text:
Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Talk:Azad_Kashmir#Merger_proposal
I've placed a merge proposal seeing above discussions at Talk:Azad_Kashmir. This article should be merged into Azad Kashmir & Gilgit-Baltistan (probably some content into History of Azad Kashmir). Comment there to keep the discussion in one place. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ✅ -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Set up clue bot here? The page needs a clean look for the new discussions related to disambig. as well as getting huge. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Mar4d (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page is not appropriate
Apparently there was some discussion about page merger on Talk:Azad Kashmir, and in the course of that discussion it was suggested that this page should be reformatted as a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, no one consulted with WikiProject Disambiguation about that proposal, or notified the project of the proposal. The problem is that the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not ambiguous. It refers to a single well-defined area that has been divided into two subparts for administrative purposes. This name is not ambiguous any more than the name Kashmir itself is ambiguous, even though the geographic area of Kashmir is divided among multiple political entities. The Disambiguation template should be removed from this page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I have been saying. This should be a small article explaining about the area of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" which has been divided into two subparts for administrative and political purposes and had a third part ceded to China. JCAla (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * JCAla, we're not going to debate that again. The point is, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a political term that only came into existence after the Kashmir War and is basically a convenient/neutral international designation for the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control. The term is not used by Pakistan itself and the same goes for Jammu and Kashmir, which is internationally designated as Indian-administered Kashmir although that term is not officially used by India itself for the territory. Read the previous arguments on that. I am confident that the articles History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan ideally do a perfect job of explaining the dispute over the territory. @R'n'B: I don't think comparing Kashmir (the native name of the region) with "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (a modern term in political usage), and saying that the latter is "no more ambiguous" than the former is a reasonable comparison. As a matter of fact, this term does have a degree of ambiguity. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not a single area, as you say; rather, it's a designation for two seperate areas with their own, seperate official administrative systems. When this term is used, it can refer to either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan: hence, the presence of ambiguity. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This has been debated over and closed. This is counter productive to the efforts made in that discussion and there's no use of going over this again. Even "Kashmir" has a disambiguation page: Kashmir (disambiguation). Just because it has an article doesn't mean it is non ambiguous. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't find it constructive to announce that the topic is closed to users who were not notified of the previous discussion and had no reasonable opportunity to participate in it. Further, I would be interested to be referred to any published source that uses the term 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir' to refer only to Azad Kashmir or only to Gilgit-Baltistan.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I called in an RFC (without an opposition in the first place) knowing the nature of the case and then I waited for half a month even after getting a unanimous consensus so that I do get oppositions. JCAla objected and I explained my nomination to him. The consensus finally came out to be as merge. Unfortunately/fortunately the consensus is not dependent of a say of every wikipedian that exists. This effort however is counter productive to the previous discussion. Infact, in your last sentence you explain yourself why this is a disambiguation page and not a simple redirect. The page has been merged by a well formed consensus and the disambiguation has been created by unanimous support of opposing and favoring editors. Hope that answers your question. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to forget that the RfC in total lasted for one whole month. If that is not ample time to come up with consensus, then I don't know what is. As I've said, the History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan articles do a far better job at explaining Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This article was seriously redundant. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not even the official name of the territories, it's just an international designation. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun, I don't understand at all your comment that "you explain yourself why this is a disambiguation page and not a simple redirect." (Especially since I never suggested it should be a redirect.) I asked for information, which so far no one has provided.
 * Anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, I would have thought that TopGun and Mar4d would both have been busy for the past few days correcting all the pages that contain links to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" and correcting (i.e., disambiguating) those links to point to the correct article. Oddly, however, the number of those links seems not to have changed at all in the past couple of days. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, what is this all about? Azad Kashmir is just one entity of Pakistan-administered Kashmir - not a synonym. There already exists an article on Azad Kashmir, no need for a disambiguation page. JCAla (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * JCAla, you're advised to stop watching my contributions. That is a correct redirect as The whole non split area was known as Azad Kashmir before 1970 and the whole area is still referred to as such in Pakistan. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on your non-content based remark. On content, there should be some note then that in that disambiguation you are referring to the historical "Azad (Jammu and) Kashmir" - the Pakistani name for the whole of Pakistan-administered Kashmir until 1970. "Azad Kashmir" contemporary refers to only one out of two entities of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. JCAla (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that would deserve a separate article for the historical administrative entity (seeing that we have one on NWFP from British rule till Pak renamed it to KP). But I guess at the moment we don't have enough content available as well as a history of Azad Kashmir article is present. About the redirect, the facts that Azad means free in Urdu and that Pakistan considers its part of Kashmir as liberated would both get that disambiguation to redirect to this on the basis of common knowledge of Urdu or of Pakistan's views. And since there's no separate article on that historical entity yet, a disambiguation link would be useless as the purpose of a disambiguation is to direct the reader to the relevant articles. I think I actually mentioned it here (and that disambiguation redirects here) but some one removed it (did you?). -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, TopGun, I went back and read your RFC. I don't disagree with anything you proposed there.  However, the word "disambiguation" never appeared in the RFC, so there is no reason anyone interested in disambiguation would have participated in the discussion.  My concern is limited solely to the designation of this page as a "disambiguation" page.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed that you read the merger proposal discussion before commenting here so I refered to that. It was I who suggested both the redirect and the disambig. page. I meant if it had been a redirect then your last sentence would have been valid but your comment makes it clear why it is a disambig. page since it doesn't refer to a single one of them. That is the purpose of a disambig. page. I will correct any of those links if I do see them and I assume so for Mar4d as well but you should see WP:VOLUNTEER. I also assumed a bot to fix those (which it did as I saw at one point). Actually the proposal about merger does have the suggestion.. maybe you did not find it or I might have used a short hand for "disambiguation". -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Administrative entities"
This should be, "it may refer to" instead of "its two administrative entities are" because the administrative entities are of Pakistan and not Pakistan-administered Kashmir as that is a neutral name given to the region. In short, the administrative entities are of a country or a province and this would have been true if P.A.K. was a province of Pakistan. I suppose you have an explanation for keeping it that way? -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I've made a slight rephrase keeping your mention of administrative entities yet making it less confusing. Discuss for further improvement. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that slight rephrase. JCAla (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, then that stays till some one else has a better one. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"- 'made' a province-like" versus "- a province-like"
I think made is out of context here. The fact that it has been "made" a province-like entity is just like adding that it was "separated" from the whole Azad Kashmir in 70s (which has an equal weight to be added if "made" is added - but then this is not an article). See other examples of disambiguation pages (Kashmir (disambiguation)), the all just tell what something currently is. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Without "made a province-like" the reader will get confused. It is an administrative entity of the area referred to as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". But it has been made a part of Pakistan proper. The made illustrates that for clarification purpose only. JCAla (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole area is a part of Pakistan as per Pakistan's claims (though Azad Kashmir does have self government), this is a separate debate for the article as covered there already. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the "made" is to be left out, the sentence needs to be the "two administrative entities that it refers to are". Not "might refer to". JCAla (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And why would that be so? -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to revise my previous statement, it needs to be "refers to" in any case. It does refer to, not might. As for the "made" it is for clarification, as I wrote above. JCAla (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The clarification is a political issue suitable for the article. Why would we need to remove "might" if we remove "made"? -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "might" shouldn't be there in any case, since it does refer to not might. If you are a reader, go to the disambiguation page and read "might" refer to and "a province-like administrative entity of Pakistan" instead of "made a province-like", you might not understand the connection of Gilgit-Baltistan to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So, "made" is for clarification and might is the wrong term, since the two entities are administrative entities of Pakistan-administered Kashmir not might be. JCAla (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not administrative entities of P.A.K. but of Pakistan. Pak-administered Kashmir is not a unit by itself -its just a name like Indian-administered Kashmir. I've explained my views on made, maybe a third opinion would help in that. For the removal of "might" - both can be called as Pak administered Kashmir since both are parts of Kashmir administered by Pakistan otherwise there's no purpose of keeping a disambiguation as pointed out by a user above and we'll have to turn it in to a redirect. -- lTopGunl (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DABCONCEPT
This page is clearly in violation of WP:DABCONCEPT because it incorrectly frames related topics that are susceptible to being explained comprehensively as being separate and ambiguous uses of a term. Although it may at times be less taxing to avoid writing the article explaining the relationship between these terms, laziness and a cavalier attitude towards the facts of the situation provides no excuse for misleading readers into thinking that actual ambiguity exists, and can not justify violations of the policy designed to avoid this kind of misrepresentation. bd2412 T 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 * These are actually ambiguous terms, an RFC was held for it to not have a separate article (like Indian-administered Kashmir redirects to the original one). There are two areas that can be referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Both are listed. Pakistan-administered Kashmir can also be referred to as their combined entity before 70s. Consensus was to have this disambiguation. I don't have any issues if it is redirected, but you'll have to change that consensus. Some parts of discussion are on Talk:Azad Kashmir. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The very fact that you are able to articulate how the name refers to the changing status of a single geographic region over time demonstrates that it is capable of being discussed as a single evolving concept. That is not ambiguity; all regions experience that kind of change over a long enough time. The distinction between Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car), now that is ambiguity. Talk page consensus can not make this material appropriate for disambiguation any more than talk page consensus can make this page a featured article. bd2412  T 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I have been saying. This should be a short article explaining basic things. JCAla (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either that, or it must be redirected elsewhere, or deleted. bd2412  T 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to redirect it to a single article, since the term explicitly refers to two entities: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. JCAla (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there no article which discusses more generally the history of Pakistan's relationship to the region? A section redirect would suffice, perhaps to Kashmir. bd2412  T 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is a disambiguation page implies that Pakistan-administered Kashmir can mean Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan, but in actuality it means Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. TimBentley (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples where Wikipedia would need to use "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", linked here instead of to Kashmir or Kashmir dispute, instead of Pakistan's own administrative divisions? I ask because I see that many of the links here are inappropriate, such as the one from Muzaffarabad, which said that the city was the "capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir, Pakistan" when no such administrative division exists. Shrigley (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why this should not be a disambiguation page; if "links here are appropriate" then they must reference a single encyclopedic topic to be appropriately linked to. bd2412  T 22:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a typo; I meant inappropriate. Shrigley (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is notable because to this day the area (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) is referred to as such by the international community including the United Nations. Historically the area also included a third area now ceded to China. So this should be a short article explaining what is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", how and why was it partitioned into several parts, etc. JCAla (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No thanks. There's already consensus on how there are issues with having an article on this. By the way, whatever you mentioned above is completely covered in History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan. So no point in reviving this talk again.... Mar4d (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Issues with having an article do not excuse misuse of the disambiguation tag. There is no ambiguous term here; therefore, this page violates WP:DABCONCEPT and must be brought into conformance with policy by deletion, redirection, or construction of an article in this space. I understand that such an article would be very difficult to write in a way that satisfies diverse points of view on the subject, but Wikipedians have managed to write articles on difficult and controversial topics before, so such issues really do not present much of an excuse either. Furthermore, please note that if this page were to be brought into conformance with WP:MOSDAB, this would require removal of all links on the page which do not contain the phrase "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which would leave this as a blank page suitable for speedy deletion. bd2412  T 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a thorough look at the discussion and viewpoints, and can understand that there are issues with having this as a disambig. Would it not be better to remove all the redundant links (including Chinese and Indian Kashmir) and just leave Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan? Does that fulfill the purpose of disambiguating? Or if that doesn't work out, I don't see a problem with redirecting either. But as far creating an article again is concerned, that's not the road to go. And User:Shrigley has a valid point by the way, as to why this disambig page should exist: the reason being that many links that come to this page are inappropriate and are usually referring to Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan half the time (and as such, should be linked to those articles instead, not here). Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed above the option of redirecting to Kashmir, and I am coming to think that this is the best solution. Of course, the Kashmir article addresses all historical and political matters to which this title seems to be directed. The fact that a region is subdivided into smaller administrative divisions, or has evolved in its divisions over time, does not make the name of the region ambiguous; it makes it a topic. See, for example, Southeastern United States. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it makes it a topic and thereby worthy of an article. As TimBentley pointed out, the term refers to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and can even refer to the historical entity which had a third part now ceded to China. If it's not turned into an article I support the above idea by BD. JCAla (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support redirecting to Kashmir, as proposed by BD2412. This provides the necessary explanation of the status and related disputes (although it could be improved). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that just about everyone who has weighed in on the discussion either agrees with, or does not object to, the proposed redirect. I will implement that now. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This solution having been implemented, I would like to make sure after the fact that there is no further objection to it. If not, I will remove this page from the WP:DPL list of problems to be addressed. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Azad Kashmir
Good call redirecting the page instead of keeping a disambig... that kills the debate. However, I'll suggest a better redirect than pointing it to a section of the main Kashmir article. Azad Kashmir was the whole of this are before 1970 and that article should contain pre-1970 info in a section for the full area as well as the reasons etc for splitting Gilgit-Baltistan from the entity. This redirect should point to that article since it is a better target. Further input appreciated. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I looked at most of the links to this redirect, and usually what happens is that some editor changes "Azad Kashmir" to "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", and then another editor changes "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The result is often a construction like "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan". Most of the time, Azad Kashmir is what's meant, because if the writer meant Gilgit-Baltistan, then he would say Gilgit-Baltistan.

 * I wonder if calling both of these territories "Kashmir" is a concession to the Indian point of view, which doesn't respect Pakistan's administrative boundaries. The Indian embassy says, "In 1982 General Zia ul Haq proclaimed that the people of the Northern Areas [Gilgit-Baltistan] were Pakistanis and had nothing to do with the State of Jammu and Kashmir." Is Gilgit-Baltistan considered "Kashmir" in Pakistan? Because it seems awfully strange that they would give it a separate name were that so. Why was GB split out from Azad Kashmir?

 * Also, according to this book, "While the Northern Areas are typically left out of the general debate on the future of Kashmir (it is widely assumed that any future disposition will not involve significant transfers of territory of sovereignty in this region), the final status of Azad Kashmir is very much part of the overall equation. Most plans involving some form of mixed control, land swaps, or dual citizenship focus on the Indian-controlled territories of Kashmir Valley and Jammu, and the Pakistan-controlled territory of Azad Kashmir." It's quite like Aksai Chin, which our Kashmir article uncontroversially treats as "part of Kashmir", seemingly to justify India's territorial claims, despite the fact successive Chinese governments never accepted the princely state's claim on Aksai Chin. Shrigley (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good one. The articles seem to have some Indian bias in them. I think if we attribute the Indian point of view to India, this can be over come instead of simply removing everything. Something like, "India considers so and so as a part of Kashmir". You are right, Pakistan separated GB from Kashmir, but due to its commitments with UN, GB is not an official province of Pakistan rather a 'province-like' entity. Whatsoever the reasons are, the point is all the countries administering parts of Kashmir are sovereign and what ever titles they have given to the administrative units in their control should be the actual names of them and the rest should be listed as claims. Azad Kashmir is the right article for this redirect even if we go by Indian point of view anyway, because that region was the whole of it before the split and should cover the information related to this term as "Indian-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as terms can not have separate articles per WP:UNDUE. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this would be a more informative redirect. As to bias, I think it is our responsibility as a neutral presenter of the facts to disclose what notably sourced claims are made by each contender. Teach the controversy without deciding who is right or wrong. bd2412  T 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian-administered Kashmir redirects to Jammu and Kashmir, that also sets precedent for this. I've redirected it now. Agree with the controversy part. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is the international term (also used by the United Nations) which refers to both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan split up Gilgit-Baltistan explicitly for the purpose of factoring out Gilgit-Baltistan from the Kashmir debate. As such, the redirect by TopGun is far from neutral (as required by wikipedia) but strictly follows the Pakistani narrative. The last redirect was ok. JCAla (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's clear consensus for changing the redirect. You should self revert, atleast three editors above have agreed on this. Also, Pakistani narrative on it would term it as "Azad Kashmir", not this. The current redirect is vague.. it points to the distributions of the area. All other terms redirect to the given areas. In anycase, Azad Kashmir was always the full Pak administered Kashmir, GB was infact separated from it by Pakistani government. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * You started the discussion today at 16:15 and want to proclaim "consensus" at 17:25? Yes, GB was separated from Azad Kashmir by the Pakistani government for exactly the purpose mentioned above. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is an internationally used term - not a Pakistani term (which is "Azad Kashmir" - "Free Kashmir") nor an Indian term (which is "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir"). As such we have to see what areas are the United Nations and the international community referring to when they use the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". They are referring to both the area of Azad Kashmir and the area of Gilgit-Baltistan. JCAla (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that would make me wait till I have an arbitrary number of editors supporting. Your revert however was against all above. As for the term... no, we don't have to see what the international community or UN call it, we've to be neutral, with respect to all claims. Especially the sovereign country that it belongs to. Even the combined area you are referring to was in full Azad Kashmir till 1970. This redirect was appropriate. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I think I made my point pretty clear above. Let's wait and see what the others have to say - as they did have some questions that I now addressed. JCAla (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that United Nations usage equals "International community" usage when it comes to disputed territories. First of all, "United Nations" is vague. Which agencies use this term where? On maps or text publications? I saw some United Nations maps on Wikipedia that split Kashmir off from Pakistan and India entirely, which is definitely not the international convention. Secondly, the United Nations tries to placate its member states in territorial disputes, such as by using "Diaoyu" to China and "Senkaku" to Japan in letters about the Pinnacle Islands. International usage, as expressed in the news media, accepts the line of control as de-facto border, using datelines such as "Srinagar, India" or "Muzaffarabad, Pakistan", whereas the UN might say "Srinagar, India-administered Kashmir", or "Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-administered Kashmir". We don't use the former — "India-administered Kashmir" — for Jammu and Kashmir on Wikipedia, despite it being a simpler substitution, because it subtly devalues India's claim. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (when it used to include Gilgit-Baltistan) is worse, because it trashes Pakistan's sovereignty by rejecting its decision to define "Kashmir" for itself.
 * There is a wealth of sources which use "Gilgit-Baltistan" instead of what India would only call part of "Pakistan-occupied/administered Kashmir". For example, less than a dozen websites, most of them Wikipedia mirrors, use "Gilgit, Pakistan-administered Kashmir" instead of the tens of thousands instances of "Gilgit, Gilgit-Baltistan" . "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a false compromise from "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", because Indocentric terminology rejects all administrative changes to Azad Kashmir since 1970, and not only the name of "Azad Kashmir". Wikipedia follows the international convention of following the administrative divisions of the controlling states. It notes and follows Pakistan's splitting of Hattian District from Muzaffarabad District in 2009, for example, and does not ignore Muzaffarabad District by using India's administrative hierarchy. If Pakistan equates its part of Kashmir with "Azad Kashmir", then Azad Kashmir is a valid definition of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". Hence, we might say that the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is ambiguous. However, before we turn this back into a disambiguation page, I ask again for instances where a link to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" would be warranted in an article. If a redirect to "Azad Kashmir" not only discourages links here (which is the function of a disambiguation page) but also avoids loaded Indian terminology that seeks to change the status quo — than we have succeeded as encyclopedists. If we point again to the "Kashmir" article, which uses the broadest Indian-based definition of the Kashmir region, then we are encouraging the use of biased language. The only other solution I see would involve writing an article like "Terminology of the Kashmir conflict" to which this can point. Shrigley (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A very detailed analysis I'd say. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so focused on India and Indian terminology? "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is the internationally used term for the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. India uses the term "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir". And no, we follow neither Pakistan's politically motivated definition nor India's politically motivated definition of Kashmir, we follow what is the majority definition of Kashmir. That definition can be found on the Encyclopædia Britannica for example which explicitly defines "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan:

 * "The northern and western portions [of Kashmir] are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, the last two being part of a territory called the Northern Areas. The southern and southeastern portions constitute the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972 ..."

JCAla (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to make clear why Shrigley is focusing on terminology, there's nothing on the (NPOV) map of earth known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir any more than there's an Indian-administered Kashmir. In NPOV, those terms might have a value as terms themselves, but as neutral names of areas, no. The legitimate entity that can give administrative names to the area is Pakistan, which split the area from Azad Kashmir. As a former combined entity and the current name per analysis above, this is the right redirect. Even the definition in Britannica doesn't say that this is an official title of the combined area. You can not create a title like Pakistan-administered Kashmir just like you can not rename Peoples Liberation Army to Peoples Occupation Army on wikipedia even if you have those views, because that's not what they call themselves. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I think I said somewhere some time ago that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not by any means an official term. The official names for the regions are Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is simply a term of convenience used when discussing the Kashmir debate. So I'll repeat again, the proper names for the regions are, as I said, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, not Pakistan administered Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Tag
How's this page a part of Wikiproject India? I don't see Wikiproject Pakistan tags on Jammu and Kashmir. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Pak-administered Kashmir is the term best corresponding to the term Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as per the Indian government stance. Hence the relevance. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 * No, this is UN's term... India uses PoK. That term might be a part of that project. Btw, there's no need to editwar it back into the page when I'm discussing it myself. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get TopGun's rationale here. If people who are members of WP-India project are interested in the article, then why won't this fall under the wikiproject? If, say, people who are members of WP-India or WP-Pakistan decide that martian aliens interest them, then there is no reason why that too will fall under that category. TopGun seems to assume that the tag is being used to mark territory, but that is not (hopefully) the case. --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Kashmir has a shared history and therefore the tag is appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * topgun asked a reasonable question: why aren't there any wikiproject pakistan tags on the Jammu and Kashmir-page? will he get reverted if he added some?--  altetendekrabbe   22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Has that area ever been administered by Pakistan? Personally, I couldn't care less but TG has a (recent) history of POV-y edits & so if the intent is merely to stir the pot then that would be inappropriate. However, this is really a discussion to be had on that article's talk page - WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush, your persistent referring to my edits in general as POV on any discussion you encounter will not help those discussions in anyway... they'll only constitute minor personal attacks, so you can start with stopping those as that is precisely what inappropriate will mean. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * India has never administered this area, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've tagged J&K for the Pakistan Wikiproject, given the level of interest demonstrated here by members towards that article. Shrigley (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting response by TG & Mustihussain considering I only tagged a redirect out of compulsion of a habit I have developed to add Project template to India articles. FYI, tags already exist on many articles of WikiProject Pakistan - things like Indus Valley Civilisation which are also of interest to WikiProject India. I'm not going to edit war/revert on this issue. TG is free to revert my edit now without my gaming him for a 1RR violation. I'm not reverting Shrigley's tag on J&K either. A tag only means that the topic is of interest and relevance to a WikiProject and that the presence of a project template on a talk page only indicates the project's commitment to improving the article. AshLin (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My question was simply on precedent and as far as I've seen the project tags are added to the articles which have direct relevance to the country (I don't think you'll be able to WP:India tag to "martian aliens" as Ragib claims). The interesting part here was that you reverted it back in instead of discussing, that makes far from a 'compulsion of a habit' given that not even I took it as a big deal. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Great. Just great. Now that this precedent has been set, I foresee that we may as well be seeing WikiProject bots in the future going around misleadingly tagging thousands of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles, categories, templates, redirects, disambig pages and what-not under WikiProject India and then probably editors on the other side doing the same to all Jammu and Kashmir articles. Thanks a bunch for opening up this pandora box. Ridiculous, to say the least. Mar4d (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azad Kashmir which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir


text:
Augustus Mongredien

Augustus Mongredien (1807–1888) was a corn merchant, also known as a political economist and writer. He was a leading amateur British chess master.

Life
He was born in London in 1807, of French parents. His father was a French officer who fled to England after Bonaparte's coup d'état in 1798.

He was educated in the Roman Catholic college at Penn, Buckinghamshire, and continued his studies long after leaving the institution. He entered commercial life at an early age, and was the owner of the first screw steamers to the Levant.

In 1859, he became a member of the firm of H. J. Johnston & Co., and when it was broken up in 1864 he began as a cornbroker on his own account. In 1862, he purchased Heatherside, Surrey.

Gradually he withdrew from business and devoted most of his attention to literary pursuits. He had joined the National Political Union in 1831, as well as a spinoff organization, The Radical Club, in 1833 and in 1872 he was elected a member of the Cobden Club, under the auspices of which society several of his treatises were published.

He thoroughly grasped the free-trade question, and expounded his views on the most difficult problems of political economy with great lucidity. He was a good musician and an excellent botanist. He was elected president of the Chess Club in 1839. He had a colloquial knowledge of seven languages, could recite many pages of the Koran, and spoke modern Greek like a native. Mr. Gladstone, in recognition of his merits, placed his name on the Civil Pension List.

Mongredien died at Forest Hill, London, on 30 March 1888.

Chess career
In 1859 Mongredien played a chess match against Paul Morphy. After drawing the first game, he lost the next seven on the trot, losing the match 7.5-0.5. In 1862 he played in chess's first international round-robin tournament (in which each participant plays every other) in London, finishing 11th of 14 with 3/13.

Works
Mongredien wrote on free trade and botanical subjects. His principal works are :
 * 1) Trees and Shrubs for English Plantations ; a selection and description of the most Ornamental Trees and Shrubs, Native and Foreign, which will flourish in the Open Air in our Climate .... with Illustrations, London, 8vo.
 * 2) England's Foreign Policy ; an Enquiry as to whether we should continue a Policy of Intervention, London, 8vo.
 * 3) The Heatherside Manual of Hardy Trees and Shrubs, London, 1874-5, 8vo.
 * 4) Frank Allerton. An Autobiography, 3 vols. London, 1878, 8vo.
 * 5) Free Trade and English Commerce, 2nd edit. London [1879], 8vo ; answered by F. J. B. Hooper, 1880 ; and in Half-a-pair of Scissors ; or what is our (so-called) Free Trade ? (anon.), Manchester, 1885.
 * 6) The Western Farmer of America, London, 1880, 8vo, reprinted 1886 ; replied to by T. H. Dudley and J. W. Hinton.
 * 7) History of the Free Trade Movement in England, London, 1881, 8vo, translated into French by H. Gravez, Paris, 1885, 8vo.
 * 8) Pleas for Protection examined, London, 1882, 8vo; reprinted 1888.
 * 9) Wealth-Creation, London, 1882, 8vo.
 * 10) The Suez Canal Question, 1883, 8vo.
 * 11) Trade Depression, recent and present [1885], 8vo.
 * 12) On the Displacement of Labour and Capital, 1886, 8vo.

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

title: Augustus Mongredien


text:
Dublin Bus

Dublin Bus (Bus Átha Cliath) is an Irish state-owned bus operator providing services in Dublin. By far the largest bus operator in the city, it carried 145 million passengers in 2023. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Córas Iompair Éireann.

History
Dublin Bus was established on 2 February 1987, when Córas Iompair Éireann was split into 3 subsidiaries, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail. In September 2011, Dublin Bus received a significant technological upgrade with its introduction of real time passenger information.

Services

Dublin Bus operates an extensive network of 110 radial, cross-city and peripheral routes and 18 nighttime routes in the city of Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area. The company carries around 325,000 people each day. The main radial routes are focused upon Dublin's sixteen Quality Bus Corridors which provide buses with prioritised access, daytime on some routes, 24 hours on others, to the city centre. Express buses (branded "Xpresso") operate on similar routes but have a limited number of stops and a higher minimum fare. These services run Monday to Friday at peak times and do not operate on public holidays; no bus services operate at all on Christmas Day.

Dublin Bus also runs a Ghost Bus Tour passing some of the supposedly haunted places in the city including St Kevin's Church and St Audoen's Church. The tour usually runs in the evening time and includes two stops where passengers leave the bus behind and visit locations where ghosts have allegedly been seen.

In April 2010, Dublin Bus announced it would be simplifying many of its routes around the city in order to create better efficiency. This programme was called Network Direct. However, as part of these measures, the company also announced that 150 jobs would be lost. During the 2010s, Dublin Bus rolled out an RTPI system (Real Time Passenger Information) at certain stops, which shows the amount of time before a bus arrives directly to the user.

In 2016, the company carried 125 million passengers, which was a reduction of 14% compared to 2005 numbers (first full year of the Luas, which has seen an increase of 33.6% passengers in the same period).

Between September 2018 and March 2019, 24 Dublin Bus routes and 125 buses were progressively taken over by Go-Ahead Ireland after the National Transport Authority put their operation out to tender, however an equivalent number of new buses were provided to Dublin Bus to retain existing fleet numbers, with increased services and new routes or route variations introduced on the same day as Go-Ahead took over each route batch.

In October 2023, route 99 began operating as a shuttle service between Parkgate Street and the Phoenix Park Visitor Centre. The 99 is the first Dublin Bus route to serve Chesterfield Avenue and important Phoenix Park sites such as Áras an Uachtaráin. Interestingly, this route was not included in the BusConnects network, and was not introduced as part of a BusConnects phase.

Nitelink
On 6 December 1991 Dublin Bus launched its first 'Nitelink' service aimed at facilitating Christmas revellers returning home from the city centre. The trial service operated from 6 December 1991 to 4 January 1992 (except for certain holidays) on a Mon-Sun basis and cost a flat fare of £2 per person irrespective of how long or short their journey. Nitelink initially consisted of only four routes serving 12 suburban destinations in total with buses leaving on the hour every hour until 3am, from College Street, D'Olier Street and Westmoreland Street. Nitelink is an express service, meaning passengers may only board the buses at the city centre termini and other select locations along the way, although they may disembark at any normal bus stop along the route. Upon completing the journey the buses return to the city centre without passengers.

Over the years the Nitelink service increased to 18 routes overnight, and, until January 2009 ran between Monday and Saturday, with the greatest service frequency being on Friday and Saturday nights. Due to cutbacks necessitated by the 2008 economic downturn in Ireland, the midweek schedule was scrapped. By 2014 there were 18 Nitelink routes running again. Nitelink routes 15n and 41n were discontinued on the 1 December 2019 when 24-hour services on routes 15 and 41 came into effect. Some other areas previously served by the 15n and 41n Nitelinks (but not by the 15 or 41) became incorporated into other Nitelink services. A year later on 13 December 2020, Nitelink route 39n was similarly discontinued when daytime route 39a began operating on a 24-hour basis. Route 25n was discontinued on 16 October 2022 as part of Phase 4.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Nitelink services were paused between March 2020 and January 2022 with a brief respite between Fri 22 Oct 2021 and 19 December 2021 during which time services resumed. The service was halted again on Sun 19 December 2021 when an 8pm curfew was put in place on the hospitality industry due to an increase in COVID-19 cases. Dublin City Councillor Colm O'Rourke criticised the move, noting "The Nitelink is not just for clubbers; it's for workers and anyone else who needs a low-cost service to get home safely – including people on low wages or perhaps students who work the weekend". Nitelink services eventually returned to full operating hours from Friday 28 January 2022.

Currently, as of October 2022 the Nitelink service operates on Friday and Saturday nights only (technically the early hours of Saturday and Sunday) and consists of 12 separate routes that depart between the hours of 00:00 and 04:00 from the Dublin city centre locations of D'Olier Street, Westmoreland Street and Aston Quay. Each of the route numbers is suffixed by the letter 'n' to denote their night status.

Special (higher) fares apply on Nitelink buses than regular daytime bus services. On 2 September 2022 TFI announced that Nitelink fares across all 13 routes were being reduced with immediate effect; Leap fares by 33% and cash fares by 43%. Sorin Costica, Head of Operations at Dublin Bus said the reduction in fares would "...help reduce night-time carbon emissions by encouraging people to take the bus as opposed to travelling by car."

24-hour services
In 2014, Dublin Bus began looking to expand their Nitelink network and also introduce a new dedicated all-night service in the city. By late 2016, Dublin Bus 'Media and Communications Officer' Jennifer O'Brien stated that the company was looking at the possibility of introducing a 24-hour bus service in Dublin from 2017 in conjunction with the National Transport Authority on a phased basis. That same year, Dublin City Councillor Ciarán Cuffe (who also chaired the council's transport committee) said Dublin needed to look at extending the public-transport service at night noting that the last regular bus left the city at around 11:30pm each weeknight and the last Luas at around half past twelve, or midnight on Sundays.

In December 2019, the first of Dublin's 24-hour services were eventually rolled out. As of June 2023, the company operates ten such routes (which run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week), consisting of routes 15, 39a, 41, C1, C2, C5, C6, N4, G1 and G2. Speaking of the 24/7 buses, Dublin Bus have noted that "They are some of our busiest routes, showing the clear appetite for all day and all-night bus services in Dublin." It has been noted, however, that the service frequency on some of the 24-hour routes at night is insufficient, leading to buses to become filled to capacity. The failure of scheduled buses showing up at night has also been flagged as an issue.

15 and 41
At midnight on 1 December 2019, routes 15 and 41 began operating on a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis with no difference in fare, marking the first time Dublin had a regular night bus service. These buses depart their terminals at intervals of 30 minutes between the hours of 11.30pm and 05:00am. Announcing the change, the NTA CEO Anne Graham explained "The patterns of work and socialising have changed. For instance, the success in attracting to the city, major employers who are headquartered many time-zones away, serving markets around the world, means that commercial and economic activity in Dublin continues around the clock".

In June 2022, chief executive of Dublin Bus Ray Coyne told 'Breakfast Business' on Newstalk radio that of the six 24-hour services the company was currently running, route number 15 was "probably the most successful one". He added "We're looking to see if we can increase the frequency on those (six 24-hour services)... the demand is extremely high". Commenting on the 24-hour services in Sep 2022, Gary Kelly, Chief Inspector with Dublin Bus explained how they were a "huge success" witnessing a "a big demand". He explained "The 41 from Abbey Street to Swords will often be full at 4am in the morning with workers on their way to Dublin Airport and revellers heading home to Swords [..] That one was badly needed over the years. Two years ago, all those workers would have (had) to drive to the airport and pay for parking, or take a taxi. I can't even imagine".

39a
Route 39a began 24-hour operation on 13 December 2020.

C Spine (C1, C2, C5, C6)
On 28 November 2021 the National Transport Authority implemented Phase 2 of the rollout of its latest Dublin network with the C Spine, that consists of new C1-C4 routes serving the west of the city. The C1 and C2 services operate 24-hours a day, while the C3 and C4 buses turn into the C5 and C6, that operate through Chapelizod village instead of via the Chapelizod bypass at night. The night-time routes operate every hour, starting between 11:36pm and 00:35am every night of the week, and ending at 4am when normal services commence. Upon the introduction of the C Spine, Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan said that it "provides the communities on its route not just increased frequency, but also a night service offering commuters 24-hour bus connections."

N4
As part of BusConnects Phase 3, the N4 (Blanchardstown Shopping Centre – Point Village via Collins Avenue), came into operation on 29 May 2022. The route was originally supposed to begin in January 2022 but was delayed due to driver shortages. Driver shortages would also delay the rollout of the G-Spine routes later in the year. Anne Graham, CEO of the NTA, stated that "Today's launch is one further step in the delivery of an effective and efficient bus service for the Dublin city region. The network is beginning to take shape and we are confident that this Phase will be just as successful as the previous ones."

G Spine (G1, G2)
Phase 4 consisting of the G-Spine of routes G1 and G2 (both 24-hour), and daytime route 60, was launched on 16 October 2022. The phase was originally planned to launch on 28 August 2022 but needed to be pushed back until October 2022 due to driver shortages. Route G1 runs from the Red Cow Luas stop to Spencer Dock via Ballyfermot and the city centre, and G2 operates much the same route but instead connects Liffey Valley Shopping Centre with Spencer Dock, via Ballyfermot and the city centre. Overnight, the G1 and G2 run every hour between 12pm and 5am. One week after the routes launched, Senator Mary Seery Kearney noted she had already received numerous complaints concerning the new routes, with instances of buses not turning up and buses being full. Seery Kearney explained she had contacted the Oireachtas Transport Committee to urgently seek a meeting to review the situation.

Proposed developments
In May 2022, Dublin Bus announced it was considering the expansion of a 24-hour service to include a route that serves Bray. In his submission to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, Ray Coyne (Chief Executive of Dublin Bus) said "24/7 bus services are needed to deliver a truly all-day and all-night city [and] the broader economic needs of the city justify accelerating the introduction of 24/7 services on routes such as 46a, 155 and others".

In June 2022, Ray Coyne mentioned that Dublin Bus wanted to increase the frequency of buses operating on their six 24-hour routes. He particularly mentioned the success of the route 15, but added that "demand is extremely high" across all the night routes.

Speaking to TheJournal.ie in August 2022, a spokesperson for the Department of Transport noted that 24-hour services on the planned E-Spine, F-Spine and O-orbital routes set to start in 2023 are under consideration. The E and F routes are proposed to serve the Charlestown Shopping Centre and Northwood areas, the city centre, Bray and Dún Laoghaire. The O-orbital route are due to serve the North and South Circular Road areas. In addition, they noted that "the NTA has indicated that there is potential for each of the spine groups to have at least one route running 24 hours, but final decisions will be made closer to the time of each rollout".

Dublin Bus's official website includes an un-dated article named "Working Together To Build a Truly 24-Hour Dublin" which outlines their intention to introduce additional 24-hour routes to Dublin in advance of BusConnects' full implementation. Conscious of the fact that County Dublin's population is set to reach two million by 2030, the company acknowledged that Dublin is at the cusp of a transformational era as it develops into a truly 24-hour city. The company noted the challenges facing commuters in post-COVID Dublin, but also the opportunities: "Thousands of taxis have left the market. At the same time many new businesses are opening in our capital. Our hospitality sector is recovering strongly from the pandemic, and we are seeing the welcome return of large-scale events like concerts. So, we are confident that the customer demand is there for further 24-hour services".

In late September 2022, Transport for Ireland launched a campaign named "Around the city, around the clock" aimed at highlighting night-time bus services in Dublin in the run up to Christmas. Acting CEO of Dublin Bus, Andrea Keane, emphasised the economic importance of the service in 2022 noting that "The night-time economy in Dublin is growing post-pandemic and the TFI Network is expanding to reflect that. Night-time commuters can now hop on Dublin Bus services to get home affordably".

BusConnects

As part of the National Transport Authority's BusConnects network redesign project, in 2017 and 2018 a US-based consulting firm (Jarrett Walker + Associates) were employed to review and redesign the daytime bus network in and around Dublin. The purpose of the network redesign was to improve network functionality and increase bus ridership in the Dublin Metropolitan Area, an area which encompasses over 1.4 million people over several counties. It was noted that the traditional Dublin Bus network was good for many radial routes (i.e. taking people from the suburbs into the city core) but lacked orbital accessibility (i.e. getting from suburb to suburb). The initial network proposal was released for public consultation in summer 2018, and the revised proposal was released for public comment by October 2019. The NTA began implementing the new network in stages, starting in 2021. The company drew similarities between their proposed Dublin transport plan to that in place in Copenhagen, a city of comparable size and shape. As part of their contract, Jarrett Walker + Associates were not tasked with the expansion of 24-hour and night-time bus services in Dublin, as this was a separate decision taken by the NTA without their involvement.

On 27 June 2021, Phase 1 of the Bus Connects program was rolled out with routes 29a, 31/a/b and 32 being replaced by the "H Spine" routes H1, H2 and H3. Route 6 was also introduced to replace routes 31a and 31b in Howth. Increased frequency, particularly at weekends and earlier and later services, were also added with these changes.

Phase 2 of the BusConnects Network Redesign launched on 28 November 2021 in West Dublin and East Kildare. It involved the introduction of the C-Spine (C1, C2, C3, C4), route 52, eight peak-only routes (P29, X25, X26, X27, X28, X30, X31 and X32), six local routes (L51, L52, L53, L54, L58 and L59) and the two night-time routes of the C5 and C6. The Phase 2 routes are operated by Dublin Bus, with the exception of the L51 and L52 which are operated by Go-Ahead Ireland. A number of old Dublin Bus routes were discontinued with the introduction of the redesign, including the 25 and 66.

Phase 3, consisting of the N4 and N6 north Dublin orbitals, came into effect on 29 May 2022. The N4 travels from Point Village to Blanchardstown Shopping Centre serving Killester, Whitehall, DCU, Finglas and Connolly Hospital. The N6 travels from Kilbarrack to Finglas Village, serving Coolock, Beaumont and Ballymun. There is a 10-minute frequency on both the N4 and N6 at most times on weekdays and Saturdays, with the addition of a 24-hour service on the Route N4, running every 30 minutes every night of the week.

Phase 4 consisting of the G-Spine of routes G1 and G2 (both 24-hour), and route 60, launched on 16 October 2022, replacing routes 79/a and the western branch of route 40, which was curtailed to Earlsfort Terrace.

Phase 5b of the programme was launched on 26 November 2023, consisting of new orbital routes, local routes, and radials, with the cessation of route 61 and the introduction of routes 74, L25, and S2.

Impact of COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of Airlink, Nitelink and some Xpresso services in March 2020; Airlink services were later permanently suspended five months later. With the easing of restrictions in January 2022, Dublin Bus announced all Nitelink services would return to normal from Friday 28 January 2022. The use of facemasks onboard became optional from Monday 28 February 2022.

Route map
Uniquely for a capital city's primary transit network, no full system-wide street and route map is available online. Dublin Bus cites high licensing fees from fellow state-owned company, Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI). OSI historically published a printed street map, reissued every two to five years, which included bus routes. However, the edition published June 2011 omitted these for the first time.

Dublin Bus's Core Route Map does, however, provide some visual information about key routes in the city.

Dublin Bus previously employed international design company 'Applied', and a Dublin consultancy, to assist in making its route maps more legible. The aim was to develop clearer route information, with the aim of improving access and encouraging the visitor economy.

Fares
In 2021, Dublin Bus fares migrated to a simplified system, with a short journey fare for journeys of up to three "fare stages" (roughly 2–3 km) and a normal fare for longer trips. Paying the normal fare using a TFI Leap Card allows free transfers to other Dublin Bus, Luas, and certain Iarnród Éireann services for a 90-minute period. Transfers are not available on paper tickets. Higher fares apply to limited-stop peak time Xpresso services (route numbers suffixed with X) and to late-night Nitelink services (route numbers suffixed with N).

In general, Dublin Bus encourages prepaid or reloadable ticket use, and for cash payment it operates an 'exact fare' policy. Passengers must place the exact fare in coins (notes are not accepted) in a "fare box" at the driver's cabin, and the ticket is issued. In case of overpayment, no change is given and a system of issuing 'refund due' receipts, which operated for many years, ended in September 2018.

The wide variety of pre-paid tickets historically issued for Dublin Bus services has been withdrawn over time. Fare capping applies to frequent use of the same Leap card within a day or calendar week (Monday to Sunday), and a "rambler" pack of five or 30 non-consecutive one-day unlimited travel can be purchased and loaded to a Leap card for a slight discount. Monthly and annual season tickets are also offered.

Prepaid tickets must be validated in a machine by the door of the bus at the start of each journey, although the validation process for leap cards differs depending on the distance being travelled and the ticket being used.

Old age pensioners and children aged five and under (as of 1 December 2017) are allowed to travel free of charge; this is part of the national "Free Travel Pass" system operated by the Department of Social Protection.

Passengers who choose not to pay a fare or who travel beyond the limit paid for may be issued a fine, called a "standard fare", of €50, which doubles to €100 if not paid within 3 weeks. Continued non-payment may result in prosecution.

Fleet
As of June 2024, the fleet consisted of 1,090 buses.

Preservation
As the vehicles of the Dublin Bus fleet come of age, they are withdrawn to make way for newer technology. Types of significance such as the GAC Ireland have been preserved by the National Transport Museum of Ireland who house R1 (the first Dublin United Tramways Leyland double-decker service bus in Dublin).

Many ex-CIÉ types have been acquired by private preservationists, some of whom associated with the Transport Enthusiasts Club (TEC). The vehicles are garaged, restored and run by the owners without state funds and take part in films, television programs and in vintage rallies. One event was CIE 60th. 30 October 2005 saw Dublin Bus host CIE 60th in the new Harristown depot. This event was done in coordination with the Transport Enthusiasts Club. Buses, new and old, were on display, showing the contrast and how far the company had come.

Dublin's main bus operator was formerly the Dublin United Transport Company. This company was incorporated into CIÉ in 1945.

Christchurch
In 1989, a youth grabbed the steering wheel of a Tallaght bound double decker as it turned the corner opposite Christchurch and the bus crashed onto its side. Multiple passengers were injured but none were seriously injured.

Wellington Quay
On 21 February 2004, at Wellington Quay, Dublin, a bus mounted on pavement and crashed into a queue of 30 people, killing five and injuring 14. The driver was tried for dangerous driving causing death. His trial began in February 2007 at Dublin Circuit Court, but he was acquitted.

North Strand Road
On 5 February 2009, a bus en route from Abbey Street to Artane collided with a tree on North Strand Road and the entire roof section was torn off. The driver was treated in hospital for shock but there were no other injuries as no passengers were seated in the upper deck.

Dublin City Centre
On 16 September 2009, a collision between a Red Line Luas tram and a number 16 Dublin Bus from Ballinteer to Dublin Airport in Dublin City Centre at the intersection of Abbey Street and O'Connell Street injured 21 people. Three people, including the Luas driver, were cut out of the wreckage. The Luas was derailed in the accident. Two female passengers remained trapped on the bus for up to 45 minutes after the crash.

Smithfield
On 16 March 2019, an out of service double-decker bus (VG1) collided with a tram at the junction at Queen Street near the Smithfield Luas stop. Several people were hospitalised with non-life-threatening injuries.

Ballsbridge
On 2 October 2020, a double-decker operating on route 7A was involved in a serious collision with a stolen car at the junction of Northumerland Road and Haddington Road in Ballsbridge, resulting in the bus hitting a tree. Eight people were hospitalised, with two bus passengers requiring intensive care.

2023 Dublin riot
On 23 November 2023, four Dublin Bus buses were hijacked and set on fire amid anti-immigrant unrest in Dublin city centre following a stabbing outside a primary school earlier in the day.

title: Dublin Bus


text:
Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical)

The following pages (tabs above) offer guidance on the style and content of Wikipedia articles, and explain the Wikipedia community and important policies and conventions. This is a basic tutorial, not an extensive manual or interactive learning environment. For more details on any information in the tutorial, you can click on the links to other resource pages as you read, opening them in a separate browser window or tab.

As a new contributor, you may feel a little overwhelmed by the sheer size and scope of this site. No new user can understand everything at first, and it's acceptable to use common sense as you go about your editing. Wikipedia not only allows you to create, revise, and edit articles—it wants you to do so (see be bold)! You just need to remember that while there are many protocols, perfection is not required, since Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles.

The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. Wikipedia does not publish original research: an encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already published in the wider world. So we require that information be verifiable in reliable external sources. Ideally, all information should refer to reliable outside sources, using citations. When adding content and creating new articles, an encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important. Instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated writing, Wikipedia articles should have a straightforward, just-the-facts style.

Wikipedia does not have many hard-and-fast rules; but policies, guidelines, and formatting norms are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goals. All editors are expected to follow general social norms. The Wikipedia community comprises people from many countries and cultures, with different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds; in some cases these vary widely. Editors should treat each other respectfully, work together collegially, and avoid behaviour that is regarded as unacceptable, disruptive, controversially one-sided, or cheating the system.

For more information, see Simplified ruleset

Note: ''To view this information in an article style format, see contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has "topic specific tutorials"; and The Wikipedia Adventure  a comprehensive and fun 7-mission interactive guided tour, which covers all the essentials about editing and the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community.''

Continue the tutorial with  How to edit →

title: Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical)


text:
TradeStation

TradeStation Group, Inc. is the parent company of online securities and futures brokerage firms and trading technology companies. It is headquartered in Plantation, Florida, and has offices in New York; Chicago; Richardson, Texas; London; Sydney; and Costa Rica. TradeStation is best known for the technical analysis software and electronic trading platform it provides to active traders and certain institutional trader markets. TradeStation Group was a Nasdaq GS-listed company from 1997 to 2011, until it was acquired by Monex Group, a Tokyo Stock Exchange-listed parent company of one of Japan's leading online securities brokerage firms.

History
TradeStation was founded by Cuban-born brothers William (Bill) and Rafael (Ralph) Cruz, who sought to create a way to design, test, optimize, and automate their own custom trading strategies. Bill started studying trading at the age of 16, and two years later, the brothers pooled $2,400 to open a futures trading account. They gathered trading data to create charts, which were used to test trading ideas. Bill began to test strategies himself without the benefit of formal coding knowledge, a process that resulted in the development of EasyLanguage, the company's proprietary coding language for non-specialists.

Bill and Ralph decided to start their own company, then known as Omega Research. The brothers focused on selling tools that would give clients without a technical or computer programming background the ability to program and test their own trading strategies. In 1987, they released System Writer, a software product that enabled users to develop and “back-test” their own trading ideas using historical market data. In 1989, System Writer Plus was released with new and innovative charting features, which the publication Commodity Trader Consumer Reports likened to “the system trading software equivalent of putting a man on the moon.”

In 1991, Omega Research released TradeStation and, three years later, struck a licensing deal with Dow Jones Telerate to offer TradeStation as a premium service to Telerate's institutional clients worldwide. In 1997, Omega Research conducted an IPO and became listed on the Nasdaq National Market. The company launched an online version of its product in 1999. In 2001, the company converted itself from a trading software company to an online securities brokerage and renamed itself “TradeStation”. The software's back-testing, order-generation and trade execution capabilities were fully integrated for both securities and futures markets in 2003. In 2004 and 2005, TradeStation became a self-clearing equities and options firm. An entire industry eventually grew up around TradeStation's software, including seminars, publications, and user networks.

 * 1982 - company is formed under the name Omega Research, Inc.
 * 1991 - TradeStation, the company's flagship product, is launched.
 * 1996 - OptionStation, an options trading analytics product that enables traders to explore complex options trading strategies, is launched.
 * 1997 - The company launches an initial public offering (IPO) and is listed on the Nasdaq National Market.
 * 1999 - RadarScreen, a software application that enables traders to scan hundreds of symbols to identify buy and sell opportunities based on the user's custom criteria, is launched; the company also acquires Window On WallStreet and in 2000 launches WindowOnWallStreet.com, the company's first Internet-based charting and analytics service.
 * 2000 - TradeStation 6, the Internet-based trading platform that serves as the foundation of the company's direct-access brokerage service, is launched; the company also acquires a direct-access securities brokerage, Onlinetrading.com, which is subsequently renamed TradeStation Securities, Inc.
 * 2001 - TradeStation Group replaces Omega Research as publicly-traded Nasdaq company as a parent of two operating subsidiaries – TradeStation Securities, Inc. (formerly onlinetrading.com) and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. (formerly Omega Research); trading symbol on Nasdaq is changed from OMGA to TRAD.
 * 2006 - TradeStation Europe Limited (now TradeStation International Ltd) receives approval from the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as an introducing broker.
 * 2011 - TradeStation Group is acquired by Japan's Monex Group;

Corporate structure
TradeStation Group, Inc.’s principal operating subsidiaries are TradeStation Securities, Inc. and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. TradeStation Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Monex Group, Inc., one of Japan’s largest online financial services providers.

TradeStation Securities, Inc. is a member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) and the National Futures Association (NFA). It is a licensed securities broker-dealer and a registered futures commission merchant, and is also a member of the Boston Options Exchange, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Chicago Stock Exchange, International Securities Exchange and NASDAQ OMX. The company’s technology subsidiary, TradeStation Technologies, Inc., develops and offers strategy trading software tools and subscription services. Its London-based subsidiary, TradeStation International Ltd., a Financial Services Authority-authorized brokerage firm, introduces the UK and other European accounts to TradeStation Securities, Inc.

Monex Group, Inc. provides online investment and trading services for retail and institutional customers around the world through its subsidiaries, including Monex, Inc. in Japan, TradeStation in the U.S, and Europe, and Monex Boom in Hong Kong.

Its main subsidiary, Monex Inc., one of Japan's largest online securities brokerages, provides financial services to its nearly one million individual investors. Monex Group's services also cover M&A advisory, debt and equity underwriting, asset management focusing on alternative investments, investment education, and other investment banking functions in Japan.

TradeStation analysis and trading platform
The TradeStation analysis and trading platform is a professional electronic trading platform for financial market traders. It provides extensive functionality for receiving real-time data, displaying charts, entering orders, and managing outstanding orders and market positions. Although it comes with a large number of pre-defined indicators, strategy components, and analysis tools, individuals can modify and customize existing indicators and strategies, as well as create their own indicators and strategies using TradeStation's proprietary object-oriented EasyLanguage programming language. Traders can also access hundreds of TradeStation-compatible products created by independent third-party developers through the TradeStation TradingApp Store, as well as access strategy trading ideas submitted by the TradeStation community in the EasyLanguage Library.

TradeStation supports the development, testing, optimizing, and automation of all aspects of trading. Trading strategies can be back-tested and refined against historical data in simulated trading before being traded "live". TradeStation can be used either as a research and testing tool or as a trading platform.

Add-on products
A large number of third-party developers develop TradeStation-compatible products. Since Tradestation is a development platform, a custom trading program can be developed called a trading system or trading strategy. If any trader has an analysis technique or potentially profitable strategy he would like to have developed, he can either write his own strategy in EasyLanguage or have his trading system developed by third-party developers. Traders can also take advantage of the TradeStation TradingApp Store, an online marketplace of ready-to-use add-on products built to run on the TradeStation platform by independent developers.

title: TradeStation


text:
Lists of cities in the State of Palestine

The following pages list cities in the State of Palestine:
 * List of cities administered by the State of Palestine
 * List of cities in the Gaza Strip
 * List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank

Smaller settlements in the State of Palestine are governed as a municipality or as a village council.


text:
Peter Martin Duncan

Peter Martin Duncan FRS (20 April 1821 – 28 May 1891) was an English palaeontologist.

Biography
Duncan was born at Twickenham on 20 April 1821, his father, Peter King-Duncan, a descendant of an old Scottish family, being a leather merchant; his mother was daughter of Captain R. Martin, R.N., of Ilford, Essex. He received his earlier education first at the grammar school, Twickenham, next at Nyon, by the lake of Geneva, after which he was apprenticed in 1840 to a medical practitioner in London.

In 1842, Duncan entered on the medical side at King's College, London, passing through it with distinction, and being elected an associate in 1849, after graduating as M.B. at the university of London in 1846. For a time he was assistant to Dr. Martin at Rochester, and in 1848 took a practice at Colchester. Here he was also active in municipal affairs, and in 1857 was elected mayor, holding the office for a second time. The natural history and archaeology of the district also greatly attracted him, and the arrangement of the town museum was largely his work. His first scientific paper, ''Observations on. the Pollen Tube, was published in 1856 in the Proceedings'' of the Edinburgh Botanical Society, but it was soon followed by others. In 1860 he removed to Blackheath, thus obtaining more time for science, and devoting himself especially to the study of corals. More complete freedom was obtained by election to the professorship of geology at King's College in 1870, of which he became a fellow in the following year, and shortly afterwards he was appointed professor of geology at Cooper's Hill College. In 1877 he settled in London near Regent's Park, residing there till 1883, when he removed to Gunnersbury. Duncan became a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1849, was secretary from 1864 to 1870, and president 1876 to 1878, receiving the Wollaston Medal in 1881. He was president of the geological section of the British Association at the meeting in 1879; was also a fellow of the Zoological and the Linnean Societies, holding office in both, and an active member of the Microscopical Society, being president from 1881 to 1883. He was elected F.R.S. on 4 June 1868. Duncan's industry was so unflagging that he got through a great amount of work, of both a popular and a scientific character, besides lecturing and examining. He was editor of Cassell's Natural History (6 vols. 1876-82), to which he contributed several important articles. He wrote a Primer of Physical Geography (1882) ; a small volume of biographies of botanists, geologists, and zoologists entitled Heroes of Science (1882) ; another on The Sea-shore (1879); and an Abstract of the Geology of India, 1875, which reached a third edition in 1881; besides contributing to various periodicals, assisting in preparing the third edition of Griffith and Henfrey's Micrographic Dictionary (2 vols. 1875), and revising the fourth edition of Lyell's Student's Elements of Geology (1885).

His separate scientific papers are not less than a hundred in number, and his 'Supplement' to the Tertiary and Secondary Corals forms a volume in the publications of the Palaeontographical Society. The 'Tertiary Echinoidea of India' (of which he was joint author) appeared in Palæontologia Indica, 1882-6. He made a special study of the corals and echinids, taking also much interest in the ophiurids, sponges, and protozoa, regarding all questions from the point of view not only of the philosophical zoologist, but also of one who applied the distribution of species to elucidate ancient physical geography. He described the fossil coral fauna of Malta, Java, Hindustan, Australia, Tasmania, and the West Indies, the echinids of Sind, and of other countries. The results of these researches were summed up in two very valuable papers, 'Revision of the Madreporaria,' published by the Linnean Society in August 1884, and ' Revision of the Genera and Great Groups of the Echinoidea,' published by the same society in 1889. Others papers on the 'Physical Geology of Western Europe during Mesozoic and Camozoic Times, elucidated by the Coral Fauna,' on 'The Formation of Land Masses', and the remarkable paper 'On Lakes and their Origin', were also important contributions to science. Duncan's health began to fail about two years prior to his death, which closed a painful illness on 28 May 1891. He was buried in Chiswick churchyard.

Family
He was twice married: in 1851 to Jane Emily Cook, and in 1869, not long after her decease, to Mary Jane Emily Liddel Whitmarsh, who survived him with one son by her. Four sons and seven daughters by the first marriage also survived him. His son Francis became a zoologist, writing many popular works of natural history and making pioneering natural history films for producer Charles Urban in the 1900s.

title: Peter Martin Duncan