text:
Immunization

Immunization, or immunisation, is the process by which an individual's immune system becomes fortified against an infectious agent (known as the immunogen).

When this system is exposed to molecules that are foreign to the body, called non-self, it will orchestrate an immune response, and it will also develop the ability to quickly respond to a subsequent encounter because of immunological memory. This is a function of the adaptive immune system. Therefore, by exposing a human, or an animal, to an immunogen in a controlled way, its body can learn to protect itself: this is called active immunization.

The most important elements of the immune system that are improved by immunization are the T cells, B cells, and the antibodies B cells produce. Memory B cells and memory T cells are responsible for a swift response to a second encounter with a foreign molecule. Passive immunization is direct introduction of these elements into the body, instead of production of these elements by the body itself.

Immunization happens in various ways, both in the wild and as done by human efforts in health care. Natural immunity is gained by those organisms whose immune systems succeed in fighting off a previous infection, if the relevant pathogen is one for which immunization is even possible. Natural immunity can have degrees of effectiveness (partial rather than absolute) and may fade over time (within months, years, or decades, depending on the pathogen). In health care, the main technique of artificial induction of immunity is vaccination, which is a major form of prevention of disease, whether by prevention of infection (pathogen fails to mount sufficient reproduction in the host), prevention of severe disease (infection still happens but is not severe), or both. Vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases is a major relief of disease burden even though it usually cannot eradicate a disease. Vaccines against microorganisms that cause diseases can prepare the body's immune system, thus helping to fight or prevent an infection. The fact that mutations can cause cancer cells to produce proteins or other molecules that are known to the body forms the theoretical basis for therapeutic cancer vaccines. Other molecules can be used for immunization as well, for example in experimental vaccines against nicotine (NicVAX) or the hormone ghrelin in experiments to create an obesity vaccine.

Immunizations are often widely stated as less risky and an easier way to become immune to a particular disease than risking a milder form of the disease itself. They are important for both adults and children in that they can protect us from the many diseases out there. Immunization not only protects children against deadly diseases but also helps in developing children's immune systems. Through the use of immunizations, some infections and diseases have almost completely been eradicated throughout the World. One example is polio. Thanks to dedicated health care professionals and the parents of children who vaccinated on schedule, polio has been eliminated in the U.S. since 1979. Polio is still found in other parts of the world so certain people could still be at risk of getting it. This includes those people who have never had the vaccine, those who did not receive all doses of the vaccine, or those traveling to areas of the world where polio is still prevalent.

Active immunization/vaccination has been named one of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century".

History
Before the introduction of vaccines, people could only become immune to an infectious disease by contracting the disease and surviving it. Smallpox (variola) was prevented in this way by inoculation, which produced a milder effect than the natural disease. The first clear reference to smallpox inoculation was made by the Chinese author Wan Quan (1499–1582) in his Douzhen xinfa (痘疹心法) published in 1549. In China, powdered smallpox scabs were blown up the noses of the healthy. The patients would then develop a mild case of the disease and from then on were immune to it. The technique did have a 0.5–2.0% mortality rate, but that was considerably less than the 20–30% mortality rate of the disease itself. Two reports on the Chinese practice of inoculation were received by the Royal Society in London in 1700; one by Dr. Martin Lister who received a report by an employee of the East India Company stationed in China and another by Clopton Havers. According to Voltaire (1742), the Turks derived their use of inoculation from neighbouring Circassia. Voltaire does not speculate on where the Circassians derived their technique from, though he reports that the Chinese have practiced it "these hundred years". It was introduced into England from Turkey by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1721 and used by Zabdiel Boylston in Boston the same year. In 1798 Edward Jenner introduced inoculation with cowpox (smallpox vaccine), a much safer procedure. This procedure, referred to as vaccination, gradually replaced smallpox inoculation, now called variolation to distinguish it from vaccination. Until the 1880s vaccine/vaccination referred only to smallpox, but Louis Pasteur developed immunization methods for chicken cholera and anthrax in animals and for human rabies, and suggested that the terms vaccine/vaccination should be extended to cover the new procedures. This can cause confusion if care is not taken to specify which vaccine is used e.g. measles vaccine or influenza vaccine.

Passive and active immunization
Immunization can be achieved in an active or passive manner: vaccination is an active form of immunization.

Active immunization
Active immunization can occur naturally when a person comes in contact with, for example, a microbe. The immune system will eventually create antibodies and other defenses against the microbe. The next time, the immune response against this microbe can be very efficient; this is the case in many of the childhood infections that a person only contracts once, but then is immune.

Artificial active immunization is where the microbe, or parts of it, are injected into the person before they are able to take it in naturally. If whole microbes are used, they are pre-treated.

The importance of immunization is so great that the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named it one of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century". Live attenuated vaccines have decreased pathogenicity. Their effectiveness depends on the immune systems ability to replicate and elicits a response similar to natural infection. It is usually effective with a single dose. Examples of live, attenuated vaccines include measles, mumps, rubella, MMR, yellow fever, varicella, rotavirus, and influenza (LAIV).

Passive immunization
Passive immunization is where pre-synthesized elements of the immune system are transferred to a person so that the body does not need to produce these elements itself. Currently, antibodies can be used for passive immunization. This method of immunization begins to work very quickly, but it is short lasting, because the antibodies are naturally broken down, and if there are no B cells to produce more antibodies, they will disappear.

Passive immunization occurs physiologically, when antibodies are transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy, to protect the fetus before and shortly after birth.

Artificial passive immunization is normally administered by injection and is used if there has been a recent outbreak of a particular disease or as an emergency treatment for toxicity, as in for tetanus. The antibodies can be produced in animals, called "serum therapy," although there is a high chance of anaphylactic shock because of immunity against animal serum itself. Thus, humanized antibodies produced in vitro by cell culture are used instead if available.

Positive externality
Immunizations impose what is known as a positive consumer externality on society. In addition to providing the individual with protection against certain antigens it adds greater protection to all other individuals in society through herd immunity. Because this extra protection is not accounted for in the market transactions for immunizations we see an undervaluing of the marginal benefit of each immunization. This market failure is caused by individuals making decisions based on their private marginal benefit instead of the social marginal benefit. Society's undervaluing of immunizations means that through normal market transactions we end up at a quantity that is lower than what is socially optimal.

For example, if individual A values their own immunity to an antigen at $100 but the immunization costs $150, individual A will decide against receiving immunization. However, if the added benefit of herd immunity means person B values person A's immunity at $70 then the total social marginal benefit of their immunization is $170. Individual A's private marginal benefit being lower than the social marginal benefit leads to an under-consumption of immunizations.

Socially optimal outcome
Having private marginal benefits lower than social marginal benefits will always lead to an under-consumption of any good. The size of the disparity is determined by the value that society places on each different immunization. Many times, immunizations do not reach a socially optimum quantity high enough to eradicate the antigen. Instead, they reach a social quantity that allows for an optimal amount of sick individuals. Most of the commonly immunized diseases in the United States still see a small presence with occasional larger outbreaks. Measles is a good example of a disease whose social optimum leaves enough room for outbreaks in the United States that often lead to the deaths of a handful of individuals. There are also examples of illnesses so dangerous that the social optimum ended with the eradication of the virus, such as smallpox. In these cases, the social marginal benefit is so large that society is willing to pay the cost to reach a level of immunization that makes the spread and survival of the disease impossible.

Despite the severity of certain illnesses, the cost of immunization versus the social marginal benefit means that total eradication is not always the end goal of immunization. Though it is hard to tell exactly where the socially optimal outcome is, we know that it is not the eradication of all disease for which an immunization exists.

Internalizing the externality
In order to internalize the positive externality imposed by immunizations payments equal to the marginal benefit must be made. In countries like the United States these payment usually come in the form of subsidies from the government. Before 1962 immunization programs in the United States were run on the local and state level of governments. The inconsistency in subsidies lead to some regions of the United States reaching the socially optimal quantity while other regions were left without subsidies and remained at the private marginal benefit level of immunizations. Since 1962 and the Vaccination Assistance Act, the United States as a whole has been moving towards the socially optimal outcome on a larger scale. Despite government subsidies it is difficult to tell when social optimum has been achieved. In addition to hardships determining the true social marginal benefit of immunizations we see cultural movements shifting private marginal benefit curves. Vaccine controversies have changed the way some private citizens view the marginal benefit of being immunized. If Individual A believes that there is a large health risk, possibly larger than the antigen itself, associated with immunization they will not be willing to pay for or receive immunization. With fewer willing participants and a widening marginal benefit reaching a social optimum becomes more difficult for governments to achieve through subsidies.

Outside of government intervention through subsidies, non profit organizations can also move a society towards the socially optimal outcome by providing free immunizations to developing regions. Without the ability to afford the immunizations to begin with, developing societies will not be able to reach a quantity determined by private marginal benefits. By running immunization programs organizations are able to move privately under-immunized communities towards the social optimum.

Race, ethnicity and immunization
In the United States, race and ethnicity are strong determinants of utilization of preventive and therapeutic health services as well as health outcomes. Rates of infant mortality and most of the leading causes of overall mortality have been higher in African Americans than in European Americans. A recent analysis of mortality from influenza and pneumonia revealed that African Americans died of these causes at higher rates than European Americans in 1999–2018. Contributing to these racial disparities are lower rates of immunization against influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, death rates have been higher in African Americans than European Americans and vaccination rates have lagged in African Americans during the roll-out. Among Hispanics immunization rates are lower than those in non-Hispanic whites.

title: Immunization


text:
Talk:Monocotyledon

Orders
On Liliopsida, the following list of orders was given:

 * Butomales
 * Alismatales
 * Triuridales
 * Juncaginales
 * Aponogetonales
 * Potamogetonales
 * Najadales
 * Commelinales
 * Xyridales
 * Eriocaulales
 * Bromeliales
 * Zingiberales
 * Liliales
 * Alstroemeriales
 * Arales
 * Typhales
 * Amaryllidales
 * Iridales
 * Dioscorales
 * Agavales
 * Arecales
 * Pandanales
 * Cyclanthales
 * Haemodorales
 * Burmanniales
 * Orchidales
 * Juncales
 * Cyperales
 * Poales

As far as I can tell, the degree of splitting here is very much overkill, i.e. it is unnecessary for creation of monophyletic groups. The list of orders currently given is based on what I have seen in a number of different sources, but someone more familiar with botany should compare the two schemes and make notes.

What is the point of the name being Monocotyledon and stating it to be a "class" when science says it is not the correct designation. The name is old fashioned. The justification of the name is in taxonomy. It is either a correct name or it is not. Science says it is not. Hence it should be renamed and made a redirect. GerardM 18:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The name is not old fashioned. It's the common name of the group in question, and we have a policy of using common names. It's also its name as a clade, i.e. one still used in the taxonomic literature. The group is named Liliopsida when treated as a class, because classes have to be named after a type genus. On the other hand, if the rank were changed, so would that name. Further, if it turned out Lilium were not a monocot, the name Liliopsida would ened up referring to an entirely different group. That's somewhat far fetched, but the same thing has happened with Magnolia: although it is a dicot, it probably belongs in a different class than the others.

In short: Liliopsida is the name of the class containing Lilium. At the moment, it happens to be the same as the monocotyledons, and it is even likely it will stay that way. But there's no reason to prefer that name, since the other name is perfectly valid in taxonomy and more common in the vernacular. -- Josh

 * The text of the Monocotyledon article includes the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's most current classification scheme, which has 10 orders--Acorales, Alismatales, Asparagales, Dioscoreales, Liliales, Pandanales, Arecales, Commelinales, Poales, and Zingiberales, with two families not yet assigned an order, Petrosaviaceae and Dasypogonaceae. It is a reasonably parsimonious scheme, and is backed up by current phylogeny. I didn't, however, change the taxotable.

 * I didn't do so because there is a great deal of disagreement on plant taxonomy, and I am not an Angiosperm expert by any stretch of the imagination. This layperson's view is that the APG system seems like a reasonable attempt to develop a standard phylogeny. It also seems to me that Wikipedia ought to use the APG as a standard for organizing its pages on plant taxa, while noting the Cronquist and other important variations from the APG scheme in the relevant articles. What do others think?Tom Radulovich 04:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I would think that is reasonable, IF we put something in the text that explains that the taxobox is based on Cronquist or some modification of Cronquist. That way the reader has a chance of understanding why there is disagreement - Marshman 04:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

APG II is the standard we have been using in wikipedia. To make this page more consistent with the others, in fact, we should have it in the taxobox and notable alternatives like Cronquist in the article. Josh 06:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Josh, at the moment the same word represts differet taxonomic levels and it makes it very messy for someone tyring to put together a new article--nixie 03:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Monocotyledones merge to here
I don't know enough about this or I'd do it myself. CambridgeBayWeather 07:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Done - MPF 10:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that is has not been merged, just deleted. Where it differed with this page the errors have been maintained - 20 Sep 2005

 * Note that there is also a separate monocots article that should be merged with this one. MrDarwin 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it took over a year to get around to it, but I've finally moved what little was not already redundant from the Monocots article to this one, and made the former into a redirect. Not only was the Monocots article redundant, the numerous links to the term "monocot" took users to an article that was extremely unhelpful. MrDarwin 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

better organization
you have got to have better organization. i mean instead of starting by monocots are plants blah blah blah, you might want to start with what is a monocot!! then you can discuss that there are certain no. of plants etc.

Seedling photograph
The photo comparing a monocot (grass) and dicot seedling purports to show the single cotyledon of a monocot seedling. In fact the "cotyledon" in the photograph is the first true leaf of the seedling, with the coleoptile barely visible below it. Neither of these is the cotyledon. MrDarwin 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox?
This article has no infobox, most species, genus etc do, I don't know all the correct info myself but would it be plausible and correct practice to add an infobox here? I read that grass is monocotyledon, in the grass article, but that page also has no infobox.

Carlwev 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The infobox for grass is actually at Poaceae. The term "grass" is often used with a somewhat broader meaning than just the members of the grass family.  I suppose you could put one in here, as it is a monophyletic group.  I won't do it myself because of concerns about mixing taxonomic systems within the box.  Check out Poaceae, though.  KP Botany 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I've taken a shot at an infobox (we'll see how long it lasts). This case is easier than most, in the sense that the different taxonomic systems agree on the group, they just differ on what to call it. Kingdon 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. KP Botany 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Descended from dicots?
I've met some statements in Russian web that Monos descended from Dicots. Is that true? If yes (not sure, I'm an amateur), maybe it should be mentioned. Best regards, -- C opper K ettle  09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It is true. The article says many things which (at least taken together) imply this (most directly, the cladogram showing their position in the Mesangiospermae). We address it more directly at Angiosperm. Because of this set of relationships the word "dicot" is one that many people would avoid, since it groups together all the angiosperms which aren't monocots (but which don't really have much to unify them). Kingdon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Monocotyledons or monocots (Greek language: Μονοκοτυλήδονο)
"Monocotyledons or monocots (Greek language: Μονοκοτυλήδονο)" Do we need the greek of Monocotyledon? I can't see that it adds any thing and is not monocot from the Latin? Hardyplants (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and we don't need the Latin etymology either. That's better handled at Wikipedia.  Note also that the addition was modern Greek, not Classical/Ancient Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct that 'monocot' is a slang form of 'monocotyledon'? If so, then it seems to me unencyclopedic to be using 'monocot' freely throughout the article as if it was as correct as the fully spelled-out form (and I note that 'monocot' is also used freely throughout the rest of Wikipedia. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think that it's slang. "Dicot" and "monocot" are widely used by biologists. An advantage is that it doesn't draw so much attention to the original derivation based on the number of cotyledons; this isn't a defining feature of the modern use of "eudicot" and "monocot". (I don't think I've ever seen "eudicotyledon".) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture Examples
I think the cross-sectional view of an onion bulb is a less obvious example of parallel veins than a top-down image of a leaf with parallel veins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.194.155 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Original or plagiarized material?
The "Evolution" section seems to be sourced much differently than the rest of Wikipedia. I have no evidence that it is plagiarized, but I don't see why else it would be sourced like that. To anyone that does, thanks for looking into it. Lets keep Wikipedia free and legitimate for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.228.106 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it is sourced differently is that it was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "Monocots" article
Is any of the following material from the recently deleted "Monocots" article useful to integrate into this article?

 * All the material except the paragraph that begins "Diagnostic characters ..." was either already in the Monocotyledon article or is out of date (e.g. the APG II system has been superseded by the APG III system), which is why there was no need for a separate article. The paragraph can usefully be added, but the article has a rather muddled order at present (in my view anyway) and this needs to be sorted first. I've been thinking about it and will do something if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem is that great chunks of material at the end have been auto-translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, as far as I can tell (although this is not acknowledged anywhere) and are in very poor English as a result. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Still all about monocots and dicots
This article still neglects a robust discussion of the monocots as a clade in favor of the childhood memories of the botanical owners of Wikipedia for their love of monocots versus dicots, while 100s, if not 1000s, of articles link to this mysterious and unknown (at least on Wikipedia) clade, the monocots as the one major and huge APG clade undeserving of an article.

If you're going to be rude because an outsider dared to point out the confusion, then offer up your precious childhood love of a concept and other places ignoring it too while promising only yourselves, not outsiders, are cpable of fixing it, then why don't you fix it? I forgot, Peter already understands the concept and the encyclopedia is written just for him.

Still sucks on the clade. Still not understanding why botanists think it worthy of 10,000 articles, while the owners of botanical "scholarship" on Wikipedia freaked out that it might deserve a solid understanding in even one.

97.124.184.75 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote policies myself: article ownership, treat potential (ha ha! as if ever) new editors somewhat civil. Wait, no policies apply, except for established editors to use against potential (again ha ha) new editors to keep content out of articles Who cares if it is an APG clade when people love some different content so well?

Of course you could not edit a word out, no matter how badly you treat other editors here at Wikipedia botany articles because that would give the appearance of continuing to ignore, insult potential (ha ha) new editor.

Go read about content disputes, new editors, and article ownership while you are trying to run me off from pointing out problems, a huge one, with this article, after everyone making it clear that scholarship be damned, the boys like one thing and so it will be

Anyone can edit, if you are a good old boy and like what you like? Reliable sources as long as I stick with old ones that have theories you favor, even if you have to contort this article and ignore its contradictions and incomprehensibilities?

 * No-one has ever claimed that this is a good article; it is not. It is rated at "C" class at present, which I think is actually too high. One of the sections is badly translated from the Spanish version, as far as I can tell. The issue was whether there should be two articles. Since, unlike the traditional dicots, the traditional monocots have been upheld by molecular phylogenetics, there is no case for two articles. But by all means improve the existing article based on reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was never about "there should be two articles" except that the way you are determined that this article be primarily about monocots versus dicots makes it almost impossible to understand the clade from this article. I said "This is not about that monocotyledons are monocots; it's about helping someone who can't make sense of the monocot clade from this article" and you continued to show off and force your monocotyledons-fell-out-as-monocots superior knowledge and everyone freaked out and jumped me and kept repeating their superior monocotyledons-fell-out-as-monocots superior knowledge to put me down. When I tried to get help, I got put in my place but otherwise ignored by the monocotyledons-fell-out-as-monocots superior knowledge holders, but when I got a textbook and tried to improve the situation then I got jumped on and you made it all about my attempting to have two articles. I can't rewrite your pet love of monocots versus dicots as superior and more important than the monocots clade. I already said that. This article is too bad to rewrite. I can't improve your article on monocots versus dicots, especially as bad as this article is, then adding the even worse dicots article. I could have, however, written a good article on the monocots clade, which you forbid because you are worried that having an article on the clade will make it seem as if they are not or less important to the dicot monocotyledons. But, if you had talked, instead of first ignoring the real matter, then freaking out protecting your ownership of an idea while smugly asserting your superior knowledge, we could have come up with a solution that acknowledged how badly this article addresses the clade. Like clearly defining the APG clade and adding an article-sized section, since there is more than enough literature. Having two articles (OMG kill me now), but naming this one monocots and dicots, then clearly outlining in the monocots article that monocots are monocotyledons. Instead you have this which even fails in the monocots and dicots, emphasizes non-synapomorphies and does nothing other than assert your ownership and ability to keep any new editors off of Wikipedia.
 * Maybe I misunderstand you, but you still seem to be writing as if "monocotyledons" and "monocots" are different things. To say that a clade can be described by its synapomorphies has two consequences (1) there are features that all members of the clade have in common (the "syn" bit) and these need to be clearly described (for which APweb seems a good source) (2) there are features that distinguish the clade from the other members of the parent clade (the "apo" bit) and these need to be clearly described. It's also right to discuss the history of the monocot concept, just as articles on families discuss the historical circumscription of that family.
 * The ordering of the material should follow the fairly standard template for plant articles: Description, Taxonomy (including historical classification), Phylogeny and evolution, Distribution and habitat, perhaps Ecology (although this works less well for higher level taxa), Uses. I agree that the comparison with the traditional dicots is somewhat overplayed, and I would move it out of the Description section, but this material will automatically become less significant when the rest of the article gets expanded. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, get over it. You are not the only person on the planet who understands that monocotyledons sensual monocots versus dicots played out as a clade while dicotyledons didn't. Your inability to see this and obsession with it is tiresome. However, APG and Wikipedia taxoboxes deal with a clade that owns its own description that is almost entirely missing from Wikipedia because this article is about monocotyledons sensu "monocots versus dicots," and coupled with it being a bad article, ascribing the old differences to the new clade as synapomorphies that aren't, and the dicots article being so bad, plus your inability to believe anyone else could understand monocots and monocots sensu monocots versus dicots being the same thing make it impossible for anyone to 1) understand the APG clade from this article and 2) do anything to improve the entire situation on Wikipedia.

Good article
Setting aside arguments about autotranslation (never a good idea), the fact remains that the Spanish article is rated GA and this isn't. Therefore taking a look at how the Spanish article is organised and its contents and sources is a worthwhile exercise if we are to raise the standard of the English article. I will tag it.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On reviewing both pages, it does seem that quite a bit of this page was lifted from the Spanish article, but not very well. As a preliminary step to upgrading the page I have revised and corrected all the citations and placed them in a consistent format. I have also made a start at expanding the pre-Linnean taxonomy.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One amusing example of bad translation is the phrase ""o "núcleo de las monocotiledóneas" por el APW ("core monocots" en inglés)"" translated as ""or 'core monocots' by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website ("core monocots" in English)"" !! The translator seems to have forgotten they are writing in English.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's what you get when you use Google translate! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Monocotyledon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor edit
I don't seem to be able to edit the introduction. Please change "who" to "which" in the following sentence:

About half as many species belong to the true grasses (Poaceae), who are economically the most important family of monocots. KC 16:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

✅ Plantdrew (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

species counts
This page has some confusing and self-contradictory information regarding the number of species in Orchidaceae and Poaceae. Here's what we have currently:

In the introduction

"The monocots include about 60,000 species. The largest family in this group (and in the flowering plants as a whole) by number of species are the orchids (family Orchidaceae), with more than 20,000 species. About half as many species belong to the true grasses (Poaceae), which are economically the most important family of monocots."

In the section titled Taxonomy

"Of these, the grass family (Poaceae) is the most economically important, which together with the orchids Orchidaceaeaccount for half of the species diversity, accounting for 34% and 17% of all monocots respectively and are among the largest families of angiosperms.

In the section headed Cladogram 2

"Of some 70,000 species,[90] by far the largest number (65%) are found in two families, the orchids and grasses. The orchids (Orchidaceae, Asparagales) contain about 25,000 species and the grasses (Poaceae, Poales) about 11,000."

In the Wikipedia page for Orchidaceae, the number of species is put at about 28,000, and in the page for Poaceae, the number of species is put at about 12,000.

Issues:

Is the number of monocot species about 60,000 or about 70,000?

Orchidaceae is not the largest family in flowering plants. Asteraceae has 32,913 according to its Wikipedia page.

Is the number of Orchidaceae 20,000, 25,000 or 28,000?

Is the number of Poaceae 11,000, 12,000 or "half of Orchidaceae?"

65% of 70,000 is 45,500 so orchids and grasses are less than 65% of the species.

I would like to make the number consistent within this page and with the Orchidaceae and Poaceae pages. However, I am not a botanist so this would be best handled by someone from the WikiProject Plants. neals384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neals384 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Your comments are very hard to follow, but there is no inconsistency in the statistics, merely in the degree of presumed accuracy in the sources. "about 25,000" and "about 28,000" is essentially saying the same thing with a different assumption of accuracy. "more than 20,000" is entirely in line with both of those values. While you might want a single statistic to be used consistently, doing so would fail to reflect the degree of uncertainty about the number of species. Different counts are obtained using different assumptions about the completeness and accuracy of the known (and unknown) data. It is actually better to provide a range of stated values from the literature because of the uncertainty about the total number of species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Completely understand that many taxa are subject to change as new research advances our knowledge. Agree that exact numbers are not an appropriate goal. However, I fail to understand why different number would be used within the same article. Why not "about 28,000" orchid species everywhere. It's the inconsistency that troubles me, not the precision of the estimate. I thought my other comments were quite clear, but if not - Orchids are not the biggest family in flowering plants, aster is. Let's fix that. 65% of 70,000 is 45,500. There are that many orchids + grasses. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neals384 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Biology
Monocotyledon 154.74.127.92 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Voice concern 102.150.133.126 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Science
Monocots and Dicots 1.38.141.137 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Science
monocot and. Dicot 103.181.227.241 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Monocotyledon


text:
Teratoma

A teratoma is a tumor made up of several different types of tissue, such as hair, muscle, teeth, or bone. Teratomata typically form in the tailbone (where it is known as a sacrococcygeal teratoma), ovary, or testicle.

Symptoms
Symptoms may be minimal if the tumor is small. A testicular teratoma may present as a painless lump. Complications may include ovarian torsion, testicular torsion, or hydrops fetalis.

They are a type of germ cell tumor (a tumor that begins in the cells that give rise to sperm or eggs). They are divided into two types: mature and immature. Mature teratomas include dermoid cysts and are generally benign. Immature teratomas may be cancerous. Most ovarian teratomas are mature. In adults, testicular teratomas are generally cancerous. Definitive diagnosis is based on a tissue biopsy.

Treatment of coccyx, testicular, and ovarian teratomas is generally by surgery. Testicular and immature ovarian teratomas are also frequently treated with chemotherapy.

Teratomas occur in the coccyx in about one in 30,000 newborns, making them one of the most common tumors in this age group. Females are affected more often than males. Ovarian teratomas represent about a quarter of ovarian tumors and are typically noticed during middle age. Testicular teratomas represent almost half of testicular cancers. They can occur in both children and adults. The term comes from the Greek word for "monster" plus the "-oma" suffix used for tumors.

Mature teratoma
A mature teratoma is a grade 0 teratoma. They are highly variable in form and histology, and may be solid, cystic, or a combination of the two. A mature teratoma often contains several different types of tissue such as skin, muscle, and bone. Skin may surround a cyst and grow abundant hair (see dermoid cyst). Mature teratomas generally are benign, with 0.17-2% of mature cystic teratomas becoming malignant.

Immature teratoma
Immature teratoma is the malignant counterpart of the mature teratoma and contains immature tissues which typically show primitive or embryonal neuroectodermal histopathology. Immature teratoma has one of the lowest rates of somatic mutation of any tumor type and results from one of five mechanisms of meiotic failure.

Gliomatosis peritoneii
Gliomatosis peritoneii, which presents as a deposition of mature glial cells in the peritoneum, is almost exclusively seen in conjunction with cases of ovarian teratoma. Through genetic studies of exome sequence, it was found that gliomatosis is genetically identical to the parent ovarian tumor and developed from cells that disseminate from the ovarian teratoma.

Dermoid cyst
A dermoid cyst is a mature cystic teratoma containing hair (sometimes very abundant) and other structures characteristic of normal skin and other tissues derived from the ectoderm. The term is most often applied to teratoma on the skull sutures and in the ovaries of females.

Fetus in fetu and fetiform teratoma
Fetus in fetu and fetiform teratoma are rare forms of mature teratomas that include one or more components resembling a malformed fetus. Both forms may contain or appear to contain complete organ systems, even major body parts, such as a torso or limbs. Fetus in fetu differs from fetiform teratoma in having an apparent spine and bilateral symmetry.

Most authorities agree that fetiform teratomas are highly developed mature teratomas; the natural history of fetus in fetu is controversial. It has been noted that fetiform teratoma is reported more often (by gynecologists) in ovarian teratomas, and fetus in fetu is reported more often (by general surgeons) in retroperitoneal teratomas. Fetus in fetu has often been interpreted as a fetus growing within its twin. As such, this interpretation assumes a special complication of twinning, one of several grouped under the term parasitic twin. In many cases, the fetus in fetu is reported to occupy a fluid-filled cyst within a mature teratoma. Cysts within mature teratomas may have partially-developed organ systems: reports include cases of partial cranial bones, long bones and a rudimentary, beating heart.

Regardless of whether fetus in fetu and fetiform teratoma are one entity or two, they are distinct from and not to be confused with ectopic pregnancy.

Struma ovarii
A struma ovarii (also known as goitre of the ovary or ovarian goiter) is a rare form of mature teratoma that contains mostly thyroid tissue.

Epignathus
Epignathus is a rare teratoma originating in the oropharyngeal area that occurs in utero. It presents with a mass protruding from the mouth at birth. Untreated, breathing is impossible. An EXIT procedure is the recommended initial treatment.

Signs and symptoms
Teratomas may be found in babies, children, and adults. Teratomas of embryonal origin are most often found in babies at birth, in young children, and, since the advent of ultrasound imaging, in fetuses.

The most diagnosed fetal teratomas are sacrococcygeal teratoma (Altman types I, II, and III) and cervical (neck) teratoma. Because these teratomas project from the fetal body into the surrounding amniotic fluid, they can be seen during routine prenatal ultrasound exams. Teratomas within the fetal body are less easily seen with ultrasound; for these, MRI of the pregnant uterus is more informative.

Complications
Teratomas are not dangerous for the fetus unless either a mass effect occurs or a large amount of blood flows through the tumor (known as vascular steal). The mass effect frequently consists of obstruction of normal passage of fluids from surrounding organs. The vascular steal can place a strain on the growing heart of the fetus, even resulting in heart failure, thus must be monitored by fetal echocardiography.

Teratomas can cause an autoimmune illness called N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis. In this condition, the teratomas may contain B cells with NMDA-receptor specificities.

After teratoma removal surgery, a risk exists of regrowth in place, or in nearby organs.

Pathophysiology
Teratomas belong to a class of tumors known as nonseminomatous germ cell tumor. All tumors of this class are the result of abnormal development of pluripotent cells: germ cells and embryonal cells. Teratomas of embryonic origin are congenital; teratomas of germ cell origin may or may not be congenital. The kind of pluripotent cell appears to be unimportant, apart from constraining the location of the teratoma in the body.

Teratomas derived from germ cells occur in the testicle and ovaries. Teratomas derived from embryonic cells usually occur on the subject's midline: in the brain, elsewhere in the skull, in the nose, in the tongue, under the tongue, and in the neck (cervical teratoma), mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and attached to the coccyx. Teratomas may also occur elsewhere: very rarely in solid organs (most notably the heart and liver) and hollow organs (such as the stomach and bladder), and more commonly on the skull sutures.

Teratoma rarely include more complicated body parts such as teeth, brain matter, eyes, or torso.

Hypotheses of origin
Concerning the origin of teratomas, numerous hypotheses exist. These hypotheses are not to be confused with the unrelated hypothesis that fetus in fetu (see below) is not a teratoma at all, but rather a parasitic twin.

Diagnosis
Teratomas are thought to originate in utero, so can be considered congenital tumors. Many teratomas are not diagnosed until much later in childhood or in adulthood. Large tumors are more likely to be diagnosed early on. Sacrococcygeal and cervical teratomas are often detected by prenatal ultrasound. Additional diagnostic methods may include prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. In rare circumstances, the tumor is so large that the fetus may be damaged or die. In the case of large sacrococcygeal teratomas, a significant portion of the fetus' blood flow is redirected toward the teratoma (a phenomenon called steal syndrome), causing heart failure, or hydrops, of the fetus. In certain cases, fetal surgery may be indicated.

Beyond the newborn period, symptoms of a teratoma depend on its location and organ of origin. Ovarian teratomas often present with abdominal or pelvic pain, caused by torsion of the ovary or irritation of its ligaments. A recently discovered condition where ovarian teratomas cause encephalitis associated with antibodies against the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibody (NMDAR) - often referred to as "anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis", was identified as a serious complication. Patients develop a multistage illness that progresses from psychosis, memory deficits, seizures, and language disintegration into a state of unresponsiveness with catatonic features often associated with abnormal movements, and autonomic and breathing instability. Testicular teratomas present as a palpable mass in the testis; mediastinal teratomas often cause compression of the lungs or the airways and may present with chest pain and/or respiratory symptoms.

Some teratomas contain yolk sac elements, which secrete alpha-fetoprotein. Its detection may help to confirm the diagnosis and is often used as a marker for recurrence or treatment efficacy, but is rarely the method of initial diagnosis. (Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein is a useful screening test for other fetal conditions, including Down syndrome, spina bifida, and abdominal wall defects such as gastroschisis.)

Classification
Regardless of location in the body, a teratoma is classified according to a cancer staging system. This indicates whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy may be needed in addition to surgery. Teratomas commonly are classified using the Gonzalez-Crussi grading system: 0 or mature (benign); 1 or immature, probably benign; 2 or immature, possibly malignant (cancerous); and 3 or frankly malignant. If frankly malignant, the tumor is a cancer for which additional cancer staging applies.

Teratomas are also classified by their content; a solid teratoma contains only tissues (perhaps including more complex structures); a cystic teratoma contains only pockets of fluid or semifluid such as cerebrospinal fluid, sebum, or fat; a mixed teratoma contains both solid and cystic parts. Cystic teratomas usually are grade 0 and, conversely, grade 0 teratomas usually are cystic.

Grades 0, 1, and 2 pure teratomas have the potential to become malignant (grade 3), and malignant pure teratomas have the potential to metastasize. These rare forms of teratoma with malignant transformation may contain elements of somatic (not germ cell) malignancy such as leukemia, carcinoma, or sarcoma. A teratoma may contain elements of other germ cell tumors, in which case it is not a pure teratoma, but rather is a mixed germ cell tumor and is malignant. In infants and young children, these elements usually are endodermal sinus tumor, followed by choriocarcinoma. Finally, a teratoma can be pure and not malignant yet highly aggressive; this is exemplified by growing teratoma syndrome, in which chemotherapy eliminates the malignant elements of a mixed tumor, leaving pure teratoma, which paradoxically begins to grow very rapidly.

Malignant transformation
A "benign" grade 0 (mature) teratoma nonetheless has a risk of malignancy. Recurrence with malignant endodermal sinus tumor has been reported in cases of formerly benign mature teratoma, even in fetiform teratoma and fetus in fetu. Squamous cell carcinoma has been found in a mature cystic teratoma at the time of initial surgery. A grade 1 immature teratoma that appears to be benign (e.g., because AFP is not elevated) has a much higher risk of malignancy, and requires adequate follow-up. This grade of teratoma also may be difficult to diagnose correctly. It can be confused with other small round cell neoplasms such as neuroblastoma, small cell carcinoma of hypercalcemic type, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, Wilm's tumor, desmoplastic small round cell tumor, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

A teratoma with malignant transformation is a very rare form of teratoma that may contain elements of somatic malignant tumors such as leukemia, carcinoma, or sarcoma. Of 641 children with pure teratoma, nine developed TMT: five carcinoma, two glioma, and two embryonal carcinoma (here, these last are classified among germ cell tumors).

Extraspinal ependymoma
Extraspinal ependymoma, usually considered to be a glioma (a type of nongerm cell tumor), may be an unusual form of mature teratoma.

Surgery
The treatment of choice is complete surgical removal (i.e., complete resection). Teratomas are normally well-encapsulated and noninvasive of surrounding tissues, hence they are relatively easy to resect from surrounding tissues. Exceptions include teratomas in the brain, and very large, complex teratomas that have pushed into and become interlaced with adjacent muscles and other structures.

Prevention of recurrence does not require en bloc resection of surrounding tissues.

Chemotherapy
For malignant teratomas, usually, surgery is followed by chemotherapy.

Teratomas that are in surgically inaccessible locations, or are very complex, or are likely to be malignant (due to late discovery and/or treatment) sometimes are treated first with chemotherapy.

Follow-up
Although often described as benign, a teratoma does have malignant potential. A UK study of 351 infants and children diagnosed with "benign" teratoma reported 227 with MT, 124 with IT. Five years after surgery, event-free survival was 92.2% and 85.9%, respectively, and overall survival was 99% and 95.1%. A similar study in Italy reported on 183 infants and children diagnosed with teratoma. At 10 years after surgery, event-free and overall survival were 90.4% and 98%, respectively.

Depending on which tissue(s) it contains, a teratoma may secrete a variety of chemicals with systemic effects. Some teratomas secrete the "pregnancy hormone" human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG), which can be used in clinical practice to monitor the successful treatment or relapse in patients with a known HCG-secreting teratoma. This hormone is not recommended as a diagnostic marker, because most teratomas do not secrete it. Some teratomas secrete thyroxine, in some cases to such a degree that it can lead to clinical hyperthyroidism in the patient. Of special concern is the secretion of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP); under some circumstances, AFP can be used as a diagnostic marker specific for the presence of yolk sac cells within the teratoma. These cells can develop into a frankly malignant tumor known as yolk sac tumor or endodermal sinus tumor.

Adequate follow-up requires close observation, involving repeated physical examination, scanning (ultrasound, MRI, or CT), and measurement of AFP and/or βhCG.

Epidemiology
Embryonal teratomas most commonly occur in the sacrococcygeal region; sacrococcygeal teratoma is the single most common tumor found in newborn humans.

Of teratomas on the skull sutures, about 50% are found in or adjacent to the orbit. Limbal dermoid is a choristoma, not a teratoma.

Teratoma qualifies as a rare disease, but is not extremely rare. Sacrococcygeal teratoma alone is diagnosed at birth in one out of 40,000 humans. Given the current human population and birth rate, this equals five per day or 1800 per year. Add to that number sacrococcygeal teratomas diagnosed later in life, and teratomas in other locales, and the incidence approaches 10,000 new diagnoses of teratoma per year.

Other animals
Ovarian teratomas have been reported in mares, mountain lions, and canines. Teratomas also occur, rarely, in other species.

Use in stem cell research
Pluripotent stem cells including human induced pluripotent stem cells have a unique property of being able to generate teratomas when injected in rodents in the research laboratory. The roots of this observation has been attributed to Leroy Stevens of the Jackson Laboratory. In 1970, Stevens noticed that the cell populations that gave rise to teratomas were very similar to the cells of very early embryos. For this reason, the so-called "teratoma assay" is one of the gold-standard validation assays for pluripotent stem cells. Because differentiated human pluripotent stem cells are being developed as the basis for numerous regenerative medicine therapies, there is concern that residual undifferentiated stem cells could lead to teratoma formation in injected patients, and researchers are working to develop methods to address this concern.

New research has looked at utilizing the human teratoma in chimeric animal studies as a promising platform for modeling multi-lineage human development, pan-tissue functional genetic screening, and tissue engineering.

title: Teratoma


text:
Australian mudnester

Corcoracidae is a family of passerine birds known as the Australian mudnesters. The family has sometimes been called Struthideidae in the past; however, despite Struthideidae being an older name than Corcoracidae, the latter name takes precedence. It contains just two species in two genera, the white-winged chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos) and the apostlebird (Struthidea cinerea). Both are endemic to Australia.

Distribution and habitat
Both the Australian mudnesters are found in open habitat in eastern Australia, mostly open eucalypt woodlands and some forest that lacks a closed canopy. The apostlebird is more tolerant of arid habitats and is found in arid woodland and shrublands. Both species are tolerant of human modified habitats and will occupy farmlands and suburban areas, and even parks and gardens.

Description
The two mudnesters are medium-sized passerines, the apostlebird being smaller at around 31 cm in length and the larger white-winged chough averaging 47 cm. Their morphology is typical of ground feeding passerines, with long legs and short, rounded wings. The most noticeable differences between the two species are in the plumage (grey with brown wings and a black tail in the apostlebird, and black with white wing patches in the white-winged chough) and bill shape. The bill of the apostlebird is short and deep, not unlike that of a finch, whereas the bill of the white-winged chough is long and curved, not unlike that of its Old World namesakes, the choughs. The differences in the bills reflect the differences in feeding ecology, with the apostlebirds using theirs for sparrow-like picking whereas the white-winged chough uses its bill to flick leaf litter around.

Behaviour
In the field, the relationship between the two species is immediately apparent: both species are highly social, spending much of their time foraging through leaf litter with a very distinctive gait, calling to one another almost constantly. Both species respond to a human interloper by flying heavily to a nearby tree, where they wait for the disturbance to pass, often perching close together in twos and threes and allopreening. In picnic grounds and parks these birds may become accustomed to humans and become very tame.

The social groups of mudnesters are based around a dominant male and female. The number of birds in the group may vary from two to twenty birds, six birds being typical in the white-winged chough and seven to nine birds in the apostlebird. Both species are non migratory and defend a territory during the breeding season. The size of the territory during the breeding season is around 20 ha, after the breeding season when the chicks are fledged the group may range over a larger territory. On the death of one of the dominant breeders the groups break up, and the remaining dominant bird will take immatures from their group and find a lone bird to form a new group. The majority of recruits into any group after its establishment are youngsters from previous breeding seasons. These helpers are important in breeding success, so much so that white-winged choughs have been reported to kidnap nearly fledged chicks from other groups in order to increase the size of the kidnapping group.

As the common name of the family suggests, the nests are constructed out of mud. These bowl shaped nests take several days to construct, longer if supplies of mud dry up before the nest is finished. Nests are built opportunistically when rain causes muddy puddles, and may be reused if possible. Around three to five oval eggs are laid in each clutch. These eggs are incubated for around twenty days by all members of the group, and feeding and brooding duties are also shared within the group. This family has a very long period of fledgling care, with full independence from the parents and helpers taking up to 200 days.

Species

 * White-winged chough, Corcorax melanorhamphos
 * Apostlebird, Struthidea cinerea

title: Australian mudnester


text: Talk:Odology

title: Talk:Odology


text:
Talk:Sexual identity

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RadicalRelationsHeart.svg

Pansexual
When you have an Interest in someone, and that someone does not have to be cis or straight. You are attracted because of there personality, not gender. You are aloud to have a preference, no matter what anyone says. HappySadness999 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research
— Assignment last updated by Ejgrimm (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Sexual Identities in Article: Missing Something?
I noticed that "Heterosexual" is missing from the list of sexual identities. While heterosexuality is outside the realm of LGBTQ+ issues, I believe the purpose of this article is to define and explain sexual identities to someone who doesn't know anything about it. Excluding one of the most common ones would be doing a disservice to the new reader. 104.32.58.141 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * @104.32.58.141 heterosexuality isn't missing, it's just at the bottom of the list, nerd. Maybe you should read the entire list before commenting. (Note: I'm replying to my own comment) 104.32.58.141 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sexual identity


text:
Talk:Teddybears (band)

Grindcore?
I don't know much about music, but I know what grindcore is and I have the Teddybears CD. I don't think it's gridcore at all. Furthermore, the reference that cites that it's grindcore is not working. Can anyone verify? Otherwise, I'm going to delete it. 67.161.75.213 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, they definitely aren't grindcore anymore, but I suppose it's possible they were once. And then turned into an eletropop band? Maybe? Chatoyant 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they started out as a four piece grindcore/skate punk outfit and radically switched music style to their current electronica/hip hop/reggae or whatever one should call it… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.100.32 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Their first band "Skull" was most definitely grindcore, I think that's what it's in reference to. And althought Teddybears (or Teddybears STHLM) started as a punk/hardcore/metal band on the first two albums, they were never grindcore. Some songs (like Move It Vomit and Taken By Surprise) have grindcore elements such as blastbeats, but Teddybears were hardly a grindcore band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirrunk (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Teddybears Update
Their WIKI page seems a little out of date, can anyone give it an update?. Also there is a track from them that I would really like to find out some information about it, It's called "Next To You", it samples AC-DC's classic track "Can I Sit Next To You Girl" it appears on NBA Live 2009. I can't seem to find any information about it, like if it will be released and on what album ect.

 * Someone has uploaded it onto youtube, not sure if I am allowed to post it here but here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sUGg38DhIQ **

(**Delete if it bends the rules**)

Thanks to anyone that can give any info on the track. Barretto24 (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Remixes
Should they be listed? I know that, at least, they remixed "Arma-Goddamn-Motherfuckin-Geddon" by Marilyn Manson. Paperxcrip (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Skull formed before 91
Hi!

I believe the band formed as Skull but this was probably in 87. They rehearsed at Fryshuset(Danvikstull/Stockholm) as Skull but had more names before Teddybears. Skull > Contra > Contradiction > Teddybears?...

Drummer Glenn went on to play in Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_(band)

I think the first bass player of Skull was Jens Näsström from the band Morbid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_%28band%29

(I know he played with the band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagon5 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teddybears (band)


text:
Talk:German Navy

German name
Shouldn't this be at "Deutsche Marine" instead and "German Navy" be a redirect? Ttownfeen 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't think so. This article covers German naval history since the 19th century, albeit in a very rudimental manner. "Deutsche Marine" is used as the official name for the German Navy only since 1991. So the name "Deutsche Marine" would not properly represent the content of this article.
 * In the German wikipedia there is a long article on the overall history of the German Navy since medieval times de:Geschichte der Deutschen Marine and there are other articles on the different German naval formations that have existed in different times, e.g. de:Bundesmarine, de:Deutsche Marine, de:Volksmarine. Unfortunately, I don't have time (and skill) to translate these articles into English. Especially the article on the overall history seems to be worth a translation.--KuK 07:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that on English Wikipedia it should be under "German Navy", I think the context translation (Bundesmarine) should be given AS WELL AS the literal translation. Shouldn't it be "Deutschemarine" anyway? Native Germans here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct German name is "Deutsche Marine". "Bundesmarine" has only been a semiofficial name that is not any more in use since the early 1990s. "Deutsche Marine" translates exactly to German Navy.--KuK (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The following text was merged into this chapter as it covers the same subject "Kaiserliche Marine" and "Reichsmarine" are both translated in this article as "Imperial Navy". I think it would be very helpful to add an explanation of the major difference between these german terms. --Reibeisen 11:41, 24 March 2007

 * "Kaiserliche Marine" - Navy of the Emperor
 * "Reichsmarine"      - Navy of the Empire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.252.161 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Volksmarine
Yes, I'd like very much to see a reasonable length article on the Volksmarine. Unfortunately, I speak not a word of German, so I doubt I am qualified. Perhaps more unfortunately, I don't think the de:Volksmarine is much more than a stub either. Do the Polish, French or Russian wikis have more on it? --V. Joe 21:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your opinion that de:Volksmarine is a stub. It is not really well structured but a lengthy article including an organisational chart and chapters on the history, the mission, and the ships of the Volksmarine. So, what else are you interested in?
 * I agree that such an article would be great in English. Just add a respective request to the German page. You can do it in Englisch, most German wikipedia friends will understand, and perhaps someone will try a translation. Then you could assist as a native speaker.--KuK 09:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've translated much of the German Wiki about the Volksmarine and put it on the English Wiki. Left out the detailed list of ranks and the organization chart -- too complicated for me.  Help welcome in polishing this piece.Cosal 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Status of procurements
IP-user 172.177.125.27 has inserted some premature information about the status of some procurement projects and some other wrong information. --KuK 09:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So far in 2006 only one major contract has been signed for two additional U-212A submarines. Contracts for F-125 and a third Berlin-class supply ship have not been signed yet. In fact, probably the Berlin-class will be delayed a couple of years. The formally planned forth vessel is not anymore in the plans. The F-125 contract may be signed soon.
 * Plans for more K-130 corvettes have been cancelled already in 2003 and the MÜKE project is still very sketchy, so no figures for future ships can be given.
 * The Global Hawk UAVs will be owned and operated by the German Air Force.
 * U-206 has been designed as an anti-surface warfare submarine to be mainly employed against Soviet amphibious forces. It is therefore definitely not a hunter submarine as those are defined as anti-submarine warfare submarines. The first real hunter submarine of the German Navy is U-212A.
 * The NATO research vessel Alliance is owned and operated by the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC) in La Spezia, Italy. It is flying the flag of German state owned vessel (Bundesdienstflagge), but does not belong to the German Navy or any other German Ministry of Defence organisation.

- I do not know about your discussion, here. However, I've read several articles in technical literature which claimed, 5 more K130 are planned to be ordered from 2008 on. Apperantly, I am not the only one who read these magazines - WP article on K130 says the same, as does German WP. Afaik, with the decomission of the remaining FACs, five new K130 are to be procurred.

As far as I know MÜKE was later renamed in K130, so they actually mean the same. Unfortunately there is hardly any information on Müke online.

Another question: I've heard that German Airforce was to buy GlobalHawk, but one of the first test flights in Germany, was conducted by the German Navy. Thus, I always had the impression, the German Navy will also get them to replace their last Atlantics.

--Rebell18190

 * First of all: A very good source is the German site geopowers with a lot of detailed info on German defence matters including procurement plans. There you can find most things you are looking for, but it is in German. It is not very easy to find specific details as they are listed in different chronological articles. So you should know the date of decisions to find the details there.
 * About the UAV: The Global Hawk tests were conducted from Nordholz Naval Air Station. That may have led to the impression that they were planned for the Navy. This is definitely wrong as they are planned to be stationes at Air Force base Schleswig.
 * You are right that there is little info on MÜKE. There are obviously no definite decissions on this programme. One has to notice that within the new German procurement system there are no replacements any more. Instead, there must be a joint capability requirement first. Then it is decided in the Joint Staff how to fulfil the requirement. Then there will be a decision on the new system. As the old FACs are not the right means for modern expeditionary operations new systems might look totally different.--KuK 11:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

U-212A picture description
I removed the description "Undetectable" for a picture of the U-212A SSK in the article. This characterisation is nonsense from a technical point of view in a variety of ways. While the fuel-cell employed for energy generation, does indeed produce no detectable noise, the submarine still relies on conventional propulsion by diesel generators for most of the time to actually cover any longer distance. Also, even if the submarine would use exclusively fuel-cells for propulsion, the screw is a constant source of noise, as with any other submarine. Being "stealthy" in some way does not mean that you cannot be detected. Thats just it. Note, that we are not even starting to discuss active sonar detection here where noise emissions are irrelevant.

--58bravo

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Frigate
There is a discussion on the Frigate article which editors here may be interested in. 88.106.81.112 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Title
Any reliable source on the title? I never heard anything but Marine. --91.10.16.71 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * In English, it's usually called the German Navy. It's not like Luftwaffe, which is used almost exclusively in Engilsh to refer to the German Air Force. Also, "Marine" has several meanings in English, the more common of which do not mean "navy". - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Is that what you call a reliable source? --91.10.16.71 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * No, just an informed observation. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * And see the section above for similar comments. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * So the guy claiming "Deutsche Marine" would be the correct name is a reliable source?
 * Gosh, this can't be so hard. Isn't this what Wikipedia is about? --91.10.16.71 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * It's the correct name in German, and that is stated in the article. This is English WP, so we're not bound by the names in other languages. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Nor, apparently, by reliable sources. --91.10.16.71 (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Relible sources can be given for the use of both the English and German names. Which should be used on English WP is governed by WP guidelines and policies. You're welscom to propose that the article be renamed, and try to get a consensus to do so. Beyond that, there's nothing more this converstaion can accomplish. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Organisation
A new organisation is in force since October, 1st, 2012 with the Naval Staff, the Fleet Command, and the Marineamt all being disbanded and replaced by the new Naval Command in Rostock. There were some more organisational changes to be reflected in this article. Who can do this? --KuK (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Working on that. But since there are numerous changes to take effect on 1 April, I am not in a hurry right now. 13:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you, --KuK (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on German Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090101153744/http://www.marine.de:80/portal/a/marine/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzKODzIMBMmB2d5mIfqRcNGglFR9X4_83FR9b_0A_YLciHJHR0VFAIngHDk!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMjNfUjFR?yw_contentURL=%2F01DB070000000001%2FW27G6EFV180INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp to http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzKODzIMBMmB2d5mIfqRcNGglFR9X4_83FR9b_0A_YLciHJHR0VFAIngHDk!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMjNfUjFR?yw_contentURL=%2F01DB070000000001%2FW27G6EFV180INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110608040417/http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/International/ARK/Ships/Pages/default.aspx to http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/International/ARK/Ships/Pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101128160746/http://forsvaret.dk:80/SOK/ENG/INTERNATIONAL/ARK/Pages/default.aspx to http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/International/ARK/Pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090520070158/http://www.marineforum.info:80/HEFT_5-2009/Camcopter/camcopter.html to http://www.marineforum.info/HEFT_5-2009/Camcopter/camcopter.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:German Navy


text:
Cracticinae

The Cracticinae, bellmagpies and allies, gathers together 12 species of mostly crow-like birds native to Australasia and nearby areas.

Historically, the cracticines – currawongs, Australian magpie and butcherbirds – were seen as a separate family Cracticidae and, according to the 2018 Cements List, they still are. With their 1985 DNA study, Sibley and Ahlquist recognised the close relationship between the woodswallows and the butcherbirds in 1985, and placed them in a Cracticini clade, now the family Artamidae. The two species of peltops were once placed with the monarch flycatchers but are now placed here.

The cracticines have large, straight bills and mostly black, white or grey plumage. All are omnivorous to some degree: the butcherbirds mostly eat meat; Australian magpies usually forage through short grass looking for worms and other small creatures; and currawongs are true omnivores, taking fruit, grain, meat, insects, eggs and nestlings. The female constructs bulky nests from sticks, and both parents help incubate the eggs and raise the young thereafter.

The cracticines, despite their fairly plain, utilitarian appearance, are highly intelligent and have extraordinarily beautiful songs of great subtlety. Particularly noteworthy are the pied butcherbird, the pied currawong and the Australian magpie.

Species of Cracticinae
Five genera are recognised. The Australian magpie is classified in its own genus Gymnorhina. A 2013 molecular study has shown it to be the sister taxon to the black butcherbird (Melloria quoyi).

 * Subfamily Cracticinae:

A fossil right scapula (MNZ S41061) found at the Manuherikia River in Otago, New Zealand and dating from the Early to Middle Miocene (Awamoan to Lillburnian, 19-16 million years ago) represents a member of the Cracticinae.

Kurrartapu johnnguyeni was described from a proximal tarsometatarsus recovered from the Riversleigh site in Queensland. It is early Miocene in age and is closer to Strepera/Cracticus than to Peltops. The bird was likely similar in size to the extant black butcherbird.

title: Cracticinae


text:
Ole Wøhlers Olsen

Ole Wøhlers Olsen (born 1942) is Denmark's ambassador to Algeria.

Olsen, a practicing Muslim, has been employed by Denmark's Foreign Ministry since 1969. He has served in Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Chile and Peru. In 1993, he completed a bicycle pilgrimage to Mecca.

The Danish government strongly supported the US-led invasion of Iraq, 2003, and in what was seen as recognition of the Scandinavian country's support for the coalition, Olsen was appointed to the position as coordinator for one of the four US-led provisional authorities, that in Southern Iraq, stationed in Basra. The other three coordinators were Americans. Olsen has, however, criticized his US superiors in Baghdad for the lack of support for his reconstruction efforts, and for providing him with too little assistance, for instance on security back-up. He was suddenly replaced on July 28, three and a half months before his contract was due to end. He then returned to his former posting in Damascus as the Danish ambassador to Syria.

After Syria, he returned to Denmark, where he worked at the Danish Institute of International Studies for 1 year as a senior consultant. In 2006, he was sent on his latest posting; as the Danish ambassador to Algeria.

title: Ole Wøhlers Olsen


text:
Sopot, Belgrade

Sopot (Сопот, ) is a municipality of the city of Belgrade. According to the 2022 census results, the town has a population of 1,956 inhabitants while the municipality has 19,126 inhabitants.

Location
Sopot is located on the slopes of the Kosmaj mountain, 45 km south of Belgrade. The mountain is some 8 km away from the town.

History

The area has remains from Roman period. There is a masonry drinking fountain in Sopot, for which the Roman stones from some now disappeared structure were used.

The name of Sopot is derived from the old Slavic word for water spring (Serbian: izvor).(cf. Sopotnica). The word itself is onomatopoeic of the water sound flowing out of the spring. There are numerous springs and short creeks and streams in the area.

The village was mentioned in written records for the first time in 1818. In 1823, Serbian ruling prince Miloš Obrenović ordered for the meyhane to be built on the road which through Sopot was heading for Belgrade. The tavern was known as šindralija type, because it was roofed by šindra, or shingle. In 1830, huts for the travelers to Belgrade were built around it, expanding effectivelly the venue into the khan. It remains the oldest structure in the town and today hosts the Heritage Museum. There is a small park in front of it, through which flows one of many streams. In 1893, Sopot was declared a small town (varošica) by the royal decree.

In October 2019, the village of Ropočevo was officially abolished and its territory was annexed to the town of Sopot.

Characteristics
Since 1972, an annual film festival "Sofest" has been held in Sopot. It is held in July, in the town's Culture Hall.

At the town's center are the Municipal Hall surrounded by the lush greenery, a fountain, and a monument to World War I combatant Đura Prokić. After the festival, there are several other monuments inspired by the motion pictures. Large number of weekend houses was built throughout the municipality since the 1970s, by the residents of Belgrade. The town is also a trade center, with well known farmers market, with local goods which includes peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers and other vegetables and fruits.

Hilly areas on Kosmaj are covered with forests of oak, beech and common hornbeam. Monasteries of Tresije, Pavlovac and Kasteljan (in ruins), are local tourist attractions. The stone church of Saint Peter and Paul is located in the village of Nemenikuće. In the churchyard there are six mulberry trees, estimated to originate from between 1600 and 1650. Being on the access road to Belgrade, Sopot had numerous restaurants and kafanas, and earned a moniker of a settlement with largest number of kafanas per capita.

Nowadays, the municipality has a large Primary and Economics high school. Sopot has a soccer club called the Wolves from Kosmaj and a basketball club bearing the same name.

Settlements
Aside from the town of Sopot, the following settlements comprise the municipality:

 * Babe
 * Guberevac
 * Dučina
 * Drlupa
 * Đurinci
 * Mala Ivanča
 * Mali Požarevac
 * Nemenikuće
 * Parcani
 * Popović
 * Ralja
 * Rogača
 * Sibnica
 * Slatina
 * Stojnik

Demographics

According to the 2011 census results, the municipality of Sopot has a population of 20,367 inhabitants.

Ethnic groups
The ethnic composition of the municipality:

Economy
The following table gives a preview of total number of registered people employed in legal entities per their core activity (as of 2018):

There are two game hunting grounds in the municipality: Trešnja, which extends into the Voždovac municipality, and Kosmaj, on the mountain of the same name.

title: Sopot, Belgrade