text:
Baron Daresbury

Baron Daresbury, of Walton in the County of Chester, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 21 June 1927 for Sir Gilbert Greenall, 2nd Baronet by King George V. The Baronetcy, of Walton Hall in the County of Chester, was created in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom on 22 February 1876 for his father Gilbert Greenall, who was head of the family brewing business (later Greenall's and now the De Vere Group) and also represented Warrington in the House of Commons as a Conservative. the titles are held by the first Baron's great-grandson, the fourth Baron, who succeeded his father in 1996. The former seat of the Greenall family was Walton Hall near Warrington, Cheshire. However, the house was sold in 1941. The fourth Lord Daresbury was based at Hall Lane Farm on the Daresbury estate, home of the Creamfields music festival.

Greenall baronets, of Walton Hall (1876)

 * Sir Gilbert Greenall, 1st Baronet (1806–1894)
 * Sir Gilbert Greenall, 2nd Baronet (1867–1938) (created Baron Daresbury in 1927)

Barons Daresbury (1927)

 * Gilbert Greenall, 1st Baron Daresbury (1867–1938)
 * Edward Greenall, 2nd Baron Daresbury (1902–1990)
 * Edward Gilbert Greenall, 3rd Baron Daresbury (1928–1996)
 * Peter Gilbert Greenall, 4th Baron Daresbury (born 1953)

The heir apparent is the present holder's son, the Hon. Thomas Edward Greenall (born 1984)

title: Baron Daresbury


text:
Talk:Green Bay (Lake Michigan)

Untitled
This is called a back-formation. They always sound this silly for a generation or two... Wetman 21:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I was very skeptical that this was the "correct" name, but it's actually referred to in the article on the city. Check this Google search" . Despite that, I think that article on the bay itself could just live at Green Bay. A good example is that of Dukes County, Massachusetts. The official name is County of Dukes County because of a mistake in the 1692 document establishing it, That's what appears on official documents, etc., but almost no one knows that, and it can be mentioned in the article, as opposed to the name, -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that "Bay of Green Bay" is a now a standard colloquialism, and probably the one people use locally to distinguish it from the city. But "Green Bay" is how it appears on all the maps I can find. This is very analogous to the "Island of Rhode Island". In this case, the island cannot live at Rhode Island because this is the article for the state. Fortunately it has an alterate name, Aquidneck Island, allowing for unamabiguous reference. Nevertheless, it was the state that was named for the island, and not vice versa. -- Decumanus 22:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * With TOttenville8's news of Green Bay being a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand, Green Bay should probably be made into a disambig page, with Green Bay, Wisconsin, Bay of Green Bay, and "a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand" all mentioned. And FYI Decumanus, you're partially right.  Locally, "Green Bay" always refers to the city, while the bay is usually just referred to as "the bay". --Fo0bar 08:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Since nobody complained, I changed Green Bay to a disambig page mentioning what I said I would above. --Fo0bar 07:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed name: Green Bay (water body)
The current title sounds ridiculous. The name of the thing is "Green Bay." Of course locals call it "the bay." Is there a bay anywhere that locals don't call "the bay"? the problem is compounded by the first sentence repeating the title, giving the impression that the name of this body of water is not, simply, Green Bay, which it is. I propose a move to "Green Bay (water body) or somesuch. The "Bay of Green Bay" sounds like a smaller bay inside of Green Bay. -- DavidH 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Just stumbled on this page.. the name Bay of Green Bay does sound funny. I've never been to the area and know nothing about local conventions.  As to "proper" names, like "County of Dukes County", in Washington State the counties have official names like that too, except without the final County:  Pierce County is officially "County of Pierce".  In any case, I suspect most everyone who has heard of Green Bay at all thinks of it as Green Bay and in Bay of Green Bay.  There are undoubtedly many many Green Bays in the world; the way I like disambiguating rivers and water bodies where it makes sense is with the name of whatever it is attached to / flows into.  In this case it would be "Green Bay (Lake Michigan)".  Just a suggestion. Pfly 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Additional comments -- a google search on "Bay of Green Bay" turns up a lot of hits, it does seem to be widely used. But I'm skeptical about the idea that the bay was "officially" named after the city... source for that?  This Green Bay government webpage, http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/history_o.html, says the French named it "La Baia Verte", in addition to the name they got from Indians, "La Baie des Puants".  George R. Stewart wrote in "Names on the Land", a reliable source for placename origins, that the French called it Baie Verte from earliest times and that the English simply translated the name.  In other words, the city is named after the bay, not the other way around.  Shall I edit the article to say so? Pfly 02:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason it sounds nonsensical is because that's exactly what it is—nonsense, plain and simple. Wikipedia is now being turned into a vehicle for further disseminating this silliness, which is why I have solicited further comment here.  Tom e rtalk  23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues here. If you can cite the source, by all means change the article from saying that the bay was named for the city. When Google hits show results for "bay of Green Bay," is "bay" capitalized? In other words, it that really its name, or is it just a way to say that they're not talking about the city? I would guess the latter. As such, it's not a wrong name for this article - it just doesn't follow proper naming convention (I would guess). You might try WP:LAKES or maybe WP:RIVERS for some help on naming. -Freekee 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Historically, the body of water was known as Green Bay. The Dictionary of Wisconsin History calls it Green Bay (body of water), noting:
 * Green Bay was so called from the fact that voyagers, upon leaving Mackinaw in the early spring before the trees put forth their buds, found the borders of this Bay covered with the finest verdure and vegetation. It was called the Bay of Puans [q.v.], by the early French, and has also been called Menominee Bay.
 * Now, obviously today it has the designation Bay of Green Bay in some contexts. (A comparable situation is Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, a city, and Geneva Lake, the lake it abuts. Formerly both were known as "Lake Geneva" but as a kind of disambiguation the lake's official name was changed (you of course hear it both ways still).) The primary user of the term may be the NOAA and NWS (compare results for bay.of.green.bay -wikipedia and bay.of.green.bay -wikipedia -forecast). I did search the Geographic Names Information System at the USGS and found that the official name is just "Green Bay", with a long list of (mainly French) cognates, none of them "the Bay of Green Bay". (I hope this is a permalink.) It's also quite obviously just "Green Bay" on the official National Map (accessed through Terraserver). On the other hand, this 1984 article on the origins of the various names of the bay and the area clearly notes that the bay came first, so named as early as the 1760s, but the article itself is titled "Origins of the French and English Names for the Bay of Green Bay" with no explanation of the latter term. This [early map http://www.uwgb.edu/wisfrench/library/maps/jung/jungm2.jpg] is titled "Settlement at Green Bay" but shows only farming claims, the fort, and... the bay named Green Bay.
 * I think we've established, therefore, that "Bay of Green Bay" is a sufficiently official secondary usage. I don't think there's anything to substantiate the claim that "the bay was named for the city". If anything, the name arose to disambiguate the name of the body of water from that of the city. This could be further researched by e-mailing the appropriate UWGB or WHS departments, but I'm not sure there's a simple answer, although with geographical designations sometimes there is an actual determination by a committee at some point. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to renaming the article Green Bay (water body) since doing so flies in the face of all kinds of naming conventions on Wikipedia, but I think Green Bay (Wisconsin), Green Bay (Wisconsin and Michigan), Green Bay (Lake Michigan) and Green Bay (bay) are all much better choices than Bay of Green Bay, although significant mention of that usage is certainly warranted in the article, regardless of whatever name it ends up under. Categorically tho, I think Bay of Green Bay is a very bad name for the article, especially in light of the fact that no source yet brought forth supports calling the bay by that name...  Tom e rtalk  08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In case my "no source yet brought forth" statement be misinterpreted in light of the 1984 uwgb article's name, I think it should be pointed out that the capitalization there follows standard book/article-naming, which should not, without substantiation, be used as a validation for the naming as "Bay of Green Bay", simply as a disambiguation tool, as mentioned above. Tom e rtalk  08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In support of my above assertion, note that the article does not call it "Bay of Green Bay", but only "bay of Green Bay". It is clearly meant as a way to differentiate between the city and the bay, and no assertion is made that the name of the bay is "Bay of Green Bay".  Tom e rtalk  08:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with you Tomer, on all counts, though I must say that it is possible to keep the current name in the same sense of disambiguation that it was used in the historical sources. We'd just need to change the wording of the opening sentence. That having been said, I prefer either Green Bay (bay) or Green Bay (Lake Michigan). -Freekee 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case this requires a vote somewhere, instead of just going ahead and moving this to Green Bay (Lake Michigan), I'm going to list it at WP:RM. Please participate there.  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Move request discussion (2006)
Per the preceding discussion, input has been requested on the move requests page, that this article be moved to Green Bay (Lake Michigan). Please discuss the move here. Tom e rtalk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support (Obviously) per my above statements. Tom e rtalk  08:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like a reasonable and Wiki-consistent way to do it. --Serge 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. See comment below. Pfly 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom (objections below withdrawn). --Dhartung | Talk 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Other than brief statements (i.e., one to three sentences) regarding why you support or oppose this move, please add any additional comments here:
 * I don't like "Lake Michigan" as a disambiguator. The city is on the lake, as well. The point of the disambiguator here is to distinguish it from the city. I would prefer Green Bay (body of water), Green Bay (bay), and even Bay of Green Bay in that order over the proposed term. (You could say that it's growing on me.) It's not enough for the distinguishing term to be accurate, it should help the reader decide which article they want to look at. No vote yet. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I don't think (Lake Michigan) would be a logical disambiguator for the city, and, so, using it for the actual bay seems clear and reasonable. --Serge 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The (Lake Michigan) disambiguator is consistent with WP:RIVERS. I understand the kneejerk opposition to it, but I think the chances that someone is going to look for "Green Bay, Lake Michigan" when they're actually looking for the city is rather unlikely.  If anything, using the scheme you've outlined, "Green Bay" should be the bay, and the city should be at Green Bay (city) or City of Green Bay.  Disambiguating bodies of water by the waters to which they are tributary makes more sense to me than "disambiguating" bay as a "body of water" or worse, as a "bay".  Tom e rtalk  00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, there are many other Green Bays in the world (as in the water body sense of the word "bay"); so "Green Bay (water body)" is not specific enough, I think. "Bay of Green Bay" even less so.  I think the best way to ensure unique names for water features is either by adding the political units they are in ("Green Bay (Wisconsin)") or the water system they are tributary to ("Green Bay (Lake Michigan)").  Since "Green Bay (Wisconsin)" is easily confused with the city, I'd opt for the latter.  It may be that other Greens Bays in the world are not as notable as Green Bay, Wisconsin, but you never know.  For people like me, who tend to think of places in physical geographical terms rather than political ones, Green Bay means first the water body and only secondarily the city.  When I think "Green Bay", I get an image in my mind of the shape of the bay of Green Bay.  I've never been to the city and know very little about it, but the bay is quite distinctive looking on maps.  As an outsider to the Green Bay region, I don't want to rock the boat, but perhaps the perspective of an outsider is worth something maybe. Nevertheless, at the risk of running over local practice, I'd support "Green Bay (Lake Michigan)", for whatever it is worth. Still, I don't mind "Bay of Green Bay", although it sounds a bit silly and apt to become something outsiders get a chuckle out of (ie, "don't Green Bayers realize they are being redundant again?", and such like.  A similar odd local name for a waterbody is Chesapeake Bay, which apparently is locally called "The Chesapeake Bay", even though the "The" sounds superfluous and worthy of a chuckle.Pfly 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to pile too much on Dhartung, but the use of parentheses for geographical [as opposed to political] disambiguators in WP naming conventions is, by now, quite well-established. Thus, even if one were to use Green Bay (Wisconsin) as opposed to Green Bay, Wisconsin [the comma being the WP:WI-preferred, if not WP:MOS-preferred method of indicating geopolitical units] is quite logical, even if not well-understood by the casual reader.  This confusion is already well-handled by the disambig page at Green Bay, however. Tom e rtalk  09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Tom, well and fairly argued. I still don't like it but if there's consistency with a standard for bodies of water, then it's OK by me. --Dhartung | Talk 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A further note, on the above, however, is the fact that Green Bay [the bay!] is not entirely w/in the territorial waters of Wisconsin, which is my primary opposition to its use, and why I mentioned previously that if that course is chosen, Green Bay (Michigan and Wisconsin) would be more appropriate. My obvious preference, however, remains Green Bay (Lake Michigan).  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When I think "Green Bay", I get an image in my mind of the shape of a football helmet. ;-) -Freekee 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to "it should help the reader decide which article..." If they don't already know which article they want to view, they will be at Green Bay, where the choices will be spelled out. -Freekee 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I agree wholeheartedly w/o sounding like a screaming meemee? Tom e rtalk 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Nope. ;-D -Freekee 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Other proposed names
Contemplating my most recent statements, I'm adding this section to this discussion in case anyone has serious proposals for other names for the article. If anyone has other proposals, please make them here in this section so that they're clearly visible as such, and not swallowed up in the melée of the commentary on the specific renaming proposal I've made. Tom e rtalk 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Area
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lakes. Seems to have been fixed in the meantime. -- 签名 sig  at  18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Location within the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
We appear to be dancing around about the location in the UP. I read a map to see it's in the south central, nothing to do with the west or southwest side of the state. Please explain your position.  Royal broil  00:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Semantics. I can live with simply "south". It is in the south west part of the UP in that when you are in Menominee or near by and go further west you are no longer in Michigan or further south you are in water. older ≠ wiser 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had changed it to simply "south" in August and you undid to "south west". I agree to your compromise. I love Menominee and I added some of the pictures used in that article!  Royal broil  01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In-article usage discussion (2011)
I completely disagree with the name that is used in this article. I have lived in the Green Bay television market for my entire life, it ALWAYS called "the Bay of Green Bay". Even when I have traveled to Door County, Wisconsin, the locals call it "the Bay of Green Bay" not Green Bay. WP:NAME says "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Locals will not recognize it as Green Bay. Royal broil 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Even" when you have traveled to Door County? Is that supposed to be an expedition to a faraway land?  Of course in Door County they use "the Bay of Green Bay", Green Bay is a marginal body of water defined by the Door Peninsula.  That you have lived in the GB TV market your whole life is the precise reason your opinion should carry so little weight in this discussion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're responding to a 3.5 year old comment. I see you don't get my point.  Royal broil  19:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a long time, but I've engaged in discussions with no comments for nearly two years, and gotten a response. Given that you have been actively editing this stuff, I thought you might read it and reply, and so you have.
 * And yes, if, after reading my comment, you feel that I don't get your point, you surely must be correct--I guess I don't. Could you try to explain it again? HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had commented that I thought another alternative name should have been used. Obviously I lost this one, yet somehow my life has kept going (sarcasm). I do have a comment about how you are editing articles about object in water systems that flow into this bay. The pipe trick that you're using for this Bay, which isn't well-known to nearly all readers (besides cartographers), is confusing. The city is the primary topic by a wide margin. When I read what you're doing to the articles which wikilink into here, I read (as a reader) that the river is flowing into the city of Green Bay. While that's true, that's not what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that it flows into Lake Michigan at one of its bays. I think that most readers are missing that point since they won't follow the wikilink. Green Bay (the city) is known around the U.S. as the home of the Green Bay Packers (Freekee made that comment too). In other words, context needs to be strongly established since there are other competing uses for the term. It is locally disambiguated by calling it the Bay of Green Bay. I'm not from the city and I recognize that it doesn't have to be disambiguated that way. You clearly oppose the term. As long as the articles clearly state that the term "Green Bay" refers to a Bay and not the city, then I'll be fine. I have been considering bringing up this concern on your talk page, so you tipped my hand. And it's happening at the proper forum.  Royal  broil  02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern is clearly valid. Indeed, I've been proceeding cautiously, instead of changing them all at one fell swoop, specifically because of my mild discomfort with the ambiguity created.  You're right, I don't favor the localism, but not because there's anything wrong with it, but simply because it is a localism, which I think should be discouraged on Wikipedia.  Indeed, I actually don't think (unlike many others, apparently) that "Bay of Green Bay" is an awkward turn of phrase; my personal sentiment rather favors it, actually.  But I believe Wikipedia policy discourages its use, so much so, that I actually think that the ambiguity that exists when it is not used is actually more acceptable that the localism.
 * By proceeding slowly, I've hoped that either a) while reading over the new text, I would be hit by some inspired way to eliminate the ambiguity, or b) that someone else would come along with an idea. You've shown me that at least someone is paying attention, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that, thus far, you are any more inspired than me. I remain open to ideas, and, for the time being, I shall not change any more of the articles using BoGB.  (I do think that each article can probably be written individually to eliminate both the localism and the ambiguity, simply by more careful crafting of the sentences.  But I'm hoping for a solution that can be generally substituted into all articles currently using BoGB.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why local usage might result in "Bay of Green Bay", but I must say when I first saw that phrase, here on Wikipedia (I'm not from the area nor have ever been), it seemed quite silly in its redundancy--as if the bay's bayness is so strong one needs to say "bay" twice. I imagined a world with a River of the Mississippi River, Canal of the Suez Canal, Ocean of the Pacific Ocean, and so on. Of course I did get why this usage would come about, but it still sounds, to my ears, quite funny. Anyway, just relating my experience. I personally don't care what name is used on Wikipedia, but thought worth pointing out how BoGB might sound a bit silly to outsiders, for whatever that is worth. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand how it can sound odd (though I rather like it). But what matters is, according to Wikipedia policy, what is the name generally recognized in most [English language] sources.  And yes, I'm willing to count MinneWisonsonian sources as "English" :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (2 edit conflicts) I'm glad that I was able to successfully explain my viewpoint as it took lots of work to make it clear. Perhaps explaining using more words would help a lot. Another approach would be to eliminate the usage altogether. Using a similar scenario, I would rather read text saying that a river empties into Lake Superior instead of reading that it empties into the Keweenaw Bay. I made edits to the Fox River (Wisconsin) and I'd like your opinion. That's the most well-known river to empty into the bay. I assume that you (Pfly) understand the first "Bay" is added to differentiate it from the City of Green Bay and Town of Green Bay. The town versus city of Green Bay is not a mistake - rather a can of worms not worth opening up.  Royal broil  05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is certainly more succinct than "Green Bay, um, the watery one that is". And I can't think of a reasonable alternative offhand. It still makes me giggle a little though. I'm not a football fan, rather more into things like obscure history, such as the early French explorers of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi River watershed. I'm also a geographer/cartographer, more interested in natural landforms over human geography, all of which has made me more familiar with the bay of Green Bay than the city (and town, there's a town too? Egads), although I realize most people would likely think of the city first. Anyway, bay of Green Bay, alright! It's catchily catchy! ...er, wait...similar to the "the Chesapeake Bay" thing, shouldn't it be "bay of Green Bay" and not "Bay of Green Bay"? Pfly (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two comments for RB:
 * I have commented on your change at Fox River (Wisconsin) on the talk page for that article; to sum it up, I think your edits bring us much closer to a solution.
 * Per your comment here, if changing the hydrological references to Lake Michigan in all or even some cases is acceptable to a native of the region, then I think it almost goes without saying that to the rest of the world it would also be an acceptable solution.
 * Cheers, HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have opened a thread at WikiProject Wisconsin, which is one of the most active state WikiProjects. Things are moving in the right direction and I think more input would help us get cleaner wording. What you have proposed at the Fox River article is okay but it could be improved.  Royal broil  02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One quick note: since the bay also borders the UP of Michigan, I added the WP-Michigan template, Michigan geo stub, and category relating to the category:Bays of Michigan to the article itself. Thanks-RFD (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what y'all are arguing about here, but I'll throw a couple of pennies in... First of all, I don't think "Lake Michigan" as a disambiguator, is going anywhere. See Tomer's comments above, from Nov 2006, regarding consistency with river disamb. Second, regarding the sentence, The Lower Fox ends after flowing through the city of Green Bay and into Lake Michigan through a bay named Green Bay.... I think that's cumbersome. RoyalBroil, you are concerned with creating the impression that that the river flows into the city of Green Bay, rather than the bay itself, but I really don't think this is an issue. There is a certain amount of ambiguity that is cleared up by the fact that you're talking about a body of water that is flowing into another body of water. "The Lower Fox empties into Green Bay." The only people who would be confused by this are ones who have heard of the city, but not the bay, and who don't catch that the word "Bay" in "Green Bay" refers to a kind of body of water that rivers commonly flow into (note that you can always fall back on the destinations of the links, to cover those rare cases where readers just don't get it). Now if the Fox emptied into the city, for some reason, you would have to be clear about it, like saying "The Lower Fox empties into the city of Green Bay." Oh, one other thing... do people really call it "the bay of Green Bay"? -Freekee (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's cumbersome. That's why I'm asking how it could be make more concise without being so cumbersome. In the Fox River article, which is well know for passing through the city of Green Bay, says it flows into Green Bay - then we have a problem. Which Green Bay? I read it as the city. I know that I lost the battle for having the article about the bay named Green Bay (Lake Michigan) instead of Bay of Green Bay. You asked if people call it the Bay of Green Bay. If you would watch Green Bay television or read area newspapers, you would see that it is almost always called the Bay of Green Bay. Here's some reliable sources: University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, National Weather Service, WFRV TV 5 in Green Bay (initials stand for Wisconsin's Fox River Valley).  Royal broil  04:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence is cumbersome, not only because of the need for disambiguation, but that there's a lot of information that needs to be conveyed. The river ends in the bay, and also in the city, and then we tack on a note that the bay is connected to Lake Michigan. Do we need all of that info? How about, "The Lower Fox flows into Green Bay at the city of Green Bay"? -Freekee (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think Freekee's point is a valid one; namely, that this isn't really a problem. If we say that the Fox empties into Green Bay, no one with an IQ above 70 is going to think that the river is filling up the downtown area of a city, it will be assumed by most everyone that this refers to a body of water, not a city.  Accordingly, it's not necessary to do any disambiguatory contortions. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It's not necessary to prove (to me, anyway) that local usage is to refer to the body of water as "the Bay of Green Bay". I've never questioned that, and don't recall anyone else questioning it either.  I merely object to allowing local usage dictate our usage on the most widely read encyclopedia on the planet. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the harm in doing a little explanation when it's not clear to everyone by the context? If I'm taking the content to mean something different that its intention, then that means it needs work since others are probably taking it that same wrong way. I wouldn't be arguing the point otherwise since I have better things to do with my life. I don't understand how you can't be seeing that the city is far more well known than the bay. What percentage of Americans know that there's a bay with this name compared to the city with its well known football team in the Super Bowl? Rivers often do flow through cities as many cities developed around water (no one said anything about the downtown filling up with water). I hope that you're not saying that my IQ is less than 70.  Royal broil  05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not questioning your IQ at all. The problem may be (I repeat, may be) your closeness to the subject keeps you from seeing what is clear to those of us not from the area.  Do I agree that the city of Green Bay is better known (at least in the US) than the body of water?  Absolutely.  Yet, despite that fact, there are others here who do not sense the need to disambiguate, because the context makes it clear that the Fox is flowing into a body of water.  I was not saying that anyone said anything about downtown filling up with water, I was saying that, absent such a strange statement, the fact that a river is flowing into a Bay and not a city is manifestly clear, except perhaps, to denizens of the area, such as yourself.  Rivers flow through towns, not "into" them (unless a levee is topped or breaks, of course!). HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Out of curiosity, I looked for other places with similar name issues. I thought Tampa Bay would be one, but didn't realize the city is just Tampa. Didn't find anything with Green Bay's particular traits in this regard (famous city, not very famous bay). There's Key West, the island, and Key West, Florida, the city, but the island itself is rather famous, so. There's Thunder Bay, the city, and Thunder Bay (Ontario landform), the bay. Those two might be fairly close to the Green Bay city and bay type of conundrum (very awkward solution though!). Seeing Thunder Bay, the bay, working without disambiguation, I assumed there were other pages about bays named Green Bay, thus a need to disambiguate. But Green Bay, the disambig page, shows only one other bay of that name listed, and it is a redlink. So a possible solution would be to use Green Bay for the bay and Green Bay, Wisconsin for the city. Naturally people looking for the city will end up at the bay's page, but a hatnote at the top can point them the right way. I can guess the arguments against this idea; I like the simplicity though. Just a thought. Pfly (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Excellent work, Pfly. Looking at both Kaministiquia River and Current River, it appears that they have adopted the same approach as Royalbroil used here.  I would be comfortable with making this the general approach for Green Bay articles, as well. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Bay (Lake Michigan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509143029/http://www.foxriverwatch.com/statistics_green_bay.html to http://www.foxriverwatch.com/statistics_green_bay.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a geology section
There is only minimal discussion of the geology. Things to answer in that section would include how the bay was created. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Green Bay (Lake Michigan)


text:
User talk:Kerahna

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:29, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kerahna


text:
Baron Dulverton

Baron Dulverton, of Batsford in the County of Gloucester, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1929 for the businessman Sir Gilbert Wills, 2nd Baronet. He was President of the Imperial Tobacco Company and also sat as a Conservative Member of Parliament for Taunton and Weston-super-Mare. The Wills Baronetcy, of Manor Heath in the Parish of Bournemouth in the County of Southampton, was created in 1897 for his father Frederick Wills. He was a director of W. D. & H. O. Wills, which later merged into the Imperial Tobacco Company, and also represented Bristol North in Parliament as a Liberal Unionist. A member of the wealthy Bristol tobacco importing Wills family, he was the younger brother of Sir Edward Payson Wills, 1st Baronet, a half brother of Sir Frank William Wills Kt., and the cousin of William Wills, 1st Baron Winterstoke. In 1966 the Wills family contained the largest number of millionaires in the British Isles, with 14 members leaving fortunes in excess of one million pounds since 1910, totalling £55 million. the titles are held by the first Baron's grandson, the third Baron, who succeeded his father in 1992.

The family seat is Batsford Park, near Batsford, Gloucestershire.

Wills baronets, of Manor Heath (1897)

 * Sir Frederick Wills, 1st Baronet (1838–1909)
 * Sir Gilbert Alan Hamilton Wills, 2nd Baronet (1880–1956) (created Baron Dulverton in 1929)

Barons Dulverton (1929)

 * Gilbert Alan Hamilton Wills, 1st Baron Dulverton (1880–1956)
 * (Frederick) Anthony Hamilton Wills, 2nd Baron Dulverton (1915–1992)
 * (Gilbert) Michael Hamilton Wills, 3rd Baron Dulverton (b. 1944)

The heir apparent is the present holder's only son Hon. Robert Anthony Hamilton Wills (b. 1983) who is working for Capital Collective Limited in the UK.

title: Baron Dulverton


text:
Half-Life: Opposing Force

Half-Life: Opposing Force is an expansion pack for the first-person shooter game Half-Life. It was developed by Gearbox Software and published by Sierra On-Line for Windows on November 19, 1999. Opposing Force was the first expansion for Half-Life and was announced in April 1999. Lead designer Randy Pitchford noted that he believed Gearbox was selected to develop Opposing Force because Valve, the creators of Half-Life, wanted to concentrate on their future projects. Over the course of development, Gearbox brought in a variety of talent from other areas of the video games industry to help bolster various aspects of design.

Opposing Force portrays the events of Half-Life from the perspective of a U.S. Marine, one of the enemy characters in the original. The player character, Adrian Shephard, is sent in to neutralize the Black Mesa Research Facility when a scientific mishap causes it to be invaded by aliens, but quickly finds that the Marines are outnumbered and slowly being beaten back by a second alien race and black operations units.

Opposing Force was received well by critics, with many describing it as the new benchmark title for expansion packs, in a similar fashion to how Half-Life revolutionized the first-person shooter genre. Other reviewers, however, thought that, despite its accomplishments, it still suffered from the negative aspects of other expansion packs.

Gameplay
As an expansion pack for Half-Life, Opposing Force is a first-person shooter. The overall gameplay of Opposing Force does not significantly differ from that of Half-Life. Players navigate through levels, fight hostile non-player characters and solve a variety of puzzles to advance. The game continues Half-Life's methods of an unbroken narrative. The player sees everything through the first person perspective of the protagonist and remains in control of the player character for almost all of the game. Story events are conveyed through the use of scripted sequences rather than cut scenes. Progress through the world is continuous; although the game is divided up into chapters, the only significant pauses are when the game needs to load the next part of an environment. Opposing Force also features an extended multiplayer, incorporating the various new environments and weapons into the original deathmatch mode used in Half-Life. After release, a new capture the flag mode with additional levels, items and powerups, was created by Gearbox.

For the most part the player battles through the single-player game alone, but is occasionally assisted by friendly non-player characters. Security guards and scientists will occasionally help the player in reaching new areas and convey relevant plot information. However, Opposing Force also features fellow U.S. Marines who will assist the player in combat to a far greater degree than security guards. Three types of Marines are featured in the game: the soldier will simply provide fire support for the player with a submachine gun, shotgun or machine gun, the combat medic is capable of healing the player and other non-player characters, while the engineer can cut through doors and remove obstacles, allowing the player and their squad to proceed unhindered. A selection of enemies from Half-Life populate the game, including alien creatures such as headcrabs and Vortigaunts.

A variety of new alien non-player characters, labelled "Race X", appear as well, often engaging in combat with the aliens from Xen. The player also encounters human opponents in the form of a detachment of black operations units who have been sent to destroy the base in the wake of the failure of the U.S. Marines to eliminate the alien threat. A limited selection of Half-Life's weaponry is allocated to the player to defend themselves with, although several new weapons such as a sniper rifle, combat knife and a variety of alien weaponry are also present.

Setting
Opposing Force is set in the same location and timeframe as that of Half-Life, taking place at a remote New Mexico laboratory called the Black Mesa Research Facility. In Half-Life, the player takes on the role of Gordon Freeman, a scientist involved in an accident that opens an inter-dimensional portal to the borderworld of Xen, allowing the alien creatures of Xen to attack the facility. The player guides Freeman in an attempt to escape the facility and close the portal, ultimately traveling to Xen to do so. Opposing Force, however, shows the events of Half-Life from the perspective of a different protagonist. The player assumes the role of Adrian Shephard, a U.S. Marine Corps Corporal assigned to the Hazardous Environment Combat Unit, a specialized unit sent in to Black Mesa by the government to quell the alien threat and silence all witnesses. However, after Shephard becomes isolated from his fellow Marines, he must ally with the Black Mesa personnel and attempt to escape the base.

Plot
Opposing Force opens with Shephard riding on a V-22 Osprey with his squad. His squad discuss their deployment, somewhat irritated that they have not been told what they are being deployed for. However, as they are nearing their Landing Zone at Black Mesa, airborne alien creatures attack the Osprey formation, causing Shephard's Osprey to crash land. Shephard regains consciousness in a Black Mesa medical bay, tended to by the science team, learning that the Marines are being steadily beaten by the alien forces from Xen and orders have come through to pull out. Consequently, Shephard departs to reach an extraction point and escape the facility. However, Shephard is prevented from reaching the extraction point by the enigmatic G-Man, forcing the evacuation craft to leave without him.

Other Marines who have also been left behind team up with Shephard and attempt to reach another extraction point near Black Mesa's Lambda Complex, but en route they come under attack from black operations units seeking to thoroughly contain the situation and eliminate all survivors. Shephard makes it to the Lambda Complex alive, and briefly sees Gordon Freeman as the latter teleports to Xen in the final stages of Half-Life. To escape the teleportation chamber, Shephard is forced to enter a separate portal, briefly taking him to Xen before depositing him in an entirely different area of the facility. The facility is now heavily damaged, and it soon becomes clear that a new alien race, Race X, has exploited the situation to mount a localized invasion, attacking both human and Xen forces in Black Mesa indiscriminately. Fighting between the black operations units and Race X quickly intensifies.

Shephard encounters more stranded Marine units in the wreckage of Black Mesa, and attempts to reach an unknown exit route, encountering heavy resistance from Race X and black operations units. A surviving Black Mesa security guard reveals to Shephard that the black operators intend to detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in the base, thereby totally sealing it off and killing everything in it. After neutralizing the black ops unit guarding the device, Shephard disarms it and proceeds to a nearby storage facility to attempt another escape. As Shephard departs, the G-Man rearms the nuclear device. The storage facility has become a battleground between Race X and the black operation units. Although Shephard manages to evade them, he is informed by another security guard that something very large is coming through an alien portal blocking the exit path.

At the portal, Shephard discovers a gene worm, a massive creature facilitating the Race X invasion. Shephard is able to wound the creature enough to force it back through the wormhole, but immediately afterwards he is teleported onto an Osprey by the G-Man. As the G-Man congratulates Shephard on his accomplishments, the nuclear device detonates in the background, destroying Black Mesa. The game closes with the G-Man detaining Shephard someplace where he can tell no one of what he has seen and cannot be harmed, pending further evaluation.

Development
Half-Life: Opposing Force was announced by developer Gearbox Software on April 15, 1999. In their press release, founder Randy Pitchford stated that "our number one goal is to preserve the integrity of Half-Life and provide new experiences that expand upon the sensation of the original". The name Opposing Force has a double meaning, referring both to the fact that the player is one of the enemies in the original game, as well as to Newton's third law of motion. In a later interview, Pitchford stated that he believed that Valve offered Gearbox the chance to make a Half-Life expansion was from a wish "to focus on their future titles". In addition, Pitchford commented that Valve and Gearbox had agreed not to "severely modify" the game engine used by Half-Life and Opposing Force as it "risks breaking all of the wonderful work" that the game's custom content community was creating. Substantial information on Opposing Force's development direction, as well as new locations, characters and story were revealed at the 1999 Electronic Entertainment Expo convention. The official website for Opposing Force, hosted by publisher Sierra Studios, was put online in July 1999. Opposing Force was developed in 8 months by a team of more than 15 people.

Over the course of development, Gearbox acquired various outside talent to assist in designing some aspects. In June 1999, Gearbox announced that level designer Richard Gray would be assisting in developing the multiplayer aspects. Several other designers subsequently joined the project in September 1999, with collective experience from the development of Daikatana, Quake II, Doom and Shadow Warrior. In the subsequent two months, media releases displaying a variety of screenshots were unveiled. The game was released on November 19, 1999. Gearbox later released a multiplayer update in May 2000, adding a capture the flag mode, along with various items to accompany the new mode. Opposing Force was later released on Valve's Steam content delivery system. Opposing Force was published as part of Sierra's Half-Life: Generation compilation in 2002, and as part of Valve and Electronic Arts' Half Life 1: Anthology on September 26, 2005.

Reception
Opposing Force received mainly positive reviews, holding a score of 85.45% on the review aggregator site GameRankings. In the United States, the game sold 108,008 copies by the end of 1999. Although figures for sales on Steam have not been released, Opposing Force eventually sold over 1.1 million copies at retail.

Computer and Video Games reviewer Kim Randell noted that "Gearbox has obviously gone to great pains to provide a similar experience to the original". Praise was also given to the multiplayer; Randell stated that the new additions for multiplayer made it the area of Opposing Force that "really shines". Randell closed the review by concluding that Opposing Force is "an awesome achievement". Erik Wolpaw, writing for GameSpot, noted that as most expansion packs were mediocre, "it's appropriate that Gearbox Software's Opposing Force, the official expansion for the genre-redefining Half-Life, in turn sets a new standard of quality for future action-game mission packs". Wolpaw praised the design of the single-player campaign, commenting that "you can sense the designers' enthusiasm as one memorable scene unfolds after another, and it compels you to keep playing". Although criticizing some elements of the artificial intelligence and describing some of the new models as "merely window dressing", the review concluded that Opposing Force was an "impassioned application of creative design".

GamePro stated that "Gearbox has done one hell of a job in creating not just an add-on for Half-Life, but a continuation of a masterpiece", praising both level design and story elements, but noted that it was a little too short. However, some critics dissented on the idea that Opposing Force was as influential as other reviewers made out.

PC Zone stated that "the taste left in the mouth is a bitter one", noting that "Opposing Force is a few excellent ideas strung together by pedestrian Half-Life padding", but concluded that "it was still a good weekend's worth of entertainment". Eurogamer stated that Opposing Force still had similar problems to other expansion packs, commenting that "X amount of new content has been created and it is going to be cut into the old content in a linear way to make it look like an all new game", but noted that "fortunately though the new stuff in Opposing Force... is pretty damn good". Although praising the level design as the game's strongest point, the reviewer felt that "towards the end of the game... they were running out of development time". Reviewing for IGN, Vincent Lopez stated that the game "does a fantastic job of making you remember exactly why you enjoyed the original so much", but criticized this as the biggest drawback, commenting that "you may find yourself wishing for a more original experience", but concluded that "for good, and bad: it's good to be back".

The game won several publication awards, as well as "Computer Action Game of the Year" from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences during the 3rd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards. The editors of PC Gamer US presented Opposing Force with their 1999 "Best Expansion Pack" award, and nominated it as 1999's overall best game of the year, although it lost the latter prize to Homeworld. They wrote that Opposing Force "makes history by becoming the first expansion pack to be considered for Game of the Year. Yes, it really is that good."

title: Half-Life: Opposing Force


text:
User talk:Rik G.

Hello Rik, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:30, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Finnish grammar
Great work on the Finnish grammar tables, Kooo.

Rik G.

 * Thanks! I'm glad to hear it :-) —kooo 02:03, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image question
You uploaded Image:Leostrauss.jpg but didn't provide any source information. Can you provide this? Otherwise, the image will have to be deleted. Thanks. Phil Sandifer 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Again an image question
You uploaded Image:Hans_rudel.jpeg but didn't provide any source information. Can you provide this? I found that picture under commons and in the german wp too. We need to know how you had the right to put it under GNU-GFLP. de:Benutzer:Tobnu -- 80.139.108.78 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Same for Image:Carlschmitt.jpg. I doubt that you are the author of this image or hold any rights, therefore you cannot publish it under the gnu fdl. Furthermore the picture is not old enough so that copyright would have expired. Thus it very much seems it is a copyright infringment. If so, please stop uploading copyrighted material. thanks. --C.Löser 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Carlschmitt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carlschmitt.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Conscious 06:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arms_Nijmegen.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Arms_Nijmegen.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Erich_Brandenberger.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Erich_Brandenberger.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Heli.fw-61.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heli.fw-61.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Heli.fw-61.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heli.fw-61.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Born2flie 10:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Eugenegoossens.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Eugenegoossens.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Rik_G. this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kam Solusar (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bluecherstern.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Bluecherstern.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Rik_G. this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kam Solusar (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Weapon Nijmegen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Weapon Nijmegen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Rik_G. this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kam Solusar (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Waalbrug Nijmegen2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Waalbrug Nijmegen2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Rik_G. this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kam Solusar (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of golf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nova Zembla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creative. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borland C. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Musicator

The article Musicator has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NSOFT. Doesn't even assert notability (but doesn't qualify for A7).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro

The article Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NSOFT. Doesn't assert notability, but doesn't qualify for A7.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of compositions by Eugene Aynsley Goossens
Thanks for creating List of compositions by Eugene Aynsley Goossens.

A New Page Patroller Meatsgains just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

"Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of compositions by Eugene Aynsley Goossens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edwin Evans ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_compositions_by_Eugene_Aynsley_Goossens check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_compositions_by_Eugene_Aynsley_Goossens?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rik G.


text:
Barabbas

Barabbas was, according to the New Testament, a prisoner who was chosen over Jesus by the crowd in Jerusalem to be pardoned and released by Roman governor Pontius Pilate at the Passover feast.

Biblical account
According to all four canonical gospels there was a prevailing Passover custom in Jerusalem that allowed Pontius Pilate, the praefectus or governor of Judea, to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim. In one such instance, the "crowd" (ὄχλος : óchlos), "the Jews" and "the multitude" in some sources, are offered the choice to have either Barabbas or Jesus released from Roman custody. According to the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the account in John, the crowd chooses Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. Pilate reluctantly yields to the insistence of the crowd. One passage, found in the Gospel of Matthew, has the crowd saying (of Jesus), "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children."

Matthew refers to Barabbas only as a "notorious prisoner". Mark and Luke further refer to Barabbas as one involved in a στάσις (stásis, a riot), probably "one of the numerous insurrections against the Roman power" who had committed murder. Robert Eisenman states that John 18:40 refers to Barabbas as a λῃστής (lēistēs, "bandit"), "the word Josephus always employs when talking about Revolutionaries".

Three gospels state that there was a custom that at Passover the Roman governor would release a prisoner of the crowd's choice;, , and. Later copies of Luke contain a corresponding verse, although this is not present in the earliest manuscripts, and may be a later gloss to bring Luke into conformity.

The custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover is known to theologians as the Paschal Pardon, but this custom (whether at Passover or any other time) is not recorded in any historical document other than the gospels, leading some scholars to question its historicity and make further claims that such a custom was a mere narrative invention of the Bible's writers.

Name
There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply without a first name. However the variations found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus. The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name. These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars. Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text. He however does not account for the high priest from 2 Maccabees 4:13, whose name seems to transliterate the same Aramaic name into Greek, as well as other bearers of the name Jesus mentioned by Josephus. It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.

Etymology
Of the two larger categories in which transmitted versions of this name fall, seems to represent Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: בּר רַבָּן, romanized: Bar Rabbān, lit. 'Son of our Rabbi/Master', while appears to derive ultimately from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: בּר אַבָּא , romanized: Bar ʾAbbā lit. 'Son of ʾAbbā/[the] father', a patronymic Aramaic name. However, ʾAbbā has been found as a personal name in a 1st-century burial at Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Additionally it appears fairly often as a personal name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, a Jewish text dating from AD 200–400.

Historicity
According to Max Dimont, the story of Barabbas as related in the Gospels lacks credibility from both the Roman and Jewish standpoint. The story, on its face, presents the Roman authority, Pontius Pilate, backed by overwhelming military might, being cowed by a small crowd of unarmed civilians into releasing a prisoner condemned to death for insurrection against the Roman Empire. Further, Dimont argues against the believability of the Barabbas story by noting that the alleged custom of privilegium Paschale, "the privilege of Passover", where a criminal is set free, is only found in the Gospels. Raymond E. Brown argued that the Gospels' narratives about Barabbas cannot be considered historical, but that it is probable that a prisoner referred to as Barabbas (bar abba, "son of the father") was indeed freed around the period Jesus was crucified and this gave birth to the story.

Similarly, Bart D. Ehrman strongly believes that the story lacks credibility, as it is not in Pontius Pilate's character to release an insurrectionist for the Jews, as well as commenting that the name Barabbas "son of the father" is interestingly similar to Jesus's role as the son of God.

On the other hand, Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright argue in favor of the historicity of the Passover pardon narrative, quoting evidence of such pardons from Livy's Books from the Foundation of the City, Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, Papyrus Florence, Pliny the Younger's Epistles and the Mishnah.

The similarities of the name in some manuscripts and the name of Jesus have led some modern scholars to argue that the counter-intuitive similarity of the two men's names is evidence of its historicity. They doubt a Christian writer would invent a similar name for a criminal, practically equating Christ with a criminal, if he were fictionalizing the story for a polemical or theological purpose.

A minority of scholars, including Benjamin Urrutia, Stevan Davies, Hyam Maccoby and Horace Abram Rigg, have contended that Barabbas and Jesus were the same person.

Antisemitism
The story of Barabbas has played a role in historical antisemitism because it has historically been used to lay the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews, and thereby to justify antisemitism – an interpretation known as Jewish deicide.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2011 book Jesus of Nazareth, dismisses this reading, since the Greek word "ὄχλος : óchlos" in means "crowd", rather than "Jewish people".

In literature
Samuel Crossman's English hymn, My Song Is Love Unknown (published 1684) contains this verse alluding anonymously to Barabbas as "a murderer"

 * They rise, and needs will have
 * my dear Lord made away;
 * a murderer they save,
 * the Prince of Life they slay.
 * Yet cheerful He
 * to suffering goes,
 * that He His foes
 * from thence might free.

title: Barabbas


text:
Baron Dickinson

Baron Dickinson, of Painswick in the County of Gloucester, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 18 January 1930 for the Liberal politician Sir Willoughby Dickinson, who previously represented St Pancras North as its MP in the House of Commons. He was the only son of Sebastian Dickinson, Member of Parliament for Stroud from 1868 to 1874, and a grandson of Major General Thomas Dickinson, IA (1784–1861).

Frances Davidson, Viscountess Davidson, DBE, younger daughter of the first Baron, was a Conservative Member of Parliament, created a Life Peeress as Baroness Northchurch in 1964.

The second Baron, Richard Dickinson, was director of the Painswick Garden Estate, a trustee of the Painswick Rococo Garden Trust and a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers. The eldest son of the Hon. Richard Dickinson DSO, only son of the first Baron, he succeeded his grandfather to the barony in 1943.

The Very Rev. Hon. Hugh Dickinson, Dean of Salisbury from 1986 until 1996, was the younger grandson of the first Baron. Award-winning author, the Hon. Peter Dickinson FRSL was younger brother of the second Baron.

the title is held by the first Baron's great-grandson, Martin Dickinson, as third Baron, who succeeded his father in 2019.

Barons Dickinson (1930)

 * Willoughby Hyett Dickinson, 1st Baron Dickinson, KBE (1859–1943)
 * Hon. Richard Sebastian Willoughby Dickinson (1897–1935)
 * Richard Clavering Hyett Dickinson, 2nd Baron Dickinson (1926–2019)
 * Martin Hyett Dickinson, 3rd Baron Dickinson (b. 1961)

The heir presumptive is the present Baron's brother the Hon. Andrew Dickinson (b. 1963)

title: Baron Dickinson


text:
Talk:Spam in blogs/Archive/2004

Are we certain that this is actually something promoted by the film studio? It doesn't sound like the work of a film studio but of someone trying to pass themselves as part of it. The movie is controversial enough that someone trying to cast the creators in a poor light sounds plausible enough. Can we get verification? RadicalBender 21:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * And just for clarification, I don't mean verification that the spam exists, we can see that. We need verification that an actual movie studio is attempting to do this.  The accusation you are levying is very serious and the only evidence thus far is some positing by bloggers.  Show me a studio press release or a News.com article that verifies that this is a studio campaign.  RadicalBender 22:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You are of course correct. I shall go away and see what I can find. - David Gerard 22:10, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I added a redirect from link spam to this page. Also, since this is a form of spamdexing, the Spamdexing page links to link spam.

I removed the link to the blacklist on Wiki because its existence there is currently the source of some controversy. -- Hex 22:05, Jul 4, 2004 (BST)

title: Talk:Spam in blogs/Archive/2004