text:
European Patent Organisation

The European Patent Organisation (sometimes abbreviated EPOrg in order to distinguish it from the European Patent Office, one of the two organs of the organisation ) is a public international organisation created in 1977 by its contracting states to grant patents in Europe under the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. The European Patent Organisation has its seat at Munich, Germany, and has administrative and financial autonomy. The organisation is independent from the European Union, and has as member states all 27 EU member states along with 12 other European states.

The evolution of the Organisation is inherently linked to that of the European Patent Convention. See European Patent Convention (EPC) for the history of the European patent system as set up by the EPC, operated by the European Patent Office (EPO), and supervised by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation.

Organs
The European Patent Organisation has two organs: the European Patent Office, which acts as its executive body, and the Administrative Council, which acts as its supervisory body as well as, to a limited extent, its legislative body. The actual legislative power to revise the European Patent Convention lies with the Contracting States themselves when meeting at a Conference of the Contracting States.

Besides, the Boards of Appeal, which do not form an independent organ of the Organisation but are integrated within the European Patent Office, are assigned the role of an independent judiciary. The European Patent Organisation is in that sense an international organisation "modelled on a modern state order and based on the separation of powers principle".

European Patent Office
The European Patent Office (EPO) examines European patent applications and grants European patents under the European Patent Convention. Its headquarters are located at Munich, Germany, with a branch in Rijswijk (near The Hague, Netherlands), sub-offices in Berlin, Germany, and Vienna, Austria, and a "liaison bureau" in Brussels, Belgium.

Administrative Council
The Administrative Council is made up of Representatives and alternate Representatives of the Contracting States and is responsible for overseeing the work of the European Patent Office, ratifying the budget and approving the actions of the President of the Office. The council also amends the Rules of the EPC and some particular provisions of the Articles of the European Patent Convention.

As of 2019, the Chairman of the Administrative Council is Josef Kratochvíl.

Legal status
The European Patent Organisation has legal personality, and is represented by the President of the European Patent Office.

Member states, extension state, and validation states
There are, as of October 2022, 39 Contracting States to the EPC, also called member states of the European Patent Organisation: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (see European Patent Convention article for the dates of entry in force in each country). That is, all EU member states are also members of the European Patent Organisation, and, additionally, Albania, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are also members of the European Patent Organisation. The most recent member state to join the EPC was Montenegro which did so on 1 October 2022.

In addition, there is one "extension state", Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not a Contracting State to the EPC but has signed an extension agreement under which the protection conferred by European patent applications and patents is extended to the relevant country. Slovenia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, and Montenegro were all extension states prior to joining the EPC.

Furthermore, there are so-called "validation states", which are not Contracting States to the EPC but have signed validation agreements that act similarly to the extension agreements to extend the protection of European patent applications and European patents. Morocco, Moldova, Tunisia, Cambodia, and Georgia became validation states on 1 March 2015, 1 November 2015, 1 December 2017, 1 March 2018, and 15 January 2024, respectively.

title: European Patent Organisation


text:
Talk:Lonely Mountain

Despite being nominated for deletion (or redirect), this article still exists. I'd like to see more description of its outward appearance and inside features.
 * 1) There is a secret entrance, which Bilbo finds with help from a bird and a special sunset
 * 2) It was inhabited by a dragon and contained an immense hoard of gold. This hoard sparked a war after the dragon was no longer alive.
 * 3) What happened after the treasure was distributed, and the Dwarves restored it to its former glory? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Lonely Mountain


text:
Archibald Reiss

Rodolphe Archibald Reiss (8 July 1875 – 7 August 1929) was a German–Swiss criminology-pioneer, forensic scientist, professor and writer.

Early life and studies
The Reiss family was in agriculture and winemaking. Archibald was the eighth of ten children, son of Ferdinand Reiss, landowner and Pauline Sabine Anna Gabriele Seutter von Loetzen. After finishing highschool in Germany, he went to Switzerland for his studies. He had received a Ph.D. in chemistry at the age of 22 and was an expert in photography and forensic science. In 1906 he was appointed a professor of forensic science at the University of Lausanne. In 1909, he was the founder of the first academic forensic science programme and of the "Institut de police scientifique" (Institute of forensic science) at the University of Lausanne. He published two major books on forensic science "Photographie judiciaire" (Forensic photography), Mendel, Paris, in 1903 and the first part of his major contribution "Manuel de police scientifique. I Vols et homicides" (Handbook of forensic science I: Thefts and homicides), Payot, Lausanne and Acan, Paris, in 1911. The Institute he created celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2009 and has grown to become a major school, "Ecole des sciences criminelles", that includes forensic science, criminology and criminal law within the Faculty of Law and Criminal Justice of the University of Lausanne.

Serbia
With the advent of World War I, Reiss was commissioned by the Serbian government to investigate atrocities committed by the invading Central Powers against Serbs. Dr. Reiss would end up extensively documenting his findings in two reports. The first, "Report upon the atrocities committed by the Austro-Hungarian Army during the first invasion of Serbia" was completed in 1915 and published in 1916, focusing on the crimes committed by the Austro-Hungarians against the Serbs during their invasion and occupation of Serbia in the first few months of World War I in 1914. The second Reiss report focused on the second round of the invasion and occupation of Serbia and crimes committed against the Serbs which began in 1915, this time by the combined forces of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Germany, but in Bulgaria the results of Rice's investigations are rejected on the arguments that he did not take any photographs of victims of "Bulgarian atrocities", while making them for the Austro-Hungarian and German ones - moreover that he was one of the pioneers of forensic photography and the fact that he fought in the ranks of the Serbian army during the war compromised his impartiality as an expert. This second report, "Infringement of the Rules and Laws of War committed by the Austro-Bulgaro-Germans: Letters of a Criminologist on the Serbian Macedonian Front", was published in 1919. Reiss also attributes the burning of the Albanian villages in the Preševo Valley, carried out by the Serbian army during the First Balkan War and described by the then war correspondent of the "Kiev Thought" Lev Trotsky, to the Bulgarian army and presents the villages as "Serbian".

When Serbia was overrun in 1915 he joined the Serbian Army in its retreat across Albania to return with the victorious Serbian Army when it liberated Belgrade in the final days of the war. He was known as a great friend of Serbia and the Serbian people and after the war decided to stay and live in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Upon the invitation of the Serbian Government, he carried out an inquiry on Hungarian, German and Bulgarian atrocities in Serbia during World War I and published the reports in European papers. He was part of the Serbian Government's envoy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. He found propaganda postcards of the Austrian-Hungarian Army showing atrocities against Serbian people.

After the war, Reiss helped establish the first police academy in Serbia and teach forensic sciences. He was one of the founders of the Red Cross of Serbia. He became an honorary citizen of Krupanj in 1926. In 1929 Reis enters in a street quarrel next to his house in Belgrade and had been beaten by his Serbian neighbour's with wooden sticks. - He died before reaching the hospital.

After his death, his body was buried in the Topčider cemetery and, at his own request, his heart was buried on Kajmakčalan hill. The urn containing his heart was later demolished as revenge by the Bulgarians in World War II.

Legacy
As a legacy to the Serbian people, he left an unpublished manuscript Ecoutez les Serbes! ("Listen Serbs!", sr. Čujte Srbi!). It was finished on 1 June 1928, and in 2004 was printed in Serbia in a large number of copies and distributed for free.

Several streets across Serbia, particularly in Vojvodina carry his name. There is a primary school in Karaburma, Belgrade named after him. In November 2013, he was nominated for the French Forensic Science Hall of Fame by the Association Québécoise de Criminalistique

Works

 * La photographie judiciaire Beudel, Paris 1903.
 * Manuel de police scientifique (technique). Préface de Louis Lépine. Payot, Lausanne 1911.
 * Report upon the atrocities committed by the Austro-Hungarian army during the first invasion of Serbia. Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd., London 1916.
 * Les infractions aux règles et lois de la guerre. Payot, Lausanne 1918.
 * The Comitadji Question in Southern Serbia, London, 1924.
 * Poslednje pismo Srbima: Čujte Srbi! Zlaja, Belgrad 2005, ISBN 86-84737-35-0. (posthumous)
 * Poslednje pismo Srbima: Čujte Srbi! Zlaja, Belgrad 2005, ISBN 86-84737-35-0. (posthumous)

title: Archibald Reiss


text:
Talk:The WB

Cable stations
Someone should add in the article about the WB Cable stations, aka the WB100+.--James Stanley Barr 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ribbit Arena
What is Ribbit Arena, and why is it here? [David Levinson]

Ribbit Arena was/still is the games page on Kids' WB!'s website. [Anonymous]

The WB
Is the "The" strictly necessary in this article name? Unless WB is very particular about it appearing in running text as "The WB Television Network" (and maybe even then, if we get clarification on the article-naming policy) then surely it ought to move to WB Television Network. Alai 17:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "The WB" does sound dumb, doesn't it? But they're very particular about being referred to with the definite article. Most style books assert the rule that an organization is always the final authority on the correct usage of its own name. ---Isaac R 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think wikiprecedent keeps "The" in titles if it's part of the official name, e.g. The Beatles, The Rockford Files. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * There are different conventions for different cases. "Works" are well-established as always retaining the initial article, and names of bands seem to be another such, accordinbg to the MoS.  However, the more general rule seems to most common use/capitalised "The" in running text.  (Googling seems to indicate this is actually quite common, though perhaps only WB themselves even bother using the full title, somewhat biasing the results.)  Alai 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was The WB, not WB. And besides there wasn't anything Warner Bros.ish about that network. UPN, which was more popular, was more Warner Bros.ish and it was Paramount (along with Chris Craft and United Television).

Page move
I'm placing this on wp:rm, in order to get some clarity here. There seems to be a lack of rigour in the naming conventions on this. Alai 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Two data points, for whatever it's worth: 1) a google search for "WB Television Network" gets only 4,000 more hits than "The WB Television Network", which seems to imply "The" is pretty commonly included at the beginning, and 2) If you go here, click "SEARCH trademarks", click "New User Form Search (Basic)", enter "wb network" and submit the query, you will see that "The" is part of their registered trademark. Niteowlneils 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did the move, and fixed all the double redirs, before coming to this page to explain the logic and keep "some fool" from reversing it. I was surprised to find that this change is controversial!

It was obvious to me that someone had chosen that name because of the "The" being used by, or service-marked by, the network itself. We don't use names because they are official, but bcz they are natural enough to be widely used, and therefore to be the name that real users (not corporate lawyers) are likely to look them up by.

WB put the "The" in there as much bcz it's unnatural to include in the name as bcz "WB Network" standing alone sounds funny. (It sounds funny bcz it combines an initialism and a word, which perhaps make it sound like Network is a surname which could make WB stand for something like "Wilfred Bartholomew".) The frequency of including the "The" is just like never using "National Broadcasting Company" (that's NBC) without a "the" (lowercase!) in front of it. But trying to make people capitalize the T is an affectation that supports the punchy "The WB" and "The Duck Frog" thing.

WP doesn't like The in titles, and this one is ugly and not needed. Hope you-all will just let it be now that it's done. (In intentionally left the "The" bolded in the lead of the article, but i don't think that's a big deal either way.)

Sorry if i've offended anyone by uninformedly editing boldly (tho this is not an apology for doing so). --Jerzy·t 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * At 130,000 for "The WB Television Network" to 4,100 for "WB Television Network", I think the 'common names' guideline clearly prefers "The" more than the 'avoid "the" guideline' prefers without. 151,000 hits for "National Broadcasting Company" compared to 18,800 for "the National Broadcasting Company" seems to indicate 'the' isn't often used in running text for networks unless it is part of the common name. Niteowlneils 09:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This information is unpersuasive. Why NBC is different may or may not be interesting, but it's not very relevant so far.
 * Have you figured out how to discount pages that were ordered changed by the site owners' legal depts, which reflect commercial propaganda rather than real usage?
 * I assume no one would make the corresponding arguement about "The United States", in the likely event that the results are similar. (That is a redir, as this is, and both should be.) And are you arguing that we must write
 * We watched The WB Television Network
 * rather than
 * We watched the WB Television Network
 * (which presumably both count on the The side in your search results, but reflect entirely different approaches to the name)?
 * What about
 * That's a The WB Television Network show.
 * vs.
 * That's a WB Television Network show.
 * ? (In fairness, i'll mention that the NYTimes is dealing with a related issue in writing "...belonged to Al Qaida" but "was a Qaida operative".  But i suggest that most pub'ns' practice of writing "was an Al Qaida operative" is merely a concession to readers' ignorance about whether the organization is named after a martyr named "Al". While foreign languages are such a fringe case as to be confusing, you'd probably find "Der Brandenburger Tor" out-Googling "Brandenburger Tor", but we're not as likely to be confused about German grammatical articles as about Arabic ones.)
 * --Jerzy·t 02:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned NBC because you brought it up.
 * With redirects and piping, editors can write it anyway they want.
 * Scanning the first 10 pages of hits, it looks like even in mid-sentence, "The WB..." appears about 80-90%, with "the WB..." just 10-20%.
 * I can't imagine that a significant portion of the 130k hits were done due to legal or other pressure. Niteowlneils 29 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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.

no consensus. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
WB Television Network → The WB Television Network – Generally, The WB is used with the "The", and the article for The CW (a similarly named network that will replace this one in the fall) is at The CW Television Network. (Yes, there are uses without the "The", but usually that is a local station or programming block or to be grammatically correct, but that's something else.) While I understand that it is unobstructed by the history of the proposed name, there may be controversy, and I feel that such differing opinions should be brought up (the last discussion was back in June!). So, I'm putting it up for consensus.

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support, per nom. —A 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per normal WP style, "The" is not included in the title unless it is always inseparable from the rest. This makes linking easier. Jonathunder 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Jonathunder. Irregardless if "The WB" is in colloquial usage (which redirects to the current article); similarly, The CW Television Network should be moved and retitled without the definite article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as "The" is part of the network's official name. Should The Simpsons be moved to Simpsons and The Hague be moved to Hague? DHowell 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Both of these binomial examples would be ambiguous without the article; the current topic wouldn't be. The Encyclopedia of Television sees fit to omit "The" in its entry, as do many other references online.  As well, it's ironic that The WB refers to the youth portion as "Kids' WB".  Moreover, arguably, The Hague could be moved to s-Gravenhage or Den Haag. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment DHowell 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

 * How about The Beatles? Certainly "Beatles" would be unambiguous, but that's not their official name. The New York Times is an even better example. Your source, by the way, also omits the word "Television", so I'm not sure how authoritative that should be in naming issues. "Kids' WB" is just a different trademark, no doubt they thought "Kids' The WB" wouldn't sound right. In just about every other instance, the network always uses "The" in front of "WB", and capitalizes it, even in the middle of sentences (e.g.,, and look at the copyright notice at the bottom for the legal name of the network). Even you did it in your own comment! Finally, "The Hague" is the most common name for the city in the English language, so unless that were to change (à la Torino, a proposed move currently under discussion), it should remain exactly where it is. DHowell 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of definite articles is debatable in many respects. For a binomial term like "The Beatles", it seems appropriate (though wouldn't lose sleep it it were nixed) ... and, despite the name, the online URL for The New York Times www.nytimes.com excludes it.  Moreover, the reference above likely omitted "Television" given that it's a compendium about that medium and is still umabiguous without it.
 * Importantly, there's a distinct difference (at least more recently in general parlance) when referring to "T/the WB" in short (the network) as opposed to just the initialism WB (which can refer to either the parent company or something else), and a longer form where the network is utterly unambiguous without "The". And I'm sure the company had reason to not refer to the youth element as "The Kids' WB" instead?  Inconsistent marketing/mojo we needn't pander to: for the long form, use of the definite article is superfluous for the Wp title.
 * Lastly, it's interesting that (the) Netherlands is currently entitled without the article despite it being integral to its (English) name. And, as a segue, I can't opine on what's happening with Turin/Torino, but other alternate renditions have held (Kolkata, Zürich, Beijing yet Peking Man et al.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You should probably file a move request for the CW thingummy as well, now. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Dang, I just missed the vote. I would have supported it. It's what I typed when I first tried linking to it. —Fitch 10:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

move, as there is consensus for a move on Talk:The CW Television Network, despite the lack of a consensus here. There appears to be consensus that we need to be consistent between these two cases. An administrator is asked to remove the redirect at The WB Television Network. Note that one of the oppose votes is from an anon, so the final vote is 2-1-1. Morgan Wick 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move, redux
WB Television Network → The WB Television Network – "The WB Television Network" is the official name of the network. The network is commonly referred to as "The WB". "The" is as much a part of this name as it is a part of The Beatles, The Hague, and The New York Times. Recently, The CW Television Network was moved to CW Television Network, in opposition to consensus on that page (see that talk page), in order to be consistent with this page, for which there has not yet been a consensus on the name. So I'm proposing both pages be moved for consistency. In support of this, I cite the Naming Conventions: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name." - See and  for examples where "The" is capitalized as part of the network name. DHowell 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~

 * Oppose as before. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support CFIF (talk to me) 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, as just like I said on the RM for the CW network's article, it now appears that the naming convention that was used to keep the "The" off the article title can apparently be used to put it on, too. I think it's confusing me, so I'm now cool either way.  -- WC Quidditch   ☎  ✎  00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the network flash ident on TV doesn't have "The" on it always. 132.205.45.148 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can you clarify on what you are talking about? -Whomp 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are only specific instances when "WB" is officially seen without "The", and that is in individual station IDs (i.e. "WB11"), and in programming blocks (i.e., Kids' WB, Daytime WB). Colloquially, one might refer to a "WB program", but this is no different than talking about a "Beatles' song" or a "New York Times article". All other cases, the network is always referred to as "The WB". Note that we don't normally say "the CBS", "the Fox", "the NBC", "the ABC", or "the UPN", because "the" is not part of those network names. DHowell 03:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Support, per what I said here. -Whomp 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please also take part in the debate at Talk:CW Television Network Morgan Wick 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the two examples initially listed ( and ), one is the network itself, which can be expected to style itself in whatever way it pleases. The other is a press release, which was likely reproduced verbatim from the network. For a better estimation of actual usage, try Google News. For example, here's a smattering of results: AP wire, lower case; SF Chronicle, lower case or missing; Knight-Ridder News Service, lower case or missing; Country Weekly, lower case. This was just checking a dozen of the top hits (eliminating duplicates). older ≠ wiser 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to our naming conventions, we use the version that is official, so the WB's own examples are paramount. See Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Morgan Wick 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to close this vote despite the lack of a consensus and my lack of administrator power to remove the applicable redirect (I have not tagged it with a speedy notice because of the lack of consensus here) because there is consensus to move on Talk:The CW Television Network and I don't know of anything that specifically says I can't close votes. An administrator is asked to remove the applicable redirect. Anyone who objects to this should discuss in this space, but unless there is a good reason why these two cases should not be treated equal, it's either staying closed or the CW debate is being reopened (against a 6-1-1 consensus there to move). Morgan Wick 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that this move has not yet been carried out. An administrator is asked to remove the redirect at The WB Television Network. Morgan Wick 01:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No administrator support was necessary, as Wikipedia allows anyone to move over a redirect, as long as there is no edit history other than the creation of the redirect itself. Page move done. DHowell 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign-off Date
Where is the evidence of this supposed sign-off date of September 3?--Dleav 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere. The official signoff date is now September 17, 2006 (according to a WB press release). The CW Television Network begins the next day with 7th Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.224.115 (talk • contribs)

 * The only press release I've seen talks about the official roll-out starting Wednesday, September 20, 2006 with America's Next Top Model. --Powerlord 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens to this article when the WB signs off??
I was wondering, when this network officially signs off, what happens to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLT2712 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 August 2006
 * We keep it for historical purposes. The same goes for any defunct company. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like with companies like May Company (department stores rolling into Macy's/Federated). TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Closedown
That was so sad! With the goodbye, montage of actors, and the frog saying goodbye! I was almost in tears!Seamus215 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG! I cried when I saw that. At least the WB went out with style and class. I hate the new CW!

Let's Place A Candlelight Vigil On The Network
Well, The Network Has Died, And I Feel That We Should Put A Candlelight Vigil On The Network, Who's With Me? ( Places Candle On WPIX-TV WB11 Logo That Was Never Used Anymore, And Places Another On The WB Logo, Crumbles CW Logo And Throws It In The Garbage, Then Tunes To FOX )

Frank0115932 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're Right. I never see any new Episodes On The CW. All they are doing are destroying All great networks and not showing new episodes while The Bad Moves On. COME BACK, WB 11!

I agree. The candelight vigil is a WONDERFUL idea. You, my good friend, are a genius!

Illegal YouTube link?
Yes, I know that the WB finale promo is on YouTube, but it was illegally uploaded, as it is unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Should the link remain on this article? Milchama 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How many images are in this article alone that are unauthorized but get a fair use stamp?
 * Three. But going back to the topic: People upload millions of copyrighted videos without authorization every day on YouTube and countless other video sites. Also, if it is "illegal", I think the link should be removed and people can find it themselves. Same goes for other pages with links to copyrighted YT videos (about a month ago I found a link to Pepper Ann's intro on YouTube. I removed it because the video had been removed). WizardDuck 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WB acronym
You need to cite proof that "WB" does not stand for Warner Brothers before stating in the article that it doesn't.

Add most-watched programs of the network per season since 2001-2002?
I recently added a table of the most-watched programs of the network of the 2001-2002 season. I meant to include the TV seasons following 2001-2002, up until the present. However, another Wiki user had deleted it shortly thereafter. My question to anyone here is should tables of the most-watched programs per season since 2001-2002 be included? I believe that such an addition is informative and an interesting read. Let me know what you think. -- Dechnique23 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for closure
Why did WB shut down? Make the reason simple.--67.10.200.101 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Eather they could not hold the budget for The WB Along with UPN, MyNetworkTV, Or not enogh Viewers.

MySpace
I'm deletin g the link to a fake MySpace run by the wb. Obvisusly, it's not, as it was started in November, AFTER the network shut down. Kdupuy9 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daytime WB logo.jpg
Image:Daytime WB logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will 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.BetacommandBot 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWB...logo.gif
Image:TheWB...logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will 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.

BetacommandBot 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Past Shows" Section
I removed the "Past Shows" sub-section of the "History" section of the article. Another such list (and, IMHO, a better constructed one to boot) can just as easily be found at List of programs broadcast by The WB, so this section was just plain redundant. Gujuguy 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wblogo.png
Image:Wblogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the page have a logo of The WB?
I'm asking you, it should have one. --64.183.61.212 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article's first sentence
...doesn't parse:
 * The WB, is a online network that was launched on April 28, 2008. It was formerly a television channel The Warner Bros. Television Network launched on January 11, 1995.

Can someone who knows something about The WB fix it? --zenohockey (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribune Broadcasting's WB stations
To settle something about The WB, were Tribune Broadcasting's WB stations affiliates or owned-and-operated stations? Tribune did maintain an ownership stake in The WB, but some editors disagree as to whether the Tribune-owned stations that were aligned with the network were actually O&Os or affiliates; does the fact that Tribune's ownership stake in The WB was small (12.5%, then later 22%) play into which distinction applies, does one company's ownership stake in a broadcast network have to be 50% or more to constitute any stations it owns that carry the network's programming an O&O? TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The WB. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribune.com/investors/transcripts/thecw_06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The WB's new logo in 2010?
You thought the WB changed their logo in 2012 as a web channel? Think again. The WB ACTUALLY changed their logo as a web channel in 2010. --67.226.16.44 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The WB for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The WB is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The WB until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Merger Proposal
I would like to propose merging The Night of Favorites and Farewells into the WB. Why? The WB already covers TNFF already.Meanwhile the Actual Article is 1: Not meeting the Guidelines for GNG (The Article itself had the tag placed Est 2013!) Only one source out of the 3 used is actually reliable. The other 2 are just YouTube.As a result,I propose TNFF be Merged into or preferably Redirected to the WB.The Next Best thing would be to have the article’s head off and dice eaten.

Go on place your votes.
Place em here. Danubeball (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support: I suppose it could be merged into a lengthy closure/final night section. But I wouldn't dismiss the YouTube sources. They're certainly for archival purposes and not manipulated propaganda pushing--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Merged. Mainly because of there being only one comment and that one supporting it.Danubeball (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:The WB


text:
Talk:Ecosystem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Billyroberson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Cell (biology) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Not to be confused with Cell biology. Cell Wilson1900Fig2.jpg Onion (Allium cepa) root cells in different phases of the cell cycle (drawn by E. B. Wilson, 1900) Celltypes.svg A eukaryotic cell (left) and prokaryotic cell (right) Identifiers MeSH	D002477 TH	H1.00.01.0.00001 FMA	686465 Anatomical terminology [edit on Wikidata] The cell (from Latin word 'cellula' meaning "small room"[1]) is the basic structural and functional unit of life. Every cell consists of a cytoplasm enclosed within a membrane, which contains many biomolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids.[2]

Most plant and animal cells are only visible under a light microscope, with dimensions between 1 and 100 micrometres.[3] Electron microscopy gives a much higher resolution showing greatly detailed cell structure. Organisms can be classified as unicellular (consisting of a single cell such as bacteria) or multicellular (including plants and animals).[4] Most unicellular organisms are classed as microorganisms. The number of cells in plants and animals varies from species to species; it has been approximated that the human body contains roughly 40 trillion (4×1013) cells.[a][5] The brain accounts for around 80 billion of these cells.[6]

Cell biology is the study of cells, which were discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, who named them for their resemblance to cells inhabited by Christian monks in a monastery.[7][8] Cell theory, first developed in 1839 by Matthias Jakob Schleiden and Theodor Schwann, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells, that cells are the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms, and that all cells come from pre-existing cells.[9] Cells emerged on Earth about 4 billion years ago.[10][11][12][13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poornima B 12 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schneidl12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving Readability of the lead
Let's consider moving some of the detail from the lead. The last few sentences of the last and the second to the last paragraph both offer too much detail for an overview. It's interesting stuff, but without an opportunity to fully explain things I believe readers will get discouraged. Right now the lead readability is a 33. Not good. Removing longer sentences with long words can only help that too.PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 * just deleted a few of detail-oriented sentences. Raised the score to (drumroll) 35. More work needed to simplify some of the sentences.PlanetCare (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * made some further simplifications but didn't get the readability socre to higher than 35.EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That re-write of the lead was not good.

Not true.

One of at least two sentence fragments If you look at the ORES score, we went from an article that resembled an FA to one that fluctuates between B and C. Guettarda (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This is also incorrect. A community is not made up of living organisms and non-living components. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Coming back to this exchange from December 2018. Where do we stand on this now? The first sentence says: "An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment, interacting as a system." Correct or not correct? As a reference for this statement we have this "Tansley (1934); Molles (1999), p. 482; Chapin et al. (2002), p. 380; Schulze et al. (2005); p. 400; Gurevitch et al. (2006), p. 522; Smith & Smith 2012, p. G-5". To me that is a little odd. Sure, those books are provided in the section "literature cited" but it is really necessary to provide six references for this? Would one "authoritative" reference be sufficient? In fact, since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, then where in the article is this definition explained? We don't have a heading for "definition" or "terminology" - should we have one? We currently have one called "Origin and use of the term" where this could perhaps be included (although User:Guettarda you would prefer this section to be called "history"?). EMsmile (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018
Ecostyms 188.123.231.88 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  17:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead image caption
The lead image caption used "ecosystem" is a way that is inconsistent with the article and the scholarly literature.

The caption is using ecosystem as a synonym for biome, which is confusing given the content of the article. It also uses Hatcher (1990) to support what it says. Problem is that Hatcher uses "ecosystem" to mean "ecosystem", not biome. So this is doubly misleading. Guettarda (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , if I am not mistaken your comment from December 2018 has been addressed, right? The caption in the lead image says "Left: Coral reef ecosystems are highly productive marine systems. Right: Temperate rainforest on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state." Do you (and others) agree with that caption? EMsmile (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mispelling - "ecoystem"
"Ecosystem" is misspelled under the Dynamics section: "When a perturbation occurs, an ecoystem responds by moving away from its initial state."
 * Is corrected now. EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Spelling
It's is used incorrectly in the 'Dymanics' paragraph. It should be its. VWScully (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been corrected by now.EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Limiting Error in scope of ecosystem by disregarding chemosynthesis in introduction.
"Energy enters the system through photosynthesis and is incorporated into plant tissue. By feeding on plants and on one another, animals play an important role in the movement of matter and energy through the system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis#:~:text=In%20biochemistry%2C%20chemosynthesis%20is%20the,energy%2C%20rather%20than%20sunlight%2C%20as

pretty lazy imo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.48.108 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can anyone make sense of this comment? Is there anything we ought to change? EMsmile (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Who says that "history" has to come first?
Hi User:Guettarda, I saw your edit where you had reverted my edit to move history to later. In the edit summary you wrote: "starting with a history section is standard for articles like this. whether the usual layout of articles is good or bad is a question for to be settled at a much higher level than individual pages". Who says it's "standard"? Where is that standard prescribed? I am following the Manual of Style of the hugely successful WikiProject Medicine which has moved history towards the end for all the medicine related articles. For good reason, I think. See here (and we did the same for WikiProject Sanitation as well, see here). I think if users are searching for historical information they would be putting in the search field "history of". E.g. "history of water supply and sanitation". So why should history come first, directly after the lead? When you look at the leads themselves, they don't start with history, usually. They are meant to be a good summary of the article but historical aspects are not usually the main focus of any such article from the scientific fields. Terminology can come early, yes, but not history. For this article here, we could actually just rename it back to "Terminology" in that case. Might be better. But overall, I would be happy to "settle at a much higher level than individual pages". Where do you want me to take this to? Which WikiProject, or where else? EMsmile (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've just looked at these related articles and found there is no "standard" about what the heading is called and where in the article it appears: Biosphere > Biome > Ecosystem > Biocenosis > Population > Organism > Organ system > Organ > Tissue > Cell > Organelle > Biomolecular complex > Macromolecule > Biomolecule. I saw some of the other articles use the section heading "Origin and use of the term" which I think is clearer than "history"; so it's more of a "definition" section in which case it's alright to be at the start. But a purely "historical" section I would always put towards the end, and that's how I've seen it done for many articles.  EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're aware, the GA nomination failed because of the lack of detail in the history section. I'm not sure how making sure there is even less of a history section improves this article in that regard. Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, both of the most closely-related FAs have history sections at the top of the article: Evolution and Genetics. And as far as I know, so do other FAs about broad scientific concepts. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Three years ago you separated statements from their sources, creating several unsourced statements. At the time, I tagged them and asked you to fix them, and walked away from the article because I was trying to minimise conflict. In all that time, you could never be bothered to fix the mess you made. So yeah, I'm less collegial than I really should be. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

please avoid using abbriviations, I cant follow your argumentation because of that. PS: very tense tone in here, thats unnecessary. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I would use "concept" instead of "term", since its not about the etymology, as it stands at the moment. How about "Conceptual history" or just "Concept"? Nsae Comp (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

...or "Conceptual development" Nsae Comp (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could argue that "Origin and use of the term" is plainer English. I agree that section should be at the top of the body of text as it gives the basic definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

See also sections
In general, most articles listed should be mentioned in a sentence or two within the body of the text (if they are integral enough to the topic), or removed (if pretty tangential). It would be a good idea to do here e.g. Novel ecosystem and biosphere for starters...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas Liber, I agree with you. Please go ahead with your ideas for this. EMsmile (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting the question about "types"
I would like to revisit some issues that were raised in 2018 but not fully resolved (please scroll up to see what I mean). For example the issue of "types". Would it be sensible to have a section on "types of ecosystems"? This is not my area of expertise but I notice that we have a Wikipedia article on terrestrial ecosystem which starts with "A terrestrial ecosystem is a type of ecosystem found only on land forms. Six primary terrestrial ecosystems exist: tundra, taiga, temperate deciduous forest, tropical rain forest, grassland, deserts." We also have an article on Aquatic ecosystem. It says: "An aquatic ecosystem is an ecosystem in a body of water." If those definitions are true then shouldn't this overview article on ecosystem explain the different types? If those definitions are not right or misleading then those two sub-articles ought to be changed. In March 2018, User:Guettarda wrote: These are biomes, not ecosystems. The fact that the term ecosystem is often used very imprecisely doesn't mean we need to follow that convention here. Sure, add a section distinguishing processes in terrestrial and aquatic systems. But not here. So where does that leave us? What do people suggest? EMsmile (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As there was no answer I have now come up with my own solution, I think it should work: I have called the new section "Examples" where I have listed a bunch of Wikipedia articles that talk about different ecosystems (similar to the bullet point listing that we have at coast). I think this could work to give people a bit of an overview what's out there; remembering that this is a high level overview article that should point people in the right directions for further reading. EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to the Good Article Review from nine years ago
The Good Article Review from nine years ago in 2012 was mentioned recently on the talk page. This is the review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecosystem/GA1 It was done by User:Stigmatella aurantiaca. Sadly nobody had time back then to follow up on it (I don't know who had started the Good Article nomination). These were the recommendations at the time: +++++++ I've spent the past few days skimming the materials that I got from the university library. Mostly I focused on Chapin et al. 2011, since I saw that the 2002 edition of their textbook was a major resource for you. But I also read through the Christensen et al. report and skimmed through other textbooks not on your list.

Being an old fogey, I'm rather amazed at the paradigm shifts that have occurred even in such things as the old succession concept that I learned 40+ years ago. The Odum brothers' use of radiotracers was state-of-the-art when I was learning this stuff in school. How far we've gone! I'm struck by the advances in experimental methods. How do we know what we know? How about paleoecological studies? Computer modeling? Satellite remote sensing? When I learned this stuff 40+ years ago, all we learned about were patterns. Now the emphasis is on processes.

Ecosystems is a huge topic, far too big a subject to cover adequately in a 52,000 character essay, or one even double the current size. There are two basic approaches to attempting to cover such a huge subject in an article that can be read in 15–25 minutes. (1) Provide idiosyncratic coverage in significant detail of just the most important topics, knowing that you're going to miss a lot that people would want to learn. (2) Write the article mostly as a directed set of links. This is the "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" approach to writing a Wikipedia article.

Your article clearly adopts the second approach.

Comparing the subjects covered in your article with Chapin et al. (2011), Smith and Smith (2012), and a couple of other texts that I got from the university library, I see that you unavoidably missed a lot of important stuff. I say "unavoidably" because that's just how big this subject is, even taking the approach that you've adopted.

It would be unfair of me to ask you to fix everything, since that would entail writing at least a 200,000 character article. But I can ask you to fix a couple of topics for the GA.

History and development Treatment in this section is very inadequate. You have no dates, and describe nothing after the mid to late 60's. Modern understanding and methods of research have changed ENORMOUSLY in the last several decades since I studied this stuff in school.

Ecosystem processes Late in his life, Jenny recognized human activity as a sixth state factor, but you only mention human activity in the last two sentences? Human-induced ecosystem change is a huge factor in ecosystem processes.

Right now the article stands as about 52,000 characters. To fix these two issues, the article should grow to be maybe, say, around 60,000 characters? +++++++++ Opinions about this by anyone? Anyone able to address those comments? EMsmile (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently the article's length is 24 kB (3712 words) "readable prose size", so no problem about it being too long. EMsmile (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Content expert review (July 2021)
I am currently involved in a 2-year project where we contact content experts and ask them to review selected articles (more information here). When reaching out to people I am in particular looking for textbook authors who might enjoy teaching others and parting with their knowledge. For this article we contacted Terry Chapin whose textbooks are cited a lot in this article. He sent us comments by e-mail which my colleague User:ASRASR has now already incorporated in the Wikipedia article with a number of edits in early July: In general, the Wikipedia article on ecosystems is excellent. I have only a few minor comments and suggestions: 1. Section on processes, paragraph 3, first two sentences. “Potential biota are the biota that are present within the region. I suggest combining these two sentences to read “….potential biota, the organisms that are present in a region and could potentially occupy a particular site.” 2. Energy flow, first sentence. Energy can also be released from an ecosystem through disturbances such as wildfire or transferred to other ecosystems (e.g., from a forest to a stream to a lake) by erosion. The role of disturbance should also be mentioned in the first paragraph under “Decomposition” 3. Section on decomposition, paragraph 4. The sentence about soil moisture is confusing, because either high or low posture can reduce decomposition, as described nicely in the last paragraph in this section. I would change the sentence to read: “Temperature also affects soil moisture, which affects decomposition as described in the next paragraph.” 4. Section on nutrient cycling: last sentence of the first paragraph: It would be more accurate to say that most terrestrial ecosystems are nitrogen-limited in the short term, with availability of phosphorus also being important over longer time scales, as described in the last paragraph in this section. Peter Vitousek’s work on P limitation of ecosystems is the best description of these issues. You might add a paragraph in this section to talk about the role of mycorrhizal fungi that are symbiotic with plants. These fungi use carbohydrates supplied by plant roots and in return transfer organic nitrogen compounds to plants. This pathway of organic nitrogen transfer from dead organic matter to plants is missing from your diagram. 5. The section on function and biodiversity is generally quite unclear (in contrast to the preceding sections, which are very clear). Although individual phrases are generally scientifically accurate, most of the sentences are unclear and there is poor connectivity among sentences. The greatest problem in this section is the lack of coherence rather than incorrect facts. 6. The section on dynamics is excellent, except for the first paragraph. At the end of the first sentence, I’d suggest changing the wording to “…recovering from past disturbances.” The rest of this paragraph (equilibrium state, resilience, and resistance) describes the dynamics of complex systems (including ecosystems) in theoretical terms. This treatment here is in general too brief to be easily understood or to be easily related to other sections. The concepts are also described according to concepts as they were defined about 50 years ago and have evolved considerably in recent decades. I’d be inclined to move the first sentence of this paragraph to the beginning of the third paragraph and delete the rest of the first paragraph. Alternatively, consult some of the more recent treatments of resilience, such as Walker and Salt’s “Resilience Thinking”. We also talk about resilience in our textbook (Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology). 7. In the section about Ecosystem ecology, I’d be inclined to delete the second paragraph that describes different conflicting definitions of ecosystems. It would take more text than you have space for to explain constructively the reasons behind the controversies regarding these definitions. I didn’t feel that this paragraph provides much insight about ecosystem ecology in a way that would be useful to readers of Wikipedia. I’d suggest moving the last paragraph of this section so that it follows the first paragraph. 8. Ecosystem goods and services. I’m not sure it is useful to separate “ecosystem goods” from "ecosystem services". IPBES defines ecosystem services as the benefits that people receive from nature—and these would include what the first paragraph in this section defines as ecosystem goods (as distinct from services). This ecosystem services concept is generally consistent across many indigenous and western knowledge systems. I’d suggest going to the recent syntheses by IPBES for an up-to-date conceptual framework. One way these have been categorized is “provisioning services” (what this paragraph defines as ecosystem goods—food, water, medicines, etc), regulating services (e.g., regulation of climate, water, disturbance and pollution) and “cultural services” which includes sense of place, ecotourism, beauty, etc.. I’d suggest doing some more reading about recent work on ecosystem services before revising this section. I’m not sufficiently up to date on the recent work to provide specific advice. 9. The sections on ecosystem management and ecosystem degradation are brief but appropriate. There is lots more that could be said (as with every topic in Wikipedia). I appreciate the cross references to other wikipedia topics. EMsmile (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Further work

 * I am also adding here further questions/feedback/thoughts by User:ASRASR (from an e-mail) which still need to be addressed in further work:

 * 1) You wrote: The role of disturbance should also be mentioned in the first paragraph under “Decomposition”. What sorts of disturbances did you have in mind regarding decomposition? I can think of drought, fire or flooding.
 * 2) Re P limitation, I added a reference Vitousek, P.; Porder, S. (2010). "Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions". Ecological Applications. 20(1): 5–15.
 * 3) I added increased P availability to the suggested para on N availability re mycorrhizal fungi (plus two references)
 * 4) You wrote: “The section on function and biodiversity is generally quite unclear (in contrast to the preceding sections, which are very clear). Although individual phrases are generally scientifically accurate, most of the sentences are unclear and there is poor connectivity among sentences. The greatest problem in this section is the lack of coherence rather than incorrect facts.” I didn’t have any great difficulty understanding this section. It could be improved further by adding the terms eurytopic and stenotopic – not sure if these are used much these days – my training began with Eugene Odum’s work.
 * 5) To improve the section on dynamics I added a sentence explaining resilience thinking and added a reference from SRC (which in turn also includes your recommended reference Walker and Salt) – “Resilience thinking also includes humanity as an integral part of the biosphere where we are dependent on ecosystem services for our survival and must build and maintain their natural capacities to withstand shocks and disturbances”. I also improved the last sentence in the 1st para so it makes more sense.
 * 6) Re section on ecosystem ecology – I carried out the operation you recommended – shifting paras and removal of the one describing controversies surrounding definitions of ecosystems
 * 7) Re ecosystem goods and services –I understand your point around not separating these  - but I think people need to understand that ecosystem processes (cf services) are the foundation to providing the goods. I added some explanations about the services which most people take for granted– “The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a major UN-sponsored effort to analyze the impact of human actions on ecosystems and human well-being, identified four major categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services”. EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the terms under "See Also" still need to be mentioned in main text
I have today added some additional terms under "See also". This is just an interim step because I think ideally they should be introduced in one way or another in the main body, and can then be removed from "See also". This is work in progress. If anyone can help with sentences and references (either new or existing ones), please go ahead. EMsmile (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Working on the references and comment about Chapin textbook
I have changed over from the short reference style to the "long reference" style because I think it's more appropriate and consistent for this kind of article. Furthermore, I am going to replace all the citations to the first edition textbook of Chapin et al. (2002) to the second edition (2011). I have the second edition here in front of me now, so I can adjust the page numbers accordingly. Overall, I feel that this article relies too much on one particular textbook: the book by Chapin is cited about 60 times. I find this a little bit problematic, also given that the text book is about "terrestrial ecosystems" whereas this article is about ecosystems in general. So the aspects that relate to aquatic ecosystems are likely to be under weighted in this article. This is something to work on later down the line. EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am currently replacing all the old references to Terry Chapin's 2002 book (first edition) with his 2011 book (second edition). While doing so, I have found quite a few statements that had his 2002 book as a citation but that I cannot find in his 2011 book. I am currently consulting with Terry on these to determine if they need a different reference, no reference at all or if the statements are incorrect (some of them might have become too simplified over time, after various editors worked on this). Work in progress. EMsmile (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have completed this process now and have added the correct references to the 2011 book (second edition). The first edition book is now no longer cited in this Wikipedia article. EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation
The following statement appears in the "Ecosystem restoration and sustainable development" section:

"To help inform decision-makers, many ecosystem services are being assigned economic values, often based on the cost of replacement with anthropogenic alternatives. The ongoing challenge of prescribing economic value to nature, for example through biodiversity banking, is prompting transdisciplinary shifts in how we recognize and manage the environment, social responsibility, business opportunities, and our future as a species."

I found the source of this quote; however, when I tried to insert the citation using the "cite journal" template, Wikipedia flagged it as an article that appeared in a predatory journal.

My question is, what would be the best way to proceed? Can the citation be inserted anyway, or does the statement need to be removed? If the latter, what could it be replaced with? Msoul13 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Msoul13, I doubt that that is the original source for such a quite generic statement. Perhaps those authors copied from Wikipedia rather? Or there is another source out there? Perhaps check in ecosystem services? EMsmile (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't even stop to consider that the authors of that article could have copied from Wikipedia!! I could start digging through the references in ecosystem services to find something suitable but if another editor wants to take up this task it's fine with me. Msoul13 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ecosystem Abstract
Humans have dramatically changed natural ecosystem around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5D43:9810:0:0:824:AA20 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ecosystem


text:
Deng Yaping

Deng Yaping (born February 6, 1973) is a Chinese table tennis player, who won eighteen world championships including four Olympic championships between 1989 and 1997. She is regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport.

Early life and education
Deng was born in Zhengzhou, Henan, on February 6, 1973.

Career
Deng began playing table tennis aged five, and four years later she won the provincial junior championship. She was age 13 when she won her first national championship.

Despite her success, she was initially denied a spot on the national team because she was so short (she stood only 1.5 metres [4 feet 11 inches] tall). She was finally included on the national team in 1988. She teamed with Qiao Hong to win her first world championship title in the women's doubles competition in 1989. Two years later in 1991, Deng won her first singles world championship.

At the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, Spain, she won a gold medal in both the singles and doubles competitions and repeated the feat at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, USA. She also earned singles and doubles titles at the 1995 and 1997 world championships.

When she retired at the age of 24, she had won more titles than any other player in this sport, including four Olympic gold medals, and had been World Champion 18 times. From 1990 to 1997, she retained the title of world No. 1 ranked female table tennis player for 8 years. She was voted Chinese female athlete of the century, and joined the International Table Tennis Federation Hall of Fame in 2003.

Successes

 * 40th World Table Tennis Championship (1989) Women's Double Gold.
 * 1st Table Tennis World Cup (1990) Women's Team Gold.
 * 41st World Table Tennis Championship (1991) Women's Single Gold, Women's Team Silver, Women's Double Silver.
 * 2nd Table Tennis World Cup (1991–1992) Women's Team Gold, Women's Double Gold.
 * 25th Olympic Games (1992) Table Tennis Women's Single Gold, Women's Double Gold.
 * 42nd World Table Tennis Championship (1993) Women's Team Gold, Women's Double Silver.
 * 43rd World Table Tennis Championship (1995) Women's Team Gold, Women's Single Gold, Women's Double Gold, Mixed Double Silver.
 * 4th Table Tennis World Cup (1995) Women's Team Gold
 * 26th Olympic Games (1996) Table Tennis Women's Single Gold, Women's Double Gold.
 * 5th Table Tennis World Cup (1996) Women's Single Gold
 * 44th World Table Tennis Championship (1997) Women's Team Gold, Women's Single Gold, Women's Double Gold, Mixed Double Silver.

Post-Playing Career
Deng is still deeply involved with the national Chinese table tennis scene and frequently speaks to the media. She also was a color-commentator for the Women's World Cup in 2020. In June 2021, Deng claimed that Mima Ito was not a serious threat to the Chinese women's Olympic hopes.

Personal and Political Life
After retiring at the end of the 1997 season, Deng served on the International Olympic Committee's ethics and athletes commissions. She is also a member of the elite Laureus World Sports Academy, and a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

She gained a bachelor's degree from Tsinghua University, an MRes degree in Contemporary Chinese Studies from the University of Nottingham in 2002, and a PhD degree in Land Economy from the University of Cambridge (Jesus College) in 2008. Her thesis title is: "Olympic branding and global competition: the case of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games". Her research work coincides with her professional focus on the marketing, management and development of the 2008 Beijing Olympics as a member of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games.

In 2007, she married Lin Zhigang, also a table tennis player, and later gave birth to a baby boy.

In 2010, she attracted controversy due to comments she made. A student asked her, "how can one get promoted quickly?" She answered, "when your personal value overlaps with the interests of the state, your value will be enlarged without limit." Later, she also said, "In the 62 years since the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the People's Daily have not published a single piece of fake news."

In 2013, she was awarded an honorary DLitt degree from the University of Nottingham Ningbo China.

title: Deng Yaping


text:
Talk:War of the Ring

Untitled
This is a bit basic isn't it for a defining war? I'll try and write more soon, but I'm busy with work and doing the Star Trek pages too :) --Timo 14:44, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Picture?
the link to an image was recently removed because the image itself had been deleted. Not sure why this occured or if it is possible to find out what happened to the image?

I think this article does need a picture. Of course it is hard to illustrate the war itself, but covers of any of the games and/or the book History of Middle Earth book would be good if anyone has one. These images would be allowable under "liscencing: Covers: Board game cover or Book cover". Please upload and link if you have one (or two) - Waza 22:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted because it had unknown copyright status, which is now a criteria for speedy deletion. See Criteria for speedy deletion. You can see the delete log at.

I hope you find the siege tower image I added to the conflict box suitable. This is the source, including disclaimers, fair use information, etc: Grimhelm 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflict Box
I consolidated Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White as commanders into just Gandalf, as not only do the two links refer to the same person (though at different levels of power and authority), but they also redirect to the same article, which seems rather pointless and redundant to me. Grimhelm 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means. That was just me going :P . --Kizor 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One advantage of not consolidating them would be the little cross thingy (to indicate that the commander died during the war). Gandalf the Grey died; Gandalf the White did not. If we are going to leave them consolidated we have to find a better way of noting that because its inaccurate to give him the same cross-thingy as everyone else.savidan(talk) (e@) 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox is wrong
Apparently because of the limitations of the infobox, Saruman as a third party is not listed! Could someone fix it? 202.163.247.203 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Saruman was officially allied with Mordor. While he was certainly doing so for his own purposes and was far from 'loyal' to Sauron it does not seem unreasonable to include him with the other opponents of the 'Free peoples' rather than as a third party. --CBDunkerson 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Eomer?
Why is Eomer not listed among the comanders? He became King of the Mark during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and led the men of the Mark in the assault on the Black Gate. He must be listed as a commander.
 * I believe one per army is enough... Else we should list both Dain's and Brand's sons, Imrahil, Gothmog and The Mouth of Sauron. I believe that would be too much. Bryan 13:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Casualties
Why are there casualties listed for the armies of Good if they are unknown, and why are the strengths of the armies recorded if they are unknown? Either an estimate needs to be found somewhere in a primary source, or the listings need to be as unknown.

I don't get it
I've read Tolkien's foreword to the second edition, and there's one paragraph that i don't get. If anyone out there could clear this up, it would be great: "The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. if it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt; they would not long have survived even as slaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.96.150 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi - he's talking about how reviewers had said the War of the Ring ("the legendary war") resembled the Second World War ("the real war") - which he disagreed with, pointing out the relative moral shortcomings (in his opinion...I'm not gonna start treading on any POV toes here ;-) ) of WWII's commanders which, if they'd been in the command, he assumes would have used the Ring etc since they were willing to use other devastating weapons such as atomic bombs etc. The bit about Saruman - well, he's probably working out the 'realistic' way things would've worked out after the War in middle-earth ended, with Saruman taking advantage of the situation. There could even be a reference to the two superpowers of the Cold War having nuclear arsenals as their 'trump' weapons by having Saruman and "the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth" both have Rings - though Tolkien disliked allegories he's using this 'alternate' War of the Ring as an example of what the War would've been like if it *was* an allegory. The bits about Sauron being enslaved & Barad-dur occupied probably refer to the fact that the Allies absorbed a lot of scientists etc who'd worked for the Nazis into their own weapons programs, and so the Middle-earth equivalent would be to enslave Sauron etc, who after all knows his fair share about war. For more of his views on the Second World War, check out the Letters of JRR Tolkien - there's one particular letter where he says both the Allies & Axis powers "have orcs" among their commanding officers, for instance. - Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.195 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mordor force.jpg
The image Image:Mordor force.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Conflict Template
So I have just noticed a bit of back and forth with an IP editor and GimliDotNet over the inclusion of Infobox Military Conflict template. Whilst I know that this is something that is usually included in factual articles, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that prevents it from being included in fictional articles is there? MisterShiney   ✉    09:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC) , None of the information being added is essential to the understanding of the article. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a fictional article that is already in-universe. The info box is for summarising real world battles and wars, not for fan-cruft, unless the info box is dealing with real world information it has no place in this article. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  09:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude and sound abrupt, but do you have a policy against it's inclusion? I for one think it's a great way to summarise the key points which is the point of an info box and what this article was lacking. One could argue that the whole Lord of the Rings Middle Earth project is fan cruft and has no place on a factual encyclopedia. But it does, so key information should be easily accessible.
 * That link doesn't specify that they shouldn't be included. MisterShiney    ✉    09:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction."
 * Respectfully, that is a matter of opinion. It provides all they key information of the conflict, the purpose of the info box, and enables the reader to quickly able to access the information. The user was quite right in adding the box. MisterShiney    ✉    10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not only irrelevant, it is also factually incorrect. Double wammy of shite GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  10:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if is "factually" incorrect then be bold and make it factually correct. If you feel this information is "shite" then why are you even editing in the first place? MisterShiney    ✉    10:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have. And now we have an article that is even more crufty than it was before. Great work. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole article is crufty! lol. MisterShiney    ✉    11:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is your third opinion, although I am not aware you asked for one. Gimli is correct. The guideline (not policy) is Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, specifically the section WP:INUNIVERSE. That section warns against the problems of writing about fiction using real-world terms, including Using infoboxes intended for real world topics. Please remove the "Infobox Military Conflict" templates; they are outside the purview of a fictional event. If you would like to make infoboxes specifically for fictional conflicts, I would be happy to see it. You would need to abide by the guidelines set down in the Manual of Style I have already linked. The resulting infobox would not look the same as the one it replaces. But please do not edit war over this or anything, even if you believe that you are right. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reason as to why I added the Military conflict infobox is because that sometimes, it may be a little confusing for some LTOR fans as to who's on who's side hence I decided to add an infobox to clear up any confusion. I mean some Mankind realms (Harad and other Mankind mercenaries) are actually helping Sauron hence I think that should just be noted. Also in Battlefield 2 they have a Military infobox in the plot section hence I think that the War of the Ring section also needs an infobox. If you wish to delete the infobox then that's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.227.137 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
Redirected as per .--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:War of the Ring


text:
Buzz (TV series)

Buzz was a 2000-2005 Canadian comedy television series that aired on The Comedy Network. The show was hosted by "Mista Mo" (Morgan Oliver Smith) and Daryn Jones. The show originally aired in the mid-90s as a community channel show on Rogers Television before getting a network deal in 1999. In 2001, the show won a Gemini Award in the "Best Writing in a Comedy or Variety Program or Series" category. The 2003 season saw them take the show to New York, London, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. The show ended in 2005.

Created in Toronto, the show found a place on the Comedy Network when The Tom Green Show left to MTV. The show uses sketch comedy, non-sequiturs and guerrilla comedy. The two hosts, Daryn Jones, a geeky theatre major, and Mista Mo, an "almost real rapper" often riff on the racial tensions between them.

Recurring sketches and characters

 * Annual Fat Pride Parade
 * Selling Parked Cars
 * Break Stuff - end-segment, where either hosts break items (TV's, eggs) or pedestrians battle each other
 * The BuzzCops - Daryn and Mo, dressed as policemen, dole out misguided justice to Toronto's citizens.
 * The BuzzNews - The Buzz's take on fake news (The Daily Show, Weekend Update)
 * The Cable Access Painter - Daryn parodies PBS painter Bob Ross, with homosexual overtones.
 * Captain Harassment - Features Daryn's left hand, clad in a rubber glove with a Canadian flag cape, sneaking up behind women, and pinching their asses.
 * Country Mo Dee - Music videos of Mista Mo's alter-ego, a country hip-hop sensation.
 * Thug Steel - Music videos of Mista Mo's alter-alter-ego, a gospel gangsta rap sensation.
 * Fluff E. the Hip-Hop Bunny - Series regular Jean Paul dresses up as a giant pink bunny, to the glee of young children. But Fluff E. is more interested in their mothers.
 * German Dinner Theatre - faux accents, poetry, keyboard and a mustache. Daryn, with Wesley Snipes (Mista Mo) and Big E (Eric Harze), insult the fashions of passers-by.
 * Phone Sex Nursery Rhymes - Daryn and Mo dress up in animal costumes and make out with each other to nursery rhymes read by a phone sex operator.
 * Shaboobala - making pedestrians uncomfortable by answering their relationship problems and then asking if he can marry them for a green card.
 * Star Talk - usually unsuccessful attempts to speak with/insult celebrities
 * Jesus: Caught on Tape - Amateur video of Jesus Christ committing various crimes, e.g. auto theft.
 * Forgotten Black Superheroes - low-budget film trailers about black heroes like "Bootyman" and "The Bionic Slave" taking revenge on "crackas"
 * "Ya Heard Me" - Mista Mo rants, Rick Mercer-style, about any ridiculous topic that comes to mind.
 * Time of the Month Awards - end-segment, where Daryn and Mo hand out dubious awards, including "Best Bra in a Supporting Role" and "Best Ass in a Pair of Jeans" to female pedestrians.
 * The Petitioners - Daryn and Mo get people to sign bogus petitions to change the names of things. They successfully changed popular hooker hang-out Jarvis St. to "Stan Khoe Ave.", the notoriously gay neighbourhood Church Street to "Lou Sass Blvd." and commended the cafeteria facilities at the Canadian Cancer Society by adding "And Grill" to the name.
 * Bag TV - Run up from behind someone and as your passing them bag them and get it on camera for everyone to see.
 * Workout With Shane Landers - A parody of 90s fitness segments starring comedian Gavin Stephens as overweight fitness instructor Shane Landers.

title: Buzz (TV series)


text:
Cubic surface

In mathematics, a cubic surface is a surface in 3-dimensional space defined by one polynomial equation of degree 3. Cubic surfaces are fundamental examples in algebraic geometry. The theory is simplified by working in projective space rather than affine space, and so cubic surfaces are generally considered in projective 3-space $$\mathbf{P}^3$$. The theory also becomes more uniform by focusing on surfaces over the complex numbers rather than the real numbers; note that a complex surface has real dimension 4. A simple example is the Fermat cubic surface
 * $$x^3+y^3+z^3+w^3=0$$

in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$. Many properties of cubic surfaces hold more generally for del Pezzo surfaces.

Rationality of cubic surfaces
A central feature of smooth cubic surfaces X over an algebraically closed field is that they are all rational, as shown by Alfred Clebsch in 1866. That is, there is a one-to-one correspondence defined by rational functions between the projective plane $$\mathbf{P}^2$$ minus a lower-dimensional subset and X minus a lower-dimensional subset. More generally, every irreducible cubic surface (possibly singular) over an algebraically closed field is rational unless it is the projective cone over a cubic curve. In this respect, cubic surfaces are much simpler than smooth surfaces of degree at least 4 in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$, which are never rational. In characteristic zero, smooth surfaces of degree at least 4 in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ are not even uniruled.

More strongly, Clebsch showed that every smooth cubic surface in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ over an algebraically closed field is isomorphic to the blow-up of $$\mathbf{P}^2$$ at 6 points. As a result, every smooth cubic surface over the complex numbers is diffeomorphic to the connected sum $$\mathbf{CP}^2\# 6(-\mathbf{CP}^2)$$, where the minus sign refers to a change of orientation. Conversely, the blow-up of $$\mathbf{P}^2$$ at 6 points is isomorphic to a cubic surface if and only if the points are in general position, meaning that no three points lie on a line and all 6 do not lie on a conic. As a complex manifold (or an algebraic variety), the surface depends on the arrangement of those 6 points.

27 lines on a cubic surface
Most proofs of rationality for cubic surfaces start by finding a line on the surface. (In the context of projective geometry, a line in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ is isomorphic to $$\mathbf{P}^1$$.) More precisely, Arthur Cayley and George Salmon showed in 1849 that every smooth cubic surface over an algebraically closed field contains exactly 27 lines. This is a distinctive feature of cubics: a smooth quadric (degree 2) surface is covered by a continuous family of lines, while most surfaces of degree at least 4 in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ contain no lines. Another useful technique for finding the 27 lines involves Schubert calculus which computes the number of lines using the intersection theory of the Grassmannian of lines on $$\mathbf{P}^3$$.

As the coefficients of a smooth complex cubic surface are varied, the 27 lines move continuously. As a result, a closed loop in the family of smooth cubic surfaces determines a permutation of the 27 lines. The group of permutations of the 27 lines arising this way is called the monodromy group of the family of cubic surfaces. A remarkable 19th-century discovery was that the monodromy group is neither trivial nor the whole symmetric group $$S_{27}$$; it is a group of order 51840, acting transitively on the set of lines. This group was gradually recognized (by Élie Cartan (1896), Arthur Coble (1915–17), and Patrick du Val (1936)) as the Weyl group of type $$E_6$$, a group generated by reflections on a 6-dimensional real vector space, related to the Lie group $E_6$ of dimension 78.

The same group of order 51840 can be described in combinatorial terms, as the automorphism group of the graph of the 27 lines, with a vertex for each line and an edge whenever two lines meet. This graph was analyzed in the 19th century using subgraphs such as the Schläfli double six configuration. The complementary graph (with an edge whenever two lines are disjoint) is known as the Schläfli graph.

Many problems about cubic surfaces can be solved using the combinatorics of the $$E_6$$ root system. For example, the 27 lines can be identified with the weights of the fundamental representation of the Lie group $$E_6$$. The possible sets of singularities that can occur on a cubic surface can be described in terms of subsystems of the $$E_6$$ root system. One explanation for this connection is that the $$E_6$$ lattice arises as the orthogonal complement to the anticanonical class $$-K_X$$ in the Picard group $$\operatorname{Pic}(X)\cong \mathbf{Z}^7$$, with its intersection form (coming from the intersection theory of curves on a surface). For a smooth complex cubic surface, the Picard lattice can also be identified with the cohomology group $$H^2(X,\mathbf{Z})$$.

An Eckardt point is a point where 3 of the 27 lines meet. Most cubic surfaces have no Eckardt point, but such points occur on a codimension-1 subset of the family of all smooth cubic surfaces.

Given an identification between a cubic surface on X and the blow-up of $$\mathbf{P}^2$$ at 6 points in general position, the 27 lines on X can be viewed as: the 6 exceptional curves created by blowing up, the birational transforms of the 15 lines through pairs of the 6 points in $$\mathbf{P}^2$$, and the birational transforms of the 6 conics containing all but one of the 6 points. A given cubic surface can be viewed as a blow-up of $$\mathbf{P}^2$$ in more than one way (in fact, in 72 different ways), and so a description as a blow-up does not reveal the symmetry among all 27 of the lines.

The relation between cubic surfaces and the $$E_6$$ root system generalizes to a relation between all del Pezzo surfaces and root systems. This is one of many ADE classifications in mathematics. Pursuing these analogies, Vera Serganova and Alexei Skorobogatov gave a direct geometric relation between cubic surfaces and the Lie group $$E_6$$.

In physics, the 27 lines can be identified with the 27 possible charges of M-theory on a six-dimensional torus (6 momenta; 15 membranes; 6 fivebranes) and the group E6 then naturally acts as the U-duality group. This map between del Pezzo surfaces and M-theory on tori is known as mysterious duality.

Special cubic surfaces
The smooth complex cubic surface in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ with the largest automorphism group is the Fermat cubic surface, defined by
 * $$x^3+y^3+z^3+w^3=0.$$

Its automorphism group is an extension $$3^3:S_4$$, of order 648.

The next most symmetric smooth cubic surface is the Clebsch surface, which can be defined in $$\mathbf{P}^4$$ by the two equations
 * $$x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4=x_0^3+x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3+x_4^3=0.$$

Its automorphism group is the symmetric group $$S_5$$, of order 120. After a complex linear change of coordinates, the Clebsch surface can also be defined by the equation
 * $$x^2y+y^2z+z^2w+w^2x=0$$

in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$.

Among singular complex cubic surfaces, Cayley's nodal cubic surface is the unique surface with the maximal number of nodes, 4:
 * $$wxy+xyz+yzw+zwx=0.$$

Its automorphism group is $$S_4$$, of order 24.

Real cubic surfaces
In contrast to the complex case, the space of smooth cubic surfaces over the real numbers is not connected in the classical topology (based on the topology of R). Its connected components (in other words, the classification of smooth real cubic surfaces up to isotopy) were determined by Ludwig Schläfli (1863), Felix Klein (1865), and H. G. Zeuthen (1875). Namely, there are 5 isotopy classes of smooth real cubic surfaces X in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$, distinguished by the topology of the space of real points $$X(\mathbf{R})$$. The space of real points is diffeomorphic to either $$W_7, W_5, W_3, W_1$$, or the disjoint union of $$W_1$$ and the 2-sphere, where $$W_r$$ denotes the connected sum of r copies of the real projective plane $$\mathbf{RP}^2$$. Correspondingly, the number of real lines contained in X is 27, 15, 7, 3, or 3.

A smooth real cubic surface is rational over R if and only if its space of real points is connected, hence in the first four of the previous five cases.

The average number of real lines on X is $$6 \sqrt{2}-3$$ when the defining polynomial for X is sampled at random from the Gaussian ensemble induced by the Bombieri inner product.

The moduli space of cubic surfaces
Two smooth cubic surfaces are isomorphic as algebraic varieties if and only if they are equivalent by some linear automorphism of $$\mathbf{P}^3$$. Geometric invariant theory gives a moduli space of cubic surfaces, with one point for each isomorphism class of smooth cubic surfaces. This moduli space has dimension 4. More precisely, it is an open subset of the weighted projective space P(12345), by Salmon and Clebsch (1860). In particular, it is a rational 4-fold.

The cone of curves
The lines on a cubic surface X over an algebraically closed field can be described intrinsically, without reference to the embedding of X in $$\mathbf{P}^3$$: they are exactly the (−1)-curves on X, meaning the curves isomorphic to $$\mathbf{P}^1$$ that have self-intersection −1. Also, the classes of lines in the Picard lattice of X (or equivalently the divisor class group) are exactly the elements u of Pic(X) such that $$u^2=-1$$ and $$-K_X\cdot u=1$$. (This uses that the restriction of the hyperplane line bundle O(1) on $$\mathbf{P}^3$$ to X is the anticanonical line bundle $$-K_X$$, by the adjunction formula.)

For any projective variety X, the cone of curves means the convex cone spanned by all curves in X (in the real vector space $$N_1(X)$$ of 1-cycles modulo numerical equivalence, or in the homology group $$H_2(X,\mathbf{R})$$ if the base field is the complex numbers). For a cubic surface, the cone of curves is spanned by the 27 lines. In particular, it is a rational polyhedral cone in $$N_1(X)\cong \mathbf{R}^7$$ with a large symmetry group, the Weyl group of $$E_6$$. There is a similar description of the cone of curves for any del Pezzo surface.

Cubic surfaces over a field
A smooth cubic surface X over a field k which is not algebraically closed need not be rational over k. As an extreme case, there are smooth cubic surfaces over the rational numbers Q (or the p-adic numbers $$\mathbf{Q}_p$$) with no rational points, in which case X is certainly not rational. If X(k) is nonempty, then X is at least unirational over k, by Beniamino Segre and János Kollár. For k infinite, unirationality implies that the set of k-rational points is Zariski dense in X.

The absolute Galois group of k permutes the 27 lines of X over the algebraic closure $$\overline{k}$$ of k (through some subgroup of the Weyl group of $$E_6$$). If some orbit of this action consists of disjoint lines, then X is the blow-up of a "simpler" del Pezzo surface over k at a closed point. Otherwise, X has Picard number 1. (The Picard group of X is a subgroup of the geometric Picard group $$\operatorname{Pic}(X_{\overline{k}})\cong \mathbf{Z}^7$$.) In the latter case, Segre showed that X is never rational. More strongly, Yuri Manin proved a birational rigidity statement: two smooth cubic surfaces with Picard number 1 over a perfect field k are birational if and only if they are isomorphic. For example, these results give many cubic surfaces over Q that are unirational but not rational.

Singular cubic surfaces
In contrast to smooth cubic surfaces which contain 27 lines, singular cubic surfaces contain fewer lines. Moreover, they can be classified by the type of singularity which arises in their normal form. These singularities are classified using Dynkin diagrams.

Classification
A normal singular cubic surface $$X$$ in $$\textbf{P}_{\mathbb{C}}^3$$ with local coordinates $$[x_0:x_1:x_2:x_3]$$ is said to be in normal form if it is given by $$F= x_3 f_2(x_0,x_1,x_2) -f_3(x_0,x_1,x_2) = 0$$. Depending on the type of singularity $$X$$ contains, it is isomorphic to the projective surface in $$\textbf{P}^3$$ given by $$F= x_3 f_2(x_0,x_1,x_2) -f_3(x_0,x_1,x_2) = 0$$ where $$f_2, f_3$$ are as in the table below. That means we can obtain a classification of all singular cubic surfaces. The parameters of the following table are as follows: $$a,b,c$$ are three distinct elements of $$\mathbb{C} \setminus\{0,1\}$$, the parameters $$d,e$$ are in $$\mathbb{C} \setminus \{0,-1\}$$ and $$u$$ is an element of $$\mathbb{C}\setminus \{ 0\}$$. Notice that there are two different singular cubic surfaces with singularity $$D_4$$. In normal form, whenever a cubic surface $$X$$ contains at least one $$A_1$$ singularity, it will have an $$A_1$$ singularity at $$[0:0:0:1]$$.

Lines on singular cubic surfaces
According to the classification of singular cubic surfaces, the following table shows the number of lines each surface contains.

Automorphism groups of singular cubic surfaces with no parameters
An automorphism of a normal singular cubic surface $$X$$ is the restriction of an automorphism of the projective space $$\textbf{P}^3$$ to $$X$$. Such automorphisms preserve singular points. Moreover, they do not permute singularities of different types. If the surface contains two singularities of the same type, the automorphism may permute them. The collection of automorphisms on a cubic surface forms a group, the so-called automorphism group. The following table shows all automorphism groups of singular cubic surfaces with no parameters.

title: Cubic surface


text:
User:Tormentas

Hola

title: User:Tormentas