text:
Talk:List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty

Old Conversations
This list is going to be just full of those problems as the Estonia entry mentioned. Which date do we list -the earliest, the most recent, all of them? Rmhermen 14:16, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * For maximum utility, all of them. We should also mention the dates of existence of historical sovereigns, and possibly turn this into a timeline rather than a table? Morwen 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think maybe the earliest, because there is caountries, who did not recognized Soviet occupation in Estonia. So it would be 24 February 1918.--Egon
 * I like the idea of listing all dates. Also shouldn't this be moved to List of dates of independence of European countries (or maybe Timeline of independence of European countries)? Rmhermen 22:50, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Your right the title should indicate this is a list. I've moved it from Date of independence of European countries to List of European countries by date of independence. Goustien (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The first date 843 is correct for the name France but not for its political status that precises the actual territories as it has been proclaimed in 1789. This may be the exact year of independance for France in its latest political status--212.3.246.78 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Arguably, it could be listed as the establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958 MrWeeble 20:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You're probably thinking of 1792, when the First Republic was established. (France remained a monarchy from 1789-92.) But the First Republic was fundamentally very different from today's French system of government, and it did not last very long, so I think using that date is questionable.

 * Having "independence" in the title looks weird. France became independent in 843?  Independent from the Roman Empire, I suppose!  I think the word 'creation' is more accurate.

 * It may not be ideal in all cases, but I think "independent" is preferable to "creation." These states were not necessarily created from scratch when they became independent.  Many existed as autonomous regions, duchies, etc. before independence.

England & Scotland?
How can you place a date of independence on a country when it was never not independent? England and Scotland didn't exist until hundreds of years after the last occupiers (the Romans) left. Fair enough, for both England and Scotland there are unification dates where smaller Anglo-Saxon kingdoms united to form England and smaller petty kingdoms united to form Scotland; but how can this be labelled "independence" when surely there was nothing and nobody to gain it from? I don't think we should be using the label "independent" to refer to a nation's formation.

What date?
What date of independence should be written here ? When declared or when granted ? Bogdan | Talk 23:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

I don't agree with the date of indipendence of switzerland. The old confederacy started in 1291. As wrote on the page "August 1":

1291 - The Swiss Confederation is formed with the signature of the Federal Charter.

Could we please make it right?

Matrixch88 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain
I'm not certain the 1603 date is appropriate. My understanding is that while the English and Scottish monarchies were united after that year, England and Scotland remained legally separate countries (with completely separate Parliaments) until the Act of Union of 1707. Most historicians seem to prefer 1707 as the year of union over 1603.

 * That's completely correct. England and Scotland were seperate kingdoms until unification in 1707.  The relationship between Scotland and England before this point was like the relationship between Australia and New Zealand today: two completely seperate countries with the same monarch (in this case Elizabeth II). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.195.61 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Portuguese independence
Portugal is independent from the Kingdom of Leon since the day that Afonso I of Portugal was proclaimed King, that is July 26 1139 (after the Battle of Ourique). By 1143 this was recognized by the King of León and in 1179 by the Pope. The correct date, therefore, is the one of proclamation and acclamation by the first assembly of the estates-general at Lamego, where he was given the crown from the archbishop of Braga (to confirm the independence) - 1139. The Ogre 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Factual problems
there are enormous factual and methodological problems with this page. About half of the claims are disputable, and far more explanation is needed to say why these dates are chosen. Nay be better to use neutral dates, such as those used by Norman Davies. (Stpaul 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia
Here's the link from European Journal of International Law; there are the opinions and conclusions of Badinter Arbitration Committee. Kubura 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Two concepts
This list seems to be confused between two concepts. Is it trying to give the first date on which each "volk" was organised into a separate political structure, or the last date from which each modern state became fully sovereign? For a few countries such as France, the two are arguably the same, but in most cases they differ.

How about splitting the list in two? I think both lists would be useful and can be verified, but at the moment it's just a confused mess.

— FIRE!   in a crowded theatre...  12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

it is great idea
To show how much you're right just look at an example of Serbia. On this list is listed as the last in Europe, regardless of the medieval principality, kingdom and empire, or contemporary Principality of Serbia and Kingdom of Serbia which is formally recognized at Congress of Berlin in 1878.--89.172.9.143 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate from my talk page Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's settle this here because this edit war on List of European countries by date of independence is silly.

If you are going to undo what I wrote, please make sure exactly what I wrote before you undo the entire edit, the last edit you undid contained other edits that did not need to be undone.

In the article Kingdom of Great Britain it discusses the argument as to whether the Kingdom of Great Britain was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and thus counts as being the United Kingdom rather than just a predecessor.

Please provide your arguments below.

McLerristarr (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that revert was intentional since no other country listed does what you did, so I was trying to restore. Were you going to do the same for all nations?
 * Talking sounds like a good idea. If you are asking when the UK was formed, then you would simply have to go to the UK's article or the History of the United Kingdom article. Both state that it was 1707. But if you want to bring this to a higher authority I would suggest the WikiProject United Kingdom. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, I was going to do it for all the countries, eventually.

 * The first paragraph of the History of the United Kingdom article says:

 * The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union of the kingdoms of England, which included Wales, and Scotland on 1 May 1707 in accordance with the Treaty of Union, signed on 22 July 1706, and ratified by both the Parliaments of England and Scotland each passing an Act of Union. The Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain, which shared a single constitutional monarch and a single parliament at Westminster. Prior to this, the kingdoms of England and Scotland had been separate states, though in personal union following the Union of the Crowns in 1603, with political, administrative and cultural institutions including representative governance, law systems, and distinguished contributions to the arts and sciences, upon which the United Kingdom was to be built. On the new, united kingdom, historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history." A further Act of Union in 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

 * My point is that before the 1800 Act of Union, it was just Great Britain. If you like, we could have both dates and provide an explanation in the notes column. McLerristarr (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok I am confused at the moment. You just quoted me a text that says The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union of the kingdoms of England, which included Wales, and Scotland on 1 May 1707... and earlier gave me a link to read that said Occasionally, the Kingdom of Great Britain is given the alternative name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which is often shortened to United Kingdom. There is substantial debate over whether the latter name is acceptable. The Treaty of Union refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in several places.... My point has been that the UK's formation and creation was with the union of Scotland & England and the links you gave me back this up? History teaches that the UK formation was in 1707 and entire articles on wikipedia agree on this point. Ireland was included in the UK in 1801 but you are not arguing that the UK's formation date should be after Southern Ireland became a republic and the countries name changed to UK & NI? The Louisiana purchase added a great swath of land to the US in 1804 doubling its size... Now you are not suggesting that the US should have its formation date as 1804 or 1959 after Hawaii joined... But you are doing something similar in the case of the UK. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The paragraph I quoted says "The Union [of 1707] created the Kingdom of Great Britain... A further Act of Union in 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." I think there is a historical difference between Great Britain and the UK, but it's arguable. I guess you could claim they're basically the same country just with different names. McLerristarr (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, but in the same paragraph it says "The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union (...) on 1 May 1707"... There seam to be more agreement on 1707 then 1801 since all the articles on the UK all say that is was formed in 1707 and other places like the Times also say that it was created then. Do you want to take this to Talk:United Kingdom or someplace else? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I say we put it as 1707 and mention somewhere the importance of 1801. We could talk about it more on Talk:List of European countries by date of independence. McLerristarr (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:United Kingdom
 * Sounds like an Encyclopedic move. Ok I have edited it. What do you think? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Good, sorted. Now that we've done extra info on changes to the UK, it should probably be done for all the countries. By the way, where did the date 1920 for the separation of the Irish Republic come from? I know that's what it says for Ireland's entry as well. Shouldn't it be the separation of the Irish Free State in 1922 since that's what the 1927 Act confirmed? McLerristarr (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so I am not insane. I originally put 1922 but then I double checked Ireland on the article and it said 1920. I should have stuck with my 1st instinct and double checked that. Just so you see what I mean (and since I need to run) I'll let you change it :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Finished. Glad it never came to violence. McLerristarr (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For my part I think we both believed that the edit notes would be sufficient to convince the other. I'm glad that you decided to converse and allow us to lay our cards on the table :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of stuff to the page including an expanded notes section for the UK which I will eventually do for all the countries. Hope it's okay. Could you please verify it? Thanks. McLerristarr (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wow that is going to take a while to complete. I edited it down a little bit for simplification. I would suggest to focus on what the article lists as its focus:
 * D = "dissolving" of a country or empire
 * M = "merging" of multiple existing countries
 * S = "splitting" off from a country or empire
 * The notes section sounds like a good idea where you can list a states official recognition, but I think that Ireland in the UK section should be listed as 1922. Though if you feel that 1927 is best that's fine. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

''The above discussion is an archived debate from my talk page Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Major revision
This page had some major problems so I have made many changes and the process is still on going. The date of formation of the UK is an issue. Should it be the date that England and Scotland became Great Britain or the date that Great Britain and Ireland became the UK? The latter would seem to make more sense but it's a question of whether Great Britain was the UK under a different name or whether it was a different sovereign state. I had a lengthy discussion on Phoenix's talk page (see above). Other people's comments are welcome to be listed below here. McLerristarr (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "sovereign state" rather than "country" should be used
 * The page is not just about independence as some countries were never dependent
 * The title of the page has changed because of the previous points
 * Only current European sovereign states should be listed
 * The page introduction has been simplified and since shortened further
 * An extra type of formation was added but I'm still unsure about it
 * More references should be added and the current references should be written properly
 * Many other changes that I can't be bothered listing

 * Great job. But I am really unsure about the inclusion of the flags into this article. They are a bit large and they do make this page look a bit unencyclopedic. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also thought the flags were too big. I've made them smaller now. They're currently 60px in height (before they were 75px). They shouldn't make the rows any taller because the notes that will eventually be added will take up more room. I thought flags just added some visual appeal to the article. I copied it from List of European countries and territories. The flags would look better centred in the column but centring them messes up the column for some reason as it does on the afformentioned page about Europe.

I've also been redirecting a lot of similar titles to this page. I've tried to find every combination of similar names but I probably haven't done them all. Bots have corrected redirects to the old name of this page. McLerristarr (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the columns a bit. I removed the flag column and added a predecessors column. A list of relevant predecessors to the country should be listed in chronological order. The flags from the old flag column, as well as the flags from the mode of formation column, have been moved to the new predecessors column. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok it is getting a bit illegible now. How about either removing the Predecessors section altogether or merging Predecessors with Sovereign state & Current official name. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It depends on your monitor. I didn't realise the size of the table would change depending on the size of the screen. I customised it to my widescreen monitor and it looks fine, everything is on one line, but I edited it earlier today on another computer and it was all over the place. I really don't know how to fix it. For now, I'll merge the Predecessors column with the name column. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a good way of merging the columns? I've tried making the name column have 2 rows per cell but apparently it won't work (or I did it wrong). McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea cant really read anything on a standard monitor. The info your looking for can be found at Help:Table. Hope that you find that useful :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Columns
I've noticed the column width has been changed and apparently "fixed". I don't have a square monitor so I can't tell if it still looks bad or not. Is it actually fixed? From what I can see, the widths for the first two columns are set as the same as before but they appear wider for no reason. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I can actually read the text now if that is what you were asking :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * How about doing something like what I did above? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, that's what I wanted to do. The only problem is the name column can't be sorted, which makes it more difficult for people to find a country. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok then lets get rid on the Predecessors section since it is already covered in the Milestones section. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the best resolution for now. Perhaps the predecessors could make a new article or a new table on this article. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok I just removed the Predecessors column. It is very complicated to create what we were talking about Help:Sorting. If you wish to try to create this, it will require a lot of work, but it is possible. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I copied the old version of the page to User:Mclay1/List of European sovereign states by date of acheiving sovereignty. I'll experiment on it at some point. Your welcome to edit it too if you want. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Predecessors
I've played around with the columns but I think the way it is now is fine. The predecessors should remain out of this table. I've created a new page Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I noticed. Nice job. But I think you have a lot of work to do on that especially when it comes to past kingdoms especially the German ones. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we have the separate continental articles for Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe and Predecessors of sovereign states in South America - maybe the rest of the List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty could be merged into the List of sovereign states by formation date together with the already proposed merger of List of countries by statehood.
 * Additionally there could be made "predecessors" articles for the other continents (if there are cases with more than one predecessor - because a single predecessor is easily mentioned on the main List of sovereign states by formation date). Alinor (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eventually there should be predecessor articles for all the continents. I don't support a merger with this page and List of sovereign states by formation date because I don't like the latter. It would be easier to separate it out into continents. The goal of this page is to include all the important formation events for the country in point form, not just the most recent. List of sovereign states by formation date is more of an overview page; this is (or will be) more detailed.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  05:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweden and the Kalmar Union
Seems for me it should be fairly clear the year to use for Sweden should be 1523. Greswik (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany sovereign by 1990?
It is true that Germany was reunited in 1990, however, I believe it is more accurate to say that Germany achieved sovereignity by 1871 as the German Empire. The Federal Republic of Germany is established in 1949, but didn’t include East Germany or Saarland. 84.196.96.148 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


text:
Julius Reubke

Friedrich Julius Reubke (23 March 1834 – 3 June 1858) was a German composer, pianist and organist. In his short life, he composed the Sonata on the 94th Psalm in C minor, which is considered to be one of the greatest organ works in the romantic repertoire.

Biography
Born in Hausneindorf, a small village in the region of the Harz Mountains, Julius Reubke was the eldest son of organ and piano builder Adolf Reubke (1805-1875). Of Julius's five siblings, two brothers, Emil (1836–1884) and Karl (1840–1860), worked with their father; Emil became a partner in 1860 and owned the company from 1872. His brother Otto (1842–1913) was also a pianist, organist and composer; he prepared the Sonata on the 94th Psalm for its first publication in August 1871. Otto settled in Halle, where he was a professor at the University of Halle, and became its director in 1892. There were also two sisters, Meta and Alma.

Reubke's first musical instruction was in Quedlinburg with Hermann Bönicke (1821–1879). He moved to Berlin in April or October 1851, where he continued his musical education at the conservatory there, which had been founded in November 1850 by Theodor Kullak, with whom he studied piano, Adolf Bernhard Marx, with whom he studied composition, and Julius Stern. In Berlin, he encountered the Neudeutsche Schule with conductor Hans von Bülow and organist Alexander Winterberger, both associated with Franz Liszt.

When Liszt visited Berlin in December 1855, he arranged, on the recommendation of Bülow, to teach Reubke piano and composition from February 1856 in Weimar, and allowed him to live at the Altenburg house he kept. It was in this environment that Reubke composed his two major works, the Piano Sonata in B-flat minor, which he composed from December 1856 to March 1857, and the Sonata on the 94th Psalm in C minor, for organ, which he finished a month later; he also considered writing an opera. The organ sonata was dedicated to Professor Carl Riedel; its premiere was by Reubke on the Ladegast organ (1853-1855) of Merseburg Cathedral on 17 June 1857. Since its composition, it has been considered one of the pinnacles of the Romantic repertoire.

His health was already in decline at the time of his great compositions: "Playing us his sonata, seated in his characteristically bowed form at the piano, sunk in his creation, Reubke forgot everything about him; and we then looked at his pale appearance, at the unnatural shine of his gleaming eyes, heard his heavy breath, and were aware of how wordless fatigue overwhelmed him after such hours of excitement. We suspected then that he would not be with us long."

He moved to Dresden in December 1857. By this time, he was suffering from worsening tuberculosis, and did not have the energy to play or compose. He moved to the health resort at Pillnitz in May 1858, where he died at the Zum Goldenen Löwen inn a few days later, at the age of 24. He was buried near the church of Maria am Wasser in Pillnitz-Hosterwitz on 7 June.

He was one of Liszt's favourite pupils; after his death, Liszt wrote a letter of sympathy to Reubke's father: "Truly no one could feel more deeply the loss which Art has suffered in your Julius, than the one who has followed with admiring sympathy his noble, constant, and successful strivings in these latter years, and who will ever bear his friendship faithfully in mind."

Compositions

 * Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (1857) - influenced by Liszt's Sonata in B minor
 * Sonata on the 94th Psalm in C minor (1857) for organ - influenced by Liszt's Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale "Ad nos, ad salutarem undam"''
 * Trio in E-flat major for organ (1850)
 * Mazurka in E major for piano (1856)
 * Scherzo in D minor for piano (1856)
 * Adagio in E minor for organ

Lost

 * Overture
 * Songs for mezzo-soprano and piano
 * Chorale-variation on O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden

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

title: Julius Reubke


text:
Zi River

The Zi River (资水) in Hunan, China, flows into the Yangtze River via Lake Dongting.

title: Zi River


text:
Talk:Kebab

Thousands separators
Should not thousands separators be written according to ISO-Standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 * No, they should not. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, both comma separators and narrow gap separators are acceptable optional styles.
 * The ISO style is possibly more suitable (though not required) in science or technical articles, but this is not one. It has the drawback that it doesn't work well with screen readers. The comma style is still more commonly used, and likely less surprising to most Wikipedia readers. It is also used for example by Encyclopedia Britannica.
 * While it's possible to change an article from one optional style to another, if there is good reason to do so, generally talk page consensus should be sought first, so thanks for bringing it up here. However, at the moment I don't see any compelling reason to change the existing style.
 * I noticed you've asked the same thing in several other articles over the past couple of years. If you feel the current general practice should be changed, the best place to address it is on the talk page of MOS:DIGITS, as was suggested to you last time in September. I hope that helps answer your question. --IamNotU (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Usage in English etc., second paragraph
, you've twice now removed "outside of North America" from the second paragraph. That leaves a statement that isn't accurate and doesn't reflect the sources or reality. In the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc., people usually call a sandwich/wrap with meat from a vertical rotisserie literally "a kebab", e.g. "I'd like a kebab please", or "we stopped for a kebab after the pub". This usage is essentially unknown in the US and Canada, where it was popularized mainly by Greek immigrants. There, the common name overwhelmingly is "a gyro", (sometimes "a donair" in Canada) not "a kebab". This is common knowledge and easily verified, I added a citation and there are many more. Please stop changing it to imply that in North America a common name for gyros/shawarma/doner is "a kebab".

The first source, "Language and Food", says:

First, note that Zubaida does not say that the doner is more ubiquitous than the cubes of meat on a skewer type, which in a global context it certainly is not. In the first sentence, ubiquitous refers to all types of kebab. The shish kebab type had spread worldwide much earlier, measured in centuries; it's not until "our time" (i.e. since the 1970s) that the doner has also become ubiquitous. Secondly, the sentence describing doner as ubiquitous goes on to say "in every city in the Middle East and Europe" - i.e., outside of North America. He doesn't mention the situation there, nor gyros.

In the second source, Marks says:

That's a very clear statement. It also doesn't mention gyros, but that's the reason. It does support the idea that - outside of North America - these days arguably "a kebab" more often means a doner than a shish kebab. However, he refers to Europe in general, including e.g. Austria, so if we want to make a statement that In most English-speaking countries, as the paragraph begins, the sense of "a kebab" as doner is demonstrably more common than the sense as shish kebab, we would need a better source. I think it's not really worth the effort, and is not necessary to quantify which sense is more common, at least not in the lead; the current wording suffices. --IamNotU (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have been misunderstanding the first sentence. I was reading the anglosphere as being North America (and US centric), whereas now it scans OK to me as both versions of the kebab are in the anglophere.Halbared (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for replying... --IamNotU (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar
I fixed a grammar error on this page citing the region of origin. The previous sentence didn’t make as much sense so I fixed it so the reader can understand it more clearly. Reinhearted (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there was any error in the grammar. I have restored it to the previous version which I believe was better. --IamNotU (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion about the article should take place here, so I've copied this comment by Reinhearted from my talk page: How can something be “originating in Middle Eastern cuisines” this is not a region or state but rather a culture of food. The proper pronunciation would be “that originated in the Middle East”. As described in the History section, the basic techniques of cooking meat on a stick or skewer originated in Africa at least half a million years ago and predates the existence of modern humans. So it's not really accurate to say that it originated in the Middle East. On the other hand, the particular styles and recipes of the broader range of dishes we now call kebabs, beyond simple meat-on-a-stick, mainly arose in Persian and, later, Ottoman cuisines. I don't see that there is any grammatical problem in describing something as originating in a certain culture rather than a region or state. It's been this way for about three years, and nobody has complained. It also allows us to link to Middle Eastern cuisine, which is a more likely destination for readers of this article, who probably already know what the Middle East is. --IamNotU (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The article states that “Kebab is a style of meat with their origins in Middle Eastern Cuisines” clearly not referring to the the basic meat style that originated in Africa. That claim is misleading and irrelevant to say the least Reinhearted (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 * , can you indent your replies please? You've changed this again, but I still don't see a good justification for it. For the past several years, the lead sentence has been:
 * Kebabs are various cooked meat dishes, with their origins in Middle Eastern cuisine.
 * I don't really see how the proposed replacement improves it:
 * Kebabs are various cooked meat dishes that originated in the Middle East.
 * I prefer the existing version, as I explained above. I don't agree that there's a grammar error in it. Kebabs only originated in the Middle East in the sense of the name and specific recipes coming from a certain cuisine, i.e. Persian/Arab/Turkish medieval cookery. See the History section. Linking directly to the desired cuisine article is clearer to the reader, avoiding the problem described in MOS:SUBMARINE. Do we need to go do dispute resolution about this? --IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

, I noticed your edit: Kebabs are various cooked meat dishes in Middle Eastern cuisine. which Reinhearted has also reverted to their version. It seems Reinhearted is concerned that we define the geographical origin of kebabs, as a region or state, in the first sentence. I prefer the stable version. Yours is pretty good, I would just say that at least some kebabs, e.g. doner kebab and shish kebab, have broken out from Middle Eastern cuisine and really have become global, so that's why I like "origins in Middle Eastern cuisine". I'm not so attached to "origins", could maybe be "stemming from" or something, if it's really necessary to change it. --IamNotU (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm fine with the stable version, so let's return to that for now. Reinhearted, you are of course free to argue for your preferred version here on the Talk page and see if you can change the consensus.
 * As IamNotU says, a problem with "that originated in the Middle East" is that the link is about the cuisine, while the text is about the place. --Macrakis (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Baghdadi origin?
diff A tenth-century Baghdadi cookbook mentions kebab, but that does not place its origin in Baghdad at that time. The dish had already been in existence for millennia, if the Akrotiri firedogs are credible evidence.

The page history shows my edit summary removed, as well as the previous editor's ID. I don't see anything in the logs about admin oversight. What's going on there? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 * First of all, “Middle East” is not a country and it is commonly acknowledged that baghdad is where the kebab was made and was then spread to other areas of the middle east. Turkey is where doner kebab was made but not where regular kebab was made. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is commonly acknowleged that Baghdad is the origin of kebab, then it should be possible to source it with reliable sources. True, "Middle East" is not a country, but it is a geographical area that is the closest we can pin down the origin of kebab, unless sources tell us otherwise. Now stop edit warring and start providing sources. --T*U (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping. --T*U (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The infobox presents it to readers as "place of origin", so "not a country" doesn't matter. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven’t responded to my statement, your revert is invaid. It used to say “Country of origin”. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded: 1) "not a country" is irrelevant, 2) "commonly acknowledged" needs a source. Invalid? How? Please explain (based on Wikipedia guidelines). Whatever it "used to say" is completely irrelevant. It now says "Place of origin:". --T*U (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It used to say “Country of origin”. Not in this article's infobox it didn't. The infobox template was changed thirteen years ago to show "Place of origin" explicitly to avoid difficulties with dishes whose origin is regional, not limited to a single country. That infobox appeared in this article ten years ago, showing "Place of origin".
 * As pointed out above, "commonly acknowledged" is not a reliable source. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/9/13/medieval-arabic-cookbooks-reviving-the-taste-of-history
 * This is the source.
 * i IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * i IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in that interesting article supports the claim that Baghdad is the place where kebab originated. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes there is, just read it. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did read it. Can you show a quote from the article that says kebab originated in Baghdad? Just plain Bill (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * “In the Sassanid Persian courts, gentlemen kept personal recipe collections, according to Perry, who is a food historian. None of these collections has made their way down to us, but the habit of recipe-writing had moved into Baghdad court culture by the 10th century.” and “Many of these cookbooks must have disappeared. Ibn Sayyar al-Warraq’s 10th-century, Kitab al-Tabikh (Book of Dishes), is the earliest known title. It was translated to English in 2007 by Nawal Nasrallah. Al-Warraq was not a celebrity chef, but rather a scribe who compiled the collection for an unnamed patron, one who apparently wanted to know how the kings and caliphs ate.” and “ The 14th-century Egyptian cookbook, Treasure Trove of Benefits and Variety at the Table, still shows the influence of 10th-century Baghdad, but also has many local modifications.” IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kebab is not even mentioned in your quotes. --T*U (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Very fair point. Nothing in the quote suggests the origin of kebabs.
 * Britannica says a Kebabs are thought to have originated among transhumant peoples in Central Asia, whose meat-heavy diet was transformed somewhat in an urban context where vegetables were more readily available.
 * Many sources mention Turkey but there are suggestions of other locations.
 * Akkadian (now central Iraq) and Baghdad are barely in the running so I'd say they are out of the running here as well.
 * Kebabs almost certainly originated in lots of places because it's a practical option for cooking things.
 * I'd have gone with middle east but as the best source I can find is Britannica - let's go with Central Asia,
 * Any objections before we change? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Central Asia seems good to me, sourced and plausible, being a dish fit for moving pastoralists. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. I have invited User:IraqiEagle1001 for comment. User:Reinhearted has been permanently blocked.
 * I'll leave for a couple of days to see if anyone else chips in then edit if no constructive well sourced alternatives. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kebab


text:
User talk:Modeha

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them; *How to edit a page *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Alexandros 14:34, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Modeha


text:
King William Street tube station

King William Street was the original but short-lived northern terminus of the City and South London Railway (C&SLR), the first successful deep-level underground railway in London and one of the component parts of the London Underground's Northern line. It was located in the City of London, on King William Street, just south of the present Monument station. When King William Street was in operation the next station to the south was Borough and the southern terminus of the line was Stockwell.

The station was short-lived, in operation for less than ten years. It was named after the street above, which in turn was named after King William IV.

London Transport Museum runs regular virtual tours of the station through its "Hidden London" programme. The tour also explores how the Bank redevelopment project utilised the original 1890 station to build the current platforms and passageways.

History
King William Street opened on 18 December 1890 and was constructed from a large masonry station tunnel, accessed from the surface by a lift shaft or spiral staircase. Two platforms were provided, one on each side of the single, central track — one for passengers entering and the other for passengers leaving the trains — a system later referred to as the Spanish solution. The station tunnel itself is situated beneath Monument Street and runs east–west across King William Street, ending beneath Arthur Street. The approach running tunnels had tight curves and steep gradients in order to pass underneath the River Thames while following underneath public roads, especially Swan Lane and Arthur Street. The combination of station layout and poor alignment of the running tunnels severely limited the capacity of the station and, in the years after opening, a number of initiatives were made to improve operations. In 1895, a central island platform with tracks each side was constructed to enable two trains to occupy the station at once; however, capacity was still restricted.

When the line was extended northwards to Moorgate, new running tunnels on a different alignment, but still running beneath Borough High Street, were constructed running from below St George the Martyr's church, north of Borough station, to a new station at London Bridge and onwards to an alternative City station at Bank. Under the Thames, the present running tunnels of the Northern line are situated to the east of London Bridge, whereas the King William Street tunnels pass to the west of the bridge, with the southbound tunnel below the northbound track as the line passes under the Thames.

The station closed from Monday 26 February 1900 when the Moorgate extension opened.

The original station building was demolished in the 1930s, although the parts of the station below ground were converted for use as a public air-raid shelter during World War II. Access today is via a manhole in the basement of Regis House, a contemporary office building, where the original cast iron spiral staircase leads down to platform level. The lift shaft was filled in with concrete during the construction of the original Regis House. The original running tunnels north of Borough station remain, although when the Jubilee line extension was built in the late 1990s, the old southbound tunnel was cut through as part of the construction works at London Bridge station in order to provide the lift shaft situated at the south end of the Northern line platforms. These running tunnels are now used as a ventilation shaft for the station and the openings for several adits to the old running tunnels can be seen in the roofs of the Northern line platform tunnels and in the central concourse between them. A construction shaft between London Bridge and King William Street, beneath Old Swan Wharf, now functions as a pump shaft for the disused sections of the running tunnels. It is no longer possible to walk through between the two stations as the old C&SLR running tunnels have been blocked off with concrete bulkheads on both sides of the Thames. The tunnels were further severed by upgrades to Bank station, as the construction shaft for the new Northern line tunnel, located in Arthur Street, cuts straight through the approach tunnel to King William Street station, with the station site itself linked to the new tunnel via a ventilation adit.

title: King William Street tube station


text:
User talk:Saruman7

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them; *How to edit a page *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Alexandros 14:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

image tagging
Image:Altair 8800.jpg and its copy on the commons at have no image copyright tags.

if you took the photo or have permission to release it under a license acceptable to wikipedia please tag it as such here in wikipedia. If not then please tag it for deletion here in wikipedia.

The same applies to the commons but the rules on what is acceptable are a bit stricter there (no fair use images). Plugwash 00:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Apple 1 computer.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saruman7


text:
RCR

RCR may stand for:

 * Fulton County Airport (IATA: RCR)
 * Radio Caracas Radio, a Venezuelan radio station
 * Ranchi Rays, Indian field hockey team
 * Rational consequence relation, a type of consequence relation in mathematical logic
 * Ramsbottom Carbon Residue
 * RC Relizane, an Algerian football club
 * Real closed ring, in mathematics
 * Responsible Conduct of Research
 * Research and Development Center for Radio Systems, see Association of Radio Industries and Businesses
 * Resorts of the Canadian Rockies Inc.
 * Retro City Rampage, a 2012 video game
 * Rhodes, Chalmers & Rhodes, a vocal group consisting of Charles Chalmers, Sandy Rhodes, and Donna Rhodes, the latter two formerly of the singer-songwriter duo The Lonesome Rhodes
 * Richard Childress Racing, a championship-winning NASCAR team
 * Richland Creek Reservoir, in the U.S. state of Georgia
 * Riot City Ravens, a roller derby league in Newport, Wales
 * River City Renaissance, a 1993 urban renewal program in Jacksonville, Florida
 * River City Rollergirls, a roller derby team in Richmond, Virginia
 * The Royal Canadian Regiment (The RCR)
 * Rolling circle replication, in nucleic acid replication
 * Royal College of Radiologists, a British professional body

title: RCR


text:
Trash

Trash may refer to:

Garbage

 * Garbage, unwanted or undesired waste material
 * Litter, material discarded in inappropriate places
 * Municipal solid waste, unwanted or undesired waste material generated in a municipal environment

Art

 * Trash art, artworks created from discarded objects

Films, TV, videogames

 * "Trash", a video game term
 * Trash (1970 film), an American film
 * Trash (2011 film), a Canadian drama film
 * Trash (2014 film), a British film
 * "Trash" (Firefly), an episode of the TV series
 * Trash (video game), a multiplayer real-time strategy
 * Trash TV, a form of television programming considered to be tasteless and unprofessional
 * Trash Video, a Finnish film production company
 * Z movie, a low-budget exploitation movie category

Literature

 * Trash (comics), a Marvel Comics organisation
 * Trash (manga), a manga created by Sanami Matoh
 * Trash (novel), a 2010 novel by Andy Mulligan
 * Trash: Short Stories, a 1988 publication by Dorothy Allison

Bands

 * Trash (band), a British band also known as White Trash

Albums

 * Trash (The Stalin album), the first full-length album by Japanese hardcore punk group The Stalin
 * Trash (Alice Cooper album), a 1989 album by singer Alice Cooper

Songs

 * "Trash" (New York Dolls song), a 1973 song by the New York Dolls
 * "Trash" (Roxy Music song), a 1979 song by Roxy Music from Manifesto
 * "Trash" (Suede song), the leading single of Suede's Coming Up album
 * "Trash", a song by Berlin from Count Three & Pray
 * "Trash", a song by Robin Gibb fromSesame Street Fever
 * "Trash", a song by Korn from Issues
 * "Trash", a song by Morrissey from Live in Dallas
 * "Trash", a song by The Doll, 1977
 * "Trash", a song by The Whip

Brands and enterprises

 * Trash (nightclub), a popular London indie–electroelectro nightclub run by Erol Alkan from 1997 until 2007
 * Trash and Vaudeville, clothing vendors

Other uses

 * Trash (computing), a way in which operating systems dispose of unwanted files. Called a "Recycle Bin" on Microsoft Windows
 * Junk food
 * Trash Doves, viral Facebook meme

title: Trash


text:
Lionel, LLC

Lionel, LLC is an American designer and importer of toy trains and model railroads that is headquartered in Concord, North Carolina. Its roots lie in the 1969 purchase of the Lionel product line from the Lionel Corporation by cereal conglomerate General Mills and subsequent purchase in 1986 by businessman Richard P. Kughn forming Lionel Trains, Inc. in 1986. The Martin Davis Investment Group (Wellspring) bought Lionel Trains, Inc. in 1995 and renamed it Lionel, LLC.

According to its reorganization papers filed as part of its bankruptcy plan on May 21, 2007, about 95% of the company's sales come from O gauge trains. The plan estimated that about US$70 million worth of O gauge trains are sold each year, and that Lionel accounts for about 60% of that market, making it the largest manufacturer of O gauge trains.

Lionel Racing
In late 2010, Lionel, LLC entered a joint venture with NASCAR Team Properties to produce NASCAR diecast vehicles that are both 1:24 and 1:64 scale. In 2013, Lionel would acquire full ownership and rename it to Lionel Racing. Lionel has also produced NHRA and ARCA diecast. In 2016, Lionel Racing took over distribution of the NASCAR Authentics line from Spin Master which consists of 1:64 diecast models of NASCAR race cars that are found inside major stores like Target, Walmart, Meijer, and Toys “R” Us.

MPC/General Mills era (1970–1986)
Lionel Corporation sold the tooling for its then-current product line and licensed the Lionel name to General Mills in 1969, who then operated Lionel as a division of its subsidiary Model Products Corporation, or MPC, beginning in 1970. General Mills did not buy the company, however. The Lionel Corporation became a holding company and invested in a number of ventures, including what would eventually become an East Coast chain of toy stores known as "Lionel Leisure World".

Lionel struck a deal with General Mills to lease the Lionel name for ten years starting in 1970. This deal included the purchase of a portion of the Lionel tooling and as part of the agreement, production & sale of the 1969 train product line would be handled by the Lionel Corporation. The balance of the tooling was purchased on December 31, 1969. The lease was renegotiated in 1974.

Due to General Mills' cost-cutting measures, production of Lionel-branded toy and model trains returned to profitability, but sometimes at the expense of quality. Detail was often sacrificed, and most of the remaining metal parts were replaced with molded plastic. A number of MPC's changes to the product line endure to the present day, the most noticeable being the use of needlepoint axles and trucks made of Delrin, two changes made to reduce friction and allow longer trains. Also starting in 1973, MPC experimented with a line of cars it called "Standard O," which were scaled to 1:48 (most postwar Lionel and MPC production was undersize for O scale). The experiment's failure is generally blamed on MPC's lack of a 1:48 locomotive and caboose to go with the cars; when it was repeated in the 1980s with locomotives of appropriate size, it proved more successful.

An internal reorganization after 1973 caused Lionel to become part of General Mills' Fundimensions group. Although Lionel's tenure with MPC was relatively short, "MPC" is the most commonly used term for the 1970–1985 era.

In 1979, General Mills resurrected the American Flyer brand and product line, which Lionel Corporation had originally purchased in 1967 from its bankrupt competitor (The A. C. Gilbert Company of New Haven, Connecticut). American Flyer products by Gilbert made after World War II are scaled roughly to a 1:64 proportion and are known as S gauge; their most distinctive feature, however, is that they operate on two-rail track as opposed to Lionel's three-rail trackage system.

After a period of time of absence in the market, Gilbert American Flyer S gauge trains were no longer considered a direct competitor to Lionel's 1:48 proportion O gauge trains. To this day, Lionel markets American Flyer S gauge in limited quantities for the operator and collector markets.

The year 1982 brought General Mills' poorly received move of train production from the United States to Mexico. Some Lionel fans were angry simply because the trains had been made in the United States for more than 80 years, while others criticized the quality of the Mexican-produced trains. Lionel production returned to the United States by 1984. During this time, corporate offices were retained at the company's Mount Clemens (later, Chesterfield), Michigan, location.

When General Mills spun off its Kenner-Parker division in 1985, Lionel became part of Kenner-Parker. The Lionel product line was sold again in 1986, this time to toy-train collector and real estate developer Richard P. Kughn of Detroit, Michigan, who formed Lionel Trains, Inc. (LTI).

Lionel Trains, Inc./Richard Kughn era (1986–1995)
In 1986, Detroit-based real estate developer (and railroad enthusiast) Richard Kughn bought the brand and established Lionel Trains, Inc.

In 1989, Lionel, LLC made the switch from the MPC Sound of Steam to the new and improved Railsounds 1.0, heralding a new era of high-tech audio realism. Some of the engines to get this new sound system were the A6 switcher, Reading T1, and the New York Central Mohawk. In 1995, Lionel introduced the Trainmaster Command Control (TMCC) system along with the fully digital Railsounds 2.5. Engines that got this control and sound system were mostly Hudsons, like the 1995 Lionel No. 490 C&O Hudson, the 1995 Boston and Albany 618 Hudson, and the 1996 Lionel Commodore Vanderbilt. Others soon followed like the articulated engines in 1999 and 2000.

In 1991, the most popular toy train, the Santa Fe F3 was reintroduced with RailSounds. In 1992 Richard Kughn and musician Neil Young, an avid model railroader, created Liontech, chartered to develop exclusive new model train control and sound systems. Liontech's RailSounds II debuted in 1994.

In 1994, TMCC (Trainmaster Command Control), the brainchild of Neil Young, was introduced. Abbreviated as TMCC, it is a technology similar to Digital Command Control which permits, among other things, the operation of Lionel trains by remote control. This allowed collectors to walk around their layout while still being in control of their trains. It introduced new features like whistle, bell, chugging, diesel roar, electro-couplers, and the ability to turn RailSounds on or off.

Richard Kughn sold Lionel in 1995 to the Martin Davis Investment Group (Wellspring), which owned Lionel, LLC from 1995 to 2000 before giving the CEO rights to Richard Maddox.

Wellspring era (1995–present)
Lionel changed hands again in 1995, when Kughn sold controlling interest in the company to an investment group that included Neil Young and the holding company Wellspring Capital Management, which was headed by former Paramount Communications (formerly Gulf+Western) chairman Martin Davis (he had left the board of Viacom, which bought Paramount the previous year). The new company became known as Lionel, LLC. The company continued marketing reproductions of its vintage equipment, and the trend towards producing new equipment that was ever-more-detailed continued. Young now had a 20% stake in the company.

In order to proliferate Trainmaster Command Control as a standard, Lionel licensed it to several of its competitors, including K-Line. Lionel, LLC continued to manufacture and market trains and accessories in O scale under the Lionel brand and S gauge under the American Flyer brand. While most of the American Flyer products are re-issues using old Gilbert tooling from the 1950s, the O scale equipment is a combination of new designs and reissues.

In 1996 and 1997, the Lionel Century Club was unveiled to the public. It featured the 726 Berkshire, the GG-1, the 773 Hudson, the NYC F3, and the Pennsy O-27 scale turbine. All retained their postwar look with the latest technology at the time. In 1998, Century Club II was announced and released with one of the engines being a NYC 4-8-4 Niagara with cab number No. 6024.

Also in 1997 and 1998, the Postwar Celebration Series began. This series featured postwar trains, accessories, transformers, and cars retaining postwar looks with the latest technologies. The series lasted from 1997–2011.

In 1999 and 2000, there was big demand for high-end articulated steam engines. In 1999, Lionel, LLC manufactured the first three articulated steam engines. Those three are the N&W A Class, The Allegheny, and the Big Boy, manufactured in early 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively. Since 1998, Lionel has made more than 10 different types of articulated steam engines.

Lionel made a gold and platinum plated 700E hudson to celebrate their centennial in 2000. It featured Trainmaster command control, Railsounds, and Electrocouplers.

In 1999, The Texas Special was fitted with RailSounds and critics pointed out that it had the best diesel horn Lionel ever produced. The set came with a powered A-unit, a non-powered B-unit, a non-powered A-unit, two coach cars, a dome car, and an observation car. The train came in a Lionel Postwar Celebration Series box and was a TMCC engine.

In April 2000, competitor and former partner MTH Electric Trains filed a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against Lionel, LLC, saying that one of Lionel's subcontractors had acquired plans for an MTH locomotive design and used them to design locomotives for Lionel. The suit eventually went to trial, and on June 7, 2004, a jury in Detroit, Michigan, found Lionel liable and awarded MTH US$40,775,745. Lionel announced it would appeal, and two weeks later filed for bankruptcy, citing the judgment as the main reason. On November 1, 2004, a federal judge upheld the jury's decision. On December 14, 2006, the judgment was overturned on appeal, citing legal mistakes in the jury trial, and a new trial was ordered.

In 2001, Lionel closed its last manufacturing plant in the United States, outsourcing production to Korea and China. While this move proved unpopular with some longtime fans, the backlash was minor in comparison to the failed move of production to Mexico in the 1980s. The company also licensed the Lionel name to numerous third parties, who have marketed various Lionel-branded products since 1995.

In early 2002, Lionel decided to put out fantastic models in black boxes that read "Joshua Lionel Cowen Series". The JLC Series ran from 2002–2012 as a 10-year anniversary for Lionel's first CEO and president, Joshua Lionel Cowen. It became a hit with collectors.

In 2003, Lionel made RailSounds sets for the first time under NYC and Santa Fe Railroads. In 2006, TMCC was phased out when Lionel unveiled their new "Legacy" system.

On May 27, 2004, Union Pacific Railroad sued Athearn (another manufacturer of model railroad equipment) and Lionel for trademark infringement. The railroad claimed both companies put the names and logos of UP, as well as the names and logos of various fallen flag railroads UP had acquired over the years, on their model railroad products without a license. While Athearn quickly settled and acquired a license, Lionel initially resisted, arguing that it and its predecessor companies had been using the logos for more than 50 years, and had been encouraged or even paid to do so. On September 13, 2006, Lionel and UP settled the suit for US$640,000 plus a royalty on future sales.

In September 2004, the company dismissed its CEO, Bill Bracy, and replaced him with Jerry Calabrese, a former Marvel Comics and NASCAR executive. Along with Bracy, another 17 high-level employees were also dismissed.

In July 2005, Lionel sued competitor K-Line for theft of trade secrets. The two companies settled out of court but the settlement quickly fell apart, leading to K-Line declaring bankruptcy and selling its assets to Sanda Kan, a Chinese subcontractor who did manufacturing for both K-Line and Lionel. In January 2006, Sanda Kan licensed the K-Line name and intellectual property to Lionel.

On March 27, 2008, a bankruptcy judge approved Lionel's reorganization plan, including a settlement with MTH. Although the specifics were to remain sealed, the Associated Press reported that Lionel settled with MTH for US$12 million.

The 2004 Christmas movie Polar Express, based on the children's book of the same name, provided Lionel with its first hit in years. Lionel produced a train set based on the movie, and stronger-than-anticipated demand caused highly publicized shortages. Various news stories told of a reporter's quest to locate a set, and some dealers marked the prices up above the suggested retail price of US$229. Sets turned up on eBay with buy-now prices of $449 as Lionel ordered an additional production run but said it would not be able to deliver the additional sets until March of the following year. The set remains a popular seller in the product line in 2012.

In 2006, the Lionel electric train was inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame, along with the Easy-Bake Oven. It was the first time an electric toy had ever been inducted. That same year, Lionel made a bigger push to sell its train sets outside of hobby shops, selling them in stores such as FAO Schwarz, Macy's, and Target. By November 2006, the company had turned a US$760,000 profit on sales of US$55 million.

In 2009, Lionel launched a series of the most highly detailed model trains they have ever made called Visionline. The latest addition to Visionline is the GS series of steam locomotives.

In 2010, Lionel decided to remove RailSounds from train sets, using basic TrainSounds instead. In 2013, Lionel introduced "LionChief" Remote control trains to introduce wireless remote control to their starter sets. These sets feature enhanced sounds and long distance wireless control. In 2013, Lionel RailSounds sets were discontinued when Lionel unveiled the LionChief system. In 2014, Lionel revealed LionChief Plus as a new standard for their train sets.

In April 2014, Jerry Calabrese stepped down as president and CEO and was replaced by Howard Hitchcock, former senior vice president and general manager. In August of that year, Lionel moved their service center to their headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

In July 2016, Lionel re-entered into the HO scale market for the first time since 1990 by introducing the Polar Express in HO. In 2020, a large expansion to Lionel's HO scale lineup happened when they released a 2-8-2 Mikado and many other stock products.

In 2021, Lionel moved their main manufacturing plant from China to Vietnam.

Bankruptcy
On November 15, 2004, Lionel, LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing the US$40 million-plus judgment in the MTH lawsuit as the primary factor. In the filing, it listed $55 million in debt and $42 million in assets. The largest secured creditor was PNC Financial Services Corp., owed $31 million. The MTH judgment was not included in the $55 million figure. On July 26, 2006, Lionel's bankruptcy judge ordered that Lionel submit a plan for emerging from bankruptcy within 75 days of the appeals court's verdict on the MTH lawsuit. On December 14, 2006, a federal appeals court determined that the company was entitled to a new trial, and that their reorganized plan should be filed by March 1, 2007.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2008 Judge Burton R. Lifland, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, approved Lionel LLC's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, clearing the way for the company to exit bankruptcy. According to Lionel chief executive Jerry Calabrese, the plan called for the company to pay all its creditors in full with interest, whilst the company itself would also obtain up to US$40 million in loans to fund its exit from Chapter 11, pay off its creditors and fund its working capital needs in the future.

In regard to the MTH lawsuit, recent filings revealed Lionel agreed to pay MTH $12 million in cash to settle the lawsuit and a separate suit involving patented smoke-puffing technology.

Lionel's Chapter 11 plan also called for private equity firm Guggenheim Partners to contribute $37.1 million to the reorganized Lionel company, which consequently would now own 48.6 percent of the new Lionel. Similarly, the plan also called for the estate of the deceased Martin S. Davis (former chairman of Gulf+Western Industries/Paramount Communications Inc.) to provide $21.9 million to Lionel, and the Davis estate would now have a 28.6 percent share in the reorganized company. Guggenheim Partners's and the Davis estate's funding totaled $59 million for the reorganization plan; they would also loan Lionel an additional $10 million in second-lien debt. As a result, Calabrese expected the company to be out of bankruptcy "within a week".

Following the reorganization plan, Young was no longer a minority shareholder in the Lionel company; however, Calabrese insisted that the company wanted him to remain involved, claiming that he would have an "ongoing role in the company", but that this role would be "up to [Neil]". The pair organized a meeting on March 28, 2008. As of 2012, Young remains an active consultant in the company's Legacy and other high-end products.

On May 1, 2008, Lionel was fully out of bankruptcy.

Collector value
Lionel trains are often sought by collectors, but the value of each piece can vary greatly. In general, older pieces tend to be more sought after due to age, rarity and nostalgia. The collector value of "modern era" Lionel trains has been limited by comparison to the trains produced by Lionel Corporation prior to 1969. As another generation grows nostalgic for this era, values may increase. As with any collectible, condition and rarity are important in assessing value. In addition, reissues and reproductions by Lionel and others have somewhat decreased the collector value and made it more difficult to authenticate vintage Lionel and American Flyer equipment. There are numerous collectors guides to help buyers make informed decisions on authenticity and value.

Currently, Lionel markets its products to several levels of skills and budget. As in the past, the higher-end, limited run products tend to retain the highest collectible value for the future. These products include the Legacy equipped steam and diesel locomotives which are accurate and highly detailed scale models. Lionel introduced the Vision Line of locomotives and cars in 2009, with the goal of providing the most innovative and detailed O gauge models available. Ready-to-run sets and cars are also offered at lower price points. These sets are in the tradition of, and many are reproductions of, the entry-level sets of the classic Lionel era. In March 2012, Lionel released the first American Flyer exclusive catalog, featuring many all-new models with advanced electronic features and increased scale compatibility.

Lionel also produces lines for children, including battery-powered G scale trains and "Little Lines" sets for children as young as four.

Lionel gauges and scales history
This shows all the scales that Lionel has been associated with for over 100 years total.

Pre-standard gauge: 1900–1906

Standard gauge: 1906–1939, 1986–1990, 1999–2002

O gauge: 1915–1941, 1946–present

OO gauge: 1938–1942

HO gauge: 1957–1967, 1974–1990, 2016–present

G scale: 1987–1995 and 2005–present

S scale: 1967 (Purchase of A.C. Gilbert American Flyer), 1979–present

 * 1959–1963
 * 1959–1967
 * 1970–1986
 * 1986–1995
 * 1986–1995
 * 1995–2000
 * 1995–1999
 * 1999–2001
 * 2001–2004
 * 2001–2004

Lionel Collectors Club of America
In 1974, the LCCA was created in Des Moines, Iowa, with 83 other charter members. The club mainly focuses on having members show an interest in Lionel trains with train meets, swap meets, and annual conventions. In 2012, the LCCA and the Lionel Railroaders Club (LRRC) merged, with LCCA as the name of the combined group. Before the merger, one membership was needed to receive publications by LCCA and another separate membership was needed to attend the annual conventions in the summer. After the merger, they changed the arrangement so that junior membership and regular membership can get the publications and the invitation to the annual conventions with just one membership instead of two.

 * (1988–1989)
 * (1990–1991)
 * (1998–1999)
 * (2002–2003)
 * (2004–2005)

title: Lionel, LLC