text:
Norbert of Xanten

Norbert of Xanten, O. Praem (c. 1075 – 6 June 1134) (Xanten-Magdeburg), also known as Norbert Gennep, was Archbishop of Magdeburg, founder of the Premonstratensian order of canons regular, and is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church. Norbert was canonized by Pope Gregory XIII in the year 1582, and his statue appears above the Piazza colonnade of St. Peter's Square in Rome.

Early Life
St. Norbert pursued worldly pleasures in the early part of his life. Even after he was ordained a subdeacon, he continued to live in a state of worldliness. He declined higher religious roles because he didn't want the restraints that came with the positions.

He later underwent a profound conversion after he was thrown from a horse when a bolt of lightning frightened the animal. Following this incident, he went to Xanten and pursued a devout, penitent life.

Early priesthood
He adopted such strict discipline that it killed his first three disciples. This may be why he failed to reform the canons of Xanten, who denounced him as an innovator at the Council of Fritzlar in 1118. He then resigned his benefice, sold all his property and gave the proceeds to the poor. He visited Pope Gelasius II, who gave him permission to become an itinerant preacher and he preached throughout lands in what is now western Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France, being credited with a number of miracles. In settlement after settlement he encountered a demoralized clergy, lonely, often practicing concubinage and feeling that the official Church cared little about them.

In Paris he would have witnessed the Canons of St. Victor, who had adopted the ascetic ideals of William of Champeaux. At Clairvaux and Citeaux he would have seen the Cistercian reforms among the monks. He also became acquainted with the Cistercian administrative system that created an international federation of monasteries with fair amount of centralized power, though local houses had a certain amount of independence. These reforms, written up in their “Charter of Charity” would affect him significantly in his own future work.

Canons Regular of Prémontré
At the Council of Reims in October 1119, Pope Calixtus II requested Norbert to found a religious order in the Diocese of Laon in France. On Christmas Day, 1120, Norbert established the Canons Regular of Prémontré.

For a Rule of life, Norbert chose the Rule of St. Augustine as was common among communities of priests -‘canons’. In addition he adapted some of the customs of the Cistercians. Even more of these would be brought in later by Norbert's successor, Abbot Hugh of Fosse. In effect he produced a community that would be somewhat monastic as far as house ministry. The whole idea was that his active priests needed an ascetic and contemplative haven and that was the purpose of the abbey discipline.

Norbert chose a valley in the Forest of Coucy (a grant from Barthélemy de Jur, the Bishop of Laon), about 10 miles from Laon, named Prémontré. Hugh of Fosses, Evermode of Ratzeburg, Antony of Nivelles, seven students of the celebrated school of Anselm, and Ralph of Laon were among his first thirteen disciples. By the next year the community had grown to 40. They all took their vows and the Order of Canons Regular of Prémontré was founded. The young community at first lived in huts of wood and clay, arranged like a camp around the chapel of Saint John the Baptist, but they soon built a larger church and a monastery for the religious who joined them in increasing numbers. Going to Cologne to obtain relics for their church, Norbert is said to have discovered, through a dream, the spot where those of Ursula and her companions, of Gereon, and of other martyrs lay hidden. In 1125/6, the constitution for the order was approved by Pope Honorius II.

Norbert gained adherents in Germany, France, Belgium and Hungary, and houses of his order were founded in Floreffe, Viviers, St-Josse, Ardenne, Cuissy, Laon, Liège, Antwerp, Varlar, Kappenberg, Nagyvárad (Oradea/Großwardein) and elsewhere. Count Theobald II of Champagne wanted to enter the new order, but Norbert counseled him to remain a layman and marry. Norbert prescribed a few rules and invested Theobald with the white scapular of the order, and thus, in 1122, the Third Order of St. Norbert was instituted. He continued to preach throughout France, Belgium and Germany and was successful in combatting a eucharistic heresy in Antwerp proposed by one Tanchelm. In commemoration of this, Norbert has been proclaimed the "Apostle of Antwerp".

Archbishop of Magdeburg
In 1126 Pope Honorius II appointed Norbert to the Archbishopric of Magdeburg, where he put into practice the precepts he instituted at Prémontré. Several assassination attempts were made as he began to reform the lax discipline of his see. He was instrumental in protecting the Church's rights against the secular power during the Investiture Controversy.

In the schism following the election of Pope Innocent II in 1130, Norbert supported Innocent and resisted Antipope Anacletus II. In Norbert's last years, he was chancellor and adviser to Lothair II, the Holy Roman Emperor, persuading him to lead an army in 1133 to Rome to restore Innocent to the papacy.

Veneration

When Norbert died in Magdeburg on 6 June 1134, both the canons at the cathedral and the canons at St. Mary's Abbey claimed the body. The two parties resorted to Lothair III who decreed the body should be buried in the Norbertine Abbey. In 1524, Martin Luther preached in the city and, as a result, Magdeburg became a Protestant city. Numerous attempts were made over the centuries by the Abbey of Strahov in Prague to retrieve Norbert's body. Only after several military defeats at the hand of Emperor Ferdinand II was the abbot of Strahov able to claim the body. On 2 May 1627 the body was finally brought to Prague where it remains to this day, displayed as an auto-icon in a glass-fronted tomb.

Norbert was canonized by Pope Gregory XIII in the year 1582, and his statue appears above the Piazza colonnade of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Legacy
Premonstratensian (or Norbertine) Canons in Europe, the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, South America, Zaire, South Africa, India and Australia are involved in education, parochial ministry, university chaplaincy also youth work. St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wisconsin, is the first institution of higher education to be founded by the Norbertine order. St. Norbert College also houses the Center for Norbertine Studies, a collaborative partnership between the college and the Premonstratensian order.

title: Norbert of Xanten


text:
Midnight Club II

Midnight Club II is a 2003 racing video game developed by Rockstar San Diego and published by Rockstar Games. It is the sequel to Midnight Club: Street Racing, published for the PlayStation 2, Xbox and Microsoft Windows and first in series to feature motorcycles. Players can race through cities based on Los Angeles, Paris, and Tokyo. The game also features an online multiplayer component. It is the second game in Midnight Club franchise, followed by Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition.

Gameplay
Races (Career and Arcade) consist of a series of checkpoints, represented by columns of light. In most races, the order in which the checkpoints must be cleared is prescribed. In this case, a transparent, glowing arrow points to the next checkpoint. In a few other races, the checkpoints may be cleared in any order. In that case, the arrow spins randomly without pointing in any particular direction. It is up to the player which route to take from one checkpoint to the next. There are no artificial barriers in the game's open world environment that force the player to stay on a specific course. Any area that is drivable or jumpable in the free-roaming cruise mode between races may be used to get to the next checkpoint.

Some areas can be driven upon that are not intended for such use outside of a computer game. Examples are escalators, roofs, railways and riverbeds and many ramps. However, many areas that would be drivable in reality, for example entrances and some stairs, are fenced off with invisible barriers. In some areas, the player can jump or drop down. Using this to the player's advantage can be necessary in order to win a race. If the car falls into deep water, the damage meter goes to its maximum stage and the car is instantly totaled, the race being immediately lost. Various details have been improved compared to its predecessor Midnight Club: Street Racing. Vehicles and cities have been developed from scratch, but many new features were added as well. 2-Wheel drive, Burnout, Weight Balance (for motorbikes) were all unique to the game. The game also features damage models. The amount of damage inflicted upon a car is indicated by both an HUD indicator and visual damage to the car. The performance of a car does not degrade with damage like some other racing games. When the damage limit of a car is exceeded, the car explodes or stalls. After a delay of a few seconds, the player can continue with an undamaged version of the same car.

Dry, hilly suburbs and congested interstates can be found throughout Los Angeles, and just like its predecessor, the city contains many landmarks, as well as numerous shortcuts and jumps. Paris is the home to cobblestone alleyways, monumental roundabouts, and the Paris Catacombs, as well as jumps across the river Seine and into alleyways. Tokyo is a city of neon-glittering avenues and tight alleyways, and contains an equal array of tourist sights and attractions.

The vehicles in Midnight Club II all resemble real-life vehicles but have subtle differences to their counterparts, such as different headlamps or tail lights. Also, most of them have aesthetical modifications commonly found in street racing and import scenes, such as spoilers, hood scoops, and body kits.

In the car selection menu, descriptions and stats of each vehicle can be seen, along with the option to choose among 4 colors. Once a car is viewed, a sound effect unique to that car is played in the background. Each character will cruise around the city, waiting for a challenge. This excludes Moses, who helps the player begin the Career Mode, as well as the four champions who will seek the player out after all predecessors are beaten. They will talk to the player or "think loudly" during pre-race cut-scenes, during which the player can discover their motives, see the statistics of their vehicle, and learn each character's unique theme song.

Soundtrack
The album was released at E3 in 2003 as a promotional gift. It consisted of mainly techno and trance music along with rap music. The soundtrack contains 38 tracks produced by various artists. The tracks "Outrun" and "Extra Dry" were featured from the 2002 film Irreversible and produced by Thomas Bangalter.

Reception
The game was met with positive reception. Metacritic gave it a score of 85 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version 86 out of 100 for the Xbox version, and 81 out of 100 for the PC version.

Entertainment Weekly gave it a B+ and stated that "whether racing against the clock or attempting to beat the other drivers in checkpoint contests, memorizing the maps and finding the many shortcuts is crucial". The Village Voice gave the PS2 version a score of eight out of ten and wrote that "the only way [Rockstar] could make [the game] better would be to set it in Boston, where drunks get kicked out of the bars long after the T has shut down, flooding construction-choked highways". Maxim also gave the game a score of eight out of ten and said that "it may not boast garages bloated with the usual name-brand chick magnets you find in other racing games, but the dark racing underbelly of Midnight Club II has every bit as many thrills as the leading grease monkey autopia". Playboy gave it 75% and noted its controls as "touchy" and imprecise.

The game has sold 1.28 million copies worldwide on the PlayStation 2 version.

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

title: Midnight Club II


text: Template:Non-free Crown copyright

title: Template:Non-free Crown copyright


text: User talk:216.114.234.61

title: User talk:216.114.234.61


text:
Template talk:Non-free Crown copyright

'''Note that this licence has recently become non-free. Images uploaded which are still under Crown Copyright must have a Fair Use rationale to remain on Wikipedia. Images which are no longer covered by Crown Copyright should use the PD-BritishGov tag instead.'''

'''Also note that not everything on a UK government web site is actually under Crown copyright and that the Royal Arms, departmental and agency logos are not covered under the typical terms of use for a website. They cannot be used without specific permission.'''

List of copyright notices

 * Adjudicator's Office copyright notice
 * Ascension Island Government copyright notice
 * Air Accidents Investigation Board - Material except logos now OpeN Government Licene.
 * Audit Commission terms and conditions
 * Auditor General for Wales copyright notice
 * Benefit Fraud Inspectorate copyright notice
 * Bona Vacantia copyright notice
 * British Army copyright notice
 * British Monarchy Copyright and credit notice
 * British National Space Centre copyright notice
 * British Waterways Board Links FAQs and Downloads click on Privacy Policy - British Waterways Board was abolished in 2011?
 * Business Link copyright notice - note that this site uses stock photos from Corbis and Getty Images which are not Crown Copyright and not covered by this permission. - Materials on site Now Open Government License unless otherwise indicated.

 * Cabinet Office copyright notice
 * Census 1901 copyright notice
 * Census 2001 copyright notice
 * Charity Commission copyright notice
 * Civil Service Recruiting Gateway copyright notice
 * Companies House copyright notice
 * Consitutional Affairs copyright notice
 * Criminal Justice System copyright notice
 * Crown Prosecution Service copyright notice
 * Culture, Media and Sport copyright notice
 * Ministry of Defence copyright notice
 * Defence Picture Library copyright notice
 * DEFRA copyright notice
 * DirectGov (formerly UKOnline.gov.uk) copyright notice - note: images may only be used with permission
 * Disability Rights Commission - disability.gov.uk site has been merged with direct.gov.uk
 * Drinking Water Inspectorate copyright notice - OGL except were identified
 * Driving Standards Agency copyright notice
 * DVLA copyright notice
 * Education and Skills copyright notice
 * Environment Agency copyright statement
 * Financial Services Authority copyright statement
 * Food Standards Agency copyright statement
 * Foreign and Commonwealth Office copyright notice
 * Forensic Science Service copyright statement
 * Forestry Commission copyright statement
 * General Registry Office for Northern Ireland copyright statement
 * General Registry Office for Scotland copyright statement
 * GCHQ copyright notice
 * Government Actuary's Department copyright statement
 * Government Communication Network (formerly Government Information and Communication Service) copyright notice
 * Government News Network copyright notice
 * Health copyright notice
 * Health and Safety Executive copyright notice - note that some documents have different terms of reproduction
 * Her Majestys' Courts Service Terms and Conditions
 * Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration copyright notice
 * Highland Council copyright notice
 * Home Office copyright notice
 * Houses of Parliament copyright notice
 * Immigration and Nationality Directorate copyright notice
 * Imperial War Museum copyright notice
 * Inspectorate of Education copyright notice
 * Insolvency Service copyright notice
 * International Development copyright notice
 * Judicial Studies Board copyright notice
 * Just Ask copyright notice
 * Maritime and Coastguard Agency copyright notice
 * Medicines and Healthcare Products Registry Agency copyright notice
 * Met Office copyright notice
 * National Archives copyright notice
 * National Assembly for Wales copyright notice
 * National Crime Squad copyright notice
 * National Savings & Investments copyright notice
 * NHS Direct copyright notice
 * NHS Scotland copyright notice linked to in disclaimer
 * NHS Wales copyright notice
 * Northern Ireland Executive copyright notice
 * Office for National Statistics copyright notice
 * Office of the e-Envoy copyright notice
 * Office of the Rail Regulator copyright notice
 * Office of the Deputy Prime Minister copyright notice
 * OFGEM copyright notice
 * OFWAT copyright notice
 * OPSI, formerly HMSO copyright notice
 * Ordnance Survey copyright notice
 * Patent Office copyright notice
 * Planning Inspectorate copyright notice
 * Planning Portal copyright notice
 * Police Information Technology Organisation copyright notice
 * Prime Ministers Office Copyright notice
 * Prison Service copyright statement
 * Privy Council Office copyright notice
 * Public Appointments Unit copyright notice
 * Revenue and Customs (formerly Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise) copyright notice
 * RAF Marham copyright notice
 * Royal Air Force copyright notice
 * Royal Parks Agency copyright notice
 * Royal Navy copyright notice
 * Regulatory Impact Unit copyright notice
 * Scotland Court Service (SCS) - copyright notice
 * Scottish Executive copyright notice
 * Scotland Office copyright notice (DOC file, scroll down to "Copyrights" header)
 * Security Service (MI5) copyright notice
 * Small Business Service copyright notice
 * Social Exclusion Unit copyright notice
 * Trade and Industry copyright notice
 * Trading Standards copyright notice
 * Transport copyright notice
 * Treasury copyright notice
 * UCAS copyright notice
 * Valuation Office Agency copyright notice
 * Vehicle & Operator Services Agency copyright notice
 * Vehicle Certification Agency copyright notice
 * Veterinary Laboratories Agency copyright notice - seem to be mis-interpreting a Freedom of Information Act 2000 publication scheme, see http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/vla/aboutus/aboutus-pubscheme05.htm
 * Women & Equality Unit copyright notice
 * Work and Pensions copyright notice
 * Working in the UK copyright notice
 * Worktrain copyright notice
 * Youth Justice Board copyright notice

Related copyright notification pages

 * Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright - Learning and Skills Council material
 * Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright - National Audit Office material
 * Template:NHSCopyright - NHS material

Non-commercial or otherwise a little odd, need separate page

 * Commission for Racial Equality copyright notice
 * Information Commissioner copyright notice

For official HMSO guidance on the matter see Guidance Note 13 on their website.

Discussion
In the template list, all other templates in the same section as this have a copyright symbol in it, so I feel this template should have the same article. ©

--TwelveBaud (disusered) 01:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does crown copyright really allow this?
At least in Canada, Crown copyright appears to permit nothing of the sort. Could we have some references indicating that (for example) commercial use of Crown copyrighted images is legal? --Andrew 21:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * British Crown copyright does, and the licence is referring to British sites. Its naming is rather UK-centric but it's probably too much work to move things now. David Newton 22:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
I would like to fix the wording to indicate that it is specifically protected by the British version of Crown copyrigt, which is free, rather than (say) the Canadian, which isn't. --Andrew 23:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

national maritime museum
any solicitors out there want to take a crack at what this means to us?

usable crown copyright? fair use? run away, run away?

National Maritime Museum copyright notice

Seasee 06:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since this was posted, but the relevant section is this:
 * Permitted use
 * Access to and use of the Website is permitted only by individuals for personal and/or educational use or non-commercial purposes. Subject to certain limitations there is no infringement by 'fair dealing', e.g. using material for research (non-commercial) or private study, criticism or for news and current affairs.

 * You may access and download the Content and store a copy on a temporary basis for the sole purpose of viewing such Content without alteration or addition. You may print any Content (other than third party copyright) in whole or in part provided that such reproduction is to be used for personal and educational purposes only.
 * ie. NonCommercial. So no, it's not acceptable. However, as it states, fair use (or fair dealing) guidelines may allow for the use of some of the images in the correct context. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) • 11:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit
I think it would be useful to add a ... section to the bottom of the template page to the lists of site we can and can't use with this template at the top of this talk page. Maybe something like:

The licensing terms described in this template do not apply to all British Crown Copyright sources. Please check if the site you are taking images from is included in the list of sites this template applies to, found on the talk page, before using this template.

AJR | Talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Court Service now Her Majesty's Courts Service
The link above for Court Service is defunct, the new HMCS website has this page which I imagine is the relevant one. May we interpret

"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. "

as ok for use on wikipedia? Kurando | ^_^ 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It is essentially the same wording as many of the other sites, and matches what the template says, so I'd assume so. -- AJR | Talk 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List reviewed
I have gone through the list of allowed sites, above, updating links, etc. There were some where the current statement on the deptartment website would put the site into the "can't use" list - I have struck through these entries. In these cases, where the permission has been changed, do we have to track down images used from those sites and delete them, or does the permission from when we took thos eimages apply? -- AJR | Talk 12:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To be on the safe side, I updated all such images that I uploaded myself with a detailed fair use rationale. I'd recommend that this be done with any others that these changes apply to. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) • 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice
Please note that there is a dispute at Image talk:Kingcrown.jpg regarding an image from www.royal.gov.uk. The image is listed at Copyright problems (for the second time) under January 26, 2006. Enforcement of Crown Copyright is requested. User:Noisy | Talk 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Register Office (Scotland)
I can't see anything on the copyright notice provided by the site that would preclude use by third parties other than Wikipedia. It seems that all they require is attribution and that the copyright status be acknowledged. If I've missed something important that would prevent images from the site being used, please let me know. Lacking any response, I'll shift the notice into permitted two weeks from posting this message. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If you follow the link to the 'click-use' licence site, it seems to say that you actually have to apply for the licence, even for the two categories that are free. I think it's unclear.  Better to play on the safe side.  Noisy | Talk 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bold
Perhaps an idea to make 'not' bold within may not be relicensed. In my opinion this could prevent misreading. --Hardscarf 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-free licence?
After having a look around, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this license is ever free enough for Wikipedia. Every single instance of the licence includes the clause "subject to its reproduction being accurate". I'm assuming that this is equivalent to disallowing derivatives. All other licences banning derivatives (such as the Creative Commons licenses Cc-nd, cc-by-nd-2.0, etc.) are in the category, and a note is placed on the template to reflect that. This'd mean that all images in the Crown Copyright category would need to have a fair-use rationale appended. Thoughts? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The design of the template seems far too lenient considering the conditions for using works under Crown Copyright. I added a red (C) and also added this to the non-free templates category, since derivative works are not permitted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fortunately there seems to be only 263 images in the Crown Copyright category, so this is something we should be able to deal with easily. Personally I would tag all the images with a no-license-speedy-delete warning and notify all the uploaders giving them 7 days to make a fair use claim. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Or we could convert it to a "very safe fair use" tag. --Fastfission 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Images that were licensed under the Canadian Crown Copyright were either deleted or relicensed, so I think we should follow that example with this category of images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've nothing against keeping the tag itself, expecially since Fair Use tags add that you need to give all available copyright data. It also allows for easy checking when images fall out of Crown Copyright. The tag just needs to make explicit that it's not enough on its own, and needs a Fair Use rationale alongside. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So seeing as this isn't a valid license, everything needs to be tagged with no-license and re-evaluated... ed g2s • talk 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag redesign
To make it more obvious that the license is non-free, could the design be changed to resemble EU image (possibly as shown below)? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and made this change to discourage the use of this license. I had already added the red (C), but the previous design was still a bit "soft".  I wonder if this can even be used at all without the conjunction of a fair use tag, such as  . --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is not a valid license, I suggest all applicable photos be tagged with nld. ed g2s • talk 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * ed g2s, I think you are mistaken. It is a fair use tag, not a license tag, so a fair use rationale is needed, not nld. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
Images with this tag automatically fall under WP:FU. I recommended adding the following to the template:

Such wording seems to have become a standard rubric on fair use tags. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit
See Template:CrownCopyright/Proposed. To make it clearer that this is a "fair use" template. Peter O. (Talk) 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Done. Ashi b aka tock 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, but I'm afraid the notes below the template don't have a "noinclude" around them, see e.g. Image:101sqn-600.jpg, and also some categories are repeated twice in the template. Please fix these problems. Peter O. (Talk) 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I should hope. Ashi b aka tock 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks much better. Peter O. (Talk) 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add interwiki for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is: sr:Шаблон:КрунскоАуторскоПраво Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * editprotected done. CMummert · talk 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: Add a sortkey to Category:Crown copyright images
editprotected Please change line  to. Thanks, Iamunknown 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Harryboyles 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Iamunknown 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Need for this template?
Is there a need for this template? As we cannot use these images outside fair use anyway, why not just use an appropriate fair use tag instead? Seems to me that this tag is unnecessarily confusing and does not seem to add value.--Konstable 08:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon inspection seems to me the reason for it's existence is historical. I suggest it be labelled as deprecated and removed from all the pages listing image tags.--Konstable 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I'm missing something. CrownCopyright is a license tag.  Every image needs it, one per image.  If you deprecate it you should use a different license tag instead.  The fair use rationale is a separate requirement, once per insertion of an image in an article page.  See WP:FURG.  So if you deprecate this license tag you'll need to tell people to use a different license tag but they'll still need fair use tags in addition.  Wikidemo 06:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Umm yes, of course it is a license tag. By "removed from all the pages listing image tag" I meant pages like: Image copyright tags/Non-free. The reason for this is that people no longer use it for new images. I am saying that this tag should not be used for new images because: 1) it does not provide any benefit over a more specific fair use license tag 2) causes confusion through the long intro - goes on for a whole paragraph on the conditions of use which do not apply 3) British crown copyright offers no exceptions to Wikipedia than any other copyrighted image 4) quite a large number of images using this tag are not using it correctly. If this tag needs to be kept as active for some reason, then we should at least remove the following irrelevent and confusing bit from it:
 * "Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to, its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."

 * --Konstable 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010
Hi.

I'd like to suggest the copyright logo in this template to be replaced with this new version:

To do so, simply replace this portion of the code: | image     =

With: | image     =

Fleet Command (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections so ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia info could probably be shortened.
It sounds as though an image is partly free despite failing Wikipedia's free content guidelines. If that's the case, the second paragraph could probably be shortened to:

This is not an edit request at this time, but it's worth consideration. mechamind 9  0  16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Government License
In light of the Open Government license which covers Crown Copyright material (with a few notable exceptions like OS Maps), this template and the media covered by it needs review.

If the material can be re-released under OGL, It should be as OGL IS Commons Compatible :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to reword template
Reword to:

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear from the above just what the desired changes are. Thus, I've created a /sandbox copy for evaluation. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Tweaked the sandbox into the intended re-working..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: these seem to be significant changes; where was this discussed? -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Here. Boldly!  Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but changing the wording of media licenses can have legal consequences, so I can't see WP:BOLD applying to something as potentially controversial as this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

❌ We can't change a licensing text without prior evaluation for legal consequences. This should be looked into by an expert before it gets implemented. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012
As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free Crown copyright → template:Non-free Crown copyright UK – This template only applies to UK crown copyrights, there's no indication of this limitation in the name of the template. This name is exhibiting WP:Systematic bias in assuming that British is the only Crown copyright. Relisted bd2412  T 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support as nominator. This lacks WP:PRECISION in it is ambiguous, and there are other templates for other Crown Copyrights, and this is not a generic template for all crown copyrights. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose until some evidence is given that the term "Crown copyright" is used for other copyrights with templates. Otherwise there is no ambiguity and no need for extra verbiage.  With no ambiguity, WP:BIAS is irrelevant since title is internal only.  —  AjaxSmack   00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The related category mentioned already shows this. And it's simple enough to see Non-free Canadian Crown Copyright
 * Thanks. But, based on those examples, the target should be Non-free UK Crown Copyright. —  AjaxSmack   21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That option is fine by me (I am the nominator, my IP has rolled over) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Oppose the original proposal but neutral on . —  AjaxSmack   00:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose unless an example of a non-British crown copyright is given. --Article editor (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * UK bias is easily evident, considering the related category discussion already points them out. Non-free New Zealand Crown Copyright is simple enough to see. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment the discussion section already shows Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright so, it was already mentioned here prior to October 8. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the Turkish crown copyright used? In the "What links here" section, it only seems to be used for one file. Is there a similar template for Commons? And exactly which crown is it referring to, the defunct Ottoman crown? --Article editor (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an example of a different "crown copyright" licensing template on Wikipedia, which was what you objected to not having, yet it was already apparent in the discussion prior to your lodging your opinion. (like the three other crown copyright templates now also linked to in this discussion) If we're going to discuss how to use the Turkish template, I suggest we move that discussion over to its talk page. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Particularly, Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright show non-Britishness already found on Wikipedia -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free AUSPIC is also a crown copyright licence template, for Australia; and per the Turkish mention above, non-British templates were already here in the RM discussion before the opposes of October 8 appeared. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming the category
-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Non-free Crown copyright


text:
Talk:Myles na gCopaleen

Untitled
According to the respective articles, Myles died in 1965 and O'Nolan in 1966. I thimk they were the same peson; which is right? --Charles A. L. 20:45, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm fairly certain that the correct date is 1966. I'll check a few sources later to verify, and update the article if needed. -- Cobra Libre 18:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

It is - 1st of April 1966 - and yes, they where the same biological entity, though whether they where the same person....

 * Fixed now. I'm using Anthony Cronin's bio of O'Brien as well as the Denis Donghue prologue to The Third Policeman as my sources. -- Cobra Libre 15:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

While the extract from Blather is certainly interesting, wouldn't a more appropriate quotation be one from an actual Cruiskeen Lawn column? The Blather excerpt exhibits a certain student arrogance which I don't think quite conveys the flavor of Myles na Gopaleen. I'd like to replace the Blather quote with a Myles quote, if no one objects.

Perhaps the Blather quote could be moved to the Flann O'Brien page? -- Cobra Libre 18:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and reorganized this article slightly, moving the Blather excerpt to a new "Early Works" section in the Flann O'Brien article, and adding a quote from the Cruiskeen Lawn column to this page. I think that this works better, and I hope that readers and editors agree.   -- Cobra Libre 21:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I found this page about Flann O'Brien, and it gives a different account of O'Nolan's infamous series of letters to The Irish Times, or at least a different impetus for them. Perhaps my source (Cronin's bio) was incorrect, perhaps I misread my source, or perhaps the other article is incorrect. It would be a shame to lose that hilarious quote re: Kavanaugh's poem. -- Cobra libre 23:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merger with Flann O'Brien article
With regard to the merging of the Myles na gCopaleen page with the Flann O'Brien page... surely not! Why reunite pseudonyms so joyously separated by Brian O'Nolan (if that is indeed his real name...) for purposes not merely practical but, shall we say, idiosyncratic? Jack Haddad 02:10, Jan 08, 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it.

His birth certificate would almost certainly have read Brian Ó Nualláin, as his father was an ardent Irish speaker. His pseudonyms should indeed be kept seperate, but it is interesxting to note how many of them he used. Another he used was George Knowall. Perhaps however his many pseudonyms should be catalogued with reference to where each was used.

One of Brian O'Nolan's principles of writing was 'compartmentalisation of the personality for the purposes of literary production'. That principle should be respected here.

Agreement
I agree with Jack Haddad

Let's get rid of that pointless banner
Since no one in his right mind would think of merging the two pages. Italo Svevo 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Italo Svevo (another pseudonym, of course, originally used by someone else who had also changed his name previously)

 * I agree that the article merger should not take place. If no strenuous objections appear within the next few days, I (or perhaps you or someone else) will gladly remove the banner.  (I've never understood why such banners must appear on the article page and not on the discussion page.)

 * Incidentally, I have moved all of the merger-related discussion under a single heading. cobra libre 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Myles na gCopaleen


text:
Cloaca

A cloaca, : cloacae ( or  ), is the rear orifice that serves as the only opening for the digestive, reproductive, and urinary tracts (if present) of many vertebrate animals. All amphibians, reptiles, birds, and a few mammals (monotremes, tenrecs, golden moles, and marsupial moles) have this orifice, from which they excrete both urine and feces; this is in contrast to most placental mammals, which have two or three separate orifices for evacuation and reproduction. Excretory openings with analogous purpose in some invertebrates are also sometimes called cloacae. Mating through the cloaca is called cloacal copulation and cloacal kissing.

The cloacal region is also often associated with a secretory organ, the cloacal gland, which has been implicated in the scent-marking behavior of some reptiles, marsupials, amphibians, and monotremes.

Etymology
The word is from the Latin verb cluo, "(I) cleanse", thus the noun cloaca, "sewer, drain".

Birds

Birds reproduce using their cloaca; this occurs during a cloacal kiss in most birds. Birds that mate using this method touch their cloacae together, in some species for only a few seconds, sufficient time for sperm to be transferred from the male to the female. For some birds, such as ostriches, cassowaries, kiwi, geese, and some species of swans and ducks, the males do not use the cloaca for reproduction, but have a phallus.

One study has looked into birds that use their cloaca for cooling.

The cloaca in birds may also be referred to as the vent. Among falconers, the word vent is also a verb meaning "to defecate".

Fish
Among fish, a true cloaca is present only in elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) and lobe-finned fishes. In lampreys and in some ray-finned fishes, part of the cloaca remains in the adult to receive the urinary and reproductive ducts, although the anus always opens separately. In chimaeras and most teleosts, however, all three openings are entirely separated.

Mammals
With a few exceptions noted below, mammals have no cloaca. Even in the marsupials that have one, the cloaca is partially subdivided into separate regions for the anus and urethra.

Monotremes
The monotremes (egg-laying mammals) possess a true cloaca.

Marsupials

In marsupials, the genital tract is separate from the anus, but a trace of the original cloaca does remain externally. This is one of the features of marsupials (and monotremes) that suggest their basal nature, as the amniotes from which mammals evolved had a cloaca, and probably so did the earliest mammals.

Unlike other marsupials, marsupial moles have a true cloaca. This fact has been used to argue that they are not marsupials.

Placentals
Most adult placental mammals have no cloaca. In the embryo, the embryonic cloaca divides into a posterior region that becomes part of the anus, and an anterior region that develops depending on sex: in males, it forms the penile urethra, while in females, it develops into the vestibule or urogenital sinus that receives the urethra and vagina. However, some placental mammals retain a cloaca as adults: those are the tenrecs and golden moles (small mammals native to Africa), as well as some shrews.

Being placental animals, humans have an embryonic cloaca which divides into separate tracts during the development of the urinary and reproductive organs. However, a few human congenital disorders result in persons being born with a cloaca, including persistent cloaca and sirenomelia (mermaid syndrome).

Reptiles
In reptiles, the cloaca consists of the urodeum, proctodeum, and coprodeum. Some species have modified cloacae for increased gas exchange (see reptile respiration and reptile reproduction). This is where reproductive activity occurs.

Cloacal respiration in animals
Some turtles, especially those specialized in diving, are highly reliant on cloacal respiration during dives. They accomplish this by having a pair of accessory air bladders connected to the cloaca, which can absorb oxygen from the water.

Sea cucumbers use cloacal respiration. The constant flow of water through it has allowed various fish, polychaete worms and even crabs to specialize to take advantage of it while living protected inside the cucumber. At night, many of these species emerge through the anus of the sea cucumber in search of food.

title: Cloaca


text:
Jaywalking

Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians walking in or crossing a roadway if that act contravenes traffic regulations. The term originated in the United States as a derivation of the phrase jay-drivers (the word jay meaning 'a greenhorn, or rube' ), people who drove horse-drawn carriages and automobiles on the wrong side of the road, before taking its current meaning. Jaywalking was coined as the automobile arrived in the street in the context of the conflict between pedestrian and automobiles (also then known as horseless carriages), more specifically the nascent automobile industry.

Jaywalking laws vary widely by jurisdiction. In many countries such as the United Kingdom, the word is not generally used and, with the exception of certain high-speed roads, there are no laws limiting how pedestrians can use public highways. This has caused confusion among British people visiting countries with less freedom, with the BBC reporting on a case where a man from the UK was arrested in the U.S. city of Atlanta for crossing the road.

Legal texts in other countries use different concepts, such as Rules applicable to pedestrians in the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. One member of this convention, the United Kingdom, does not have jaywalking laws; its Highway Code relies on the pedestrians making their own judgment on whether it is safe to cross based on the Green Cross Code.

Origin of the term
While jaywalking is associated with pedestrians today, the earliest references to "jay" behavior in the street were about horse-drawn carriages and automobiles in 1905 Kansas: "jay drivers" who did not drive on the correct side of the street. The term swiftly expanded to pedestrians, and by 1909, The Chanute Daily Tribune warned "The jay walker needs attention as well as the jay driver, and is about as big a nuisance." No historical evidence supports an alternative folk etymology by which the word is traced to either the letter "J" (characterizing the route a jaywalker might follow), or "jake walk" (an early term related to a drunkard's walk).

Automobile interests in the US took up the cause of labeling and scorning jaywalkers in the 1910s and early 1920s. In 1912, for instance, Popular Mechanics magazine reported that the term was current in Kansas City: "The city pedestrian who cares not for traffic regulations at street corners, but strays all over the street, crossing in the middle of the block, or attempting to save time by choosing a diagonal route across a street intersection instead of adhering to the regular crossing, is designatated as a "jay walker," in Kansas City." The earliest citation in the Oxford English Dictionary dates to 1917. The word was promoted by pro-automobile interests in the 1920s, according to historian and alternative transportation advocate Peter D. Norton. Today, in the US, the word is often used synonymously with its current legal definition, crossing the street illegally.

Originally in the US, the legal rule was that "all persons have an equal right in the highway, and that in exercising the right each shall take due care not to injure other users of the way". In time, however, streets became the province of vehicular traffic, both practically and legally.

Causes
People jaywalk for various reasons, including convenience, the expectation of the right to free movement of individuals, and sometimes even personal safety, generally to cross the street. Going to a crosswalk can require a long detour.

Although cultural norms about jaywalking vary by locality, the practice cannot simply be explained by corresponding differences in law. For example, Copenhagen and New York City have similar restrictions on jaywalking at signalised crosswalks, but the practice is far more common in New York.

Pedestrians are often forced to walk outside crosswalks, when they are blocked by cars due to traffic congestion or drivers stopping too far forward. The common practice of car-centric traffic-signal synchronisation produces green waves for motorists but not necessarily for pedestrians, who may encounter little or no conflicting traffic at cross streets where signals instruct them to wait.

Pedestrians may dislike using crossing at intersections for other reasons, such as discomfort dealing with traffic from several directions (whereas a jaywalker at a location distant from an intersection only needs to observe at most two directions of traffic), or wanting to avoid the extra air emissions generated by vehicles stopping and starting (given that vehicular emissions are significantly less when vehicles are moving at steady speeds). In rural and suburban areas, people may jaywalk due to a lack of sidewalks. Some pedestrians are unwilling to observe lengthy wait times at signals. They are also more likely to make "informal crossings" at wide roads, or at locations where formal crosswalks are too distant to be practical for them to use.

Some crosswalk signals that require a pedestrian to push a button are unusable for orthodox Jews on the Shabbat.

Safety
Unsignalised marked crosswalks where drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians are not necessarily safer than their unmarked counterparts, where pedestrians behave more cautiously, not expecting motorists to yield.

Many American newspapers publish stories that are critical of pedestrian road users' safety practices, while police departments often instigate education and enforcement campaigns to curb jaywalking. While nearly 60% of American pedestrian deaths occur outside of crosswalks, fewer than 20% occur in close proximity to a crosswalk.

Legal view by jurisdiction
When used in the technical sense, jaywalking specifically refers to violation of pedestrian traffic regulations and laws and is therefore illegal. In many countries, such regulations do not exist and jaywalking is an unknown concept.

Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, jaywalking is illegal, according to the traffic laws gazetted in 2013 by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development. Disregarding designated crossing points or passing through red traffic lights carry a punishment of up to six months in jail or a US$20 fine, as part of the new Highway Code. The code also deals with all road users; it used to emphasise rules for motorists and cyclists.

Asia
In many Asian countries, the low level of traffic control means that jaywalking is often more of a necessity to a pedestrian and is rarely punished except in major commercial hubs such as Singapore. In many countries like India and Vietnam, the amount of traffic and the lack of knowledge and obedience to traffic safety rules makes it common for pedestrians to walk out into oncoming traffic and effectively "carve out" a route to the other side of the road.

Mainland China
In recent years, jaywalking has become more strictly controlled in China as car traffic increased. Police have tested facial recognition to identify jaywalkers. The authorities applied a new method to deter jaywalkers by displaying their photo on large public screens in the area where the jaywalking occurred, to publicly shame any violator of pedestrian street rules. The system has flaws: the photo of the businesswoman Dong Mingzhu was displayed on those screens after the AI systems misinterpreted her appearance on a passing bus advertisement as a real person crossing the street in an illegal fashion.

Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, it is an offence to cross roads within the zigzag area around zebra crossings, or within 15 m of other crossing points (including signal-controlled crossings, footbridges and subways) without using the crossing, or climb over fences to cross the road. It is also an offence to cross the road at a signalled crossing when it is red.

Israel
Israeli transit regulations section 110 states a person shall not cross a road unless they have checked to make sure it is safe to do so. Where there is a "nearby" pedestrian crossing, a pedestrian shall not cross the road except at the pedestrian crossing. Where there isn't one nearby but there's a "nearby" intersection, the pedestrian shall cross "near" the intersection. In any case, the pedestrian shall cross at a reasonable speed and in the shortest straight line across the road, without spending undue time on the road.

Israeli courts have ruled that the legislature left the term "nearby" deliberately vague and it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

South Korea
In Korea, it is illegal to cross the road outside of the crosswalk mark on a road with a crosswalk or to cross without following traffic lights on the crosswalk. On a crossing controlled by traffic light, pedestrians can cross only on green. Except for persons with physical disabilities, pedestrians must use the facilities to cross the roads with overpasses or underground sidewalks. Jaywalking is naturally prohibited on roads with pedestrian prohibition signs such as expressways.

The fine for jaywalking is 20,000 won.

However, pedestrians can cross a road which doesn't have any crosswalk. They also cross the intersection and near part of intersections without traffic lights at the shortest distance. The standard for not having a crosswalk is usually 200 meters. In addition, on roads that do not have a distinction between center lines or lanes, pedestrians can occupy the entire road, walk and cross. This is entirely legal and pedestrians are legally protected from cars.

India
In India, jaywalking is not explicitly included in the law as an offence but is covered under the broader term 'obstruction of traffic' in state and metropolitan laws. Examples include section 28B of the Delhi Police Act, 33B of the Bombay Police Act and 92G of the Karnataka Police Act. However, jaywalking is common in cities because of the lack of regulated crossings and footpaths, ignorance of safety rules, and the poor regulation of related laws by authorities. Drives against jaywalking are conducted by the police departments from time to time and offenders are given fines of 100 to 500 Indian rupees, depending upon the jurisdictions. Drivers must yield the right of way for pedestrians at unsignalled crossings and marked pedestrian crossings.

Iran
In Iran, crossing outside crossing points within 150 of one or if the pedestrian light is red, as well as starting to cross when the light is flashing, has been prohibited since the 1970s. If in an intersection there is no pedestrian light, traffic lights would be considered and so it is illegal when it is red or orange. As of November, 2009, jaywalking carries fines from 300,000 up to 2,000,000 rials (US$9 to US$60). The law has almost never been enforced.

Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan, jaywalking is illegal and punishable by a fine. This is enforced on major streets in large cities.

Philippines
In the Philippines, jaywalking is not illegal. The Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which was passed in 1964, states that within commercial or residential areas, drivers of vehicles must yield the right of way to a pedestrians crossing public roads on pedestrian crossings, except when traffic movement is regulated by traffic enforcers. Likewise, pedestrians must yield their right of way to motor vehicles when crossing a public road at any point other than a pedestrian crossing. It is however, illegal to cross or traverse an expressway on foot based on the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Limited Access Highways.

Local government units may explicitly prohibit jaywalking in their localities through local ordinances, such as Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Ordinance No. 1 series of 1995, which supplements city and municipal anti-jaywalking ordinances in Metro Manila on major roads.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of the Philippines exemplified Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the Philippines in the context of jaywalking, ruling that a pedestrian who is injured as a result of jaywalking may forfeit the right to recover damages if their own negligence contributed to the injury. Alternatively, the pedestrian may only recover partial damages if the vehicle driver is found to have contributory negligence.

Singapore
In Singapore, jaywalking (not using a traffic crossing while within 50m of it) is an offence. A fine of $50 is payable for the first offence. Repeat offenders can be charged $1000 and a jail term of 3 months, but the latter is rarely imposed. In 2011, 8,650 people were caught jaywalking and fined in Singapore. Between January and March 2012, Singapore prosecuted 1,758 for jaywalking, and between January and March 2013, 2,409 jaywalkers were fined.

Europe

In many European countries, pedestrians are banned from high speed roads such as motorways or expressways, but they are generally permitted on regular rural and urban roads. That is done in compliance with the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which also contains concepts addressing the question of the usage of the road or street by pedestrians for walking or crossing. Some countries like Ireland do not comply with the convention as rigorously as others. Laws and traditions vary from country to country.

Pedestrians account for 10% of motorway fatalities: 217 pedestrian fatalities on EU motorways in 2012 and 847 between 2010 and 2012. The rate is 20% in Poland, 17% in Great Britain, 15% in Spain and 10% in France. These include vehicle users who leave their vehicles after they have broken down, workers in work zones and individuals who illegally enter the motorway on foot.

Belgium
Pedestrians must use marked crossings within 20 m if the speed limit is above 30 km/h. However, any physical injury to a pedestrian caused by a traffic accident is compensated by the insurance of the drivers involved, regardless of the responsibility of the pedestrian, unless the pedestrian is over 14 and wanted the accident and its consequences to occur.

Finland
It is legal to cross all roads except motorways in Finland. Crossing a road must be done in a perpendicular direction, without undue delay, and must use a zebra crossing if one is nearby. Cars are required by law to give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings unless there is a traffic light.

France
Pedestrians are required to use sidewalks (if any), and zebra crossings for crossing a street if one is within 50 m; they must also
 * cross at right angles to the road axis,
 * only cross a place (including a market/town square in which motor vehicles are permitted) or any intersection on a formal crossing
 * cross only at the green pedestrian light if in situ, and
 * obey a police officer, if one regulates crossing.

More rules apply at night, on countryside roads, to groups of marching people, etc. Disregarding those rules may be punished by a fine of the lowest grade ("contravention de première classe": 11 to 17€, or 33€ if paid late) but few people were ever fined for such behaviour; any actual fines were usually because they showed contempt instead of apologising or providing some valid safety reason. On the other hand, drivers must always let pedestrians cross if they have already started or if they clearly demonstrate the intention to do so, even when the pedestrian is disregarding the rules, and will bear full responsibility if an accident occurs. These rules are often not respected; most pedestrians would cross anywhere (including at a red pedestrian light) when no car can be seen nearby on the road, but would not take the risk of trying to cross even on a zebra crossing when a car is coming, until it stops.

On French motorways, pedestrians are banned; in case of breakdown motorists are required to leave the car and walk away to safety, behind fences or lines marking the road boundaries, where no car can hit them. Nonetheless, some pedestrians are injured on motorways: in 2016, on the tolled motorway network:
 * 16% of fatalities were pedestrians, an average of 23 pedestrian fatalities per year on the network.
 * 69% of pedestrian motorway fatalities occurred on motorway lanes, 28% occurred on emergency lanes, and 3% in rest areas.
 * injured pedestrians' presence on the motorway was due to breakdowns, stopping in emergency lanes (40%), accidents (28%), motorway staff (3%), providing assistance (2%), or other reasons (27%).

Germany
Pedestrians must follow rules when crossing the street. Even so, Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung [StVO]), the most important section, requires the road user not to endanger anybody. Car drivers must always be prepared to brake for pedestrians, especially for children and elderly people. On the other hand, pedestrians, according to Section 25 [https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVO/25.html § 25, Abs. 3, StVO] (VwV), must watch the vehicular traffic carefully and cross a street quickly and using the shortest way across the driving lanes.

Depending on the situation on the street, pedestrians may not cross the street except at intersections or within the markings of traffic signals or crosswalks. Pedestrians who cross the street at intersections or crossings must use existing traffic signals or crosswalks. Cars and bikes are required by law to give way to pedestrians (but not bicycle riders) at zebra crossings unless there is a traffic light. If one wants to cross the street outside the markings of traffic lights or crosswalks, one must carefully observe before and during the crossing that the road is clear, and wait before crossing if a vehicle approaches. A pedestrian may not interrupt the flow of traffic.

Although being within 15 meters is not considered "at" the crosswalk or traffic light, pedestrians may not cross the street within 30 meters of a crosswalk or 40 meters of a traffic light. During heavy traffic, pedestrians may not cross the street, as they might have to stop on a traffic lane. Typical fines for not using existing crosswalks or traffic lights in Germany are between 5€ and 10€.

Hungary
Whilst jaywalking is not specifically defined by the Hungarian Highway Code (KRESZ) as an offence, various restrictions and prohibitions apply for pedestrians crossing or walking along roads. Fines are applied at the discretion of the police of up to 30,000 forint for each offence, according to Section 21 (1-13) of the code. Pedestrians have the right of way on crosswalks and may cross the road at certain specified points such as at intersections if crosswalks are not available.

Ireland
Ireland maintains a jaywalking law, which requires a pedestrian to use a pedestrian crossing if they are within 15 m of one. When crossing a road, pedestrians are advised to wait until it is safe to cross. Vehicles should give way to the pedestrian who uses a zebra crossing. Irish children are taught the Road Safety Authority safe cross code in schools where it teaches them to stop, listen, and look out for any incoming traffic whilst crossing a road and only cross a road if safe to do so. It also advises them to use traffic lights and zebra crossings to cross a road rather than jaywalk. The Garda Síochána usually do not take action on jaywalkers unless they caused possible harm to drivers or others.

Italy
Pedestrians are allowed to cross a street without any recognised crossing point only if there are no zebra crossings within a range of 100 m, but they should be careful anyway. If pedestrians cross a street at a crosswalk, drivers must yield. Walking on highways (autostrade) and main suburban roads (strade extraurbane principali) is always forbidden.

Netherlands
There is no concept of jaywalking in the Netherlands' traffic laws, so it is not an offence as such. Without zebra stripes, pedestrians must yield, but at a zebra, road traffic must slow down and yield as soon as pedestrians seem about to cross.

Poland
Jaywalking is an offence. One must cross only at recognised crossing points if there is one within 100 m (including pedestrian tunnels and footbridges). Otherwise, regular roads may be crossed with due care. Crossing dual carriageways (except motorways) is allowed only outside towns. Crossing tram and train tracks that are separate and parallel to street is always prohibited. Crossing on red lights is prohibited and considered to be an offence. According to regulations of "Prawo o Ruchu Drogowym" (Traffic Regulations Act) crossing the road outside the pedestrian crossing is allowed only if it does not endanger traffic safety or obstruct traffic. The pedestrian is not obliged to give priority to vehicles and should follow the shortest line to the opposite edge of the road, perpendicular to the road axis. Crossing the track separated from the road is only allowed in designated locations.

Portugal
It is illegal to cross the road except when the nearest zebra crossing is more than 50 m away. Any crossing above that distance is legal. Pedestrians have priority over cars but car drivers often ignore the rules.

Romania
Jaywalking can be fined, but you are still permitted to cross the street on the corner of the street if no crosswalk exists but you don't have priority over the cars.

Russia
Pedestrians must cross all roads at defined crossing points such as zebra crossings, pedestrian tunnels, footbridges, or unmarked crossings. Pedestrians are free to cross all roads without safety barriers, or a median if there is no crossing point in sight. Jaywalkers may be fined 500 rubles at the discretion of the police, or 1000-1500 rubles if intoxicated.

Scandinavia
It is legal to cross all roads except motorways in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Cars and bikes are required by law to give way to pedestrians (but not bicycle riders) at zebra crossings unless there is a traffic light with a green light and it is green for the cars or bikes and no pedestrians are currently using the crossing. Pedestrians are encouraged to cross the road at zebra crossings if there is one nearby and are discouraged from crossing at a red light.

In Norway, a red man at the crossing is the signal for pedestrians not to begin crossing if it would impede cars or entail danger, but a person may walk across if there are no cars nearby. Risking oneself by running across in front of cars is not legal. Cyclists are required to stop at red lights, but because not everyone is aware of that, the Norwegian national cyclists' organisation has proposed to end confusion by prohibiting all people from crossing at red lights.

In Denmark, it is illegal to cross the road outside of a pedestrian crossing if one is nearby.

In Sweden, it is illegal, but not punishable, for a pedestrian to cross at a red light. However, if doing this causes a traffic accident, the pedestrian could be convicted of negligence in traffic.

Serbia
In Serbia, it is illegal to cross roads other than at pedestrian crossings if there is a zebra crossing within 100 m.

Slovakia
In Slovakia, it is illegal to cross roads other than at pedestrian crossings if there is a zebra crossing within 50 m, or for certain types of road. If not regulated by traffic lights, pedestrians have priority on pedestrian crossings over cars but not trams. However, pedestrians must wait for a safe moment to cross and so cars usually fail to stop if there are pedestrians around, unlike in other European countries where pedestrians may cross immediately.

Slovenia
In Slovenia, pedestrians are generally allowed to cross the street unless there is a zebra crossing within 100 m. As well as this, pedestrians also have priority at zebra crossings. However, pedestrians may not cross certain types of road.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, pedestrians are generally allowed to cross the street everywhere. They have priority on zebra crossings but should cross with care. However, they must use a pedestrian crossing, bridge or underpass if it is within 50 m. Certain types of roads must not be entered by pedestrians, such as highways and motorways. Failure to comply is subject to a fine of 20 Swiss Francs. Likewise, crossing or bypassing of closed railway gates is prohibited.

On motorways, fines may vary based on the situation. A driver driving at 100 km/h on a road with a 120 km/h speed limit, if the light visibility is 60 m and the braking distance is 65 m, may be fined for not noticing a person on the road. Even if that person is suicidal, as in a court case in 2017, that fact does not matter. A fine of 210 Swiss francs fine is cheaper than the court costs. However, such circumstances may also be considered to be exceptional and unpredictable.

United Kingdom

In England, Wales and Scotland (Great Britain) it is not illegal to cross or walk on all roads except motorways (where pedestrians and slow vehicles are not permitted), and roads with the "No Pedestrians" sign displayed. The Highway Code contains rules for crossing a road safely, but these are recommendations and not legally directly enforceable, though branches of the highway code may be used as supporting evidence in prosecutions. As with other advisory parts of the Highway Code compliance and non-compliance can be used to claim/counterclaim/defend against liability in civil law claims such as insurance claims.

The term "jaywalking" is obscure. There is no law preventing such an act. Culturally, "jaywalking" often confuses British citizens abroad and visitors to the UK. British citizens, like citizens from other countries where it is not an offence, are more prone to infringe jaywalking laws abroad. Transport for London identified tourists visiting London as being particularly vulnerable due to the personal assessment of risk expected of all pedestrians who cross roads. Some tourists copy locals' most risky crossing stunts, falsely assuming there was no advanced risk assessment involved or a higher right-of-way to vehicles, without understanding they have less right-of-way in all but a few places and times. A third reason is that many visitors are not used to all traffic driving on the left. Recent changes to the Highway code have given priority to pedestrians waiting to cross a road.

A 2014 Yougov poll found 77% of Britons believed walking on roads when it is safe to do so should remain legal; 14% favoured making it illegal. A similar US Yougov poll found 30% believed "jaywalking" should be legal—in most settlements, there is next to no centuries-old societal norm of specific roads on which it may in daytime be safe to walk, such as horse-frequented, cobbled or hump-calmed rural village.

When crossing, pedestrians are expected to use their judgement and wait until it is safe to cross. Under Rule 170 of the Highway Code, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross or has already started crossing the road (from either side) across a side street into which a car is about to turn, vehicles should always give way and let them leave the road safely. (Prior to January 2022 this only applied for pedestrians who had already started to cross the road ). In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look and Listen" before crossing a road, as demonstrated in the Think! campaign.

Unlike the rest of the UK, in Northern Ireland jaywalking is an offence. This is through article 38 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which states "If a pedestrian through his own negligence on a road endangers his own safety, or that of any other person, he is guilty of an offence." In both 2005 and 2006, hundreds of fines were issued for jaywalking, however from 2018 onwards this had reduced to approximately 50 per year.

Canada
Jaywalking is not in the Criminal Code and is not considered a criminal offence in Canada. No law on jaywalking exists at the federal level, although several provinces and territories in Canada, as well as municipalities, have enacted regulations and/or by-laws that restrict when a pedestrian may cross a roadway. Most of these provincial regulations and municipal by-laws do not use the term jaywalking to describe when a pedestrian unlawfully crosses a roadway.

Section 144 of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act stipulates pedestrians are required to use a marked crosswalk to cross the roadway when they are near one; although the same section also allows pedestrians to cross a roadway when they are not adjacent to a marked crosswalk and they yield to on-coming traffic. Similar traffic regulations also exist in Quebec's highway safety code, and Saskatchewan's Traffic Safety Act.

As a result of differing provincial/territorial regulations and/or municipal by-laws, the fine that is charged for crossing a motorway varies across the country, from C$30 in Quebec, to C$697.50 in Nova Scotia. In Ontario, motorway crossing related fines are typically charged under section 144 of the Highway Traffic Act, or a municipal by-law, with an average fine of C$35; although the maximum fine a pedestrian can be charged under the Ontario's Highway Traffic Act is C$50. Although provincial regulations and municipal by-laws on crossing a motorway exist, its enforcement remains extremely rare.

Mexico
Jaywalking is not illegal in Mexico. However, on the Paseo de la Reforma, one of Mexico City's longest and most important avenues, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, then the city's mayor, commissioned the installation of concrete prisms along the avenue's central kerb, to discourage pedestrians from crossing the road.

United States
State road rules in the United States usually require a driver to yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a road when the pedestrian crosses at a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk. Unmarked crosswalks generally exist as the logical extensions of sidewalks at intersections with approximately right angles. Following the Uniform Vehicle Code, state codes often do not prohibit a pedestrian from crossing a roadway between intersections if at least one of the two adjacent intersections is not controlled by a signal, but they stipulate that a pedestrian not at a crosswalk must yield the right of way to approaching drivers. State codes often permit pedestrians to use roads that are not controlled access facilities and without sidewalks but such use is usually regulated. For example, in Florida they must keep to the shoulder of the leftmost side of the road and yield to any oncoming traffic.

State codes may include provisions that allow local authorities to prohibit pedestrian crossing at locations outside crosswalks, but since municipal pedestrian ordinances are often not well known to drivers or pedestrians and can vary from place to place in a metropolitan area that contains many municipalities, obtaining compliance with local prohibitions of pedestrian crossings much more restrictive than statewide pedestrian regulations can be difficult. Signs, fences, and barriers of various types (including planted hedges) have been used to prohibit and prevent pedestrian crossing at some locations. If the detour to a legal crossing would be highly inconvenient, even fences are sometimes not effective. Street design, traffic design, and locations of major building entrances that make crosswalks the most logical and practical locations to cross streets are usually more effective than police enforcement to reduce illegal or reckless pedestrian crossings.

At a signaled crossing, a pedestrian is subject to the applicable pedestrian traffic signal or, if no pedestrian signal is displayed, the signal indications for the parallel vehicular movement. A pedestrian signal permits a pedestrian to begin crossing a street during the "Walk" display; pedestrians are usually considered to be "jaywalking" only if they enter the crosswalk some other time. The meanings of pedestrian signal indications are summarised in Section 4E.02 of the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Jaywalking is considered an infraction, but in some jurisdictions, it is a misdemeanor or requires a court appearance. The penalty is usually a fine. In some cities, such as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston, although prohibited, "jaywalking" has been so common that police generally cite or detain jaywalkers only if their behavior is considered excessively dangerous or disruptive, such as running out in front of a moving vehicle or crossing after the light is about to change to allow cross traffic to proceed. Penalties for jaywalking vary by state, and, within a state, may vary by county or municipality. A sampling of US cities found fines ranging from $1 to $1,000.

California
On 30 September 2022, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill decriminalizing jaywalking in the state of California. The bill, 2022 AB-2147, known as The Freedom to Walk Act, was initially introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-19). It bars law enforcement from stopping and citing a pedestrian for "safe mid-block crossings" except in the circumstances where "a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision".

In May 2017, a Boston Globe reporter spent the day attempting to get a $1 citation for jaywalking in downtown traffic. The reporter walked against lights, crossed in the middle of streets, and across the middle of blocks and did not receive a ticket, even when committing infractions in front of police officers.

Jaywalking at a signalised intersection may carry higher fines in some jurisdictions for disobeying the signalised controls. Many jurisdictions have a separate law defining the difference between jaywalking, or "disobedience of traffic signal controls." Some jurisdictions may fine pedestrians up to the same amount as a vehicle running a red light, but no driving points are issued, as the pedestrian was not driving at the time.

Safety considerations
In the United States, jaywalking is linked to pedestrian injuries and fatalities, but no available data provide an exact risk rate because of missing jaywalking frequency data.

In the United States, jaywalking is mainly an urban issue (71%), but it can also be a suburban or rural issue when no pavement is available.

In the United States, jaywalking might be understood as:
 * walking against a pedestrian walk signal,
 * crossing a street where there is no crosswalk (midblock crossing),
 * crossing a street outside of a marked crosswalk where one is present, and
 * walking on a street along with the traffic flow (ignoring designated pedestrian pathways).

However other pedestrian behaviour might be considered as unsafe while not qualified of jaywalking, for instance, failure of drivers to yield for pedestrians, jogging/walking in the wrong direction, working on a parked car, leaning on a parked car, pushing a disabled car, standing between parked cars, and standing in a road.

Some pedestrian factors that lead to a jaywalking behavior were found to be pedestrian perceptions of risk, consumption of alcohol, perceptions of crossing devices, speed and pace of life, speed versus crossing-device speed, perceptions of enforcement risk, unawareness of pedestrian laws and safety, following the leader.

Some known environmental factors include absence of midblock crosswalks, width of roads, poor timing of crossing signals, poor conditions of sidewalks, absence of sidewalks in certain areas, capacity of sidewalks, weather, people with limited mobility, people with occupational risks, children and teens, parking areas near shopping centers, street repair and construction sites, major highways, one-way streets, location of attractions, and unlawful street-vending.

Racial bias
In California, differences by race in charging of pedestrians for jaywalking has led to assertions of racial bias and proposals to end considering jaywalking to be an offense.

California Assembly member Phil Ting proposed decriminalizing jaywalking. The bill, AB 2147, The Freedom To Walk Act, passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, took effect on January 1, 2023.

Seattle City Council members Bruce Harrell and Lorena González raised issues of bias in jaywalking tickets in that city as well.

Australia
In Australia, it is illegal to start crossing the road at an intersection if a pedestrian light is red or flashing red. If no such pedestrian light exists, the traffic lights are used, making it illegal to proceed on red or orange. Furthermore, it is illegal to cross any road within 20 m of an intersection with pedestrian lights or within 20 m of any pedestrian crossing (including a zebra crossing, school crossing, or any other pedestrian crossing).

However, laws against jaywalking are rarely enforced, with the exception of the occasional police "blitz" on jaywalking for a week or so at a time, when the laws are enforced more stringently. Some roads with a record of pedestrian accidents feature fences in the centre to discourage pedestrians, but there is no law against crossing them. States set their own fines for jaywalking. The fine in Victoria is 2 penalty units. The fine is $50 in Western Australia.

New Zealand
Pedestrians in New Zealand must, if possible, cross at right angles to the kerb or side of the roadway unless they use pedestrian crossings or school crossing points. Pedestrians must use a pedestrian crossing, footbridge, underpass or traffic signal within 20 m. At intersections controlled by signals, pedestrians should wait for the green man to display and may not begin crossing when the static or the flashing red man is displayed. The fine for jaywalking is up to $35.

Argentina
In Argentina, jaywalking is legal.

Brazil
In Brazil, it is illegal to cross the road if the nearest zebra crossing is within 50 m. Pedestrians have priority over cars. According to CONTRAN resolution 706/17 from April 25, 2018, violators could pay a fine up to 44.19 Brazilian reals; however, the measure is rarely enforced.

title: Jaywalking


text:
Takeda Awards

The Takeda Foundation, is an organisation based in Japan. In 2001 it launched an annual awards program, which presented awards accompanied by 100 million yen under the categories social/economic well-being, individual/humanity well-being, and world environmental well-being.

Winners
Awardees within each category are listed in alphabetical order.

Social/Economic Well-Being
The technical achievement honored by the Takeda Award 2001 Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievements for Social/Economic Well-Being was "the origination and the advancement of open development models for system software - open architecture, free software and open source software."

Individual/Humanity Well-Being
The technical achievement honored by the Takeda Award 2001 Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievements for Individual/Humanity Well-Being was "development of a large-scale genome sequencing system by establishing 'the whole genome shotgun strategy' that utilizes modularized data acquisition system and high-throughput DNA sequencers."

World/Environmental Well-Being
The technical achievement honored by the Takeda Award 2001 Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievements for World Environmental Well-Being is "the development and promotion of the Ecological Rucksacks and Material Input per Unit Service (MIPS) concepts, as measures of the ecological stress of products and services."

The awards were suspended in 2003 due to financial constraints, with the hope that they could be restarted if/when the Takeda Foundation's financial situation improves.

As well as the above awards, also in 2001 and 2002 they presented the Techno-Entrepreurship Award, and the Takeda Scholarship Award.

Resources

 * Takeda Foundation

title: Takeda Awards


text:
Talk:Cryptosystem

Naming: "Cryptosystem" vs "Crypto system"
"crypto-system" or "cryptosystem" instead of "crypto system"? Sorry to mention alternative spellings on a crypt* article... ;-) Matt 20:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Mostly what I see, and what I use in my own stuff is crypto system. That's why I chose it for this. If a redirection page is needed, well, I guess we should add one. As for being sorry about alternative spellings, check out talk:cryptography for the cypher vs cipher controversy. ww 18:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Coming back to this again, I think "cryptosystem" is the correct spelling in formal writing. Some evidence: a Google test reveals 10 times more hits for "cryptosystem" than "crypto system"; and HAC and Schneier's AC both use "cryptosystem", as does Ross Anderson's "Why cryptosystems fail" — Matt 10:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, As I suggested in re cipher v cypher above, this is a bit of teapot tempest. With the balance being toward cryptosystem in others usage, I don't suppose that I have much room to insist on anything else.
 * Since there are multiple references to crypto system here and there, a redirect page will be needed. Satisfactory? ww 13:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, sorry to go on about spelling (pedantic nit-picking is something I try and avoid, sorry, try to avoid...) My excuse is that I think there is a real danger of things looking slightly amateurish, just because of the spelling. e.g., recently I saw a title of a paper with the spelling "cryptoanalysis" rather than the more common "cryptanalysis". Probably both are OK historically, I'm not sure, but I deduced immediately that the authors weren't primarily cryptographers (which was true). w.r.t. cipher vs cypher, I'm a lot happier with both spellings than I was previously, but first a quick quote from the WP Manual of Style:

 * >>> * Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country. A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring.  However, a reference to "the American labour movement" would be okay on New Labour. <<<

 * Thinking along these lines, along with noting that very recently the academic world has standardised on "cipher", I would suggest that "Rijndael is a block cypher" is jarring for a similar reason, even though "the Enigma cypher" is OK. — Matt 14:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I give up on the ':' after a certain point. It seems my limit is 4. Anyway, we use the same gloriously absurd language in which my father's middle name was actually pronounced kuhnicht once upon Chaucer's time or perhaps a little before. And still spelled that way! And remember you can spell an aquatic animal with fins, ghoti -- per GBS! I agree that some spelling choices convey hints or allow one to make WAG about the writer, but the content is after all more important than the spelling. At least in this absurdist orthography. Groucho, Chico, and Harpo could have done better.

The WP style guide also says that it's agnostic on AE vs BE spelling but that the spelling in an article shouldn't be changed around just for that. Though many folks do. Peruse the foolishness about cypher v cipher at Talk:cryptography for an example. Imran even remembered a good example of cypher which I'd forgotten about before he reminded me.

I say, if Shakespeare could spell his own name five different ways, who am I, a next to functional illiterate if you watch my typing, to say anything different. It's mostly harmless, especially when redirect can take out most of the search confusion.

Got to go, unfortunately. ww 20:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deleted content

 * [edit diff -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] [talk] 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)]

I removed the above from the article. Whoever started it has probably lost interest in trying to finish it, since its been more than a year, and in its current state it does not seem to have any useful information. Arvindn 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
Hi and welcome. This is a good article to start from, but even when editing not very good articles, it's best to do it as incremental changes, rather than a complete rewrite like you did.

Note that the fact alone that some content is unsourced isn't reason to remove it. If the article has survived in this current form for years, without anyone challenging it (e.g. by using template, removing or creating a discussion), then it represents an implicit consensus. If you have a reason to suspect it then that can be a reason to boldly remove it or slap a tag on it.

In particular, I think the old paragraph involving "Therefore, the term "cryptosystem" is most often used when the key generation algorithm is important" is an important point about the actual usage of the word, in my experience "cryptosystem" is overwhelmingly used for systems that involve more complex key generation: asymmetric algorithms. Also I found the old explanation easier to understand in layman terms. A problem is that the "Formal definition" section does not talk about key generation, I don't know how to address that.

Removing the rest I agree with, I haven't seen anything to support the statements about "cryptographic system" in literature.

There were also some style issues, most importantly involving a missing lead section. -- intgr [talk] 18:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Will edit more incrementally, and have become familiar with `WP:EDITCONSENSUS/LEAD' notions. In agreement that emphasizing key generation aspect of the "cryptosystem" definition will be beneficial. Thinking about this as well. Your experience, advice (and corrections) are appreciated.

Thank you. HAITI (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cryptosystem