text:
Talk:Sauron

Adding multiple species named after the character ...
, thank you for your intention to improve this article and Wikipedia's coverage of Middle-earth topics. However, this matter has been discussed many times before both in the context of this article and on many others.

Basically, taxonomists have gleefully descended on Tolkien's rich fund of exotic-sounding names, and have applied them pretty much randomly to a large number of species; astronomers have done much the same for stars, planets, planetoids, moons, mountains and a lot else. So have lots of other people for other sorts of object.

The (enormous) List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works includes a (long) section on Taxonomy. There is sometimes a faint sort of link to the individual name (yeah, it's a ring-shaped eyespot so let's name it after the Eye of Sauron (gosh, original).

The Wikiproject decided long ago to make a single list of all of this (let's call it TYPE A naming), rather than cluttering up dozens of articles with "And astronomers have named abc after ...[1][2][3] and taxonomists have named def, ghi, and jkl after ... [4][5][6]" to no useful purpose.

VERY occasionally, someone closely connected to Tolkien's work has done some much more specific naming. A rare event of this kind (let's call it TYPE B) has occurred with Kirill Eskov, author of The Last Ringbearer (Sauron and the Orcs were good blokes, on the wrong side of history). Eskov is also a zoologist, and yes, he has named a Sauron spider. Now, that is what we can agree is a genuine connection.

The other names you have seen in the media (and yes, the fact that there are several really is a clue to their individual insignificance, even if each scientist thought they were being terribly original) are all of TYPE A, and we can freely add them to the List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. They do not belong here in the Sauron article as they really don't have any organic connection to it. I do hope this is clear. I'll remove them from this article now; you can put them in the list article under Taxonomy if you have the energy and enthusiasm. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 * As well intentioned as that may be, then by this logic, mention of astronomical objects that may bear a passing resemblance to the Eye of Sauron should be removed as well. It is common practice in subject articles to provide the links to items named after the subject - according to the list List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works article, the number of taxonomical entries for Sauron is 6, only one of which features in this article.
 * According to this article, Sauron has been the inspiration for 4 listed astronomical objects/phenomena, and one scientific instrument - they are all what you might call 'Type A' names. The lines that mention these items has been cribbed from/into the list article linked above.
 * I would also note, that a similar section in the article on the Balrog is quite happy to mention the 'Type A' connections of the Balrog to species of ant!
 * So I am not entirely sure what the issue is here? You have to have balance and consistency - but we can weigh the relative importance of leafhoppers versus butterflies versus spiral galaxies ad infinitum. Atomix330 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On this WikiProject we try quite hard for balance and consistency. We certainly don't need heavy duplication between the List and all-the-articles. I agree that the Balrog ants should be removed from that Article; and I note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument for doing something that doesn't make much sense. On the astronomy, the names certainly belong in the List; the rather striking Eye of Sauron object has perhaps a moderately strong case for being in the Article as well. I've explained above exactly why the one Sauron taxon is rather special; of all the taxa named for all Middle-earth items, it has I think the strongest and clearest case for being in its article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in making mention of the rest, especially if they are notable enough to have their own entries on Wikipedia (however small or large). I have restored these mentions in a similar style to the astronomical objects. I do not want to start an edit war, and these additions do nothing to detract from the quality of the article. It is a fair addition.
 * That is I'm afraid a muddle: you say one thing, that you don't want an edit war in both edit comment (!) and here in what is an ongoing talk page discussion, but you do exactly the opposite and create one, when you know that is contrary to policy, and that your action is not agreed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be to direct readers directly to the list article. Which I suspect you would agree is (stylistically) untidy. Atomix330 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the direction would be entirely appropriate, I should have done it already, so let's do it now since we agree on that much. Further, since we agree it is an alternative, it would be much appreciated if you could remove the added text, which is redundant to the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tolkien has not only created a huge cultural impact with his works, he has also flooded the market with a vast number of original and (mostly) euphonious names ripe for exploitation. (I can't find an overarching 'Cultural impact of Tolkien/Middle-earth' article; either I've missed the name somehow or the topic is too vast for one article.) On the whole, the fact that a mountain/crater/butterfly on a moon/asteroid/rainforest has been named after Sauron/Frodo/Wormtongue tells us nothing about Tolkien's original character (which the article is about), almost nothing about that character's cultural impact (which is a legitimate area for the article to explore), and very little about Tolkien's impact in general (other than it exists). This and similar articles should be telling us about Tolkien's characters, including why they are influential in wider culture.
 * I suggest that the Tolkienian naming of objects be left to the list article, except in cases where there is not only documented usage of the name, but also discussion of that usage by reliable secondary sources. That way the article can contribute some understanding of why that use of the name is significant, and not just record a statistic. By this standard, the astronomical and zoological uses mentioned in this article would not stand (even the Eskov item doesn't tell us why the naming is significant to the character); but the part about influence on later literature and graphic novels is relevant to Sauron's actual character. -- Verbarson talkedits 10:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Agree. We should go through the various articles and remove astro/zoo/other trivia UNLESS there is a genuine, strong reason in a particular case. I'd defend the Eskov link as it's culturally significant, but remove many others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there is absolutely zero need for the inclusion of named flora, fauna and various other phenomena in the Sauron article, especially where said linkage is either tenuous or merely exists without citations to third party sources that discuss the cultural impact. Just because someone names their burning ring of fire after Sauron does not make it notable for inclusion - I’d even go so far as to remove entries from the list article if they’re not discussed in context of their cultural impact rather than just being a collection of names we the editors have curated. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm a bit sorry to see the astronomical image and Eskov narrative (my additions, long ago) vanish, but if it avoids this sort of trouble across all the articles, it's worth it. I'll take them out now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a number of articles titled 'Cultural impact of...'. I'm sure there is room for a Tolkien one, where these items can be added and integrated into a wider story. But having said that, it's a bigger project than I'm prepared to tackle. -- Verbarson talkedits 08:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would second this. I'm not sure how it is best to integrate a direction to something that discusses wider cultural impact/homages to Tolkien. Atomix330 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sauroniops ?
I know that there are a particularly huge number of taxa named after the character Sauron, but I find it a bit unfortunate that the most emblematic animal named after him, Sauroniops, which is nevertheless a large imposing dinosaur of the Carcharodontosauridae family, is not mentioned on this page. So you wouldn't mind if I inserted a slight paragraph regarding its taxonomy? Amirani1746 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't quite see how a controversial genus of uncertain provenance can be most emblematic of anything except the difficulties of dinosaur taxonomy. It is already in List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works; I would leave it there. -- Verbarson talkedits 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. The list of taxa is enormous and growing, so the last thing we want to do is encourage people to add them all over the WikiProject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sauron


text:
User:L'il Orphan Eddie

I'm a poor orphan, cold and lonely since my papa DW was killed and mama Black Widow followed. I miss them so much but I know I will make new friends here. I can't stomach a lot of things but I take in as much Dietary fiber as possible.

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

title: User:L'il Orphan Eddie


text:
Michel Lentz

Michel Lentz (21 May 1820 – 8 September 1893) was a Luxembourg poet. He is best known for having written Ons Heemecht, the national anthem of Luxembourg.

title: Michel Lentz


text:
Jean Antoine Zinnen

Jean Antoine Zinnen (25 April 1827 – 16 May 1898) was a Luxembourgish composer, best known for the Luxembourgish national anthem, Ons Heemecht.

Career
Zinnen was born in Neuerburg, in the Prussian Rhineland, close to the border with Luxembourg. When he was six, his family moved to Luxembourg. After serving as a musician in the army, he naturalised as a Luxembourg citizen in 1849. In 1851, he became the first director of the Diekirch choral society Sangerbond. In 1852, he was appointed Luxembourg City's director of music, and, soon after, director of the city conservatoire. In 1863, he was appointed the director of the newly founded Allgemeiner Luxemburger Musikverein (ALM) which, in 1947, was renamed Union Grand-Duc Adolphe, the national umbrella organisation for music societies, bands, choirs and orchestras.

Ons Hémecht
The following year, at the first celebration of the ALM in Ettlebrück, Ons Hémecht was sung by a choir. Michel Lentz, the national poet who was a member of the ALM's central committee, had written the words, wishing to convey a powerful feeling of patriotism. Zinnen set the poem to music, later transforming it into a solemn hymn. On 25 June 1865, on the occasion of a music festival in Vianden, Ons Hémecht was performed for the first time with an instrumental accompaniment. Ons Heemecht was adopted as Luxembourg's national anthem in 1895.

Jean-Antoine Zinnen died in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, at the age of 71, and was buried in Limpertsberg, Luxembourg City. Two years after his death, a monument was constructed at the churchyard in which he is buried, paid for by private donations.

title: Jean Antoine Zinnen


text:
God & Golem, Inc.

God & Golem, Inc.: A Comment on Certain Points Where Cybernetics Impinges on Religion is a book written by MIT cybernetician Norbert Wiener. It won the second annual U.S. National Book Award in category Science, Philosophy and Religion.

It is based on material from a series of lectures that Wiener gave at Yale in 1962, and a seminar he led at the Colloques Philosophiques Internationaux de Royaumont near Paris later that year.

God and Golem presents Wiener's ideas on machine learning, machine reproduction, and the place of machines in society, with some religious context.

Wiener mentions some of his secondary concerns: sensory feedback in artificial limbs, the problems of human responsibility in relation with technology, the limits of machine game-playing, Darwinism, Marxism, the Cold War, the rigidity of ideological thinking, and a critique of the claims of econometrics and mathematical economics to be regarded as being scientific.

In the conclusion, he brings the burden of ethics to politics, away from religion.

Statements in the book are quoted in the science-fiction novels Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion, written by Dan Simmons.

title: God & Golem, Inc.


text:
Warded lock

A warded lock (also called a ward lock) is a type of lock that uses a set of obstructions, or wards, to prevent the lock from opening unless the correct key is inserted. The correct key has notches or slots corresponding to the obstructions in the lock, allowing it to rotate freely inside the lock.

History
The warded lock is one of the oldest lock designs, found as far back as ancient China and Rome. During the Middle Ages they were used prolifically on monasteries where, because money and time were available, their complexity grew. Warded locks are still in use today in the UK and Ireland for low-security applications, and on heritage sites such as ancient monuments and churches to preserve original features, with primary security being provided by other means such as a lever lock mechanism installed in addition.

Design
In a basic warded lock, a set of obstructions, often consisting of concentric plates protruding outwards, blocks the rotation of a key not designed for that lock. Warded locks may have one simple ward, or many intricate wards with bends and complex protrusions; the principle remains the same. Unless the notches or slots in the key correspond to the wards in the lock, the key will strike an obstruction and will not turn.

Additionally, a series of grooves on either side of the key's blade may limit the type of lock the key can slide into. As the key slides into the lock through the keyway, the wards align with the grooves in the key's profile to allow or deny entry into the lock cylinder. Although this is not commonly recognized when discussing warded locks, it is more applicable to current locksmithing applications such as pin-tumbler or wafer-tumbler locks.

In double-sided locksets (meaning locksets where the key can be inserted from either side of the door) the centre of the key shaft is solid and protrudes past the end of the bit, which slots into a hole on the opposite side of the lock. Double-sided ward locks nearly always have perfectly symmetrical bits. For single-sided locks, a cylindrical post is typically located in the center of the lock. Its purpose is to provide a point of leverage and pivot for rotating the key, and to help correctly align the key with the wards. The key has a corresponding hole which fits over the post.

When the correct key is inserted, it will clear the wards and rotate about the center post. The key may then strike a lever, activating a latch or sliding bolt, or it may itself push against the latch or bolt. In a double acting lever lock, the key may additionally push against a spring-loaded lever which holds the sliding bolt in place.

Vulnerabilities
Due to the design of the lock, a well designed skeleton key can be made to bypass the wards. For this reason, warded lock mechanisms are generally used in low-security applications. There are also a very limited number of unique keys that can be created, so many keys will be able to open other doors that they were not designed to open.

The invention of the lever tumbler lock solves this problem, as each lever is required to be lifted to a certain height in order to operate the locking mechanism.

title: Warded lock


text:
Talk:Hrólfr Kraki

Origins for Rolf Krake
Feel free to add references, links and your thoughts on this subject, email me at mailto:wilmer.t@comhem.se.

(Wilmer Thomas)

Even though I feel free, I hate to post anything that might be wrong or incompatible with the version you're following. However, here are some changes I'd like to make, based partly on Anderson's version:

(After Rolf becomes king.) Many heroes come to serve Rolf, most notably Bodvar Bjarke. (Bodvar means "battle".) Twelve in particular were recognized as his best men. This article omits the stories that are told about them.

(After the escape from Adils.) In Svitjod, Rolf is joined by a young man named Vögg who gave him the nickname Krake. ("Krake" means a kind of primitive ladder consisting of a conifer trunk with the stubs of its branches. Rolf is physically unimpressive, especially compared to some of his twelve companions.)'

(Under "Origins of the myth".) The character names given in parentheses here are the Anglo-Saxon names from Beowulf of characters who seem to correspond to those in Rolf's story. However, the alignment is not definite.

The myth of Rolf ruling over a golden age and surrounded by legendary heroes may be compared to the myths of King Arthur and the Round Table and to those of Charlemagne and his twelve paladins in the chansons de geste

Any mistakes in there?

JerryFriedman 23:02, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By the way, is Sweagris a Danish name or an Anglo-Saxon one?

 * Old East Norse (Old Swedish and Old Danish).--Wiglaf 22:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hrolf's champions
I noticed that in this article the twelve men following King Hrolf Kraki in his campaign against King Adils are described as being berserkers. In the versions that I have read, Bodvar Bjarki and Hjalti had previosly defeated and dishonored most of King Hrolf's beserkers. Thereafter in the saga the twelve men are known as his champions. This group is composed of Bodvar, Hjalti (formerly Hott), the thee brothers Svipdag, Hvitserk, and Beygad, and the some of the remaining berserkers.

 * The use of "champion" instead of "berserker" is probably only a matter of choice. In Skaldskaparmal, these twelve men are indeed described as berserkers.--Berig 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hrólfr Kraki. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121221718/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108015703/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/034.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/034.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006174837/http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/Beowulf.Readings/Beowulf.Readings.html to http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/Beowulf.Readings/Beowulf.Readings.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310135852/http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/lejre.html to http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/lejre.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107150447/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/048.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/048.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312145631/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/heim/001_06.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/heim/001_06.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121221718/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php
 * Added tag to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/snorre/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hrólfr Kraki. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929051431/http://www.raa.se/sites/ottarsmound.asp to http://www.raa.se/sites/ottarsmound.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222035551/http://www.sofi.se/1465 to http://www.sofi.se/1465
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121221718/http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/poetic2/042.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813101509/http://freespace.virgin.net/o.e/egd/Hrolf.html to http://freespace.virgin.net/o.e/egd/Hrolf.html
 * Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20070508212122/http%3A//www.heimskringla.no/original/fornaldersagaene/hrolfsagakraka.php to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/fornaldersagaene/hrolfsagakraka.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060915234051/http://server.fhp.uoregon.edu/IRE/Document.ire/Norse/html/0201i.html to http://server.fhp.uoregon.edu/IRE/Document.ire/Norse/html/0201i.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006035037/http://www.cybersamurai.net/Mythology/nordic_gods/LegendsSagas/Edda/ProseEdda/ContentsEnglish.htm to http://www.cybersamurai.net/Mythology/nordic_gods/LegendsSagas/Edda/ProseEdda/ContentsEnglish.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906005755/http://www.cybersamurai.net/Mythology/nordic_gods/LegendsSagas/Edda/ProseEdda/ContentsIcelandic.htm to http://www.cybersamurai.net/Mythology/nordic_gods/LegendsSagas/Edda/ProseEdda/ContentsIcelandic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122020546/http://www.carlaz.com/phd/ to http://www.carlaz.com/phd/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hrólfr Kraki. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203170611/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/5/Shippey2.html to https://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/5/Shippey2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged murder of Hrothgar's heirs, and skepticism about
The section specifically relating to Hrothulf's limited role in Beowulf unsurprisingly repeats the common idea that he will go on to become the murderer and usurper of Hrethric, his young cousin and heir apparent to Heorot (despite this succession being called into question in the text). However, this supposition is based on one particular interpretation that has simply been repeated without further proofs to the point of being treated as canonical, in spite of the poem's text saying very little to suggest it, and external sources contradicting it in royal rolls. Marijane Osborn lays this out on Cambridge University Press's website in her abstract of her longer article:

'''This story, that many Anglo-Saxonists assume is integral to the ancient legend of these kings, is a modern misreading of the poet's allusions to events associated with the Scylding dynasty — a legendary history that the poet arguably takes care to follow. The present essay, in two parts, first shows how the idea of Hrothulf's treachery arose and became canonical under the influence of prestigious English and American scholars, then finds fault with this idea, refuting its “proof” from Saxo Grammaticus and showing how some Anglo-Saxonists have doubted that Beowulf supports an interpretation making Hrothulf a murderer. But when the poet's allusions to future treachery are ambiguous, at least for modern readers, in order to exonerate Hrothulf fully one must go to traditions about the Scylding dynasty outside the poem.'''

OSBORN, M. (2019). THE ALLEGED MURDER OF HRETHRIC IN BEOWULF. Traditio, 74, 153-177. doi:10.1017/tdo.2019.9

Full article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/traditio/article/abs/alleged-murder-of-hrethric-in-beowulf/9DF3B46112F93FD9D02540BF3108EDB0

Given the minimal evidence for the current prevalent reading, that interpretation should at least be listed only as such, not as a veritable fact of Beowulf, while the alternative presented by Osborn ought to be acknowledged as well.

KellennCP (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hrólfr Kraki


text:
Bielefeld conspiracy

The Bielefeld conspiracy (German: Bielefeldverschwörung or Bielefeld-Verschwörung, ) is a satirical conspiracy theory that claims that the city of Bielefeld, Germany, does not exist, and is instead an illusion propagated by various forces to distract or mislead the German public. First posted on the German Usenet in 1994, the conspiracy has since been mentioned in the city's marketing, and alluded to in a speech by former Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Synopsis
The theory proposes that the city of Bielefeld (population of 341,755 ) in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia does not actually exist. Rather, its existence is merely propagated by an entity known only as SIE ("THEY" in German), which has conspired with the authorities to create the illusion of the city's existence.

The theory is based on three questions: A majority are expected to answer no to all three queries. Anybody who can answer yes to any of the queries, or claim any other knowledge about "Bielefeld" is promptly disregarded as being in on the conspiracy, or having been themselves deceived.
 * 1) Do you know anybody from "Bielefeld"?
 * 2) Have you ever been to "Bielefeld"?
 * 3) Do you know anybody who has ever been to "Bielefeld"?

The origins of and reasons for this conspiracy are not a part of the original theory. Speculated originators jokingly include the Central Intelligence Agency, Mossad, or aliens who use Bielefeld University as a disguise for their spaceship.

History
The conspiracy theory was first made public in a posting to the newsgroup  on 16 May 1994 by Achim Held, a computer science student at the University of Kiel. When a friend of Held met someone from Bielefeld at a student party in 1993, he said "Das gibt's doch gar nicht". This statement has a double meaning: "Unbelievable!" and "That doesn't exist". The second meaning spread throughout the German-speaking Internet community.

In a television interview conducted for the 10th anniversary of the newsgroup posting, Held stated that this myth definitely originated from his Usenet posting, which was intended only as a joke. According to Held, the idea for the conspiracy theory formed in his mind at a student party while speaking to an avid reader of New Age magazines, and from a car journey past Bielefeld at a time when the exit from the Autobahn to it was closed.

Historian Alan Lessoff notes that a reason for the amusement value of the theory is Bielefeld's lack of notable features, as being home to no major institutions or tourist attractions and not being on the course of a major river: "'Bielefeld' defines nondescript".

Public reception
The Bielefeld conspiracy remains one of the most popular Internet jokes originating in Germany.

In November 2012, German Chancellor Angela Merkel referred to the conspiracy in public when talking about a town hall meeting she had attended in Bielefeld, adding: "... if it exists at all", and "I had the impression that I was there."

Official response
The city council of Bielefeld made efforts to generate publicity for Bielefeld and build a nationally known public image of the city. However, even 10 years after the conspiracy started, the mayor's office still received phone calls and e-mails which claimed to doubt the existence of the city.

On April Fools' Day in 1999, five years after the myth started to spread, the city council released a press statement titled Bielefeld gibt es doch! (Bielefeld does exist!). In allusion to the origin of the conspiracy, the 800th anniversary of Bielefeld was held in 2014 under the motto Das gibt's doch gar nicht (Unbelievable!, literally That doesn't exist).

In August 2019, the council offered to give €1 million to any person who could provide "incontrovertible evidence" of Bielefeld's nonexistence in an effort to increase interest in the city. As no one was able to prove Bielefeld's non-existence, the city therefore sees its existence as conclusive and the conspiracy as ended. To commemorate it, the city erected a glacial erratic block in the historic center near the Leineweber monument. A QR code on it directs to further background information.

Film
In 2009, film students at Bielefeld University started a project to develop a feature film based on the Bielefeld conspiracy. The project was financed by the university and local sponsors. Most of the project's staff and actors were students or university employees, a few professionals, such as the actress Julia Kahl and cameraman Alexander Böke, joined the project. The screenplay was written by Thomas Walden. The film premiered in Bielefeld on 2 June 2010.

Similar satirical conspiracy theories
Similar satirical conspiracy theories have been made about other places, such as Australia, the Brazilian state of Acre (Acre conspiracy), Finland, the Portuguese city of Leiria, the Israeli cities of Petah Tikva and Ness Tziona, the Italian region of Molise, the US state of Wyoming, the Argentine province of La Pampa, the Mexican state of Tlaxcala, the Dutch province of Drenthe, the Greek city of Kilkis, the Iranian city of Semnan,, the Japanese prefecture Saitama, the Ukrainian city of Zhytomyr and the Flemish city of Hasselt.

title: Bielefeld conspiracy


text:
User:Jalb

I'm from Paris, France. I began using computers in 1979, and got my first e-mail account in 1982 at the now defunct Centre Mondial Informatique et Ressources Humaines.

Couldn't really get away since then ;-)

Personal page: http://www.pobox.com/~jalb

title: User:Jalb


text:
Emerson String Quartet

The Emerson String Quartet, also known as the Emerson Quartet, was an American string quartet initially formed as a student group at the Juilliard School in 1976. It was named for American poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson and began touring professionally in 1976. The ensemble taught in residence at The Hartt School in the 1980s and is currently the quartet in residence at Stony Brook University. Both of the founding violinists studied with Oscar Shumsky at Juilliard, and the two alternated as first and second violinists for the group. The Emerson Quartet was one of the first such ensembles with the two violinists alternating chairs.

The Emerson Quartet was inducted into the Classical Music Hall of Fame in 2010. , they had released more than thirty albums and won nine Grammy Awards, as well as the prestigious Avery Fisher Prize in 2004. In 2017, the Emerson String Quartet Institute became part of the College of Arts and Sciences at Stony Brook University. The institute enables members of the current quartet and the quartet's former cellist David Finckel to mentor and coach student string quartets.

In August 2021, the quartet announced its plan to disband at the end of the 2022–2023 season in order to focus on teaching and solo work. In the final season of concerts in 2022-23, the quartet gave farewell performances throughout North America and Europe. The final performance of the quartet took place on Sunday, October 22, 2023, in New York City, featuring a program of Beethoven's Op. 130 string quartet (with its original ending, the Grosse Fuge, Op. 133) and Schubert's string quintet D. 956. The performance was filmed by Tristan Cook for a planned documentary.

Members
The members of the group at the time of its retirement were: Eugene Drucker and Philip Setzer, violin; Lawrence Dutton, viola (since 1977); and Paul Watkins, cello (since 2013).

Previous members were: Guillermo Figueroa, Jr., viola (1976–1977); Eric Wilson, cello (1976–1979); and David Finckel, cello (1979–2013).

History
In the early 1980s, Deutsche Grammophon chose the Emerson Quartet to begin a series of recordings of the string quartet literature to be released on the new CD digital format. Cellist David Finckel called this a "huge break" for the ensemble, allowing it to develop a worldwide audience for its performances.

Instruments
In addition to using their Stradivarius instruments, the Emerson quartet own instruments by Samuel Zygmuntowicz which they often favour in larger halls as they believe they have better projection. Violinist Eugene Drucker even says of his modern violin "In a large space like Carnegie Hall, the Zygmuntowicz is superior to my Strad. It has more power and punch."

Awards and recognition
Grammy Award for Best Chamber Music Performance:

 * 1989 Bartók: 6 String Quartets
 * 1993 Ives: String Quartets Nos. 1, 2; Barber: String Quartet Op.11 (American Originals)
 * 1997 Beethoven: The String Quartets
 * 2000 Shostakovich: The String Quartets
 * 2005 Mendelssohn: The Complete String Quartets
 * 2006 Intimate Voices
 * 2009 Intimate Letters

Grammy Award for Best Classical Album:
 * 1989 Bartók: 6 String Quartets
 * 2000 Shostakovich: The String Quartets

Gramophone Classical Music Awards:
 * Chamber (Record of the Year) 1989 - Bartók: String Quartets Nos. 1–6
 * Chamber 2000 – Shostakovich, Complete String Quartets (Nos 1–15

In 2002 the Quartet were the Music Directors of the Ojai Music Festival. They also played for the Oscar nominated short film, The Little Match Girl. They have also won the Avery Fisher Prize, and in 2010, were inducted into the Classical Music Hall of Fame, with a ceremony held in 2011. In January 2015, the Quartet received the Richard J. Bogomolny National Service Award, the highest award in the classical chamber music world.

Recordings

 * Volume I - Dvorák: Quartet No. 12 in F, Op. 96 "American;" Smetana: Quartet No. 1 in E "From My Life." (1990) Book of the Month Records
 * Volume II - Brahms: Quartet No. 1 in c, Op. 51; Schumann: Quartet in A, Op. 41, No. 3 (1990) Book of the Month Records
 * Volume III - Borodin: Quartet No. 2 in D; Tchaikovsky: Quartet No. 1 in D, Op.11 (1990) Book of the Month Records
 * Volume IV - Debussy: Quartet in g, Op. 10; Ravel: Quartet in F Major. (1990) Book of the Month Records
 * Piston: Concerto for String Quartet, Winds and Percussion (1990) Composers Recording Inc
 * Cowell: Quartet Euphometric; Harris: Three Variations on a Theme (Quartet No. 2) (1990) New World
 * Imbrie: Quartet No. 4; Schuller: Quartet No. 2 (1990) New World
 * Beethoven: Quartet in F, Op. 135; Schubert: Quartet in G, D. 887 (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Dvorák: Quartet No. 12 in F, Op. 96 "American"; Smetana: Quartet No. 1 in E, "From My Life." (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Debussy: Quartet in g, Op. 10; Ravel: Quartet in F (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Tchaikovsky: Quartet No. 1 in D, Op. 11; Borodin: Quartet No. 2 in D (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart: Quartet in B-flat, K. 458 "Hunt"; Quartet in C, K. 465 "Dissonance"; Haydn: Quartet in C, Op. 76, No. 3 "Emperor (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Brahms: Quartet No. 1 in c, Op. 51; Schumann: Quartet in A, Op. 41, No. 3 (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Beethoven: Quartet in f, Op. 95; Schubert: Quartet No. 14 in d, D. 810 "Death and the Maiden" (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Bartók: Complete String Quartets (1990) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart: The "Haydn" Quartets (complete) (1992) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart: The Flute Quartets with Carol Wincenc (1992) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Prokofiev: String Quartets Nos. 1 & 2/Sonata for 2 Violins (1992) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Schubert: String Quintet in C, D. 956 with Mstislav Rostropovich (1992) Deutsche Grammophon
 * American Originals: String Quartets of Ives and Barber (1993) Deutsche Grammophon
 * American Contemporaries: Harbison, Wernick, and Schuller (1994) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Dvorák: Quartet in E-flat, Op. 87; Quintet in A, Op. 81 with Menahem Pressler (1994) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart: String Quartet in G, K. 387; String Quartet in d, K. 421 (1995) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Webern: Works for String Quartet/String Trio Op. 20 (1995) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Schumann Piano Quintet Op. 44/ Piano Quartet Op. 47 with Menahem Pressler (1996) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Beethoven: The String Quartets (Complete) (1997) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Beethoven: Key to the Quartets (1997) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Meyer: String Quintet/Rorem: String Quartet No. 4 with Edgar Meyer (1998) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Music of Curt Cacioppo: "Monsterslayer") (1998) Capstone Records
 * Schubert: String Quintet; Late Quartets (1999) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart/Brahms: Clarinet Quintets with David Shifrin (1999) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Shostakovich: The String Quartets (complete) (2000) Deutsche Grammophon
 * The Haydn Project (2001) Deutsche Grammophon
 * The Emerson Encores (2002) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Bach: The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 (2003) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Haydn: The Seven Last Words of our Savior on the Cross, Op. 51 (2004) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mendelssohn: The Complete String Quartets (2005) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Intimate Voices (2006) Deutsche Grammophon
 * The Little Match Girl (2007) Disney
 * Brahms: String Quartets (2007) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Bach Fugues (2008) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Intimate Letters (2009) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Old World-New World (Dvorak) with Paul Neubauer (2010) Deutsche Grammophon
 * Mozart: The Prussian Quartets (2011) Sony Classical
 * Journeys: Tchaikovsky, Schönberg (2013) Sony Classical
 * Berg: Lyric Suite; Wellesz: Sonnets By Elizabeth Barrett Browning (2015) Decca
 * Emerson String Quartet: The Complete DG Recordings (2016) Deutsche Grammophon (52 CDs)
 * Chaconnes And Fantasias - Music Of Britten And Purcell (2017) Decca
 * Schumann - String Quartets (2020) PENTATONE

title: Emerson String Quartet


text:
Ring theory

In algebra, ring theory is the study of rings —algebraic structures in which addition and multiplication are defined and have similar properties to those operations defined for the integers. Ring theory studies the structure of rings, their representations, or, in different language, modules, special classes of rings (group rings, division rings, universal enveloping algebras), as well as an array of properties that proved to be of interest both within the theory itself and for its applications, such as homological properties and polynomial identities.

Commutative rings are much better understood than noncommutative ones. Algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory, which provide many natural examples of commutative rings, have driven much of the development of commutative ring theory, which is now, under the name of commutative algebra, a major area of modern mathematics. Because these three fields (algebraic geometry, algebraic number theory and commutative algebra) are so intimately connected it is usually difficult and meaningless to decide which field a particular result belongs to. For example, Hilbert's Nullstellensatz is a theorem which is fundamental for algebraic geometry, and is stated and proved in terms of commutative algebra. Similarly, Fermat's Last Theorem is stated in terms of elementary arithmetic, which is a part of commutative algebra, but its proof involves deep results of both algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry.

Noncommutative rings are quite different in flavour, since more unusual behavior can arise. While the theory has developed in its own right, a fairly recent trend has sought to parallel the commutative development by building the theory of certain classes of noncommutative rings in a geometric fashion as if they were rings of functions on (non-existent) 'noncommutative spaces'. This trend started in the 1980s with the development of noncommutative geometry and with the discovery of quantum groups. It has led to a better understanding of noncommutative rings, especially noncommutative Noetherian rings.

For the definitions of a ring and basic concepts and their properties, see Ring (mathematics). The definitions of terms used throughout ring theory may be found in Glossary of ring theory.

Commutative rings
A ring is called commutative if its multiplication is commutative. Commutative rings resemble familiar number systems, and various definitions for commutative rings are designed to formalize properties of the integers. Commutative rings are also important in algebraic geometry. In commutative ring theory, numbers are often replaced by ideals, and the definition of the prime ideal tries to capture the essence of prime numbers. Integral domains, non-trivial commutative rings where no two non-zero elements multiply to give zero, generalize another property of the integers and serve as the proper realm to study divisibility. Principal ideal domains are integral domains in which every ideal can be generated by a single element, another property shared by the integers. Euclidean domains are integral domains in which the Euclidean algorithm can be carried out. Important examples of commutative rings can be constructed as rings of polynomials and their factor rings. Summary: Euclidean domain ⊂ principal ideal domain ⊂ unique factorization domain ⊂ integral domain ⊂ commutative ring.

Algebraic geometry
Algebraic geometry is in many ways the mirror image of commutative algebra. This correspondence started with Hilbert's Nullstellensatz that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the points of an algebraic variety, and the maximal ideals of its coordinate ring. This correspondence has been enlarged and systematized for translating (and proving) most geometrical properties of algebraic varieties into algebraic properties of associated commutative rings. Alexander Grothendieck completed this by introducing schemes, a generalization of algebraic varieties, which may be built from any commutative ring. More precisely, the spectrum of a commutative ring is the space of its prime ideals equipped with Zariski topology, and augmented with a sheaf of rings. These objects are the "affine schemes" (generalization of affine varieties), and a general scheme is then obtained by "gluing together" (by purely algebraic methods) several such affine schemes, in analogy to the way of constructing a manifold by gluing together the charts of an atlas.

Noncommutative rings
Noncommutative rings resemble rings of matrices in many respects. Following the model of algebraic geometry, attempts have been made recently at defining noncommutative geometry based on noncommutative rings. Noncommutative rings and associative algebras (rings that are also vector spaces) are often studied via their categories of modules. A module over a ring is an abelian group that the ring acts on as a ring of endomorphisms, very much akin to the way fields (integral domains in which every non-zero element is invertible) act on vector spaces. Examples of noncommutative rings are given by rings of square matrices or more generally by rings of endomorphisms of abelian groups or modules, and by monoid rings.

Representation theory
Representation theory is a branch of mathematics that draws heavily on non-commutative rings. It studies abstract algebraic structures by representing their elements as linear transformations of vector spaces, and studies modules over these abstract algebraic structures. In essence, a representation makes an abstract algebraic object more concrete by describing its elements by matrices and the algebraic operations in terms of matrix addition and matrix multiplication, which is non-commutative. The algebraic objects amenable to such a description include groups, associative algebras and Lie algebras. The most prominent of these (and historically the first) is the representation theory of groups, in which elements of a group are represented by invertible matrices in such a way that the group operation is matrix multiplication.

Some relevant theorems
General
 * Isomorphism theorems for rings
 * Nakayama's lemma

Structure theorems
 * The Artin–Wedderburn theorem determines the structure of semisimple rings
 * The Jacobson density theorem determines the structure of primitive rings
 * Goldie's theorem determines the structure of semiprime Goldie rings
 * The Zariski–Samuel theorem determines the structure of a commutative principal ideal ring
 * The Hopkins–Levitzki theorem gives necessary and sufficient conditions for a Noetherian ring to be an Artinian ring
 * Morita theory consists of theorems determining when two rings have "equivalent" module categories
 * Cartan–Brauer–Hua theorem gives insight on the structure of division rings
 * Wedderburn's little theorem states that finite domains are fields

Other
 * The Skolem–Noether theorem characterizes the automorphisms of simple rings

Dimension of a commutative ring
In this section, R denotes a commutative ring. The Krull dimension of R is the supremum of the lengths n of all the chains of prime ideals $$\mathfrak{p}_0 \subsetneq \mathfrak{p}_1 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \mathfrak{p}_n$$. It turns out that the polynomial ring $$k[t_1, \cdots, t_n]$$ over a field k has dimension n. The fundamental theorem of dimension theory states that the following numbers coincide for a noetherian local ring $$(R, \mathfrak{m})$$:
 * The Krull dimension of R.
 * The minimum number of the generators of the $$\mathfrak{m}$$-primary ideals.
 * The dimension of the graded ring $$\textstyle \operatorname{gr}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R) = \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \mathfrak{m}^k/{\mathfrak{m}^{k+1}}$$ (equivalently, 1 plus the degree of its Hilbert polynomial).

A commutative ring R is said to be catenary if for every pair of prime ideals $$\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$$, there exists a finite chain of prime ideals $$\mathfrak{p} = \mathfrak{p}_0 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \mathfrak{p}_n = \mathfrak{p}'$$ that is maximal in the sense that it is impossible to insert an additional prime ideal between two ideals in the chain, and all such maximal chains between $$\mathfrak{p}$$ and $$\mathfrak{p}'$$ have the same length. Practically all noetherian rings that appear in applications are catenary. Ratliff proved that a noetherian local integral domain R is catenary if and only if for every prime ideal $$\mathfrak{p}$$,
 * $$\operatorname{dim}R = \operatorname{ht}\mathfrak{p} + \operatorname{dim}R/\mathfrak{p}$$

where $$\operatorname{ht}\mathfrak{p}$$ is the height of $$\mathfrak{p}$$.

If R is an integral domain that is a finitely generated k-algebra, then its dimension is the transcendence degree of its field of fractions over k. If S is an integral extension of a commutative ring R, then S and R have the same dimension.

Closely related concepts are those of depth and global dimension. In general, if R is a noetherian local ring, then the depth of R is less than or equal to the dimension of R. When the equality holds, R is called a Cohen–Macaulay ring. A regular local ring is an example of a Cohen–Macaulay ring. It is a theorem of Serre that R is a regular local ring if and only if it has finite global dimension and in that case the global dimension is the Krull dimension of R. The significance of this is that a global dimension is a homological notion.

Morita equivalence
Two rings R, S are said to be Morita equivalent if the category of left modules over R is equivalent to the category of left modules over S. In fact, two commutative rings which are Morita equivalent must be isomorphic, so the notion does not add anything new to the category of commutative rings. However, commutative rings can be Morita equivalent to noncommutative rings, so Morita equivalence is coarser than isomorphism. Morita equivalence is especially important in algebraic topology and functional analysis.

Finitely generated projective module over a ring and Picard group
Let R be a commutative ring and $$\mathbf{P}(R)$$ the set of isomorphism classes of finitely generated projective modules over R; let also $$\mathbf{P}_n(R)$$ subsets consisting of those with constant rank n. (The rank of a module M is the continuous function $$\operatorname{Spec}R \to \mathbb{Z}, \, \mathfrak{p} \mapsto \dim M \otimes_R k(\mathfrak{p})$$. ) $$\mathbf{P}_1(R)$$ is usually denoted by Pic(R). It is an abelian group called the Picard group of R. If R is an integral domain with the field of fractions F of R, then there is an exact sequence of groups:
 * $$1 \to R^* \to F^* \overset{f \mapsto fR}\to \operatorname{Cart}(R) \to \operatorname{Pic}(R) \to 1$$

where $$\operatorname{Cart}(R)$$ is the set of fractional ideals of R. If R is a regular domain (i.e., regular at any prime ideal), then Pic(R) is precisely the divisor class group of R.

For example, if R is a principal ideal domain, then Pic(R) vanishes. In algebraic number theory, R will be taken to be the ring of integers, which is Dedekind and thus regular. It follows that Pic(R) is a finite group (finiteness of class number) that measures the deviation of the ring of integers from being a PID.

One can also consider the group completion of $$\mathbf{P}(R)$$; this results in a commutative ring K0(R). Note that K0(R) = K0(S) if two commutative rings R, S are Morita equivalent.

Structure of noncommutative rings
The structure of a noncommutative ring is more complicated than that of a commutative ring. For example, there exist simple rings that contain no non-trivial proper (two-sided) ideals, yet contain non-trivial proper left or right ideals. Various invariants exist for commutative rings, whereas invariants of noncommutative rings are difficult to find. As an example, the nilradical of a ring, the set of all nilpotent elements, is not necessarily an ideal unless the ring is commutative. Specifically, the set of all nilpotent elements in the ring of all n × n matrices over a division ring never forms an ideal, irrespective of the division ring chosen. There are, however, analogues of the nilradical defined for noncommutative rings, that coincide with the nilradical when commutativity is assumed.

The concept of the Jacobson radical of a ring; that is, the intersection of all right (left) annihilators of simple right (left) modules over a ring, is one example. The fact that the Jacobson radical can be viewed as the intersection of all maximal right (left) ideals in the ring, shows how the internal structure of the ring is reflected by its modules. It is also a fact that the intersection of all maximal right ideals in a ring is the same as the intersection of all maximal left ideals in the ring, in the context of all rings; irrespective of whether the ring is commutative.

Noncommutative rings are an active area of research due to their ubiquity in mathematics. For instance, the ring of n-by-n matrices over a field is noncommutative despite its natural occurrence in geometry, physics and many parts of mathematics. More generally, endomorphism rings of abelian groups are rarely commutative, the simplest example being the endomorphism ring of the Klein four-group.

One of the best-known strictly noncommutative ring is the quaternions.

The coordinate ring of an algebraic variety
If X is an affine algebraic variety, then the set of all regular functions on X forms a ring called the coordinate ring of X. For a projective variety, there is an analogous ring called the homogeneous coordinate ring. Those rings are essentially the same things as varieties: they correspond in essentially a unique way. This may be seen via either Hilbert's Nullstellensatz or scheme-theoretic constructions (i.e., Spec and Proj).

Ring of invariants
A basic (and perhaps the most fundamental) question in the classical invariant theory is to find and study polynomials in the polynomial ring $$k[V]$$ that are invariant under the action of a finite group (or more generally reductive) G on V. The main example is the ring of symmetric polynomials: symmetric polynomials are polynomials that are invariant under permutation of variable. The fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials states that this ring is $$R[\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_n]$$ where $$\sigma_i$$ are elementary symmetric polynomials.

History
Commutative ring theory originated in algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry, and invariant theory. Central to the development of these subjects were the rings of integers in algebraic number fields and algebraic function fields, and the rings of polynomials in two or more variables. Noncommutative ring theory began with attempts to extend the complex numbers to various hypercomplex number systems. The genesis of the theories of commutative and noncommutative rings dates back to the early 19th century, while their maturity was achieved only in the third decade of the 20th century.

More precisely, William Rowan Hamilton put forth the quaternions and biquaternions; James Cockle presented tessarines and coquaternions; and William Kingdon Clifford was an enthusiast of split-biquaternions, which he called algebraic motors. These noncommutative algebras, and the non-associative Lie algebras, were studied within universal algebra before the subject was divided into particular mathematical structure types. One sign of re-organization was the use of direct sums to describe algebraic structure.

The various hypercomplex numbers were identified with matrix rings by Joseph Wedderburn (1908) and Emil Artin (1928). Wedderburn's structure theorems were formulated for finite-dimensional algebras over a field while Artin generalized them to Artinian rings.

In 1920, Emmy Noether, in collaboration with W. Schmeidler, published a paper about the theory of ideals in which they defined left and right ideals in a ring. The following year she published a landmark paper called Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen, analyzing ascending chain conditions with regard to (mathematical) ideals. Noted algebraist Irving Kaplansky called this work "revolutionary"; the publication gave rise to the term "Noetherian ring", and several other mathematical objects being called Noetherian.

title: Ring theory


text:
User talk:L'il Orphan Eddie

Most likey this is DW/Black Widow/Joe Canuck. -fonzy

See also User:Joe Canuck/ban, then. -- Karada 22:39 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:L'il Orphan Eddie


text:
Chain stitch

Chain stitch is a sewing and embroidery technique in which a series of looped stitches form a chain-like pattern. Chain stitch is an ancient craft – examples of surviving Chinese chain stitch embroidery worked in silk thread have been dated to the Warring States period (5th – 3rd century BC). Handmade chain stitch embroidery does not require that the needle pass through more than one layer of fabric. For this reason the stitch is an effective surface embellishment near seams on finished fabric. Because chain stitches can form flowing, curved lines, they are used in many surface embroidery styles that mimic "drawing" in thread.

Chain stitches are also used in making tambour lace, needlelace, macramé and crochet.

In Azerbaijan, in the Sheki region, this ancient type of needlework is called tekeldus.

History
The earliest archaeological evidence of chain stitch embroidery dates from 1100 BC in China. Excavated from royal tombs, the embroidery was made using threads of silk. Chain stitch embroidery has also been found dating to the Warring States period. Chain stitch designs spread to Iran through the Silk Road.

Hand embroidery
Chain stitch and its variations are fundamental to embroidery traditions of many cultures, including Kashmiri numdahs, Iranian Resht work, Central Asian suzani, Hungarian Kalotaszeg "written embroidery", Jacobean embroidery, and crewelwork.

Machine sewing and embroidery
Chain stitch was the stitch used by early sewing machines; however, as it is easily unravelled from fabric, this was soon replaced with the more secure lockstitch. This ease of unraveling of the single-thread chain stitch, more specifically known as ISO 4915:1991 stitch 101, continues to be exploited for industrial purposes in the closure of bags for bulk products.

Machine embroidery in chain stitch, often in traditional hand-worked crewel designs, is found on curtains, bed linens, and upholstery fabrics.

Hand variants
Variations of the basic chain stitch include:
 * Back-stitched chain stitch
 * Braided stitching
 * Cable chain stitch
 * Knotted chain stitch
 * Open chain stitch
 * Petal chain stitch
 * Rosette chain stitch
 * Singalese chain stitch
 * Twisted chain stitch
 * Wheat-ear stitch
 * Zig-zag chain stitch

Machine variants

 * The basic chain stitch is made by first sending the needle down through the material. Then, as the needle rises upward, the friction of the thread against the fabric is sufficient to form a small loop on the underside of the material. That loop is caught by a circular needle which is beneath the work. The machine then moves the material forward projecting the loop on the underside from the previous stitch. The next drop of the needle goes through the previous loop. The circular needle then releases the first loop and picks up the new loop and the process repeats.
 * The double chain stitch uses two threads. It is rarely used in today's machines except for ornamental purposes because it uses more thread than other stitches. It is found in bulk material packaging, where it is used to close large bags. As this stitch can be easily unraveled, this permits easy opening of bags sewn shut in this manner.

title: Chain stitch


text:
Talk:Request for Comments

Broken RFC Links?
Seems all of the RFC's that are linked to are returning 404's, with the amount listed here, and elsewhere, would some regex wizard be able to relink them correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.21.200 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC-Ignorant
I found this in the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone could add a description. Don't know how to describe it in english. I hope it's not counted as an advertisment. I'm not a supportor or afflite of this (yet), but it sounds interesting to me. The link is: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.102.162 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Important RFCs
It would be really nice if someone went through that list of "important" RFCs and added some information saying why each is important. If no-one does it soon, I'll do it... -- Timwi 22:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I presume by important you mean promenent and/or widely used ?

 * I am referring to the list with the heading "Here is the list of the most important RFCs:". -- Timwi 15:14 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Separate RFC articles merged here
Lots of RFC articles have been merged into this one. Angela did this but takes no blame for it. From VfD:

 * It appears as though all but the first of these has not been edited in quite a while (the first I made a complete sentence before deciding to list them here), if ever, and now are listed on the ancient pages list. They consist entirely of an external link and what appears to be a citation of the external link.  I can only assume the topics are encyclopedic, but Wikipedia is not a depository of links. Tuf-Kat 03:23, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete.Vancouverguy 03:30, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Merge the lot of them into RFC. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:56, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * Vote againt. They should be merged or redirected, which is good enough. -- Taku 21:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you have multiple "External Link" headers? Also, may I suggest that we have a separate "Links to RFC's" section for the links to actual RFC's, and not lump them in with the rest of the random external links? Finally, to make it easier to edit, we might want to have several sections of RFC links (titled something more imaginative than "Links to RFC's in the 1-1000 Range" :-). Noel 15:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * There is a reason - I'm lazy. :) There were millions of the silly things so I just pasted them all in and redirected the originals here without actually trying to reformat them or make the article make sense. If you want to sort it out Noel, I would be very grateful. If not I will fix it at some point, but not today. Angela 19:49, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I've taken a crack at it. It's a bizarre selection there, some of the more important ones are missing. While I was at it, I switched to a common entry format. If someone's really energetic, they can go fix all the [RFC-foo] forwards so they link to the relevant sub-section here.
 * In retrospect, it might have been better to leave the individual pages (since if we add all the important ones, this page is going to get really long), and add a sentence or two to each saying what each one covers. Oh well, that's what I get for not reading VfD. Noel 21:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * You could always revert them all. Actually, as it was my fault, I should probably be the one responsible for undoing it. I don't mind if you decide that is the best option. Anyhow, you've done an excellent job on it so far.
 * Regarding the redirects, you can't redirect to specific sections yet but DanKeshet has submitted it as a feature request at Sourceforge. Angela 23:04, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * Nah, it's not worth all the trouble to undo it. About the redirects, I thought we could pick out subsections. Maybe it's only in URL references to the Wiki, though. Noel 03:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, if you're sure. Do you mean links or redirects? You can definitely link to subsections. I thought you meant #redirectRequest for comment - that wouldn't work. Angela 03:16, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm sure I don't want either of us wasting time putting them back! :-) Yes, I did originally mean redirect to subsections - I didn't know that didn't work. Noel 12:37, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comments link
I don't understand why people keep removing the link to Request for comments. It is very apropos and useful here. By comparison, VfD redirects to Votes for deletion, Rfa redirects to Requests for adminship, and so on; is it that unreasonable that RFC and Request for Comments should provide at least a link to the W:RfC page? Someone could well be seeking that page here. Also, cf. VFD. -- VV 23:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of "Foo"
I find it somewhat amusing that RFC 3092 (Etymology of "Foo") is listed among the most important RFCs... :) Fredrik 20:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Three-digit RFC numbers
Are three-digit RFCs supposed to be listed as RFC 0123 or as RFC 123? Both exist on the page. It's fine to do it either way, but some standard should be settled on. I vote for the second way, dropping the leading zero. Grendelkhan 03:05, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

 * Another vote for dropping the leading zero. There are no leading zeros in the RFCs themselves. —Bkell 06:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * ++dropping Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Joke RFC?
RFC 439 seems like a joke to me. But it dates January 21... Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's a joke; it appears to be an actual conversation between two artificial intelligence systems. Granted, it's entirely for entertainment value, but there's no restrictions on what RFCs can and cannot contain. —Bkell 05:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is real - the two programs (Parry and the Doctor) really existed, and this is (AFAIK) what they really "said" to each other when hooked together. (I seem to recall that this was actually printed in Datamation, back when it was done.) Things weren't as formal that far back in time, and so you could get this kind of thing on dates other than April 1, something that might not happen now. Noel (talk) 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added table and wikified
I wikified the RFC links (i.e., prefer  = RFC 1234 to   = RFC 1234) and added all the information to a table, which I feel is the proper way to present data repeated in a regular format. --Ardonik.talk 02:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better if RFC was wikified to Request for Comments, and the RFC number to the RFC text at ietf.org ? So readers could read general info on RFCs in the article. Apokrif 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name
Perhaps someone should write why it's called Request for Comments, I have no idea, fo me it's a strange way to define a standard to calle it rfc. -- AzaToth 11:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * History, basically. Back in the days of RFC 1, it was just some notes being passed back and forth among a small group of researchers. It has gradually become a lot more formal, but the name remains the same, mostly because it would be too confusing to change it. There are additional series now, STD and BCP, but RFC remains the one everyone knows. Noel (talk) 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've recently edited the article, I will add this in now (I imagine other people might want to know too). Noel (talk) 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to split the page
I think this is unwieldy, and hard to use in it current large size. I propose that we split it up, and create List of the most important RFCs and List of IETF RFCs as separate articles. Noel (talk) 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Or something. It takes up half the bloody page, and it's not terribly useful. We even have a smaller list higher up on the page. Exactly what use does the enormous RFC list serve? What does it do? If someone wants to know what RFC defines IMAP, they can go to IMAP and see it there, where it's apropos. This is inflating the page for no real purpose. I don't think the page should be split, I think it should be pared down. grendel|khan 17:14, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

 * Besides being big, it is misleading. Wikipedia should avoid labeling the status of documents (e.g. Proposed Standard) because it changes over time, and this is not a likely place that it will be updated when necessary.  Just refer folks to the rfc-editor pages for the daily updates of current status. Adding the definitions of the status options would be a good addition to this page, though.  --NealMcB July 3, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

 * Agreed. And it's a mounting problem—people continue to create new lists and expand old ones. Where does it end? Surely there are better ways to make this article a valuable resource. – Ringbang 15:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Random RFCs?
Why a list of "random RFCs"? Maybe "Key RFCs", or "Importent RFCs"? ~ mlk ✉ ♬ 03:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~

Imporant RFCs (again)
The list of "important RFC's" is still really long, and now that each entry links to the actual RFC, has much duplication with the later lengthy list of RFC's at the end of the article. I don't have the energy to do much about this at this point - I just spent a couple of hours going through the list of "important RFC's" and trying to weed out the obsolete/obscure ones, and making sure all the important ones were there. Noel 18:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Blast! 821 and 822 are listed as "obsoleted by 2821 and 2822", so I'm amazed to find that their status is "STANDARD" and not "HISTORIC". In general, I didn't list any RFC as "important" if it was listed as "obsoleted by RFC xxx". (In fact, I started off by adding those two, and later took them out when I found them listed as "obsoleted by".) Must be a temporary glitch in the system. Noel 03:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Not a glitch, except in the sense that the IETF process doesn't quite make sense when a new version of a Standard protocol is introduced at a Proposed Standard level. Blame it on RFC 2026. Alvestrand 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oldest Public File on the Internet
I once tried to find the oldest public file on the internet and I came to the conclusion it was RFC 1 (filename '1') which I found on a university ftp with the timestamp of 7 April 1969. I can't seem to find this file anymore, does anyone know of it?

 * I just disproved my own theory when I read this at everything2.com: 'Crocker wrote the RFC late at night in his bathroom [on a piece of paper], so as to avoid awakening his roommates.' Looks like the file I found had a bogus filestamp.

 * It isn't a bogus timestamp, it's the date that it was written. It says the date that it was put into machine readable form near the bottom of the file. --P4ch3c0 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists of RFCs removed
Yes, I removed all of the lists. I know there will be mixed reactions, but here is the rationale:

 * 1) The lists contravene Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
 * 2) The "External links" section contains several links to sites that categorize RFCs by subject, classification (BCP, Internet standard, etc.), and import. Also, some of the lists were just old reproductions of updated lists mirrored elsewhere.
 * 3) Wikipedia articles about technologies defined in RFCs already provide links to their respective RFCs; for centralized repositories, there are better resources (see also point 1).
 * 4) Linking to any RFCs in a list or tabular format invites others to expand the lists—and we've already seen where that leads us.
 * 5) If a particular RFC was pivotal in the history of the IETF and the concept of RFCs (e.g., RFC 1), it can be mentioned in the text. On submission, an inline reference in the form of "RFC #" is automatically parsed into a link to the official document.

– Ringbang 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rfcurl
FYI: Maybe we could arrange a better link for RFC 4321 anywhere in plain text, see MediaWiki talk:Rfcurl. -- Omniplex 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Being an IMP?
The History section includes the phrase "because UCLA was one of the first Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET.". Is that really correct usage of the term Interface Message Processor? It's my understanding that an IMP was the interface to the network, like a NIC is on a LAN. How about "because UCLA had one of the first IMPs on ARPANET"? JöG 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article may need semi-protection
This article for some reason has been repeatedly vandalized and significant content was lost since May, until I noticed what was going on this afternoon. If the pattern continues, semi-protection may be necessary. I am flagging the issue so the admins can monitor this article and act accordingly. --Coolcaesar 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IETF RFC handling in Wikipedia; best way to cite
RFC references are automagically linked in Wikipedia, but I haven't run across anything that documents this. I'm absolutely certain I could if I dug harder, but that's kind of my point: shouldn't there be at least a passing mention of it here, presumably as a hatnote? I know this would clutter the article a bit, so alternatively, maybe it could be mentioned in a hatnote on Request for Comment? If not, where should I be looking?

The reason I really bring this up, other than the obvious "feature documentation should be easy to find" point, is a related topic: what's the best way to cite an RFC?

I'm currently editing an article that has such a cite, which currently uses the cite web template. The problem, as I see it, is that this template requires a URL. Hardwiring a URL in this fashion seems to me to work against the WP "automagic RFC link" feature, since the automagic link is presumably to what is felt by consensus to be a canonical source, which may change some time in the future. If RFC URLs are also hardwired in links scattered throughtout articles, this defeats one of the purposes of having the automagic links.

I think the proper solution would be to have a new dedicated cite rfc template that would require a serial number field instead of a URL field, and use the same routines as the automagic to generate the appropriate link. It could then also have only the fields appropriate to an RFC, rather than the more generic fields.

Or maybe the right answer is "don't cite RFCs at all; let the automagic stand in place of a cite." This doesn't seem entirely sufficient to me.

This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but I'm not sure where the right place would be...--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, a bunch of stuff should be done with IETF RFCs in the wikipedia. Addressing your points:
 * The only mention of the special handling of RFC#### that I've found is in How_to_edit_a_page, and that could be improved
 * There is a ISBN page for the similar handling of ISBN####, and I think that maybe a short IETF RFC page should be created, with a hat-note on both RFC and this page.
 * I think it would be useful to have a working, especially one that could give the section numbers.   There are many times when you don't really want to say "blah blah as defined in RFC 2821 section 2.3.10", but rather "blah blah  and have the actual footnote not use the built-in RFC linking, but rather a direct link to the tools.ietf.org URL such as http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-2.3.10.
 * A little over a year ago, I went through and tried to standardize wikipedia to use the built-in RFC linker when at all possible. See my User:Wrs1864 page for a list of websites that people frequently link to instead of using the built in system.
 * I also, at the same time, got rid of most of the RFC #### articles and redirects since I frequently found people linking to them via RFC 1234 instead of just typing RFC 1234 . See Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_21 for a lot of discussion
 * I have not had much time lately to do more work on this area.  If anyone could help out, I think it would improve the wikipedia.   Please don't count on me doing much more in the near future.  Wrs1864 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of the URN, shouldn't a citation template (or anything like the current auto-linking system) ideally handle all the various types in the series (RFC, STD, BCP, etc.)? And how should the multiple identities of a single document be handled? If an article mentions "RFC 5000", should the citation automatically mention that that document is also called "STD 1", or would the complexities of such a feature make it too difficult to implement? What should the behavior be for Standards that are in transition? Example: RFCs 821 used to be an Internet Standard document, part of STD 10, but it's been superseded by a mere Proposed Standard, RFC 2821. See |Official Internet Protocol Standards. It's not completely obvious how to handle such a situation if it's handled automatically, but if it's left to the editor, different editors will handle it in very different ways. What would the best automatic or template behavior be?

Stephan Leeds (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For what is worth, I recently started looking into writing a template, but someone does it first, that would be great.  As far as your questions go, yes, I think template should handle all the series, although this could be a problem since the tools.ietf.org website doesn't handle the fyi and std series, just the rfc and bcp series.  I can not see an easy way of figuring out inside a template that an RFC happens to also be a STD/FYI/BCP, so I wasn't planning on doing that.  I was going to make the template as simple as I could and wasn't going to deal with problems like you mentioned with STD 10.  In my searching of RFC references, I found that to be an extremely rare situation so leaving it to the editor shouldn't be a large problem.  Wrs1864 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The URL for the automatical links to RFCs is defined in MediaWiki:rfcurl, there is a talk page with the history. Meanwhile the IETF Tools Server URLs are the MediaWiki default, and I'm sure that this is documented in a Meta help page, but I'm too lazy to look where. You can get the same effect as RFC 2345 by writing  , demo: . The ISBN magic is more convoluted, there is a MediaWiki page like    pointing to a project page, default Project:Book sources, and the ISBN magic uses the designated book sources page as a kind of template replacing a magic word by the given ISBN (not what we know as "template" and "magic word", it's a specific magic for ISBNs). I don't see the point of using urn:ietf:rfc:4408 (or similar) without a resolver. The IETF considers to create an ISSN for the whole RFC series, maybe that helps (?) --217.184.142.38 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

URI for RFCs
How about a section covering the URI for RFCs? For example, .

The section could cover the theory and potential and actual use. Potential use could be a browser plugin/extension which would enable one to turn into a link to the RFC at the user's favorite RFC mirror. Actual use of the URN on the web right now is non-existant as far as I know. 69.205.54.39 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Write about RFC people
In early years of networking only relatively small number of people was engaged in creating standards and thus had enormous influence on modern networking. It would be nice to mention them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.201.152 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure it belongs in this article - but just as an exercise, it could be interesting to pair up the list of people with many RFCs with the list of people on Wikipedia and see who's in both places.... while # of RFCs does not necessarily correlate to influence, some of the people with many RFCs are influential. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact this seemed like so much fun that I started a list. See User:Alvestrand/RFC authors for status. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * There is also RFC 1336:

--Tothwolf (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of change
The article should explain why it is that Requests for Comments changed from requests for comments into final standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.199.239 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting
Are the results of an RFC just a vote count, or do the !votes have to invoke Wikipedia !rules and Wikipedia !law? Is calling something trivia a valid RFC comment that counts as a !vote? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Article refocus?
The article currently seems pretty focused on how RFCs are used by the IETF, when in reality they're used much more broadly in all sorts of decentralized projects; of course, there's the Wikipedia usage at the top of the page (and the government uses briefly touched upon), but there's the Rust and Haskell programming languages, the Yarn package manager, the Ethereum blockchain, and others. It's become general internet vernacular for a process to change something with wide input, and I think our article should recognize that. Shrug-shrug (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Opposition by Coolcaesar and Amakuru is well founded in policy and conventions. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comments → Request for comments – Per WP:NCCAPS. Not a trademark, title of a specific document, or other proper name. Article also needs additional revision for superfluous capitalization. Ibadibam (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I made the capitalization in the article consistent.  Retro  ( talk  |  contribs ) 23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support lowercase in the third word of the title. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 23:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as descriptive. Primergrey (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a title of a series of documents, similar to how the names of periodicals are capitalized. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you asserting that it passes WP:NCCAPS, the opposite of which was asserted by the nominator? Because it is in fact a proper noun as stated here and inside of each of those documents? If "Request for Comments" is the universal spelling by the IETF, then it's a proper noun and the "common name" and I would give an "oppose". It's not even explicitly clear if that's what the other two supporters mean. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article tells us that it is "a of text document" (emphasis mine), not a specific publication series, and is not unique to the IETF. While internal IETF usage predictably refers to IETF RFCs, that doesn't mean that any RFC is necessarily an IETF document, and the IETF doesn't own a copyright or trademark on the phrase. An article specifically about the IETF series could use title case, but this isn't it. Ibadibam (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Coolcaesar. Although the article does describe several different variants of the RFC, every one of them is individually a proper name. Essentially this is a broad concept article covering each of the individual "Request for Comment" entities Therefore it's sensible to title it with title case. — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're arguing for a style analogous to that discouraged by the "generic words" clause of MOS:INSTITUTIONS. The guideline stipulates that a generic term that is part of an individual proper title is only capitalized when part of that title, and never on its own, even when referring to a specific instance. Hence journal but Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Ibadibam (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ': but the question is, if there were three different Journal of the Academic Sciences publications by different publishers, and we happened to have a broad concept article covering all of them, what would we name it? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So then wouldn't that also call in the "common name" (WP:COMMONNAME) principle, because it's the only name in any use at all? — Smuckola(talk) 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, in my opinion it would. There are some who argue that the COMMONNAME principle doesn't apply to capitalisation, but actually it's only the borderline cases where it doesn't. If 55% of sources call something Foo Bar and 45% call it foo bar, then we'll tend to go with the latter because we prefer lower case where usage is mixed. But if 75% say Foo Bar then that cinsitrues a substantial majority so we do capitalise mostly. — Amakuru (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK that's what i thought. And yet in this case, we're talkimg about 100% or virtually 100%, right? — Smuckola(talk) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from Internet Draft
Internet Draft is not clearly independently notable. Could be handled as a subsection of Request_for_Comments. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Go for it! Daask (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I-Ds are often used to write a document that is in no way intended to become an RFC.  They are also published differently and have different rules about their lifecycle.  They are definitely a different publication series from RFCs albeit an intentionally ephemeral one.  JayDaley (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree they're different but do you acknowledge that they're related? It's fine to cover multiple related topics in a single article. It's not obvious that Internet Draft meets standalone notability requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * RFC and I-D are indeed related. However, not all I-Ds become RFCs. Most of them actually don't. According to IETF website "Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time". So basically, having I-D as a subsection of RFC is factually slightly incorrect. --Erdpferd (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , if I understand your argument, having ID covered as a subsection in the RFC article would somehow imply to readers that IDs are a subset of RFCs. Obviously, the text would not say that but you're worried that readers would be confused by that structure. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * well summarized! :) --Erdpferd (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, nope, for the sake of the glorious twelve Olympian gods, no! We have enough issues as things stand with the ever mounting amount of RfC proposals going up every so often. We do not need a tranfer over to the RfC project of something completely different. You gotta keep 'em separated. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed
Request for Comments is a generic term. Rather than a Self Reference:  we'd need something like a generic Hatnote.

A good description can be found in Writing up an RFC, which cites PHP's RFCs. Rust also collects RFCs, and US gov uses this acronym too.

I'm not clear whether we should redirect to what kind of new short page. Not a disambiguation page, unless we want to have wiki pages for many kinds of RFCs. Also a wikiktionary entry (if they'll keep it): ale (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Thank u for the update as always i will research all possibilities before making a action. I’m positive wiki cannot be a source code base it’s too narrative 47.185.211.92 (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Redid Streams
The astute will notice some edits to the "Streams" section. That's because the text was a bit dated, and never really matched what was described in the references. Pigdog234 (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Request for Comments