal of Rosen's published reports. Rosen maintained that modeling is at the very essence of science and thought. His book Anticipatory Systems describes, in detail, what he termed the modeling relation. He showed the deep differences between a true modeling relation and a simulation, the latter not based on such a modeling relation.

In mathematical biology he is known as the originator of a class of relational models of living organisms, called $$(M{,}R)$$ systems, that he devised to capture the minimal capabilities that a material system would need in order to be one of the simplest functional organisms that are commonly said to be "alive". In this kind of system, $$M$$ stands for the metabolic and $$R$$ stands for the 'repair' subsystems of a simple organism, for example active 'repair' RNA molecules. Thus, his mode for determining or "defining" life in any given system is a functional, not material, mode; although he did consider in his 1970s published reports specific dynamic realizations of the simplest $$(M{,}R)$$systems in terms of enzymes ($$M$$), RNA ($$R$$), and functional, duplicating DNA (his $$\beta$$-mapping).

He went, however, even further in this direction by claiming that when studying a complex system, one "can throw away the matter and study the organization" to learn those things that are essential to defining in general an entire class of systems. This has been, however, taken too literally by a few of his former students who have not completely assimilated Robert Rosen's injunction of the need for a theory of dynamic realizations of such abstract components in specific molecular form in order to close the modeling loop for the simplest functional organisms (such as, for example, single-cell algae or microorganisms). He supported this claim (that he actually attributed to Nicolas Rashevsky) based on the fact that living organisms are a class of systems with an extremely wide range of material "ingredients", different structures, different habitats, different modes of living and reproduction, and yet we are somehow able to recognize them all as living, or functional organisms, without being however vitalists.

His approach, just like Rashevsky's latest theories of organismic sets, emphasizes biological organization over molecular structure in an attempt to bypass the structure-functionality relationships that are important to all experimental biologists, including physiologists. In contrast, a study of the specific material details of any given organism, or even of a type of organisms, will only tell us about how that type of organism "does it". Such a study doesn't approach what is common to all functional organisms, i.e. "life". Relational approaches to theoretical biology would therefore allow us to study organisms in ways that preserve those essential qualities that we are trying to learn about, and that are common only to functional organisms.

Robert Rosen's approach belongs conceptually to what is now known as Functional Biology, as well as Complex Systems Biology, albeit in a highly abstract, mathematical form.

Quantum Biochemistry and Quantum Genetics
Rosen also questioned what he believed to be many aspects of mainstream interpretations of biochemistry and genetics. He objects to the idea that functional aspects in biological systems can be investigated via a material focus. One example: Rosen disputes that the functional capability of a biologically active protein can be investigated purely using the genetically encoded sequence of amino acids. This is because, he said, a protein must undergo a process of folding to attain its characteristic three-dimensional shape before it can become functionally active in the system. Yet, only the amino acid sequence is genetically coded. The mechanisms by which proteins fold are not completely known. He concluded, based on examples such as this, that phenotype cannot always be directly attributed to genotype and that the chemically active aspect of a biologically active protein relies on more than the sequence of amino acids, from which it was constructed: there must be some other important factors at work, that he did not however attempt to specify or pin down.

Certain questions about Rosen's mathematical arguments were raised in a paper authored by Christopher Landauer and Kirstie L. Bellman which claimed that some of the mathematical formulations used by Rosen are problematic from a logical viewpoint. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that such issues were also raised long time ago by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their famous Principia Mathematica in relation to antinomies of set theory. As Rosen's mathematical formulation in his earlier papers was also based on set theory and the category of sets such issues have naturally re-surfaced. However, these issues have now been addressed by Robert Rosen in his recent book Essays on Life Itself, published posthumously in 2000. Furthermore, such basic problems of mathematical formulations of $$(M{,}R)$$--systems had already been resolved by other authors as early as 1973 by utilizing the Yoneda lemma in category theory, and the associated functorial construction in categories with (mathematical) structure. Such general category-theoretic extensions of $$(M{,}R)$$-systems that avoid set theory paradoxes are based on William Lawvere's categorical approach and its extensions to higher-dimensional algebra. The mathematical and logical extension of  metabolic-replication systems to generalized $$(M{,}R)$$-systems, or G-MR, also involved a series of acknowledged letters exchanged between Robert Rosen and the latter authors during 1967—1980s, as well as letters exchanged with Nicolas Rashevsky up to 1972.

Rosen's ideas are becoming increasingly accepted in theoretical biology, and there are several current discussions. One of his main results, as explained in his book Life Itself (1991), was the unexpected conclusion that (M,R) systems cannot be simulated by Turing machines.

Erwin Schrödinger discussed issues of quantum genetics in his famous book of 1945, What Is Life? These were critically discussed by Rosen in Life Itself and in his subsequent book Essays on Life Itself.

Comparison with other theories of life
(M,R) systems constitute just one of several current theories of life, including the chemoton of Tibor Gánti, the hypercycle of Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster, autopoiesis (or self-building) of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and the autocatalytic sets of Stuart Kauffman, similar to an earlier proposal by Freeman Dyson. All of these (including (M,R) systems) found their original inspiration in Erwin Schrödinger's book What is Life? but at first they appear to have little in common with one another, largely because the authors did not communicate with one another, and none of them made any reference in their principal publications to any of the other theories. Nonetheless, there are more similarities than may be obvious at first sight, for example between Gánti and Rosen. Until recently there have been almost no attempts to compare the different theories and discuss them together.

Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)
Some authors equate models of the origin of life with LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all extant life. This is a serious error resulting from failure to recognize that L refers to the last common ancestor, not to the first ancestor, which is much older: a large amount of evolution occurred before the appearance of LUCA.

Gill and Forterre expressed the essential point as follows: "LUCA should not be confused with the first cell, but was the product of a long period of evolution. Being the 'last' means that LUCA was preceded by a long succession of older 'ancestors.'"

Publications
Rosen wrote several books and many articles. A selection of his published books is as follows:
 * 1970, Dynamical Systems Theory in Biology New York: Wiley Interscience.
 * 1970, Optimality Principles, reissued by Springer in 2013
 * 1978, Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems, Elsevier Science Ltd,
 * 1985, Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Pergamon Press.
 * 1991, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Columbia University Press

Published posthumously:
 * 2000, Essays on Life Itself, Columbia University Press.

 * 2012, Anticipatory Systems; Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, 2nd Edition, Springer

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

title: Robert Rosen (biologist)


text:
Talk:Endianness

"Bytesex" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bytesex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was relisted several times, ending up at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9, which indicates it was closed as "Keep". Guy Harris (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bytesex?
Does the term "byte sex" deserve to be in the first sentence? It has about 60,000 bing hits, and most of the first page isn't even discussing it in the endian sense. I've never heard the term before. 2A00:23C5:321B:BB01:241C:9873:FD0F:C101 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As above, it is in active discussion. Yes, I suspect it shouldn't be in the first sentence, if at all. Gah4 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The removal of the "bytesex" redirect is no longer under active discussion. It was relisted several times, ending up at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9, which indicates it was closed as "Keep". Guy Harris (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because the term 'byte sex' can redirect here doesn't mean this article should discuss it in the first paragraph. This is a bit of obscure historical jargon which is no longer in current use. At best it belongs in a footnote. –jacobolus (t) 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For all practical purposes the term is extinct, most younger practitioners will not recognize it, linux.bytesex.org notwithstanding, and we are WP:NOTDICT, so the lead is a bad place for this synonym (I have no objections against the redirect, and, most likely, some anchor in the text). I agree that even now the term is WP:UNDUE that high in the article, unless the section is expanded to cover much more widespread terms: "network byte order" is currently relegated to mid-article, "host order" is even lower and has no coherent definition whatsoever. Dimawik (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection for a month to the removal from the lead. Per I am changing it to an anchor so that the redirect will stay operational. Dimawik (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection for a month to the removal from the lead. Per I am changing it to an anchor so that the redirect will stay operational. Dimawik (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bit endianness
Regarding the removal of "bit endianness": the term is easy to find in the literature (e.g.,, a book by Springer). The deleted text about the error-correcting codes was also factually correct (I expect it to be hard to find a source for the latter, though). I happen to like the new text more, and think that the error correction minutiae are out of scope here altogether, but, probably, it is worth adding back the "bit endianness" term somewhere in the text (not in the section header)? Pinging Dimawik (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bit endianness is less of a problem, but still exists. Some hardware has the ability to address bytes. Even when it doesn't, hardware descriptions don't always number bits the same way. Yes it happens at a lower level, but for those working at that level, it is important. Gah4 (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone who tried to code bit fields in a portable way knows the problem well. The issue here is a terminological one: should we mention the term "bit endianness" or be happy with a more popular "bit order"? Dimawik (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. We do have a Bit endianness redirect (which I broke) so I should restore that (with a ref). There is 's question about preferred terminology here. Any opinions?
 * There is discussion of bit order (and byte order) at Cyclic redundancy check so I think it would be valuable to restore that tie in. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is discussion of bit order (and byte order) at Cyclic redundancy check so I think it would be valuable to restore that tie in. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Potentially problematic edits
has recently made some bold edits. Some of these don't appear to be well justified. I have not reverted any of this yet. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) cite quotes are almost always pointless. I assume they're helpful to readers who don't have ready access to the cited source. What's the harm?
 * 2) one day people will get over this completely wrong-headed notion that any time a term might ever possibly refer to the current article, it needs to be bolded. Some of the boldface is per MOS:BOLDSYN and should be restored.
 * 3) ascii art is a bad way of representing anything, and the text should be clear enough already, likewise. text does a perfectly good job here. These are tables, not ASCII art. It is very often useful to have both visual and written descriptions as different presentations work better for different readers.
 * 4) just link this. I don't see a problem summarizing a closely-related topic here.
 * 5) more jargon file crap. A quick search finds NUXI problem in fairly widespread use. This may need to be tagged for a better citation. I don't think it should be removed. This bold edit also draws into question some of the work done a little earlier in ...remove "byte-sex" nonsense from ESR's jargon file, which is nothing more than ESR's own list of personal neologisms.
 * 6) cite needed, not code. So let's find a citation. Meanwhile, let's keep the code as provides some level of verifiability to anyone who knows the language in question. WP:DEMOLISH.

 * Let's go through these in order.
 * The "harm" is massing up both wikitext and article text with large paragraphs which by definition simply repeat what is in the article. A citation should point the reader to the relevant source. Unless it is lost to time, including the actual content here is overkill. There may occasionally be grounds for this but that should be the exception.
 * BOLDSYN refers to the article's lead, and very very very very very very obviously does not justify bolding the phrase "big" 75% of the way through this article.
 * Any table content not intelligible with a screen reader is harmful, and the meaning of these tables can (as demonstrated) be perfectly encapsulated in text form without causing readability issues to unsighted readers.
 * Disambiguation belongs in the article headers. Occasionally a similar but distinct topic might deserve some coverage in the body, but this was overkill for what is basically a dissimilar concept that happens to occasionally be known by a similar name.
 * If there are good, reliable sources for NUXI then so be it. Removing content which is sourced solely to Eric Raymond's Jargon File, which is pretty much the definition of an unreliable source (it is a self-published work which pretends to be authoritative, and has legions of examples of pushing ESR's own opinions) should not be controversial.
 * Using uncited material to verify a fact is the very definition of original research. The vast majority of readers are not coders, and using code examples is therefore one of the worst ways to provide evidence for a given statement.
 * Lastly, WP:DEMOLISH refers to the notion that articles should not be subject to the same rigorous standards as established articles during their creation. This article is fully 21 years old, making it more than mature enough to finally receive some serious editing (which by necessity will involve removing pieces of it).
 * Feel free to attempt to suggest alternative solutions to the issues highlighted. I do appreciate that they weren't reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The harm you see and the benefit I (and presumably the editor that added these quotes) see need to be balanced somehow.
 * There is a mix of good and bad in your edits. That's why they have not been reverted. Do you agree we should restore bold to redirected terms?
 * OK so there's potential harm and benefit here too. These are standard wiki tables. I was not aware there was a screen reader issue with these.
 * You think it is overkill. I think a bare link is overly terse. Maybe we can find some middle ground.
 * Yes, I'm happy to find a source for NUXI but I'm currently busy arguing with you. It's a common pattern on Wikipedia and not much fun for me.
 * ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The mantra that redirected terms must be bolded has metastasised into something it was never meant to be. If a term is unique and commonplace, then it should be bolded in the lead. It is categorically not necessary to treat article subsections as if they were mini-leads and to apply this all over again. And the subject of whether or not various minor synonyms deserved placement in the lead was already settled in previous discussion. So if a random search term happens to have a redirect to an anchor in an article, there is no mandate to bold it. Never was.
 * I am aware that the subject might benefit from a graphical demonstration, but it is very important to be sensitive on this front. Readers might not be using desktop browsers. They might be using screen readers. The article might be in audiobook format. Or any number of other issues. This is why we try to avoid presenting material in images or tables if there are alternative options. This article previously swung too far in the opposite direction. That's been holding it back.
 * With regards to NUXI, this (not a reliable source, but still) does claim it predates Raymond. Though to be quite honest, any source from that period would almost certainly be more valuable for general discussion of this article's content than specifically for one synonym. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So where do we stand? To me it looks like we're at 0 for 6 toward resolution of these issues. Hopefully we'll get some comments from other editors to help us through this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! I just discovered what a major mess the article, or at least its intro, has become. A lot of rework or restoration is needed. Here I'll limit my comments to the items raised at the top of this section:
 * cite quotes are almost always pointless. The quote deletion is not a major issue, but I think this short quote should be restored.  If the reader isn't interested, she can ignore it, otherwise it is a useful presentation that shows the nature of the invention of the term, often saving the annoyance of dealing with the whole of the source.
 * one day people will get over this completely wrong-headed notion that any time a term might ever possibly refer to the current article, it needs to be bolded. The alternate names bolding, as per MOS, is very important.  Here, it's essential that big-endian and little-endian be bold, especially since these are the usual terms, unlike the article title, which is less common.  "BE" and "LE" should not be bold: that's very poor overbolding. (The other changes seem okay.)
 * ascii art is a bad way of representing anything, and the text should be clear enough already: This section needs a diagram as for many readers it quickly makes clear the confused nature of the mixed- or middle-endian form; for those readers, prose is a barrier to understanding. For consistency, if nothing else, an SVG like half of the (to be restored) File:32bit-Endianess.svg would be desirable, but unless such appears, the table-based diagram is needed here.  However, the table-based form should have the title/caption "Storage of a 32-bit integer, 0x0A0B0C0D, on a PDP-11" removed from the table and instead be given as a prose introduction preceding the diagram provided by the table.
 * likewise. text does a perfectly good job here. Text can do an adequate job with this, and I think removal of these diagrams is warranted.  This whole subject is peripheral to endianness, as it has only to do with treating multiple characters within an integer (or at least non-string) data type. I believe this section doesn't deserve significant space. The text that was substituted does not yet clearly explain the nature of the relationship of text in integers vs native strings.
 * just link this. No, the link is inadequate because the linked article doesn't cover the described aspects nearly as well as the text that was removed, nor does it try to make the relationship to endianness apparent. The "article" Bit order is just a redirect to Bit numbering, which is almost entirely concerned with labeling of bits (with numbers) rather than physical ordering of bits as in serial transmission.
 * more jargon file crap. I believe the NUXI Problem deserves mention, and the pre-change text seems appropriate.
 * cite needed, not code. A citation is needed, but at least until present I think the code is of interest and perhaps useful to the reader.
 * --R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Amusingly I've just had a comment posted on my own talk saying that the reorg was overdue, so obviously this is polarising. Nevertheless, the notion that it's more of a mess now than previously just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
 * That quote adds practically no value. Not only does it basically just reiterate what was just said in the text, it is irrelevant to this subject. It does not matter in the slightest what "big-endian" happened to mean in Gulliver's Travels because the term only transferred over as a homage and not due to any actual similarities in the notions being discussed.
 * I'm not opposed to a single re-bolding of the specific terms "big-endian" and "little-endian" in the introduction sentence if it satisfies all parties.
 * I'd be happy for this particular niche matter to be removed entirely, but felt that retaining a brief summary sans overbearing tables was a reasonable compromise for now.
 * When dealing with bits rather than bytes, this subject is simplified to "one end or the other" and is deeply banal. The only reason it warrants a full article to itself at byte-level is due to the complications that introduces.
 * Again, happy for it to be re-added if sourced to something less notoriously unreliable and prone to making up its own terms.
 * I will categorically state that there is no overlap between the set of people who can read Verilog and the set of people who are going to gain actual value from reading an article on endianness. Code examples are massively overused on Wikipedia and frequently pulled directly from the heads of their authors. We don't accept that sort of content for other topics. This is implementational trivia and its only hope of remaining here at all is with a secondary source.
 * Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading that talk page posting, I wouldn't put in your column on the issues we're discussing here.  does appear to oppose your removal at least one of the diagrams.  seems to be a bit disparaging but I have not voiced complaints about reorganization. Your edits here are a mixed bag so there are certainly things to appreciate about them. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I've replied there, if restoring one of the images stops people complaining about the lack of diagrams without having to re-add ASCII art, so be it. It's not a matter of a binary yes/no on these changes: it's a case of where we go from here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could come to a consensus rather than starting an WP:RFC and muscling through it. You seemed pretty immovable on 11 December. Are you coming around at all? ~Kvng (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You raised a half-dozen points, all of which were individually trivial. This doesn't need an RFC. It needs for you to discuss said points individually instead of raising them as "should we revert all this user's edits". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You and I did one round of discussion and it doesn't look like either of us moved. and  joined the discussion, didn't appear to be too impressed with your edits and suggested some potential compromises and you begrudgingly offered that we could restore a diagram a small amount of boldface. It doesn't feel like we're headed toward consensus with the current participants. What other ideas do you have besides an RFC? ~Kvng (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What we normally do on Wikipedia is find common ground and then edit the article accordingly, which is much more productive than endlessly talking around things. To that effect I've made the two requested changes that there is consensus on (bolding BE and LE in the lead, and re-adding a diagram). Now, will you discuss your remaining concerns? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the gesture, but don't appreciate this edit that followed. Will you revert that so we don't have to deal with moving targets in discussion? ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, but only on the understanding that this is a matter of diplomacy. That this article is chock-full of unsourced, tangential distractions which are not actually key to the subject matter is still a core concern, and I expect that whole section to be substantially edited in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry for the delay. Let's try point #3 again. I say text and tables/diagrams together are good to support different comprehension styles and provide visual anchors for readers. You say only text is required and tables/diagrams create and WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue. Am I missing anything?
 * What specifically is the accessibility issue you're concerned about? I have reviewed WP:ACCESSIBILITY and see some concerns about large tables, font size, coloring; I don't see that any of that applies here. There is WP:DTAB which explains how to make tables accessible. I believe the tables you removed already follow that and if not, we should be able to correct them without removing them. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Avoid using tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's referring to layout hacks like using a table with invisible cell boundaries to adjust text position. ~Kvng (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the wording of the guideline suggests this. In the absence of such qualifiers, the most obvious solution would be to follow what is actually written. There is no contradictory guideline suggesting that using ASCII markup for diagrams is acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The section you link to is titled Layout tables and starts with Avoid using tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content. I don't think you have much to stand on. As for your claim that we can't know what is intended, I think a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility would clarify things pretty quickly. ~Kvng (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Then... start one? MOS:LTAB only mentions data tables and layout tables (and has lots of strong wording discouraging the latter) for a reason: using tables to draw diagrams is not acceptable. See also the omission of this use in MOS:TABLES. I'm entirely confident that "don't use tables for drawing squares" is the consensus already; the burden of proof there is for the person who has no more to go on than gainsaying. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Alright, done. ETA: I'm away from computers for the next few days and may not be able to check in or respond to anything until next week. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility appears to have reached consensus. I was able to easily revert one of these edits. The other is more complicated and I'm hoping can help restore the tables here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That this has consensus is an egregious lie. This has worsened this article for the sake of an editor considering himself to have won a dispute. I've utterly no interest in cooporating with the furtherance of that petty little war, and will ensure that eventually this is rolled back. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors in the discussion have been willing to accept the version I presented with column and row headings. No one has expressed support for the original version without headings that was re-introduced. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Isaacl, A simple revert is not the intended final state but it is the place to start and I didn't see any objections when I proposed this approach. ~Kvng (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've objected several times. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Isaacl, how would you like to proceed? ~Kvng (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the column and row headings, as per the discussion on the manual of style talk page. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Endianness


text:
User talk:Xiaodai~enwiki

Hi my name is Zhuo Jia Dai. My interests include soccer, computer games, mathematics and computer programming. I'm currently doing Bachelor of Computer Science at the university of sydney.

Hello Xiaodai, and welcome to the english Wikipedia. Here are some helpful pages:

 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How to edit a page

If you have further questions, feel free to ask them on

 * Village pump
 * My talk page

Have a lot of fun -- Cordyph 14:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Could you attend to the minor fix needed in the illustration accompanying the article titled mean value theorem? Thanks. (See the illustration's talk page for details.) Michael Hardy 22:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Sydney
Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. I see you live in Campsie - perhaps you could contribute to the Sydney suburbs thing we're trying to get off the ground! Incidently, there is a message board Australian wikipedians' notice board - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Football links
Hi Xiaodai,

Greetings from another USyd student.

There is a dedicated article for football around the world; this is the best place for links to national football articles, such as Football in China, rather than the overview article Football (soccer).

Cheers, --Daveb 12:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sydney_FC_Home_Strip_05-06.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sydney_FC_Home_Strip_05-06.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Deluge Algorithm
I'd updated the article a little bit, hopefully with relevant info. Destription of the algorithm would be quite helpful. Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mvt without text.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Mvt without text.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jen_and_me.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jen_and_me.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I've seen your important contributions for the article Recurrence relation. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$, when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression? (note that any exponential-expression-over-the-imaginaries is also excluded since it's trivially equivalent to a real-trigonometric expression). Eliko (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$ becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$ becomes $$\begin{align}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{align}$$, which is again a non-trigonometric expression. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$ becomes a non-trigonometric expression. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$ per se - is a trigonometric expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression equivalent to $$\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$$, when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Possibly unfree File:Mvt.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mvt.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Papa November (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Logix (programming language) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logix (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Logix (programming language)(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Xiaodai. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Xiaodai~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xiaodai~enwiki


text:
Donglin Temple (Jiujiang)

Donglin Temple is a Buddhist temple approximately 20 km from Jiujiang, in the north of Jiangxi province, China. Built in 386 CE at the foot of Mount Lu by Huiyuan, founder of the Pure Land Buddhism, it is well known for how long it has stood without collapsing.

In the Tang dynasty, Jianzhen made several trips to Japan for the mission of preaching Buddhism. As a result, Huiyuan and the doctrine of Donglin Temple began to spread in Japan. Donglin Temple made contributions to improve cultural exchanges and friendly visits between China and Nepal, India, Japan.

The monastery reached its peak of influence during the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), but was severely damaged during the Taiping Rebellion and was almost destroyed during the Republican period (1912–1949) of Chinese history.

Eastern Jin dynasty
Donglin Temple was originally built as "Longquan Jingshe" in 386 by a prominent Buddhist monk named Huiyuan, founder of the Pure Land Sect of Buddhism, under the Eastern Jin dynasty (266–420). During his time as abbot, he disseminated Pure Land Buddhism for 30 years, and attracted large numbers of practitioners. He organized the White Lotus Society, a community gathered 123 Chinese and foreign monks and scholars. Indian Buddhist monks Tanmoti and Sengjia Tipo  also delivered Buddhism at that time.

Tang dynasty
The temple experienced unprecedented growth during the Tang dynasty (618–907), and it had more than one thousand monks and was 120000 m2 in size, with 310 halls and rooms. Jianzhen, an exceptional Buddhist monk, lectured the sutras and precepts in the temple before going to Japan. In 753, in the 12th year of Tianbao period, Zhi'en, a monk in Donglin Temple, arrived in Japan with Jianzhen.

Guest houses
Guest houses are provided free of charge for tourists for living there up to three days. Like monastic living, they are sex segregated and rooms have to be shared.

Big Buddha of Donglin
After decades long donation campaign, the temple built a 48 m tall statue of the buddha Amitābha surrounded by an 80 m-tall flame sculpture.

Public Access
Unlike many tourist sites in China, visitors are not required to buy any tickets in this temple. On the contrary, tourists can have free vegetarian meals together with monks (at 6:00–6:30, 11:00–11:30, 17:00–17:30) after joining their religious nianfo exercises.

Abbot
The current abbot of the temple, Master Da'an, was a professor of Beijing University of International Business and Economics.

title: Donglin Temple (Jiujiang)


text:
Television South

Television South (TVS) was the ITV franchise holder in the South and South East of England between 1 January 1982 at 9.25 am and 31 December 1992 at 11.59 pm. The company operated under various names, initially as 'Television South plc' and then following reorganisation in 1989 as 'TVS Entertainment plc', with UK broadcasting activities undertaken by subsidiary 'TVS Television Ltd'.

During its 11-year history, TVS produced a number of notable programmes for the ITV network especially in the fields of drama, light entertainment and children's programming. It was also a significant regional broadcaster producing a wide range of programmes for its area with the flagship being the nightly award-winning news programme Coast to Coast produced as two separate editions for the South and South East.

TVS ceased broadcasting on 31 December 1992 after losing its franchise to Meridian Broadcasting during the review of franchise holders in 1991. The company was sold to the US firm International Family Entertainment in 1993.

The trademarks of Television South are now owned by an independent production company, while a majority of the company's back catalogue is now owned by The Walt Disney Company. TVS Television Ltd itself was in existence until 2018, and was ultimately a non-trading subsidiary of Virgin Media.

Formation
Television South was formed following discussions between television producer James Gatward, television executive Bob Southgate, who had previously worked at ITN, Thames Television, and journalist Martin Jackson to apply for the new 'South and South-East' of England ITV franchise in 1980. Finance was provided by Barclays Bank and Charterhouse investment bank. This area was the most hotly contested, with seven other applicants besides TVS and the incumbent Southern Television.

The Independent Broadcasting Authority had decided to increase the area covered by the South to now include the South East. This meant switching the main Bluebell Hill transmitter, and associated relays (including the important relay at Tunbridge Wells) to broadcast Television South (TVS) instead of ITV London. To reflect this, the contract area served by Southern Television, which was previously titled the 'South of England' area, was renamed 'South and South-East of England'. To serve the new region better, the IBA expected the successful applicant to operate separate facilities for both the south and the south-east, known as a 'dual-region', with new additional facilities to be built in the South East.

Following the submission of its application, TVS was anticipating that it would be forced into a shotgun marriage with Southern, but in the end, TVS won outright against the seven other contenders since its plans for a better mix of programmes and greater investment were considered good enough to operate the franchise alone. This was the official line given by the IBA, but it was also considered that Southern's non-local ownership (the majority shareholders were Associated Newspapers, based in London, and D.C. Thomson, based in Dundee) and its very conservative nature led to it being dropped in favour of the more interesting proposals made by TVS in its franchise application.

By the start of 1981 a number of high-profile personalities had joined the station in preparation for the start of the new franchise:

 * Michael Blakstad, formerly of Tomorrow's World, as director of programmes;
 * Anna Home, formerly of BBC children's output, as head of programmes for children and young people;
 * Michael Rodd, as head of science and industry programmes;
 * Herbert Chappell, in charge features, education and music.

During 1981, TVS's ambitions were soon recognised for their desire to have a greater say in how ITV operated and its dismay on how it was being treated by the "Big Five" ITV companies: Thames Television, LWT, Central Independent Television, Yorkshire Television and Granada Television. The rationale was that the larger ITV companies should bear more of the production costs as their size enabled them to. This led to criticism in some quarters that the larger of the remaining 'regional' ITV companies, such as TVS, Anglia Television, Scottish Television, Tyne Tees Television and HTV, found it difficult to get network access for their major productions, and that they were left with softer non-primetime sectors such as children's and religious television.

Michael Blakstad, director of programmes, claimed ITV needed a shake up as an advertiser, and viewers did not like contemplating the ITV nightly programme offering and were thus hoping the 'Big Five' would welcome TVS with open arms as a chance to light up the schedules, as the only 'occasional flash of excitement' appeared from LWT's The South Bank Show. Blakstad also claimed none of TVS's £2 million worth of new programming had been accepted for networked transmission, and TVS was invited to the monthly contractors' meetings as observer only from May 1982. He also expressed doubts that Yorkshire Television would give up its monopoly of networked science programmes. Blakstad stated: 'TVS was awarded the franchise to bring a catalyst to ITV, but the authority may have to help them get into the laboratory first.'

In the days before the start of the new franchise, the Independent Broadcasting Authority made it clear that they were happy about the service changes, and were particularly impressed with TVS in connection with new programming for the ITV network in areas in which the IBA wished for improvements, mainly children's output and the sciences. TVS's aims were for a different line of programming in the early evening slots, to win back the 50,000 viewers it claimed were switching over to rivals, due to the poor service provided by Southern.

TVS began broadcasting at 9.30 am on Friday 1 January 1982. The new dual-regional station sprang to life with its new specially composed start-up theme – variously named but referred to in-house as TVS Gallop – accompanied by a programme menu and clock. Continuity broadcaster Malcolm Brown, formerly of Granada, made the opening announcement:

Good morning. It's New Year's Day, 1982, and this is Television South. TVS, the new independent television company that's proud to serve both the South and South East of England. To begin with, we bring in the new with, for the first time, our symbol which will soon become very familiar.

Following the first airing of the station's first ident, the first programme to air was a Coast to Coast special entitled Bring in the New, presented by Khalid Aziz. A number of presenters made the transition from Southern to TVS; all production staff were transferred as part of the then-union agreements within ITV that no technician should lose employment as a result of franchise changes. 200 staff were also recruited for the facilities at Gillingham and Maidstone, although a small number of these were made redundant after the company went on-air, as the studios struggled to reach production capacity, restricted by TVS's limited access to the ITV network.

Broadcasting years
Prior to broadcasting, TVS refused to take on most of Southern's programme stock, except the arrangement to cover two Glyndebourne operas each year. Following the launch of Channel 4 in November 1982, the operas were shown on that channel. Houseparty was replaced by Not For Women Only which recognised changes in women's social patterns, while a new Saturday morning children's series called No. 73 was also introduced, locally at first, before being networked.

Whitbread acquired a 20% stake in TVS from European Ferries in April 1984, as the latter wished to concentrate its financial and management resources on the shipping and property sectors, but sold on the stake in November 1986. Financial director Lionel Ross said:

We think that Television South remains a very good company but we carried out a review of our investments and decided to concentrate our energies elsewhere.

In August 1984, Greg Dyke joined TVS as director of programmes, coming from TV-am. He was brought in to rejuvenate the station, and started to move programming away from its original philosophy of niche arts and science programming, and began producing more entertainment programmes. In 1985, an agreement was reached with LWT, which required help to fill its schedules with appropriate, domestically produced programming while not having to increase its budget; thus TVS was able to get more of its programmes onto the ITV network slots, such as Bobby Davro on the Box, Catchphrase, C.A.T.S Eyes, Five Alive, Kelly's Eye, The Ruth Rendell Mysteries, Summertime Special and other light entertainment programmes.

TVS retained their original philosophy for regional and children's programmes. By November 1986, the station became one of the most heavily criticised companies by the IBA over its programming; the criticism mainly concerned the Southampton editions of Coast to Coast while issues were raised over the quality of TVS's drama and light entertainment output. Their education series were 'too didactic', while the religious output was branded as having 'barely discernible religious content'. Dyke accepted the IBA criticism but highlighted that TVS had already begun remedying the issues and faults, with a new editor for their Southampton news operation, and a new head of religious output was brought in, along with a controller of drama - a first for TVS. Once again, TVS expressed concern about their relationship with the Big Five ITV stations, and how they controlled the channel's output. In April 1987, Greg Dyke left TVS and returned to LWT.

By TVS's fifth anniversary in 1987, their profits had grown 62% since 1981 to £14.4 million, which was helped after TVS increased their share of programming for ITV network and growth in new business; warnings were made that inflation and cost was higher, but the projected growth of television operations would be around 7–8% during the rest of the year. The result was that the accounts revealed TVS had become bigger than Yorkshire Television in terms of advertising revenue, and was quickly catching up with the other Big Five ITV companies. By the following January, profits had increased again to £21.8m. There was speculation at the time that the technicians' strike at TV-am could have spread to TVS's operations over their plans to provide an overnight service, which become fully operational by June 1988.

With TVS continuing to generate large profits, but restricted in ITV network programming, the company started to search for other investments. In 1985, they launched failed bids to acquire Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment and the French television channel TF1. In 1986, TVS were successful in buying Midem, an organisation that promoted trade fairs; and Gilson International, a Los Angeles distribution company selling programmes outside the US. TVS also acquired a 3.5% stake in Australia Network Ten company Northern Star.

At the start of July 1988, speculation started to appear of a take-over bid for the American media company MTM Enterprises. Within a few days, MTM was bought for £190m, which gave owner and founder Mary Tyler Moore 5.1% shares in TVS, and Arthur Price, chief executive of MTM, a total of 6.6%.; both agreed not to sell for a period of five years. TVS paid for the deal partly by selling 10% stakes for £29.2m each to Générale D'Images (a cable television, film library and film production group) and Canal Plus, asking shareholders for £47.8m through a convertible preference share issue, with the remaining £38m taken out in a bank loan. The deal created a unique company with productions operations in Ireland, UK and USA, along with a UK broadcasting franchise.

Uncertainty over the high price paid by TVS for MTM, coupled with a collapse of a US syndication market which affected many other US stations, plus a £5.7m write-off from the disposal of Super Channel resulted in financial instability. In January 1990, TVS started searching for a buyer for a 49% stake in MTM, as part of the restructuring of MTM due to losses of £7.3m. A few days later, TVS confirmed profits were down 35% in 1989, which resulted in 140 redundancies across the UK; this was not as bad as expected, since TVS had planned to eliminate up to 200 jobs that summer.

Ahead of the ITV franchise round, James Gatward resigned from TVS, after being informed his services were no longer required, as the board believed he was not showing sufficient resolve in preparing TVS for the franchise bid. Further changes took place, with the TVS Television board being merged into the TVS Entertainment board, along with a further 100 redundancies to help strengthen the finances. In March 1991, four contenders were lined up to buy MTM, which would have seen the company being sold off for around £50m; there were hopes that the deal would be sorted by May before the ITV franchise application was submitted.

Loss of franchise
In 1990, the new Broadcasting Act was passed by parliament, which deregulated broadcasting in the UK and removed the monopoly on programme production held by franchise holders. Changes to network broadcasting and the introduction of cable and satellite channels meant that ITV needed to be leaner and fitter to compete with its new rivals.

The original draft of the Broadcasting Act stated that the applicant with the highest cash bid would win; however, following fears that this would financially stretch the network and diminish programme standards, the concept of a 'quality threshold' was introduced. Incumbents and applicants had to pass this first, before cash bids were even considered; even then, if a cash bid was deemed to impact on plans, the application could be rejected.

The lucrative nature of the TVS contract area made it one of the most desirable franchises in the UK. Despite preparing vast amounts of audience research, programming proposals and an extremely comprehensive application document for the ITC, the TVS board – now minus its founder Gatward – calculated that it needed to outbid all opposition to retain its licence. This resulted in the 'bid high or die' strategy – in which the management calculated the highest possible bid that TVS could possibly afford. The result of these calculations was a massive £59 million per annum, payable for the following 10 years; it was the highest bid ever made by any UK television broadcaster.

The ITC announced the results of the franchise battle by releasing simultaneous faxes to the contending companies. Three companies had passed the so-called programme 'quality threshold' – TVS, Carlton and Meridian Broadcasting. Of these three, TVS's bid was the highest. However, the ITC now asserted it also needed confidence that the winning company could sustain its annual payments throughout the entire period of the 10-year licence; the commission claimed that TVS would not be able to sustain the proposed annual £59 million licence payments. The ITC then awarded the licence to Meridian Broadcasting, which had bid only £36 million per year.

The ITC refused every attempt to get it to explain its decision. TVS could have sought a judicial review, but the legal advice that it received was that the prospect of success would be slim and the costs would be enormous. Whilst it carried on broadcasting to the end of its franchise period, it began partially liquidating the company. The studio facilities at Southampton were sold to the incoming franchise winner Meridian Broadcasting, even though they intended to operate as a 'publisher broadcaster' and would not be making anything like the amount of regional programming made by TVS. The Maidstone Studios were retained with the news facility being leased to Meridian as TVS planned to continue trading as an independent producer.

The unions started to negotiate with Meridian to absorb some of the 800 staff at TVS who were facing redundancy. Meridian planned to employ only 370 staff, as it intended to produce a far smaller amount of network programming and would use independent producers for the remainder of its programming. In the event, the projections of advertising revenue on which TVS had based its massive bid turned out to be correct. However, only three years later, all the high-bidding licensees – including HTV, which had nearly bankrupted itself to put forward a £25 million bid to win back the licence for Wales and the West – were allowed to reduce their payments, in some cases by more than half.

Closing night
TVS ceased broadcasting to the South and South East of England at just before midnight on 31 December 1992. While most other ITV stations were broadcasting the Thames Television farewell programme The End of the Year Show, Scottish and Grampian chose to opt out and instead aired their traditional Hogmanay special, while TVS chose to opt out and air its own final programme entitled Goodbye to All That, a 65-minute retrospective of its programming, presented by Fred Dinenage and Fern Britton and recorded in front of a studio audience at the Northam studios in Southampton on 13 December that year. The programme closed with an amended version of the TVS ident, along with the message 'Thanks for watching' before crossing to Big Ben for the New Year chimes at midnight and the handover to Meridian Broadcasting.

Post-franchise era
In the Autumn of 1992, a number of American companies were interested in acquiring TVS, from the likes of TCW Capital, International Family Entertainment Inc. (IFE) and Lorne Michaels. IFE originally made a bid worth £38.2m and received backing from a number of key shareholders for this to be accepted. A small number of shareholders, including Julian Tregar, rejected the offer from IFE. In November, TCW Capital made a counter bid, but pulled out a few weeks later, after reviewing the accounts of TVS. IFE increased their offer to £45.3 million, but continued to be opposed by Tregar who blocked the deal on technical grounds, as it was alleged that the offer was too low. IFE finally revised and increased their offer to appease the remaining shareholders, and on 23 January 1993, the IFE offer of £56.5 million was finally accepted, with the deal being completed on 1 February that year. The following September, IFE launched a UK version of The Family Channel, based at The Maidstone Studios and using some elements of the TVS programme archive. Flextech was a partner in the venture, taking a 39% stake in the business.

In 1996, IFE sold its remaining 61% share to Flextech, giving it full ownership of the venture, and subsequently, in February 1997, Flextech rebranded the station as Challenge TV, focusing mainly on game shows. IFE was sold to Fox Kids Worldwide (a joint venture of News Corporation and Saban Entertainment), which in turn was acquired by Disney in 2001. The MTM Enterprises library was maintained by 20th Century Fox Television (which was acquired by Disney in 2019).

Liquidation
The corporate entity TVS Television Limited remained in existence until 2018, and was latterly a wholly-owned but non-trading subsidiary of Virgin Media.

A final account prior to dissolution had been signed on 4 January 2018. At the time of liquidation the only asset of value was an intercompany receivable balance from Flextech Broadband Limited. TVS Television Limited officially dissolved on 18 April.

Northam, Southampton
The Southampton base was the company's corporate headquarters and its primary production and transmission centre. These studios were purchased by TVS from its predecessor Southern, but TVS was delayed in the purchase of the site by Southern and therefore had to initially operate prior to launch from temporary buildings in the Southern car park, leading to Southern contemptuously branding TVS as "Portakabin TV", as referenced in a satirical song performed by Richard Stilgoe on Southern's final programme. TVS finally completed the purchase of the Southampton site, equipment, news library and staff pension fund in August 1981. Also included in the sale was land purchased by Southern for planned new studios in Maidstone. Upon purchase TVS made significant investment, including building a new scenery block to the rear of the existing site. After losing its contract, TVS sold the studios to its successor Meridian Broadcasting in mid-1992. The studios were closed by Meridian in 2004, and demolished in 2010.

Vinters Park, Maidstone
The studios to serve the eastern section of TVS's transmission area were at Vinters Park near Maidstone in Kent. The site was originally acquired by Southern Television, which had commissioned a conceptual design for new studio facilities on the site. Following the award of the franchise to TVS, Southern Television sold the site to the new company at a premium. Construction commenced in early 1982, and the first studios at the centre became operational in mid-1983.

The Maidstone Studios, though significant (and home to many networked shows) were ancillary to those in Southampton which were the company's corporate headquarters. Meridian Broadcasting, the new licensee, were not offered the studios as TVS initially intended to become an independent producer. However, Meridian agreed to rent the newsroom and facilities for an initial 10-year period from 1993. Following the sale of TVS in that year, the studios were acquired by TVS's new owners IFE and Meridian's agreement came to a premature end. Meridian operated from elsewhere in Maidstone, but in 2004, after extensive cutbacks, it moved back into a small newsroom in The Maidstone Studios, which would later become the official trading and marketing name of the Vinters Park complex, when it was later sold-off as a standalone "four walls" studio complex, later used for shows on BBC and ITV, etc.

Dover
The studios on Russell Street were originally the eastern base of Southern Television, from which Scene South East and Scene Midweek were broadcast and were essentially a news-gathering operation with transmission facilities for regional news opt-outs. TVS used Dover as a regional studio for a year until completion of Vinters Park when it disposed of the site; the buildings have since been demolished and the site is now St. James Retail Park, a shopping outlet.

TVS Television Theatre
TVS acquired the former Plaza Cinema in Gillingham, Kent, as a stopgap measure between the commencement of broadcasting and the completion of Vinters Park. The theatre was quickly converted for television use, ready for the start of broadcasting. The decision to operate a television theatre was against the trend in television at that time, as both the BBC and Thames Television were to dispose of similar facilities in the following two years.

Production at Gillingham was limited; it was used for several quiz shows, and it was the base of the regional afternoon magazine show Not for Women Only while TVS recorded the UK inserts for Fraggle Rock at that base. TVS sold the theatre in 1988 to an independent production company. For a period afterwards, the site was used for other activities before being demolished to make way for redevelopment. A campaign to have it listed, failed as the large-scale conversion for television production had made it unsuitable for listing.

Regional offices
TVS maintained small news studios in Brighton, Reading and Poole. Each studio had a single camera and a cut down version of the interview set to enable down the line interviews; these centres were each manned by a news team, consisting of two reporters, a cameraperson, sound recordist and lighting electrician. with a helicopter links equipped vehicle. The studios were based in the Brighton Centre, Reading Civic Centre and Poole Arts Centre.

A studio at Westminster was created for parliamentary coverage; TVS had two cameras in the basement studio of the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Broad Sanctuary, as well as a news crew. This facility was available for hire to other broadcasting organisations, when not needed by TVS. One feature was a remote-control operated camera mounted on the roof of the centre, giving a clear shot of the Houses of Parliament for use as a live backdrop.

In addition, TVS had sales offices in London, which was converted from a former bakery, and Manchester.

Sub-regions
TVS operated a dual region, where the company both offered different services for the South and South East of England. This was primarily a different edition of the flagship Coast to Coast news programme, from a different base and with a different presenting team. However, some other local programming was produced solely for the South or South East and as a result, programming would differ either between sub-regions or pan-regional programmes.

At the beginning of TVS's time as contractor, the company used separate presentation for each sub-region, with a caption declaring the sub-region below the clock, so viewers could differentiate between programmes for the whole region, or for their sub-region. This practice was dropped after a year or so.

Identity
TVS's identity featured a six-coloured fleur-de-lis symbol that formed up in three stages from the outside in, before zooming out and sitting alongside the TVS lettering, accompanied by a shortened version of the station theme New Forest Rondo. There were different variations for weekdays and the weekend, which only differed in the zoom-out to the lettering. The ident was shot initially on film of a mechanical model but was later shot using video effects and from 1985, a computer-generated version of the ident was used. Accompanying this ident was a clock on a black background, with the six TVS colours on either side, and an ident sequence following the theme 'For the best view of the South' which was used prior to the news.

On 7 September 1987, following the departure of Dyke from TVS, the station's presentation was completely overhauled, with the new idents designed by John Hayman and a new jingle by composer Ed Welch. The new idents featured metallic TVS lettering which would spin out, turning into a metallic logo before spinning back to the lettering; the rainbow colour effects were still included, when the logo spun. Three versions were produced: a normal ident, a short ident where the TVS logo rotated into the lettering, and a minute-extended ident featuring video from the regions that was used upon start-up and in some of the longer junctions. No clock was included in the new look. The idents were all against a grey gradient background and featured the caption 'Television South' below the end lettering. This change, in effect, brought a more 'corporate' feel to TVS Television.

This ident was altered slightly on 1 September 1989 following the TVS management restructuring, so that the ident was against a gradient blue background and cut in to the rotation of the logo into the lettering. The caption was changed to 'Television' to reflect the station's technical name of TVS Television, and the music was altered slightly to be bolder. Against the blue background, the metallic lettering now had the appearance of glass or perspex. This ident was used by TVS until it went off air on 31 December 1992, when a special ident with the caption 'Thanks for watching' used to close the final TVS programme, Goodbye to All That.

Programming
TVS produced a vast array of programming covering a wide aspect of areas. As part of the dual region, two entirely separate editions of the TVS regional news programme Coast to Coast were developed, to produce daily news coverage across the area. Both won the Royal Television Society's awards for the Best News Programme of the Year, in 1983 (for the South East edition), and in 1989 and 1991 (for the South edition).

TVS also innovated with the experimental Afternoon Club, a dedicated programme encompassing a number of afternoon soap operas, quiz shows etc. linked by general chat and guests etc. TVS also produced its own afternoon magazine series, Not for Women Only. TVS was also instrumental in providing separate non-news programmes for the South, South East and Thames Valley areas, including the chat show Coast to Coast People and the listings guide This Way Out. The award-winning series Country Ways, which examined the people and places of the region, began in 1984 and continued in production for ITV Meridian until 2008.

One of TVS's strongest performance was in children's programming. Early successes included the Saturday morning show No. 73 (which launched the career of Sandi Toksvig, and was networked from its second series) On Safari, the British version of Fraggle Rock and being one of the biggest contributors to Dramarama. In 1990, TVS brought back How as How 2 and began production of Art Attack.

As TVS established its deal with LWT, the company started to make significant contributions to the network with its own drama and entertainment series including: Catchphrase, C.A.T.S. Eyes, numerous Bobby Davro series, and the successful television adaptations of the novels of Ruth Rendell, with more than 15 programmes being made over a 10-year period.

TVS also provided a number of networked factual and science-based programmes, including In The Mouth of the Dragon and The Real World, the latter of which was twice broadcast in 3D (a ground-breaking television first in the UK) with special glasses given away with the magazine TV Times.

TVS continued Southern Television's tradition of providing classical music programmes, but these were broadcast on Channel 4 instead of ITV, principally involving The Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra under conductor Owain Arwel Hughes. Other contributions included opera from Glyndebourne and a performance of Mahler's 8th Symphony from Salisbury Cathedral to inaugurate Channel 4's stereo service on 28 July 1990. As well as classical music, TVS also produced a number of pop and light music programmes.

Other location programming included the usual round of sports coverage in the region, principally football. Also, extensive coverage of the various party political conferences from Brighton and Bournemouth. In the summer, a major light entertainment programme, Summertime Special, was produced for the ITV network on Saturday evenings.

Children's

 * Are We There Yet?
 * Art Attack (1990–92)
 * The Boy Who Won the Pools (1983)
 * The Castle of Adventure (1990)
 * Dramarama (1983–89)
 * Do It (1984–88)
 * Finders Keepers (1991–92)
 * Fraggle Rock (1984–90)
 * Get Fresh (1986–88)
 * The Haunting of Cassie Palmer (1982)
 * Henry's Leg (1986)
 * How 2 (1990–92)
 * Knights of God (1987)
 * Mr Majeika (1988–90)
 * Motormouth (1988–92)
 * No. 73 (1982–88)
 * On Safari (1982–84)
 * Panic Station (1988)
 * Running Loose (1986–88)
 * Rupert (1991)
 * Star Kids (1983–85)
 * The Storyteller (1988)
 * Telebugs (1986–87)
 * Travellers By Night (1985)
 * TUGS (1989)
 * What's Up Doc? (1992)
 * The Witches and the Grinnygog (1983)

Comedy and entertainment

 * All Clued Up (1988–91)
 * Bobby Davro on the Box (1985–86)
 * Bobby Davro's TV Weekly (1987–88)
 * Catchphrase (1986–94)
 * Challenge of the South (1987)
 * Concentration (1988–90)
 * Davro's Sketch Pad (1989)
 * Darvo (1990–91)
 * Etcetera
 * Five Alive (1987–88)
 * Goodbye to All That (1992)
 * The Help Squad
 * Hitman (1989)
 * Inn Quiz (1985)
 * It's A Dog's Life (1990)
 * Jeopardy! (1990–91)
 * Kelly's Eye (1985)
 * Love Me, Love Me Not (1988)
 * The Parlour Game (1985–87)
 * Pop the Question (1986)
 * Prove It (1988)
 * The Pyramid Game (1989–90)
 * Quandaries (1988)
 * Richard Digance
 * Salute to the Mayflower
 * Summertime Special (1986–88)
 * The Television Show (1987)
 * Tell the Truth (1989–90)
 * That's Love (1989–92)
 * That's What You Think (1986)
 * They Came From Somewhere Else (1984)
 * TV Weekly (1989–92)
 * Ultra Quiz (1983–85)
 * Vintage Quiz (1984)
 * Worldwise (1985–87)

ITV network series contributions

 * Highway
 * Morning Worship
 * The Time, The Place

Drama

 * Appointment With Fear: House of Glass (1992)
 * The Brief (1984)
 * C.A.T.S. Eyes (1985-87)
 * Day To Remember (1986)
 * The Endless Game (1989)
 * Exclusive Yarns (1987)
 * Gentlemen and Players (1988–89)
 * The Heroes (1989)
 * Heroes II: The Return (1991)
 * Mandela (1987)
 * Michelle Magorian's Back Home (1989)
 * Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story (1989)
 * Il Magistrato (1990)
 * Perfect Scoundrels (1990–92)
 * Radio (1982)
 * Rules of Engagement (1989)
 * Run For Your Wife (Adaptation of stage play)
 * The Ruth Rendell Mysteries (1987–92)
 * Secret Weapon (1990)

Documentaries and features

 * 7 Days (1982)
 * A Taste of the Country (1992)
 * Afternoon Club (1982–84)
 * A Full Life (1982–89)
 * Agenda (1984–91)
 * Airport 90 (1990)
 * Arcade (1985–88)
 * Artbeat
 * Art of the Western World (1989–90)
 * An Englishman's Home (1986)
 * The Bottom Line (1984)
 * About Britain (1982–88)
 * Coast to Coast People
 * Country Ways (1984–92)
 * Enterprise South (1980s)
 * Facing South (1985–90)
 * Fascinatin' Rhythm
 * Farm Focus (1982–89)
 * Frocks on the Box / Posh Frocks and New Trousers (1987–90)
 * The Human Factor (1984–92)
 * Horses for Courses (1986–87)
 * An Idea of Europe (1987)
 * Just Champion
 * Just Williams (1982–85)
 * Lymington Cup
 * Not For Women Only (1982)
 * The Other Side of Me (1982–83)
 * Police 5 (1982–92)
 * Project Yankee (1987)
 * Putting on the South (1984–86)
 * Questions (1984–88)
 * Regrets
 * Steam Sunday (1990)
 * Tahiti Witness (1987)
 * Tall Ships' Race (1982)
 * Taste of the South (1987)
 * That's Gardening (1986–92)
 * The Boat Show (1983–92)
 * The Purple Line (1984)
 * The Real World (1982–86)
 * The Spirit of Uppark
 * This Way Out (1990)
 * Ultrasail
 * Whitbread Round the World Race
 * Writers on Writing (1983–87)

Music

 * Action for Drugs Concert
 * The Barber of Seville (Glyndebourne)
 * DJ
 * Fidelio (Glyndebourne)
 * Il Seraglio (Glyndebourne)
 * La Traviata (Glyndebourne)
 * Just Liz (Liz Robertson)
 * The Love of Three Oranges (Glyndebourne)
 * The Magic Flute (Glyndebourne)
 * Mary O'Hara
 * A Midsummer Night's Dream (Glyndebourne)
 * Mahler's 8th Symphony (for Channel 4)
 * Off The Record
 * Royal Gala Performance (for New Zealand television)
 * Poole Promenade Concerts

title: Television South