text:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ; "Frankfurt General Newspaper") is a German newspaper founded in 1949. It is published daily in Frankfurt. Its Sunday edition is the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS).

The paper runs its own network of correspondents. Its editorial policy is not determined by a single editor, but cooperatively by four editors.

History
The first edition of the FAZ appeared on 1 November 1949; its founding editors were Hans Baumgarten, Erich Dombrowski, Karl Korn, Paul Sethe and Erich Welter. Welter acted as editor until 1980. Some editors had worked for the moderate Frankfurter Zeitung, which had been banned in 1943. However, in their first issue, the FAZ editorial expressly refuted the notion of being the earlier paper's successor, or of continuing its legacy:

"Arising from the fact that some of our colleagues previously were members of the Frankfurter Zeitung, it often has been suggested an attempt was being made here to be the successor to that newspaper. Such an assumption misjudges our intentions. Like everyone, we too admired the high quality of that paper; ...however, showing respect for an outstanding achievement does not imply a desire to copy it."

Until 30 September 1950, the FAZ was printed in Mainz.

Traditionally, many of the headlines in the FAZ were styled in blackletter format, and no photographs appeared on the title page. Some of the rare exceptions were a picture of celebrating people in front of the Berlin Reichstag on 4 October 1990 (German Unity Day), and two pictures in the edition on 12 September 2001 (one day after the September 11 attacks) showing the collapsing World Trade Center and American president George W. Bush.

In the early 2000s, FAZ expanded aggressively, with customized sections for Berlin and Munich. An eight-page six-day-a-week English-language edition was distributed as an insert in The International Herald Tribune (which is owned by The New York Times Company); the articles were selected and translated from the same day's edition of the parent newspaper by the FAZ staff in Frankfurt. However, FAZ group suffered a loss of 60.6 million euros in 2002. By 2004, the customized sections were scrapped. The English edition shrank to a tabloid published once a week.

On 5 October 2007, the FAZ altered their traditional layout to include color photographs on the front page, and replaced blackletter typeface outside the nameplate. Due to its traditionally layout, the introduction of color photographs was controversially discussed by FAZ readers, becoming the subject of a 2009 comedy film.

Currently, the FAZ is produced electronically using the IBM Networked Interactive Content Access (NICA) software and Unisys Hermes. For its characteristic comment headings, a digital Fraktur font was ordered. This font has since been abandoned, due to the above-mentioned change of layout.

After introducing the new spelling prescribed by German orthography reform of 1996 on 1 August 1999, the paper returned to the old spelling exactly one year later, declaring that the reform had failed to achieve its primary goals of improving language mastery and strengthening the unity of the language. After several changes had been made to the new spelling, FAZ accepted it and started using it (in a custom version) on 1 January 2007.

In December 1999, future German Chancellor Angela Merkel published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, lamenting the "tragedy" that had befallen the party (CDU donations scandal), blaming former Chancellor Helmut Kohl and urging a new course.

Orientation
Its political orientation is liberal-conservative, occasionally providing a forum to commentators with different opinions.

In the 2013 elections the paper endorsed the CDU/CSU alliance.

Ownership
The company has the legal form of a GmbH (company with limited liability); the independent (Fazit-Foundation) is its majority shareholder, holding 93.7% of shares. The FAZIT-Stiftung was created in 1959 by the transformation of the then FAZ owner Allgemeine Verlagsgesellschaft mbH into a private foundation. It is 'owned' by up to nine persons who can't sell or buy their share but have to transmit it free of charge to a successor which is co-opted by the remaining shareholders. The foundations statute prescribes that only such persons shall be co-opted as new member, who "by their standing and personality" can guarantee the "independence" of the FAZ. The current group of seven is composed of active or former CEOs, company owners, board members, and corporate lawyers. The foundation also owns more than 90% of the shares of the company 'Frankfurter Societät' which in turn is owner of the printing enterprise 'Frankfurter Societätsdruckerei' and the regional paper Frankfurter Neue Presse.

Circulation
The F.A.Z. is one of several high-profile national newspapers in Germany (along with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau and Die Tageszeitung). In 2011, it counted 40 foreign correspondents among its staff.

The 1993 circulation of the paper was 391,013 copies. In 2001, it had a circulation of 409,000 copies. The 2007 circulation of the daily edition was 382,499 copies. The 2016 (IVW II/2016) circulation of the daily edition was 256,188 copies.

Bans
In 2006, the FAZ was banned in Egypt for publishing articles which were deemed as "insulting Islam". In February 2008, the paper was again banned in Egypt due to the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad.

In November 2012, the paper provoked strong criticism in Spain because of its stance against Spanish immigration to Germany during the economic crisis.

In July 2019, the FAZ website, along with other major German media, including Spiegel Online, was blocked by China's Great Firewall. The reasons for the ban remain unclear, but FAZ believed it was possibly due to its reporting on the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.

Notable contributors

 * Muhammad Asad
 * Patrick Bahners
 * Hans D. Barbier
 * Eleonore Büning (music critic)
 * Dietmar Dath
 * Marc Degens
 * Karl Feldmeier
 * Joachim Fest (former editor)
 * Friedrich Karl Fromme (former editor)
 * Greser & Lenz
 * Andrea Petkovic
 * Georg Paul Hefty
 * Florian Illies
 * Daniel Kehlmann
 * Barbara Klemm (photographer)
 * Carsten Knop
 * Christian Kracht
 * Karl Lagerfeld (caricaturist)
 * Ernst Nolte
 * Andreas Platthaus
 * Marcel Reich-Ranicki
 * Volker Reiche (see Strizz)
 * Johann Georg Reißmüller (former editor)
 * Frank Schirrmacher
 * Werner Spies
 * Udo Ulfkotte (former editor)

title: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung


text:
Steve MacLean (astronaut)

Steven Glenwood MacLean (born December 14, 1954) is a retired Canadian astronaut. He was the president of the Canadian Space Agency, from September 1, 2008, to February 1, 2013.

He was born in Ottawa, Ontario, and is married to Nadine Wielgopolski of Hull, Quebec. They have three children. He enjoys hiking, canoeing, flying, parachuting and gymnastics. In 2013 he returned to physics research as an associate member of the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo.

Personal life
MacLean attended Merivale High School in Nepean, Ontario. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics in 1977 and a doctorate in physics in 1983 from York University in Toronto. In 1977, he received the President's Award at York University (Murray G. Ross Award). He is a recipient of a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council post graduate scholarship in 1980, two Ontario graduate scholarships, one in 1981 and the other in 1982, and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council postdoctoral fellowship in 1983.

He is an honorary fellow of Norman Bethune College at York University and president of the board of directors for the Mont Megantic Observatory project.

From 1974 to 1976, MacLean worked in sports administration and public relations at York University. From 1976 to 1977, he was a member of the Canadian National Gymnastics Team. He taught part-time at York University from 1980 to 1983. In 1983, he became a visiting scholar at Stanford University under Nobel Laureate Arthur Leonard Schawlow. He is a laser-physicist, and his research has included work on electro-optics, laser-induced fluorescence of particles and crystals and multi-photon laser spectroscopy.

From October 22 to November 1, 1992, MacLean flew onboard Space Shuttle Columbia as a payload specialist for Mission STS-52. During this mission, he performed a set of seven experiments known as CANEX-2, which included an evaluation of the Space Vision System.

MacLean served as a mission specialist on STS-115, which launched on September 9, 2006, and returned on September 21, 2006. He became the first Canadian to operate the robotic arm Canadarm2. On September 13, he performed his first spacewalk, a 7-hour EVA to activate the solar panels on the P3/4 truss – the second Canadian to do so, after Chris Hadfield.

Honours
In 1994, he received an honorary doctorate from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean in Quebec, York University, Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. In September 2006, Steve MacLean Public School was opened in Ottawa, named after him. In 2010 he visited the school on the occasion of the principal's retirement. MacLean was chosen as one of the first six astronauts in December 1983. He began to do training in February 1984. From 1987 to 1993 MacLean worked as a program manager for CSVS. MacLean was the chief science advisor for the International Space Station from 1993 to 1994. He was also program manager for the Advanced Space Vision System in 1987 to 1993. MacLean is an honorary Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

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

title: Steve MacLean (astronaut)


text:
Sugarloaf

A sugarloaf was the usual form in which refined sugar was produced and sold until the late 19th century, when granulated and cube sugars were introduced. A tall cone with a rounded top was the end product of a process in which dark molasses, a rich raw sugar that was imported from sugar-growing regions such as the Caribbean and Brazil, was refined into white sugar.

History

The earliest record to date appears to be 12th century in Jordan, though reference to a cone of sugar is found in al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar's 9th century Arabic Al-Akhbar al-Muwaffaqiyyat. In Europe, they were made in Italy from 1470, Belgium 1508, England 1544, The Netherlands 1566, Germany 1573 and France 1613. When refining from sugar beet began in mainland Europe in 1799, loaves were produced in the same way.

Until the mid-19th century, the British government used a system of punitive taxes to make it impossible for its colonial producers in the Caribbean to refine their own sugar and supply Britain with finished sugarloaves. Previously the Amsterdam industry had been similarly protected from the importation of East India white sugar. Instead, a dark raw sugar or muscovado, produced on the plantations by initial boilings of the fresh cane juice, was shipped in hogsheads to Europe on what was the third leg of the Triangular Trade.

The sugarloaf was also the sign of a grocer, often found outside his premises or in the window, and sometimes found on his trade tokens.

Process
The raw sugar was refined by a series of boiling and filtering processes. After the final boiling, it was considered ready for granulation and was poured into a large number of inverted conical molds. These were usually made of either brown earthenware or sheet iron with an internal treatment of slip or paint respectively, and each stood in its own collecting pot. Over the next few days most of the dark syrup and noncrystalline matter drained through a small hole in the bottom of the mould into the collecting pot. To improve the whiteness of the sugar, repeated applications of either a solution of white clay or of loaf sugar dissolved in warm water was applied to the broad end of the loaf. This slowly drained through the loaf, readily uniting with any remaining molasses or other coloring matter and removing it to the collecting pot. The loaves were then tapped out of the molds, dried in a store room containing hundreds of loaves, trimmed to their final shape and wrapped, usually in blue paper to enhance their white appearance.

Grades
The molds, and so the sugarloaves, varied in size considerably: the larger the loaf the lower the grade of sugar. The grade determined the price, though loaves were sold by weight and the sugar refiner was taxed on the weight of sugar sold. When a new batch of raw sugar was refined, the best sugar came from the first boiling. After that, the waste and trimmings from the first boiling were returned to the beginning of the process and mixed with further raw sugar for the second boiling, and, as this was repeated to the end of the batch, subsequent boilings reduced slightly in quality. The finest of the loaves—maybe 5 in in diameter and 5 in high—were extremely expensive owing to the prolonged repeating of the whitening process, as were the somewhat larger double refined loaves from the first few boilings. Lower grades of sugar were more difficult to crystallize and so larger molds were used—usually 10 - 14 in in diameter and up to about 30 in high—with loaves weighing up to 35 lb. The lowest standard refined grades were called bastards, though an even lower grade was often produced from the filtration scums, usually by a scum-boiler at his own separate premises.

"Households bought their white sugar in tall, conical loaves, from which pieces were broken off with special iron sugar-cutters (sugar nips). Shaped something like very large heavy pliers with sharp blades attached to the cutting sides, these cutters had to be strong and tough, because the loaves were large, about 14 in in diameter at the base, and 3 ft [15th century]...In those days, sugar was used with great care, and one loaf lasted a long time. The weight would probably have been about 30 lb. Later, the weight of a loaf varied from 5 to 35 lb, according to the moulds used by any one refinery. A common size was 14 lb, but the finest sugar from Madeira came in small loaves of only 3 to 4 lb in weight...Up till late Victorian times household sugar remained very little changed and sugar loaves were still common and continued so until well into the twentieth century..."

- Elizabeth David, English Bread and Yeast Cookery

Contemporary availability
While mostly superseded by granulated and cube sugar, sugarloaves are still produced as specialty items. They are particularly common in Germany, where small loaves are a required ingredient for the Christmas season drink Feuerzangenbowle.

title: Sugarloaf


text:
TPC Sugarloaf

TPC Sugarloaf is a 27-hole private golf club in the southeastern United States, located within the gated community at Sugarloaf Country Club outside the official city limits of Duluth, Georgia, a suburb northeast of Atlanta.

The facility consists of three 9-hole courses designed by Greg Norman, and is a member of the Tournament Players Club network operated by the PGA Tour. It was the home of the tour's annual AT&T Classic (formerly the BellSouth Classic) from 1997 until it ended in 2008. It began hosting the Mitsubishi Electric Classic (formerly the Greater Gwinnett Championship) on the PGA Tour Champions in 2013. In 2020, it held the LocaliQ Series Tour Championship, which served as the pandemic replacement for the PGA Tour Canada in the 2020 season.

The BellSouth/AT&T Classic was always played over the original two nines, The Stables and The Meadows, which opened the week before its first staging of the tournament in 1997. Just weeks beforehand, the property was hit by a tornado which damaged many trees on the first and ninth holes, and leveled some of the corporate tent structures around the 18th green. The third nine, The Pines, opened in 2000.

The land was formerly the O. Wayne Rollins family farm, where they kept pure-bred cattle and horses.

title: TPC Sugarloaf


text:
W. Thomas Smith Jr.

W. Thomas Smith Jr. (born April 30, 1959) is an American author, editor, and journalist. He has written several books. His articles have appeared in many newspapers and magazines. Smith is executive editor of World Defense Review, a columnist with Townhall.com, and a former contributor to National Review Online.

Education and military service
Smith graduated from the University of South Carolina Columbia in 1982 with a BA degree in history. He then served in the U.S. Marine Corps as an infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard special weapons security and counterterrorism instructor. Following his service in the Corps in 1987, he served on a para-military SWAT team in the nuclear industry. Soon thereafter, he began his career as a journalist.

Career
Smith has written for numerous publications, including USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, BusinessWeek, The New York Post, and the UK's The Guardian. In 1998, he co-authored a George magazine feature with John F. Kennedy Jr. (Smith interviewed Gen. William C. Westmoreland in Charleston, South Carolina – Kennedy interviewed Gen. Võ Nguyên Giáp in Vietnam). The interviews were published together as a single piece on the Vietnam War in the November 1998 issue of George.

As a war correspondent, Smith reported from battlefields in both the Balkans in 1995 and in the Middle East in 1997, and he covered the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks from ground zero in New York. Also during the 1990s, he worked as a business magazine editor, a contract media relations director, a publicist for NBA basketball player Vince Carter and other professional athletes, and was the sole columnist for head football coach Lou Holtz's official website during Holtz's inaugural season at USC.

Smith's first book, Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency, was published in 2003. He has since written five other books.

Smith has been a guest commentator on the Fox News Channel, E! Entertainment's True Hollywood Story, and Bill Bennett's Morning in America. He has also been interviewed by numerous national publications (including Woman's Day, Writer's Digest, The Writer, and others); NBC, CBS, and ABC television affiliates; and he is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs, National Public Radio (NPR), and international radio, including the BBC. His articles have been included numerous times in radio-host Rush Limbaugh's daily "stack of stuff."

Smith is a contributing writer for A Nation Changed, a book commemorating the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (published by U.S. News & World Report). He is the technical editor and foreword writer for the second edition of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Iraq by Joseph Tragert, and he is the technical editor and "special afterword" writer for Contract Warriors by Fred Rosen.

He has served as adjunct professor at USC's College of Journalism and Mass Communications, and he has lectured groups and conferences from Fortune 500 companies to the U.S. Armed Forces.

A former correspondent for 'Agencia EFE' (the world's largest Spanish-language news wire), Smith currently writes a column, 'Beyond the DropZone', for – and is executive editor of – World Defense Review. He is a columnist for Townhall.com, and an erstwhile contributor to National Review Online. Some of his stories have been picked up by the Scripps Howard News wire. Others have been re-published by the U.S. Department of Defense. He also writes for Family Security Matters and is the director of their Counterterrorism Research Center.

Beirut controversy
In November 2007, Smith became the subject of controversy for blog posts he wrote as a freelancer for "The Tank", a section of National Review Online (NRO). On September 25, 2007, Smith reported that some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen were occupying a sprawling Hezbollah tent city close to the Lebanese parliament. Four days later, he blogged that between 4,000 and 5,000 Hezbollah gunmen deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling show of force.

The Huffington Post published a story alleging that Smith exaggerated or made up two events. In response, Smith said he had only failed to be "specific in terms of detailing his sourcing."

After an internal NRO investigation, Smith's editors declared that NRO could not stand by the blogging because both reports were disputed as implausible by sources independent of Smith. On December 7, 2007, Smith voluntarily ended his relationship as a freelancer with NRO, saying this would be "in the best interest of the publication."

Books

 * Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency – NY, Facts on File, 2003 – ISBN 0-8160-4667-0
 * Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to Decisive 20th-Century American Battles (foreword by Brigadier General David L. Grange) – NY, Alpha-Penguin, 2003 – ISBN 1-59257-147-6
 * Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to American Airborne Forces (foreword by Colonel Jeffery Bearor) – NY, Alpha-Penguin, 2004 – ISBN 1-59257-166-2
 * Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to the Korean Conflict (foreword by Dr. C. Kenneth Quinones) – NY, Alpha-Penguin, 2004 – ISBN 1-59257-213-8
 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pirates (co-authored with Gail Selinger) – NY, Alpha-Penguin, 2006
 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design (co-authored with Christopher Carlisle) – Alpha Books, 2006 – ISBN 978-1-59257-555-8

title: W. Thomas Smith Jr.


text:
List of Avengers members

The Avengers are various teams of superheroes that have headlined in The Avengers and related comic books series published by Marvel Comics. Over the decades, the Avengers are featured as a rotating line up of a large number of characters.

According to various handbooks, members of main team of Avengers, first iteration of West Coast Avengers, New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Captain America / Hawkeye led black ops Secret Avengers, Avengers Unity Squad and Avengers A.I. are considered official Avengers.

Notations:
 * A slash (/) between codenames, indicates the character having multiple names during their tenure as an Avenger in chronological order.
 * Characters listed in bold are the current members of the teams.
 * In case of multiple codenames, the currently used name is bolded.
 * Characters listed are set in the Earth-616 continuity except when noted.

Founding members
The founding members formed the main team of Avengers in response to a threat of Loki in 1963.

1980s
In 1984, first division of Avengers led to the creation of West Coast Avengers.

2000s
In 2005, New Avengers were formed due to mass break-out at supervillain prison, the Raft. New Avengers chose not to comply with superhuman registration as opposed to the government formed/sanctioned team the Mighty Avengers in 2007.

2010s
In 2010, the black ops team of Secret Avengers was created. After the events of Avengers vs. X-Men in 2012, Captain America created Avengers Unity Division by recruiting members from both Avengers and X-Men. In 2013, Hank Pym led the team of Avengers A.I.

Honorary members
Characters that have been granted honorary status for acts of great courage, sacrifice and affiliation with Avengers.

Removal from list
Many characters that were previously included in the list were members of these teams that are declared by handbooks as not officially sanctioned Avengers even if they had affiliated with them or used their name: A-Force, Avengers Idea Mechanics, Occupy Avengers, Savage Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. led Secret Avengers, Ultimates, U.S. Avengers and the second iteration of West Coast Avengers.

title: List of Avengers members


text:
Mausoleum of Tangun

The Mausoleum of Tangun is an ancient burial site in Kangdong near Pyongyang, North Korea. It is claimed by North Korea to be the tomb of Tangun, legendary founder of Gojoseon, the first Korean kingdom.

A pyramid was built on top of the grave in 1994, consisting of 1994 blocks of stone. The complex occupies about 1.8 km² (.70 mi²) on the slope of Mount Taebak (대박산). The complex is divided into three major sections: restoration work area, stone statue area, and the burial site. Dangun's grave is shaped like a step pyramid, about 22 m (72 ft) high and 50 m (164 ft) on each side.

According to the Samguk Yusa, Gojoseon was thought to have been founded in 2333 BCE. North Koreans claim that their current excavations have dramatically changed the estimates of North Korean historians back to at least 3000 BCE, making the site c.5011 years old (±267 years in 1993).

Background
North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung insisted that Dangun was not merely a legend but a real historical person. As consequence, North Korean archaeologists were compelled to locate the purported remains and grave of Dangun. In the October of 1993, through the thesis called the "Excavation reports of the mausoleum of Dangun(단군릉발굴보고)", North Korean academia announced that 86 human bone remains were found that can be traced to two individuals, one man and the other woman, and by dating the bone of the man using the method of electron spin resonance dating, it was found to be from more than 5011 years ago.

Controversy
A nail found in the mausoleum, dating to the Goguryeo period (37 BCE-668 CE), has been the subject of much controversy. This discovery has thus led some North Korean historians to conclude that the mausoleum was discovered and renovated during that period. Many observers and historians outside of North Korea, including South Korea, consider the data and the interpretation compromised by politics and nationalism. North Korea has permitted no independent testing to resolve the questions over authenticity and dating. South Korean historians think its more likely to be a tomb of a regional power during the Goguryeo kingdom based on the artifacts found at the site.

Websites dealing with the controversy

 * http://san-shin.org/dan-gun-1.html
 * https://archive.today/20010404054658/http://web.edunet4u.net/~lost/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20050204054431/http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/danggun.htm
 * http://pyongyang.news-site.net/rekisiminzoku/choson/dangun/index.htm

title: Mausoleum of Tangun


text:
Talk:Mausoleum of Tangun

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mausoleum of Tangun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20010404054658/http://web.edunet4u.net/~lost/ to http://web.edunet4u.net/~lost/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204054431/http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/danggun.htm to http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/danggun.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nails
No references for the nails, and have not found them anywhere on the internet. I have found it on the “further reading” part, but no reference of a controversy. Delete? Oshawott 12 ==== Talk to me!  23:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

incomplete sentence
This has the line: "Many observers and historians outside of North Korea, including South Korea.", with no indication of what those observers and historians are doing, saying or thinking, with the previous and next sentences being seemingly complete. It seems like someone tried to remove this sentence but messed up and only removed half of it or something.--108.86.123.14 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mausoleum of Tangun


text:
Template talk:Article for deletion

RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move
On the template that states that an article has been nominated for deletion, should the words "or move the article" be added after "do not remove this notice"? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The template on an article that has been nominated for AFD states:

Should the words "or move the article" be added after "do not remove this notice"?

Answer Yes or No with a brief statement in the Survey. Discuss in the Discussion section.

Survey
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.''' Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion." Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.''' Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not move or blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion."
 * Support. Surprised it is not already the rule, I guess it was so obvious no one throught it had to be written.  Per the VPP discussion.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, User:Seraphimblade, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. At least partly.  Moving the article is certainly “allowed”, but if the AfD is in progress, say so there, and if there is a good reason to move it immediately, then you are asked to close the AfD.  This requires you to be UNINVOLVED, which deals with the stated problems.
 * If the AfD should continue, then start a fresh AfD, with unbroken templates and correct navigation links to the page. If the page was moved to userspace or draftspace, then the forum has to change from AfD to MfD.
 * Allowing renames or namespace changes during the AfD creates the possibility for frustration with broken templates, and astonishment when the links don’t match, on top of the status quo that technically doesn’t discourage WP:GAMING the process.
 * If there is a BLP problem with a title, then this is a good reason to speedy move if that’s the simple fix. If the AfD still needs to proceed, it should proceed referencing the fixed title.  This means the AfD needed to be closed and a new one open, which it what the proposal here implicitly requires. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not "have the wrong idea" at all. What I consider to be the "wrong idea" is that we should either hold off improving an article by making a needed change to its title, or disrupt an ongoing AfD by restarting it, for the convenience of a script. If the script cannot handle a moved page, close the AfD by hand in that instance (or, alternatively, improve the scripts so that they can handle that situation). It is by no means guaranteed that scripts will be available for or capable of all tasks; if they're not, one should always know how to properly do it manually. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Seraphimblade, thanks for answering.
 * Can you suggest a typo, or a disambiguation rename, that can’t wait the week and definitely doesn’t alter the landscape mid-AfD? I suggest there is no such example.  An important typo in the title gives a bias to delete. A disambiguation issue in my experience means a scope issue, and when fixed it changes the landscape.
 * My thrust here is not to stop improvements, but to say that if there is such an improvement to be made, then don’t ignore the AfD, and understand that a url change mid AfD is a major thing not to be done lightly. Insisting on the bold page move improvement to require WP:UNINVOLVED seems a very good idea, given that draftification has been used to game deletion.
 * I agree that improvements should not be limited by script limitations, but here I think the script limitation is a good limitation, and that notifications, deletion sorting, and the several AfD navigation pages being messed up is a close reflection on actual participants being messed up.
 * In short, if your going to move a page while at AfD, you should know what your doing, and sort out any problems that it causes.
 * I guess a possibly acceptable narrower solution would be to prohibit draftification by an author of the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, just prohibit draftification (or other cross-namespace moves) in general during the process of an AfD, while still permitting moves within mainspace (subject to the usual process that if a move is then contested, it should be handled by a requested move discussion). I see no reason to make it more complicated than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I contest any move of a page while it is listed at AfD. It is disruptive to the AfD process.  If the premise of the AfD is fixable by a rename, then the nominator failed WP:BEFORE and the AfD should be closed. If it is not a BEFORE failure, then the nominator is presumed to not be in agreement, and the bold move is not appropriate.  There is never a good reason to move a page during an AfD that is not a reason to close that AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Please note that WP:AFDEQ states (last bullet) While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. I suggest that the guideline be amended before this template is made inconsistent. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDEQ doesn't appear to be a guideline, just a project page. Could potentially change both with this RFC, if that is what folks want. Should probably advertise this RFC at WT:AFD though. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * just a project page - it is a section within Articles for deletion, which is the fundamental page for the whole AFD process. What more do you want? Or maybe we should ignore the whole thing and just keep or delete pages on a personal decision regardless of what arguments were put forth during the AFD discussion? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion is not currently marked as a policy or guideline. If this is some kind of error, perhaps someone should go mark it to avoid confusing people like me. Until it is marked, I will not be calling it a guideline nor assuming that it is a guideline. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have raised Village pump (policy). -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If moving the article improves the article, this should be allowed. As a plain instance, what if there is a typo in the article title? What if the title is clearly an uncommon name of the subject, and having the article at the correct common name would make it more evident whether sources exist to support its content? With respect to moves to draft space, problems arising from such a move can be addressed with an instruction to inform the AfD discussion about the move. BD2412  T 22:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually people just note the need for a move in the AfD and, if it's kept, the article is moved after it's closed. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a no brainer. With the exception of 's plain instances and 's comment, moving an article to draft space during an AfD does not improve it. It is often simply gaming the system and might well be a tactic employed by paid editors or someone with a COI. Such articles when later moved back to mainspace may escape a thorough examination at NPP and/or AfC (especially with the current massive backlogs at both systems). The last bullet point at WP:AFDEQ seriously needs to be revised, it is clearly offering mixed advice.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftifying should not happen without closing the AfD. Normal moves that the proposal is seeking to stop can be beneficial or even mandated by policy. —Kusma (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per the prior VPP discussion. I believe the intent of this was just to prevent moving to Draft space (which I support), but as written it states there should be no moves at all (even to correct a typo in the title). I don't really have a problem with that either as most minor title corrections can wait until the AFD closes (and I assume title changes would be discussed in the AFD). If there was some good reason why the title has to be corrected immediately, then WP:IAR. MB 01:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — strong support when it comes to moving to drafts, weak support (but still support) when moving to a different title. Regarding the former (draftifying), when an article creator insists on publishing an article that isn't ready, often one that has been declined at AfC and/or draftified, possibly multiple times, and when an AfD is opened then they suddenly want to draftify, I consider this gaming the system, and believe it should be prohibited. Regarding the latter (title change/correction), I've less of an issue with this, but cannot see why it couldn't also wait until the AfD has closed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Technically WP:AFDEQ only advises against moving articles during an AfD, and says there is "no prohibition", but in practice there has been a prohibition for as long as I've been active there: people usually note the need for a move in the AfD rather than doing it, and in the rare cases where they are moved, there's grumbling and reverts. Nowadays WP:AFDHELPER can usually handle moves, but where there are technical problems with closing it's invariably related to an unusual move, and as we've seen in the thread that led up to this RfC moves to draft remain a nuisance for everyone involved. We should WP:AFDEQ too, but unlike Redrose64 I don't see any reason to wait on that when the consensus is already clear in terms of what people actually do. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It makes it harder for the AfC reviewer if it goes that way. Gusfriend (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Kudpung and SmokeyJoe (VPP). No reason to disrupt the process. Anyone wanting the page moved can express so in the AfD discussion. To "move" or "draftify" is an AfD result and not an action that should be taken during an AfD. I have personally seen and reverted a bunch of articles moved to draftspace and they often end up being de-AfDed, dragged through draft process again and then later moved back anyway. The only exception I would say is if someone (especially, nominator) moved the article right before AfD to a bad title (for example, vandalism or a highly biased one, or within arbcom topic sanctions or something). — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support except for uncontroversial moves (but there should be no moves at all) It's easier to follow the page but anyone can improve the page to keep the article. Thingofme (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as CREEP. Moving to draft space is a no-no indeed (and I could support wording to that effect), but moving to a different title is quite unproblematic and may result in improvement of the article, such as slight rescoping to a related topic that may be easily demonstrated notable (e.g. rescoping from a work to its author, or vice versa). Sorry, but I don't want to wait seven days with a WP:HEY rewrite while delete votes are piling on. No such user (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving to a different title screws up AFD closure scripts. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly possible to close AfDs by hand. We did it all the time 15 years ago... —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support prohibiting moving to a different title as it screws up logs and closure scripts, and generally can wait until the AFD is complete. No view on moves to draftspace. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-oppose - I agree with BD2412 on the point that if moving improves the page, it shouldn't be disallowed. There are plenty of ways article titles can be BLP violations, POV, typos, or just have a sufficiently crappy name that it distracts from the real issues AfD should focus on. The title frequently contextualizes AfD participants' opinions re: scope, or the extent to which it's POV or deserves to be TNTed. Cross-namespace moves should be disallowed, and yes, most page moves are disruptive, but they shouldn't all be disallowed. We should be clearer about what is allowed, and then perhaps even move-protect the pages to minimize disruption. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:HEY, and also just rule creep. Sometimes the "improvement" can come from a page move. A tyop, a commonname, a R from other disambiguation may be a better real page title. Obviously no draftifying during an AfD, but not against moving within mainspace. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Apparently its not so obvious from my reading of below. For the record I would support a ban on unilateral draftifying what's at AfD (obviously still allowing a snow close as draftify). Edited 15:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. While I think adding something along the lines of "do not boldly draftify the article in the middle of this AfD" might be appropriate, there are times when move discussions are opened prior to an AfD being made and where consensus to move the page is legitimate. For example, a March 2022 requested move was attempting to remedy WP:BLP1E concerns by an article on a Wikipedian arrested in Belarus. Five days into that discussion, an editor created WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) to try to delete the page on the basis that it was a WP:BLP1E. When consensus to move Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) to Detention of Mark Bernstein was found on the talk page, it was fully appropriate to move the page; if anything, the AfD itself should not have been made with the move request pending. Giving AfD primacy over pre-existing move requests—especially move requests which are designed to change an article’s subject—is far too blunt to address the narrow concern of bold draftification during AFDs that was previously discussed on VPP. — Ⓜhawk10 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would be just fine with prohibiting draftification during an AfD, and for policy stating that any such move could be immediately reverted and the AfD left open. But if it's just a move to correct a typo, disambiguate, bring the title within standard article title guidelines, and so on? There's no reason for that not to be done just because an AfD is open. Perhaps the message could say "...or move the article to a different namespace"? I would be totally fine with that, and I suspect almost everyone here would be as well; there seems to be a general consensus that moving it out of mainspace in an attempt to thwart the AfD process is disruptive and unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per several recent experiences where the article being at an uncommon version of the subject's name materially affected the discussion because of the barrier to finding sources using the automated links. Also one where the subject's name appeared to be a possible BLP violation. No objection to explicitly prohibiting movement to draft, particularly where draftifying is being used to evade deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be advocating to keep the AfD links even though the AfD links include a BLP violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written, but support a prohibition of draftification. As an encyclopedia, it is our job to put the readers first. Sure, it is confusing to us, as editors, if a page is moved during AfD. But it is more important to improve the encyclopedia for readers, including by ensuring articles have good titles. If adopted, there is a very good chance that it will be ignored to improve the encyclopedia by properly titling articles. If a rule is just going to be frequently ignored, it is pointless WP:CREEP. I could maybe be convinced to add a suggestion to avoid moving the page unless the move would be a noticeable improvement. HouseBlastertalk 20:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per User:Mhawk10. This can be disruptive. But there has to be room for people to make good faith efforts to improve articles while they are at AFD. If the move is truly disruptive it can be reverted or contested on a case by case basis, and editors with a pattern of this can be given a warning. Jontesta (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. "Change title" or "additionally, a Requested Move is suggested" are outcomes, sometimes. Outcomes -- delete, merge, keep but change or discuss changing title -- should be done after the discussion is over. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP and also, as RedRose notes above, we already tell people to not do that. -- Jayron 32 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * “We tell people not to do that”? The proposal is to add a note to the template to tell people not to do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because sometimes not moving it would be far worse. For an old but obvious example, there's Articles for deletion/Ogata no Saburo Keroyoshi, which could well have gotten deleted had someone not corrected the page title during the discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments - First, User:Redrose64 states that this change would cause an inconsistency with AFDEQ. It was of course my intention that this prohibition would also provide for any needed changes to guidelines.  Second, AFDEQ is a guideline and is meant to give guidance to good-faith editors.  It will be and is disregarded by editors who are gaming the system, so that something stronger is needed to deal with them.  Third, since some editors think that sometimes moving an article during the AFD is sufficiently urgent that it cannot wait for 7 days, does someone have an alternate wording for how to prohibit moving to another address space?  (Does anyone think that moving to draft space during the AFD unilaterally should be permitted?)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it should not be encouraged, moving the article as part of a restructuring process, or to fix a typo, or to a better title, etc., should be allowed. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk|Contribs) problem solving 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have participated in many AfDs (both kept and deleted) where the process of finding sources, or discussing content, resulted in the discovery of an obviously superior title. In these cases, basically nobody objected to the move anyway -- this seems to me like kind of a silly bureaucratic thing to add to a process that's already a gigantic pain in the ass. jp×g 06:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – mostly per 's reasoning. There's also the AfC reviewer issue as . I do think that page moves causing issues with the AfD closure scripts is something to consider, but maybe the scripts could be improved so that this isn't an issue? I don't know too much about how scripts work, so if this is not possible, I'd appreciate someone letting me know.  Clover moss  (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While moving should not necessarily be done unilaterally as that can be disruptive to the discussion, especially if the move changes the article's scope, moving can often be a clear improvement to correct the title. I see no need for a hard restriction. Draftification ahead of 7 days may in some cases be appropriate, and those doing so to circumvent discussion can be dealt with. Reywas92Talk 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any bad-faith moves during AFD seem like a problem that can be adequately addressed with existing tools (by moving the article back). Good-faith moves (including good-faith draftifications) don't really seem like a problem at all. (If they indeed mess up scripts that seems more like a problem with the script.) Good or bad faith aside, I'm not seeing evidence that this is a problem widespread enough to require a (quasi-)policy solution. Visviva (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Moves can be done to address all kinds of issues with the title of the article, as mentioned above. If there is a single editor who is causing problems with this on multiple AfDs, then look at warning/blocking them for WP:DE, rather than adding an extra rule.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with exceptions. This is the right idea and I think it's rarely needful to move an article during the course of its AfD, but in the limited circumstances where the title is problematic for some pressing reason, previously uninvolved sysops and previously uninvolved experienced editors should be allowed to change it.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per SmokeyJoe. I've increasingly seen this practice done by CoI editors to save "their articles" from an ongoing AfD. It needs to end as name changes can wait for the AfD to finish. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I remember closing a RM during an AfD discussion on article Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The AfD was meant only to discuss whether or not the article should exist, if it is even needed. The RM focused on the fact that the then-current title was vague and the new title was a clear improvement over the then-current one. After the move, I notified the AfD discussion about this move. I think moves that have consensus, are clearly an improvement (see also The Blade of the Northern Lights's comment above), and are duly notified to the participants of the AfD should continue to be allowed. A blanket prohibition may get us stucked with undesirable titles much longer than we should need to. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The AfD you refer to is Articles for deletion/Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It was a snowball “keep” before and after the page move.  The article was new (three days) and was titled poorly, and the page was an obvious improvement.  The successful RM was initiated several hours before unsuccessful AfD.  That makes this example very different for the intention here to stop INVOLVED editors from doing a page move to WP:GAME an AfD heading towards deletion.
 * At the time you closed the RM, the AfD was ripe to be closed as “keep” and ideally you would have done that simultaneously. If you were not feeling experienced enough to closed the AfD, no serious harm would have come from delaying the RM close for the two days it took for someone else to close the RM.
 * However, to wind back the scope of the proposal here, to add a note “do not move while the AfD is ongoing”, I would say that this note will not be limiting to the consensus found in the RM, especially where the RM process preceded the AfD, but that it is really intended to stop bold page moves. The note need not articulate this exception to its message, but this exception should be noted at WP:RMCI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support principle, oppose as written per one discussion principle: the productive use of editor time is maximized when we have one discussion about an article's scope. "Is this a topic about which we can write an article?" and "What is the topic of this article?" are inextricably linked questions. "Should the article be deleted?" and "What should the title of the article be?" are different ways of asking those same two questions. What is the scope, and is the scope notable? We should have one discussion about it. So, anytime we have an AFD and an RM, they should be in one discussion. Not allowing RMs while AFDs are open (and vice versa) help ensure that there is just one discussion, so I support it. That said, there may be times when making a move -- outside of an RM -- during an AFD may be a good idea: for example, to fix an obvious typo, or to correct a blatant and harmful WP:BLP violation. So, adding "don't move it" to the template is a bit of overkill, in that it doesn't provide for those exceptions. I'd support some language at WP:AFD (the existing part of AFDEQ, for instance) or somewhere explaining that people shouldn't move articles during AFDs because we should have one discussion (and "redirect" is an AFD outcome), and that people shouldn't nominate article for AFD during RMs, but that there are some rare exceptions, e.g. BLP or typos, where a move during an AFD would be OK (in which case whomever is making the move should also do the cleanup). Levivich 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As written, is to add "or move the article" to the template.  What would you write? I think precise wording to address namespace moves would make the template worse at confusing readers.  The mfd template says to not move, and I don’t think there has ever been a problem with not moving mid-discussion.
 * IAR cases are extremely easily justified by an experienced editor, over a few words on the template, which can be read as a lie-to-children. However, I maintain that AFD navigation pages and lists should be insisted to have the name in the link match the name of the article. An easy way to do this is close the AfD, do the move, the restart the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, I'd just have the template say "do not remove this template". There's no reason the template needs to include information about moving the page. It's meaningless to 99% of people reading that template (readers, not editors), and I'd say even 99% of editors wouldn't move a page during an AFD. This is for the 1% of editors who might actually do something like move a page during an AFD, and for them... write it up at WP:AFD, rather than on the template. Levivich 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All that's desired is to change:
 * "'''This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
 * to:
 * "'''This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
 * You would have most of these words removed? I don't think you mean that, but if you do, it is quite silly. Blanking of the article listed at AfD is a common instinct for new editors wanting to delete the page, and the blank page is very confusing for newcomers.
 * "There's no reason the template needs to include information about moving the page"? You are not denying the reason, but asserting the reason does not exist.  The reason is past experience that newcomers (or pretend newcomers with a COI) go to the page, click the move tab, and move the page, disruptively.  They then can't be fairly sanctioned for this disruption, because nothing told them not to, and there is a tab inviting them to do it.
 * I think something I am learning is that RfCs invite contrarianism. The VPP discussion already provided ample justification for the simple edit required.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would remove "and do not blank the page" as well, per WP:CREEP, but that's outside the scope of this RFC. :-) Levivich 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that removal, as the note is concise and important, and is in the place where it belongs (not buried in a policy page fine text), and as a note in a template, it is a very soft rule that doesn't stop experienced editor from IAR actions, but does stop inexperience people to trying to do something that usually makes things worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CREEP, note that page's title is "Avoid instruction creep". Instruction creep, not rule creep.  "CREEP" is not a concise version of "Avoid instruction creep", but is jargon.
 * Allowing moves except for namespace moves necessitates serious instruction creep.
 * "do not move" is far better than "do not draftify", or "do not move to another namespace", because "draftify" and "namespace" are deep jargon for a new editor.
 * "Move" is quite a reasonable word considering that at the top of the page is the tab labelled "move". So, if you value WP:CREEP, and oppose unilateral draftification during an AfD, the answer is it go with the simple "do not move". SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving the article to a different namespace should be prohibited, but something like capitalisation does not need to wait, AfC scripts be damned. AfD provides no guarantee that a particular script will support its closure. We have manual close instructions there to be used when needed. A guarantee we should have is that MOS errors can be fixed on any mainspace article at any time, that an article can be nominated for deletion while a move discussion is in place (so the move discussion may be closed mid-AfD) etc. There are edge cases where a good move may allow an editor to make massive quality improvement during the discussion, but could also be scrutinised as attempting to bypass AfD discussion over intended article scope. But in general, I see no reason to allow namespace moves (IAR works for genuinely rare exceptions) and some reasons to allow moves within mainspace. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had not thought of closing script errors, just deletion sorting, and the several AfD tables. If the title fix is important enough to not wait, then it is important enough that links to the AfD are correct. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show me what breaks, ? As I see it, if you infer the article title based on the AFD subtitle then you'll get a redirect which is good enough; but if you infer the AFD page from the article title then you might get a redlink. But in any case, these technical questions should be secondary to the matter of proper flow of editor actions, which is what my comment is about. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Bilorv. This is a difficult thing to "show", as it is discussion of hypothetical problems that derive from a hypothetical good reason to move a page despite an ongoing AfD.  A double hypothetical.
 * Suppose, after the AfD is listed, someone moves a page from a BLP-violating title to a BLP compliant title. But they don't fix the AfD page title.  On arriving at the the AfD page, it's big title remains in BLP-violation, and from then on, the discussion is poisoned.  At the AfD page, eg Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 1, there is a Contents tale that lists *only* the original AfD title.  Many of use look at that Contents title to choose what to engage in, and a BLP-violating item will draw attention, creating biased participation, and astonishment when navigating to the article to find it doesn't have the BLP-violating title that attracted the participation.  In term of scripts, I was thinking of tables such as User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's.  There especially editors navigate to discussions based only on the title.  I don't how the script/bot works, but I fear that it will fail to notice that the BLP-violating article title has been changed, thus continuing the BLP-violation, and astonishing editors who navigate to the AfD based on the old title, and likely producing biased participation in the discussion.
 * If the template tells people to not move the page, and if admins and pagemovers are expected to know the extended rule (if the page must be moved promptly, then fix the AfD to match), then the few hypothetical cases won't spawn further hypothetical problem.
 * My concern is not driven by scripts not being updated to account for problems, but with AfD participants having been misled about the title of the page, because AfD links are not updated by the page move.
 * Also, if the deletion reason cited the BLP-violation that was present in the title, and that was fixed by a rename, the surely the nomination needs rewriting, and likely the original nominator failed WP:BEFORE.
 * I think it is fair to challenge to proponents of the first hypothetical. Can someone point to an AfD that experienced a bold page move during the AfD, where the page move was justified to happen promptly, and was non-contentious, and it was a good AfD after the page move? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, . I think I see the point. Your challenge is asking for quite a specific case of move during an AfD, but I give a couple of other cases: MOS issues and move discussions that predate the AfD. Does it need to be that the move must happen immediately for it to be justified? If you notice a problem, you should be able to fix it, rather than having to keep track that you can only fix it in 6 days' time (and then 13 days and 20 days when it gets relisted twice).In cases where the move is so major as to cause the AFD to be misleading, I can think of a couple of possibilities. Maybe this is an attempt at a supervote and should be looked upon the same way you would see the redirection of an article while an AFD is in progress. Or maybe it's a case like a BLP violation that must be fixed immediately, and the AFD could close with "procedural keep" and participants could be pinged to a new AFD to restate or revise their comments accordingly. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. There could be multiple ways to fix the wrong-titled AfD, but my guess is that to close it, renominate, and ping the prior participants is a very good way.  Alternatively, the admin-qualified closer might judge that the deletion reason no longer applies, a subjective case-by-case decision, not suitable for an INVOLVED editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also logs. It is very frustrating when the deletion log mismatches the AfD title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 154.121.56.81 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are occasions when it makes sense, and I would rather there not be a rule outright prohibiting it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support. TOPaner (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I will not comment about moving to draft space, as my opinion is that draft space is a novel invention by busybodies that we should simply do away with rather than create more and more rules about. I also think that supporting this idea because of closing scripts is completely arse-about-face. Scripts should support policy, rather than vice versa. The case that I see most often is of an obvious mistake, such as an uncapitalised proper name. It would be nice if deletion nominators would perform such moves first, before starting deletion discussions, but they often don't, and why should someone who has no intention of following a discussion be forced to wait until it is closed before performing an obvious, uncontroversial, action that gets rid of an eyesore? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just re-read that and see that it could be interpreted as my calling for the elimination of busybodies. I make no comment about whether that is actually my opinion, because it is irrelevant here, but I was actually saying that draft space should be done away with. It is far more trouble that its occasional worth. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Only for pages discuted for deletion. Krantler (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there is no other instance where improvements to an article under AfD are forbidden, and because, occasionally, there might even be very good reasons (Articles for deletion/Cochrane Road (Hamilton, Ontario)) why a move should happen during an AfD. This seems like silly rules-for-the-sake-of-rules and solution-to-a-non-problem style of stuff, which is very much discouraged per WP:NOTBURO RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There can be good reasons to move an article during an AfD, for instance if there's an obvious typo. XFDCloser is generally capable of handling these cases without incident: it gives a message saying "Actions will be applied to this redirect's target page. To use the nominated page instead, undo the redirection before continuing." There's thus no real reason to prohibit uncontroversial moves during AfD. Draftifications during AfD are more problematic, but the correct response is simply to move the page back to mainspace, which anyone can do per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Adding additional verbiage to the template seems unlikely to be helpful: newer editors are unlikely to see/understand it (due to banner blindness or other reasons), and more experienced users likely don't need the reminder in the first place. This does seem like a solution in search of a problem, and even if there is a problem this solution is unlikely to solve it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. Bad faith moves will be reverted.  Good faith moves are generally fine.  Good faith but clueless moves can also be reverted.  I do agree that draftification as a backdoor to deletion is problematic (especially if the discussion is trending keep), but that's not what this proposal is addressing.  SnowFire (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a rational move. There is no good reason to move an article during AfD, particularly since at most lasts two or three in long discussion, perhaps longer occasional, but I dont see why it would during the Afd.   scope_creep Talk  09:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Suppose there's a fresh article on a breaking news event. An editor nominates the article for AFD quickly, citing NOTNEWS.  During the burst of interest in the first few days - when viewership is at its highest- it turns out that the initial title picked is misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever.  Additionally, the discussion is trending toward "keep."  Would this not qualify as a "good reason to move an article during an AFD"?  SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If yes, then it is just as important to fix the AfD with the “misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever” title. If the AfD is tending “keep”, under a  misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever title, then there is a huge reason to stop the  misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever AfD.
 * As this is a big thing, to be done boldly and unilaterally, it should be strictly UNIVOLVED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current guidance—from Guide to deletion—is a word of discouragement: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator). I don't see anything problematic about this status quo (i.e. discouraged but not outright prohibited), and I share the concerns of those above who fear this proposal may be adding WP:CREEP. For what it's worth, the AfD template used to include the message For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion, but the wording about moving the article was removed in March 2021, see . I would not be opposed to reinstating that longstanding text to the template (which was removed boldly). Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good find, thank you. Strong support for reverting User:Kusma's edit, to reinstate that longstanding text to the template.  It removed something needed, and the fine text at Guide to deletion can be edited to mention draftification, and INVOLVED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Like most templates and guidelines, the instructions are so long that nobody reads them. I would rather suggest to simplify further in the hope that people might read shorter instructions. —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Instructions that are too long are skipped by too many, yes, but does this apply specifically to the template? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I removed the text because I didn't find the instructions at the target page particularly helpful. If it gets re-added, I won't complain much, but I would suggest to try to update and simplify the wording at Guide to deletion. Another idea would be to see whether we could have a conditional warning at MediaWiki:Movepagetext in case the article is at AfD to give specific instructions to movers. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If adding specific instructions to interface's move message is possible as you've proposed, I'm certainly on board with your idea. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article should be moved if that is necessary. It is not super common, but BLP or NPOV issues are more important than AfD guidelines. —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Kusma, but if the page move is necessary for BLP of NPOV reasons, why are you supporting the continuation of an AfD under the old AfD title with the BLP or NPOV issues? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe: Am I? If the AfD title has serious BLP issues (like, "Kusma is a pedo"), this should be amended by moving the AfD page and updating all the links, not by closing it and leaving the BLP issue title in the logs. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s the point. “Don’t move without closing the AfD” solves this, necessarily, and concisely.  I guess you’d generalise to “Don’t move without fixing the same problem with the AfD”.  But this is headed down the path of CREEP.  I’m yet to see a page that MUST be moved in the week of the AfD. I would SLAP the nominator for not doing the necessary move and instead make it worse by advertising it through the AfD processes, which place notifications, including the violating title phrase in edit histories. Kusmo is a pedo should be emailed to oversighters. I maintain that moving during the AfD is always disruptive enough to unjustify the bold page move.  An experienced editor should shut down the mess, and that editor is already limited by WP:UNINVOLVED, it doesn’t need repeating. Very concise.
 * I don’t think any BLP or NPOV title violating article that gets sent to AfD doesn’t need deleting. I think that an inexperienced nonadmin attempting to rush fix by pagemove will always make things worse.  There’s no downside to the instruction “don’t move without closing the AfD”, because it only limits inexperienced and INVOLVED editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard thing is a page titled "Jane doe" or "About jane doe" or "Jane doe biography", Ideally, these should be moved to "Jane Doe" before the AFD, but the page title should always be fixed as soon as possible, even if that is during the AFD. Thanks to redirects, the disruption caused by such a move is minimal. We don't wait for a week to fix a typo out of bureaucracy. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparatively, the disruption caused by closing and reopening an AfD is larger (when should the new AfD be closed?), and you either need to copy over the old comments or get people to comment again, while AfD generally has not enough participation already. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Generally moving pages tagged for AfD is bad form as it causes confusion, but I don't believe there should be a policy against doing so. Articles under a deletion discussion can be improved to the point where the reason for deletion is no longer valid (i.e. the concerns have been addressed), and page moves can help with improving the article. AfD'd articles rticles can find their place with renames, just like any other article. So I don't believe adding a clause to prevent renaming pages during AfDs is justified. SWinxy (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . Oppose it shouldn't be done just to fix trivial errors, but if the articles is misleadingly or obscurely titled, it can be so much improved by a move as to affect the decision. AfD is supposed to improve articles when possible. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mostly just per WP:CREEP and the lack of a strong case to implement a change. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think that moving articles during deletion debates is a big problem. I don't see how another rule that might plausibly stop a beneficial move from being made is the right way to proceed. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose instruction creep. If it's a non-controversial move (clearly the wrong title, whatever), then move it.  If it's a controversial move, then it should be discussed first anyway.  The fact that an AFD exists changes nothing.  I don't see it as gaming the system - it's not like the page is going to go missing. --B (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - moving an article proposed for deletion can cause a lot of confusion as people would think the original article was a redirect. weeklyd3  (message me | my contributions) 03:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - IAR. Schierbecker (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, yes, moves are generally a bad idea, but the rule is too prescriptive. It's better to let humans decide, case-by-case. Even draftification by the creator can be perfectly reasonable (for example where an inexperienced editor has unilaterally moved a draft that they didn't write into main-space and its creator knows it is only half-written and not up to scratch). Yes, it's confusing if things move around, but if people can't be bothered to track where an article's gone, I don't feel their input at AfC is particularly likely to be well-informed and well-researched. In good AfC's, major changes to the target, including moves, will be documented by those in the discussion. If people mess around at AfC and game the system, we have a variety of remedies ranging from a trouts of various sizes through to ANI. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per those who pointed out that sometimes a page move is an obvious improvement, and could lead to the addition of better sources. At the same time, I believe that bad page moves should never be allowed, whether it happens during the AfD discussion or even right before it. And by a bad page move, I mean even one that no longer adequately describes the article content, as happened at Articles for deletion/Shipping to Israel. In that case, even though the article admittedly would never have been kept as it was, still the point is that in my opinion, the late title change by the nom skewed the responses to lead to an easy 'delete', when the previous title had a much better chance of winding up as a merge or redirect. Therefore, since I see this proposal as having more to do with timing and less to do with substance, I cannot lend my support to it. Havradim leaf a message  20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Explanation by Proposer: Sometimes an editor attempts to interrupt an AFD by moving the article. The most common form is to attempt to move the article unilaterally to draft space. The deletion procedures are largely silent on whether this is permitted. Since only articles are subject to AFD, a move out of article space either (a) turns off the AFD, or (b) is disruptive and should not be permitted. There has been discussion at Village Pump and the rough consensus is that moving an article while an AFD is in process should not be permitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moving_Article_to_Draft_Space_During_AFD Any move of an article while the AFD is in progress, whether to draft space or another title, interferes with the scripts. If a move is appropriate, it can be discussed during the AFD, and the move (whether to draft space or another title) completed by the closer when the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Query: What about a move to fix some issue with the current article title? I think the phrase should be clear that the ask is not to move the article out to other spaces like draftspace or userspace. – robertsky (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Robertsky - My own opinion is that a problem with the article title is not so urgent that it can't wait a week for the AFD to complete. The title can be discussed along with discussing whether the article should exist.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon but some wouldn't be able to resist the urge, especially if it is a simple thing to fix. – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If prohibiting moving doesn't gain traction, may want to change RFC wording to or draftify the article. That is likely precise enough that many would support. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Novem Linguae's suggested wording ("or draftify the article") is good in that it gets around BD2412's point about moving to a more correct title (which I have much less issue with than moving to drafts, although even that could IMO wait until the AfD has closed). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Draftify" is a rather silly bit of wikijargon that won't mean much to the average reader or casual editor. I don't think we should use it in such a prominent template; moving a page to draftspace is a page move, like any other. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Moving to draft space is slow deletion, totally different from moving to any other namespace. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's also the technical possibility of automatically move-protecting all articles sent to AfD WP:MOVP by default, but that would be another discussion. Any admin or user with Page Mover rights can close an AfD that results in a move. There are currently 360 users with page mover right (6 months of editing history and at least 3,000 edits), which makes the total number of users with this permission 1,402 (the rest are administrators). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That will result in a new MediaWiki bug around a new protection level-pagemover. I think we should have pagemover protection (but only for move, admins should not set pagemover protection for edits) Thingofme (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not protect pre-emptively, and we should not encourage that move warrers can have their Wrong Version protected simply by starting a bad-faith AFD with a sock. —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pagemover protection for moving page would be effective against page-move vandalism or highly visible pages. Thingofme (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bit late to this party, but contrary to popular belief, page movers cannot move WP:MOVP pages. Per these instructions, "[m]ove protection, to the surprise of some editors, does not permit page movers to edit through it." HouseBlastertalk 18:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there should be an option about page mover protection but admins may not set edit protection at this level. Thingofme (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Making the text about removing the tag bold
I am proposing to change the weight of the text inside the template to the following, to make these templates consistent with the speedy deletion templates. Personally I find this text does not stand out to me and I fail to read it, which no doubt also happens to other editors, and the template erroniously removed from articles as a result.

"Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion."

Your thoughts and consensus on this would be appreciated. Osarius 10:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I think that would be a good idea. I certainly don't see why not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To maintain a clear visual hierarchy, we should only be bolding the most important thing in the notice. That's the fact that there's a deletion discussion. If we tried to bold everything (and a lot of notices on Wikipedia unfortunately do try that), that'd be the same as bolding nothing. This suggestion is editor-centric rather than reader-centric. Editors should not be making edits to pages with a giant red notice without reading that notice, and if they are anyways, then we should handle it through an editnotice. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closed edit request for now since this is a proposal for a change rather than a request at this time. Terasail [✉] 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wording changes
There is a discussion at WP:VPI# refinement about the recent changes to the template message. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 February 2024
Please append: to categorize the redirect. Thanks, Queen of Hearts 23:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 * .  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 00:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 2 February 2024
A protected redirect, Template:Afd needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

 * from this:

 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Article for deletion

 * to this:

 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Article for deletion

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  P.I. Ellsworth  ,  ed.  put'er there 00:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * ✅ Additionally, I have reduced the permissions to template editor level. It remained fully protected as the move was done before the template editor group was created and no one went back to lower the protection level when the group was created. – robertsky (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much, editor !  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 01:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Article for deletion


text:
Werner Finck

Werner Finck (2 May 1902 – 31 July 1978) was a German Kabarett comedian, actor and author. Not politically motivated by his own admission but just a "convinced individualist", he became one of Germany's leading cabaret artists under the conditions of the Nazi suppression after 1933.

Biography
Born in Görlitz in Prussian Silesia, the son of a pharmacist, Finck attended an art school in Dresden and began his career as an itinerant storyteller of fairy tales in the 1920s. He took acting lessons and began a mediocre tenure in the theatre, making his debut in Silesian Bunzlau (present-day Bolesławiec, Poland). However, it became obvious that he had "comic bones" and when he met a friend who had contacts in the Berlin Kabarett scene, he found his true calling.

Together with artists like Hans Deppe, Rudolf Platte and Robert A. Stemmle he founded the cabaret Die Katakombe with some friends in 1929. Finck acted as conferencier, and the cabaret became successful because of his critical and subtly impudent remarks against the Nazis, proving to be an early thorn in their side. Finck had an ability to be seemingly lost for words when saying something and the audience, playing along, finished his sentences. He often defied authority by daring Gestapo informers in the audience to write down every word he said. According to an anecdote, Finck once confronted an officer asking with seeming innocence, "Am I talking too fast? Can you follow me or shall I follow you?"

According to his later accounts, Finck was confronted with politics for the very first time: "If only I had known that all these people were just Mitläufer. Some even camouflaged as Gauleiter. (...) So quite a few people claim I had disapproved of the Nazis. I would like to point out that these are defamations. You never know. (...) I must admit though that the Nazis disapproved of me." The way Finck presented his jokes made it very difficult for authorities to nail him down. His exploits made him a legend in his lifetime, to such an extent that when he introduced himself to British and American journalists after the war, he was met with disbelief as they believed that the "Werner Finck" who joked against the Nazis was a fairy-tale figure.

However, the Katakombe was closed on 10 May 1935 on the orders of Minister Joseph Goebbels. Finck and his colleagues were interned for six weeks in Esterwegen concentration camp, where he met Carl von Ossietzky and Julius Leber. The Katakombe ensemble took their arrest in good stride, because they still performed despite their imprisonment. They reasoned that before the cabaret closed down they had performed with anxiety due to the fear of incarceration; now they did not need to fear because they were already in prison! It was due to the intervention of his friend, actress Käthe Dorsch, who talked to Goebbels' rival Hermann Göring, that Finck was released on 1 July on condition that he not work in public for a year.

Despite this he continued performing before live audiences from 1937 onwards, as well as in film, where he had a successful, if undistinguished, career from 1931. However, he was banned from the Reichskulturkammer in 1939 and, threatened with arrest again, he joined the Wehrmacht armed forces in the rank of a private radiotelephone operator to avoid imprisonment. A member of the 23rd Infantry Division, he was awarded the Iron Cross, 2nd class and the Eastern Front Medal, which he called "Frozen Meat Medal" (Gefrierfleischorden).

He temporarily served as a troop entertainer and later used his World War II exploits in a cabaret programme entitled Der brave Soldat schweigt ("The Good Soldier Shuts Up" – a pun on Jaroslav Hašek's The Good Soldier Švejk). He witnessed the German surrender as a POW of the U.S. Army in Bad Aibling, Bavaria.

From 1945-49, Finck, with Hans Bayer ("Thaddäus Troll"), issued the journal Das Wespennest ("The Hornets' Nest"), the first German satirical magazine after the war. He resumed his career in cabaret, performing at the Schmunzelkolleg ("Chuckle College") in Munich and founding the Nebelhorn ("Foghorn") cabaret in Zürich (1947), as well as the Mausefalle ("Mousetrap") in Stuttgart (1948). In 1950 he established the joke political party of the "Radical Centre" in West Berlin. Finck was able to continue his film career, including the role for which he is most known today, in Fassbinder's TV series Eight Hours Don't Make a Day in 1972; he played Gregor, the doddering but gentle old lover of the miniseries protagonist's grandmother. He remained active in live performances, notably going on tour in the United States in 1968.

Death
Finck died in Munich, aged 76, where he is buried in the Waldfriedhof cemetery. The inscription on his tombstone reads: "You are still here and I passed away, soon you are there where I am today."

Honors

 * Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1973)
 * Walk of Fame of Cabaret, Mainz (posthumous, 2004)

Selected filmography

Werner Finck made many film and TV appearances in a career spanning about forty years, many of which are but brief appearances that showcased his talent:
 * The Company's in Love (1932)
 * The Hymn of Leuthen (1933)
 * Liebelei (1933)
 * A Woman Who Knows What She Wants (1934)
 * Holiday From Myself (1934)
 * The Flower Girl from the Grand Hotel (1934)
 * The Cousin from Nowhere (1934)
 * What Am I Without You (1934)
 * Love Conquers All (1934)
 * Just Once a Great Lady (1934)
 * The Girlfriend of a Big Man (1934)
 * Fresh Wind from Canada (1935)
 * The Vagabonds (1937)
 * La Habanera (1937)
 * The Unexcused Hour (1937)
 * Autobus S (1937)
 * The Grey Lady (1937)
 * Faded Melody (1938)
 * The Man Who Couldn't Say No (1938)
 * The Girl of Last Night (1938)
 * The Roundabouts of Handsome Karl (1938)
 * Film Without a Title (1948), as Hubert
 * My Niece Susanne (1950), as Dubouton
 * Not Without Gisela (1951), as himself
 * Stärker als die Nacht (1954)
 * Heroism after Hours (1955)
 * Hanussen (1955), as Expert witness
 * Lola Montès (1955), as Wisböck
 * My Husband's Getting Married Today (1956), as Dr. Agartz
 * The Zürich Engagement (1957), as Dr. Julius Wayer
 * Victor and Victoria (1957), as Hinz
 * Tired Theodore (1957), as Dr. Karl Findeisen
 * Marriages Forbidden (1957), as Judge Dr. Kern
 * The Twins from Zillertal (1957) as Herr Kleeman
 * Father, Mother and Nine Children (1958)
 * And That on Monday Morning (1959), as Professor Gross
 * Labyrinth (1959), as President
 * Roses for the Prosecutor (1959), as Haase
 * The Last Pedestrian (1960), as Editor Hiss
 * Storm in a Water Glass (1960)
 * The White Horse Inn (1960), as Professor Hinzelmann
 * What Is Father Doing in Italy? (1961), as Direktor Schlosser
 * Love at Twenty (1962), as Surgeon
 * Two Bavarians in Bonn (1962), as Minister
 *  (1968), as Jacoby
 *  (1968), as Newspaper Publisher
 * Hurra, die Schule brennt! (1969), as Under Secretary von Schnorr
 * Eight Hours Don't Make a Day (1972, TV series), as Gregor

In the 1982 TV movie Inside the Third Reich, he was portrayed by American comedian Mort Sahl.

title: Werner Finck


text:
Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Schools

Forget "safe", the FAQ is still wrong
Whether or not Wikipedia is school-safe, this page does contain technical, factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia is not public domain, for instance, though the text of the meta page at least implies that it is. -- your local Fennec 06:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it's not accuarate. I added a bit about how it wasn't "kid safe" but I left all the technical stuff in there.  Perhaps someone will rewrite it here on the talk page (since it's now protected), because things like the implication everything is in the PD really have to go.  fabiform | talk 07:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll put it here: Schools FAQ/Draft. - Fennec 13:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The page is now open to editing, and that "Draft" no longer exists. Perhaps some of those changes were fed into this article because I couldn't really see any implication that WP is PD, except one sentence near the bottom, which I've just fixed. -- Harry Wood 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandals
The FAQ here would have me wondering, if I were a newbie, if there are just controvertial edit wars against vandals. I have added that blocking is a possibility, if it is obvious vandalism, and not mistakes. I think this is relevant. Remove if you disagree.martianlostinspace 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Free content", not "open source"
The page uses the term "open source" in reference to Wikipedia content; while this is arguably true, a better term is "free content". "Open source" is more appropriately applied to software, and free content is more easily explained in an information context. 81.156.126.223 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Elfalem 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

40 volume or 15 volume?
The 2007 Wikipedia Selection link in the question Is it a safe environment for young people? states that its size is of a 15 volume encyclopedia while the Schools FAQ mentions a 40 volume encyclopedia. Which one is right? Elfalem 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Learn by Editing
This section towards the end is interesting : Schools' FAQ. It's almost the main point in fact. After all, if teachers are not interested in encouraging pupils to learn by editing, they might as well tell them to go to http://schools-wikipedia.org/ instead (except that there's not such broad subject coverage)

But kids/students can learn a lot by editing. They can learn how to cooperate. How to be polite and professional towards co-workers. How to research a topic. etc (a point which is made quite well there)

Perhaps we can expand this section to give other specific ideas. I saw an article somewhere (maybe not in wikipedia) about how getting involved in Translations is a good language learning excercise.

-- Harry Wood 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Error
"Participation in Wikipedia requires youths to know basic Internet safety practices (which they should already know)" That is wrong, since there is no "test" of any sort. Also, shouldn't adults know "basic Internet safety practices" too?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes Needed Here
Part of this FAQ states, 'Wikipedia is a compendium of existing, published knowledge and is only as reliable as the external sources on which it relies. Fortunately, Wikipedia is very regular about citing its sources (far more regular than many other publications). If an article does not provide citations, then it may or may not be reliable and a reader should use their own judgment.'

I think that claims like this over-promote Wikipedia. Wikipedia has sufficiently large problems that such reassuring statements are simply not appropriate. Wikipedia's reliability is limited not only by its external sources, but by the ability of Wikipedia's editors to correctly understand those sources. The statements in the reliability section imply very strongly that if an article does provide citations, then it must be reliable. This is not the case. Sources can be and are misrepresented and misused, and even if an article does provide citations, it may nevertheless be quite unreliable. Provided that nobody objects, I am going to edit this section into something more realistic, and honest about Wikipedia's limitations. Born Gay (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Board exam compulsary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshitij.31 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually the opposite?
The "Is Wikipedia child-safe?" section contains this, which confused me: No child should ever assume that if somebody has an account on Wikipedia, then they're safe to meet in person (in fact, it's usually the opposite) This parenthetical seems to be saying either "If somebody has a Wikipedia account, they're usually not safe to meet in person" or "If somebody doesn't have a Wikipedia account, they usually are safe to meet in person". Neither of these seem logical. User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes no sense. Possibly the parentheses was intended as a joke? Tacyarg (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; I've just removed that from the page. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Schools


text:
Wafer

A wafer is a crisp, often sweet, very thin, flat, light biscuit, often used to decorate ice cream, and also used as a garnish on some sweet dishes. They frequently have a waffle surface pattern but may also be patterned with insignia of the food's manufacturer or may be patternless. Some chocolate bars, such as Kit Kat and Coffee Crisp, are wafers with chocolate in and around them.

Communion wafers
A communion wafer is a type of unleavened bread consumed after transubstantiation as part of the Christian ritual of communion.

Spa wafer
Special "spa wafers" (Czech: lázeňské oplatky, Slovak: kúpeľné oblátky) are produced in the spa towns of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic (e.g. Piešťany). The production of the wafers in Karlsbad and Marienbad was traditional to the towns' German-speaking population, who, after the ethnic cleansing of the area, brought the craft to Germany.

A similar biscuit is cooked in Hungary called the Molnárkalács. Its origins can be traced back to the Palóc population. It is round and hard (sometimes also rolled) decorated with folk symbols and images and text instead of a simple spiral. It is also eaten with toppings like jams. It is made with special pressing tool, the sütővas.

Christmas wafer
Christmas wafers are made of only wheat flour and water. Their patterns often depict religious scenes, are a Central European Roman Catholic Christmas tradition celebrated in Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian and Italian families on Christmas Eve. These do not have sacramental value like the communion wafer. Christmas wafers are symbolic bread to share among guests to emphasize the close relationship by eating bread together. This gesture has a positive meaning, but additional wishes are often made as well. They are called opłatek (Latin: oblatum) in Polish, as opposed to wafel, which denotes a common wafer.

Oblea
A variation of a wafer, considered a part of the traditional cuisine in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, and México, is known as an oblea. It is usually eaten as a dessert with two pieces filled with arequipe, dulce de leche, or cajeta (milk caramel), and/or condensed milk in the middle. In some places, they might contain cheese, fruits, or chantilly cream, among others.

Pink wafer
The pink wafer is a wafer-based confectionery originally made by Edinburgh's Crawford's Biscuits in the United Kingdom. It is now made by United Biscuits, the company that took over the firm in 1960, still using the Crawford's name. The snack consists of crème sandwiched between wafers (dyed pink).

There is a similar product branded Pink Panther wafers.

Freska
Freska (فريسكه ) is an Egyptian wafer sold only on beaches in the summertime. It is made from two thin circular wafers filled with a thin layer of honey syrup.

Flavours
Some wafers are produced with a chocolate covering. Another popular flavor is lemon.

Shapes
Piroulines and Barquillos are wafers rolled into a tube, and sometimes filled with cream.

title: Wafer


text: User:Giddytrace

title: User:Giddytrace