text:
Crypto-Calvinism

Crypto-Calvinism is a pejorative term describing a segment of those members of the Lutheran Church in Germany who were accused of secretly subscribing to Calvinist doctrine of the Eucharist in the decades immediately after the death of Martin Luther in 1546. It denotes what was seen as a hidden (crypto- from κρύπτω meaning "to hide, conceal, to be hid") Calvinist belief, i.e., the doctrines of John Calvin, by members of the Lutheran Church. The term crypto-Calvinist in Lutheranism was preceded by terms Zwinglian and Sacramentarian. Also, Jansenism has been accused of crypto-Calvinism by Roman Catholics.

Background
Martin Luther had controversies with "Sacramentarians", and he published against them, for example, in his The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics and Confession Concerning Christ's Supper. Philipp I of Hessen arranged the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, but no agreement could be reached concerning the doctrine of Real Presence. Subsequently, the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 was signed, but this attempt at resolving the issue ultimately failed.

While Lutheranism had weakened after the Schmalkaldic War and Interim controversies, the Calvinist Reformation was spreading across Europe. Calvinists wanted to help Lutherans to give up "remnants of popery", as they saw it. By this time Calvinism had expanded its influence to southern Germany (not least because of the work of Martin Bucer), but the Peace of Augsburg (1555) had given religious freedom in Germany only to Lutherans, and it was not officially extended to Calvinists until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. While Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, had, in 1549, accepted Calvin's much less radical view of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper (that is, that the Eucharist was more than a sign and that Christ was truly present in it and was received by faith), Calvinist theologians thought that Lutheran theology also had changed its view of the Real Presence because the issue was not discussed anymore, and Philippist teaching gave some justification to this conclusion.

Modern use of the term crypto-Philippist
Beginning in the 20th century, some scholars began using the term crypto-Philippist in place of the word crypto-Calvinist. However, there is no change in the meaning of the term.

History
When Luther died in 1546, his closest friend and ally, Philipp Melanchthon, became the leading Lutheran theologian of the Protestant Reformation. He was by training not a theologian but rather a classics scholar, and his theological approach became more or less irenic both toward Catholicism and toward Calvinism, an approach that his disciples, called Philippists, also followed. This attitude towards the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist had become evident already in 1540, when Melanchthon had published another version of the Augsburg Confession ("Variata"), in which the article on the Real Presence differed essentially from what had been expressed in 1530. The wording is as follows:

 * Edition of 1530: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper; and they disapprove of those that teach otherwise."
 * "Variata" edition of 1540: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that with bread and wine are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper."

The altered edition was made the basis of negotiations with the Roman Catholics at the Colloquies of Worms and Ratisbon in 1541, and at the later Colloquies in 1546 and 1557. It was printed (with the title and preface of the Invariata) in Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum in 1559; it was expressly approved by the Lutheran princes at the Convention of Naumburg in 1561, after Melanchthon's death, as an improved modification and authentic interpretation of the Confession, and was adhered to by the Melanchthonians and the Reformed even after the adoption of the Book of Concord (1580). John Calvin also signed it. However, it did not have the legal status given to the original version by the Peace of Augsburg.

Second Sacramentarian Controversy
The Real Presence for Luther was beyond any doubt: The host consecrated is Christ's body, while for Melanchthon the words spoken during the establishment by Jesus only promised that his body and blood were received. Melanchthon rejected the doctrine of ubiquity and spoke about the personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, without any further definitions. The theology of Melanchthon's school in general was opposed by Lutherans, who were called Flacians by their opponents. Later they were called "Gnesio-Lutherans". Matthias Flacius had been the leader against Philippism in earlier controversies, but even Gnesio-Lutherans did not pay much attention to the doctrine of the Eucharist until Joachim Westphal began, in 1552, to write against those who denied the Real Presence. When John Calvin himself answered him in 1555, there was open, inter-Protestant controversy about Eucharist, which involved Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Polanus, Beza, and Bibliander on the Reformed side and Timann, Heshusius Paul von Eitzen, Schnepff, E. Alberus, Gallus, Flacius, Judex, Brenz, and Andreä on the Lutheran side. The Colloquy of Worms in 1557 was an attempt to achieve unity among Lutherans, but it failed.

During these controversies the State Church of the Electorate of the Palatinate, where Philippism predominated, changed from the Lutheran to the Reformed faith under Frederick III (1560). The Heidelberg Catechism, which was written there, was also meant to form bridges between Lutherans and Reformed in Germany – one of its authors, Zacharias Ursinus, was Melanchthon's disciple.

Great Adoration Controversy
There were a number of local controversies, such as the Saligerian Controversy in Lübeck in 1568 and 1574, a controversy in Rostock in 1569, a controversy in Bremen in 1554 involving Melanchthon's friend Albert Rizaeus Hardenberg, and a controversy in Danzig in 1561–1562.

The earliest of these incidents had happened with Simon Wolferinus, pastor of St. Andreas at Eisleben in 1543, while Martin Luther still lived. The controversy was also about eucharistic adoration, which was defended by "Gnesio-Lutherans" and also many other Lutherans outside of the Flacian party, including Johann Hachenburg, Andreas Musculus, Jakob Rungius, and Laurentius Petri. This belief was shared by Nikolaus Selnecker, Martin Chemnitz, and Timotheus Kirchner. A feast of victory of genuine Lutheranism over Philippism was celebrated in one of the German principalities with prayers for the preservation of the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of the adoration of the Sacrament. Paul Eber was one of the main Philippist opponents of eucharistic adoration.

In Saxony
Controversy about crypto-Calvinism inside of Lutheran Church divides into two stages: 1552–1574 and 1586–1592. It was the most bitter of all controversies after Luther's death.

Crypto-Calvinists had gained the ecclesiastical power in Saxony during the rule of Elector Augustus, but the unquestionably Calvinistic work of Joachim Cureus, Exegesis perspicua de sacra cœna (1574) and a confidential letter of Johann Stössel that fell into the elector's hands opened his eyes. The heads of the Philippist party were imprisoned and roughly handled, and the Torgau Confession of 1574 completed their downfall. Caspar Peucer, not incidentally Melanchthon's son-in-law, was captured and jailed for 12 years in the Königstein Fortress for Crypto-Calvinism. Their cause was thwarted in those territories that adopted the Formula of Concord, although in some others it survived under the aspect of a modified Lutheranism, as in Nuremberg, or, as in Nassau, Hesse, Anhalt, and Bremen, where it became more or less definitely identified with Calvinism.

Crypto-Calvinism raised its head once more in the Electorate of Saxony in 1586, on the accession of Christian I, but on his death five years later it came to a sudden and bloody end with the murder of Nikolaus Krell as a victim to this unpopular revival of Calvinism.

In Scandinavia
In Denmark crypto-Calvinism was represented by Niels Hemmingsen. In Sweden, crypto-Calvinism, which was resisted by Archbishop Olaus Martini, was supported by Duke Charles, uncle of Catholic king Sigismund III Vasa. Calvinism was finally banned at the Uppsala Synod of 1593 by the initiative of Bishop of Turku, Ericus Erici Sorolainen, and Bishop Olaus Stephani Bellinus.

Later history and evaluation
Following the Prussian Union and other Evangelical unions in Germany, today's Evangelical Church in Germany is an umbrella organisation of Lutheran, Union, and Reformed church bodies. The Leuenberg Concord (1962) made a similar irenic solution between Lutheran and Calvinist doctrines, while Confessional Lutheran church bodies still continue to see Calvinist teaching on the Lord's Supper as a danger to Lutheran faith and identity.

title: Crypto-Calvinism


text:
Talk:Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715194633/http://rockpopgallery.com/items/gifts~50~100/derek-and-the-dominos-layla-hand-embellished-digital-print-on-canvas-oedp-hgddlay1c-detail.htm to http://rockpopgallery.com/items/gifts~50~100/derek-and-the-dominos-layla-hand-embellished-digital-print-on-canvas-oedp-hgddlay1c-detail.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sound
The section on the CD versions is very good and much appreciated. The original mix was so muddy and congested that I am convinced the reproduced audio was a prime reason for all the pans upon initial release. I have no idea how Dowd gave his okay to the 1970 version's final studio product. What is the opposite of 'kudos'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:8AD:B98C:CACB:63 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Artwork
This section begins: 'The album's front cover is credited as "Cover painting by Frandsen-De Schomberg with thanks to his son, Emile, for the abuse of his house." Bobby revealed in an interview in August 1970 they started an egg-throwing fight at Frandsen's house in France which his son Emile covered for them. Then he took them to his father's studio where they saw the painting that would become their album cover.' The second sentence doesn't make sense. How would anyone 'cover an egg-throwing fight'? From the interview (which was in 2011, not 1970) it seems Whitlock may have thought that the painter whose house this had formerly been was still alive, but according to the biography section of the website that the interview links to, he died the year before: '1969 [...] il décède le 11 Avril à Grasse' = he died 11th April in Grasse. https://peintre-emile-frandsen.com/index.php/biographie-3/ I suggest replacing this with: The album's front cover is credited as "Cover painting by Frandsen-De Schomberg with thanks to his son, Emile, for the abuse of his house". Bobby Whitlock revealed in an interview that while they were staying at Emile Frandsen's house in France in August 1970, he took them to his father's studio just after they had made a mess by throwing eggs at each other. It was there that they saw "La Fille au Bouquet" (Girl with bouquet), the painting by Émile-Théodore Frandsen de Shomberg that would become the cover of Layla. Robert P Connolly (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Making edit now, plus: 46 years after Frandsen gave the painting to Eric Clapton, it was the subject of a French lawsuit in which Clapton was ordered to pay compensation for altering the image on a cardboard pop up used on the 40th anniversary reissue of the album. The family of Frandsen de Schomberg, who died in 1969, received €15,000 ($16,400). https://news.yahoo.com/french-court-orders-eric-clapton-pay-compensation-over-205310682.html Robert P Connolly (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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


text:
Mat

A mat is a hard floor covering that generally is placed on a floor or other flat surface. Mats serve a range of purposes including:
 * serving to clean items passed over it, such as a doormat, which removes dirt from the soles of shoes
 * protecting that which is above the mat, such as a wrestling or gymnastics mat, or an anti-vibration mat
 * protecting that which is beneath the mat, such as a place mat or the matting used in archival framing and preservation of documents and paintings
 * providing a regular or flat surface, such as a cushioned computer mousepad

In domestic settings

 * In homes or rooms where people sit predominantly on the floor (common in Japan, Korea, India, and formerly China), mats may cover entire rooms, or be used in certain areas for sitting or sleeping. The traditional Japanese style of mat is known as the tatami. Shoes are typically removed before entering these areas to keep out dirt and debris.
 * A doormat or door-mat is a flat, usually rectangular but sometimes oval, object, usually placed immediately outside or inside the entrance to a house or other building, to allow people to easily scrub or wipe the soles of their shoes before entering. Doormats are usually made from tough, long-lasting material such as coir, palmyra (palm) fibres and stalks, nylon, rubber, cloth, or aluminium and other metals. A doormat may also be known as a welcome mat, as its location at an entrance constitutes a "welcome" to visitors, and may therefore also bear some word, message or sign of greeting. The lowly purpose for which doormats exist has also led to informal use of the term as a reference to people who behave timidly or passively when exploited by others (see also Caspar Milquetoast).
 * A cabinet mat is a mat made of rubber that protects kitchen cabinets, more particularly kitchen sink base cabinets, from leaks, water damage, mold and household item spills that commonly occur in the kitchen sink cabinet.
 * A bath mat is used on the floor of a bathroom to provide a warm non-slip surface, and to absorb small amounts of water, much like a towel. TAPIS DE BAIN DESIGN.jpg
 * A place mat or serving mat is a flat piece of fabric or other type of material used on a table at the points at which dishes and plates will be located during a meal. One of the common purposes of such mats is to provide a thermal and physical barrier between that which is placed on the table, and the table itself—for instance, to stop hot objects from marring the finish.

Car mats
A car mat is designed to help protect a vehicle's carpeted floors. One major use of a car mat is to keep mud, sand and snow from contacting the carpeted floors. Some require fixation points to ensure they remain fixed in position.

Carpet mats and rubber mats differ in a number of ways. Carpet mats are generally tufted and have a rubberised anti-slip backing. On the other hand, rubber car mats are heavy duty and higher durability. While some car mats are the plain colour of rubber, many contain branded company logos, cartoon characters or advertisements. Some are in textile form of carpet material. They can also come in a wide range of colours. The terms universal and custom fit mats differentiate between floor mats that will fit a multitude of different cars and those that are specifically designed to fit only one chassis.

Anti-fatigue mats
"Anti-fatigue mats" are designed to help a person who is working in a standing position for prolonged periods of time. Most anti-fatigue matting is a combination of an ergonomic pattern and a cushioning underlay. The cushioning causes constant subconscious balance checks and micro movements that stimulate blood flow through the legs and lower extremities. This results in better circulation and less fatigue. The cushioning underlay insulates the feet from the hard surface, cold floors, vibrations, moisture and sound. Their unique design encourages the user to make continual micro-movements which provides a wealth of health benefits, such as minimizing back pain, foot pain, weariness, stress, etc. Anti-fatigue mats are one of the approaches to prevent injuries, caused by working in a standing position. In a study at the Center of Ergonomics at the University of Michigan in 1987, ergonomist Mark Redfern concluded that different standing surfaces can have dramatic effects on physical fatigue. Workers who stood on anti-fatigue mats were able to reduce the level of fatigue and discomfort by as much as 50%. This type of mat is recommended by Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The range of common materials for manufacturing anti-fatigue mats includes vinyl, wood, PVC tubing, rubber, PVC closed cell foam, polypropylene, nitrile rubber. Anti-fatigue mats were initially used in factories and production lines where staff has to stand for the majority of their working shifts.

Anti-fatigue mats come in various types and materials for industrial or commercial applications for a variety of workplace conditions that exist as well as the variety of workplace designs from individual work benches, to large assembly lines or complex manufacturing work stations. Work place environments can vary from dry areas to wet or extremely oily areas. Plus specialized industries may need additional properties such as fire retardant matting for welding, static dissipative matting for electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection, anti-microbial for food industry applications.

Today, this type of ergonomic mat is commonly used during trade shows for floor covering, in hospitals and clinics during surgeries to cover the floor near surgical tables to minimize surgeons fatigue resulted from continuous standing. Also these mats are used in housekeeping, especially for kitchen floors to alleviate fatigue during cooking.

Cleanroom mats
The purpose of a clean room mat is to keep sterile the areas that require ultimate protection from dirt, bacteria and any contamination brought from outside. Sticky mats, often overlooked yet crucial, play a pivotal role in maintaining clean and sterile environments, especially in rooms where hygiene is paramount. From hospitals to electronics manufacturing facilities, these mats act as unsung heroes in the battle against contaminants. Clean room mats are tacky, sticky, non slip mats that possess multiple layers of clean film that effectively capture dirt and dust from foot traffic and wheels. Peel-off mats are made up of multiple sheets of polyethylene film coated with acrylic adhesive that traps particles. Each layer peels off to reveal a new clean surface. The adhesive backing prevents microbial growth and contamination. Mats used outside clean rooms and laboratories are designed to withhold foreign pollution elements. This goal is achieved by a sticky surface that serves as a barrier for debris, dirt and dust adhered to shoe soles. Clean room sticky mats can contain two defensive barriers: the first part is a carpet itself, while the second part is sticky surface mat. Another mat type to be used to protect rooms from pollution is sanitizing foot bath floor mats. The mat itself is a small bath that contains sanitizing liquid. The foot bath bottom is covered with pliable rubber scrapers for effective cleaning of footwear soles while the liquid disinfects them.

An alternative clean room mat is one made from polymeric material. Polymeric products are made from a blend of pure polymeric compounds and have a three- to five-year life cycle. When a polymeric surface becomes dirty, operators can clean it with a sponge and a mop with detergent and dry the surface with a sqee. This quick cleaning process can be incorporated into the facility's regular wet-clean cycle.

The mats differ by composition:

 * One-piece mats are usually used on the permanent basis. One-piece mats can be handcrafted or factory-made. The standard shapes of one-piece mat are rectangular, square, round and elliptic. One-piece mats are produced in the huge variety of sizes and colors. Real and synthetic materials are used for one-piece mats production.
 * Linear length mats are manufactured as rolls that can extend 20 meters up to 40 meters for long production lines, assembly lines and packing lines. Mats are manufactured in standard lengths or factory-made to custom sizes.
 * Modular mats, also well known as interlocking tiles or interlocking floor mats, are manufactured using the “jigsaw puzzle” structure. Unlike one-piece mats, modular mats consist of numerous elements that are easily and seamlessly assembled. Compared to other types of mats, interlocking mats come in several sizes, depending on the number of pieces in one kit. Modular mats are a good solution for non-rectangular areas where standard shape mats are useless. Interlocking mats are commonly used on a one-time or temporary basis: fitness centres and sport competitions, trade shows and conferences. Modular mats require less place for storage and can be easily transported.

Rubber grass mats
Rubber grass mats are used commonly for around play equipment on playgrounds, schools and domestic properties where there is a risk of falling. As one of the most common and simple methods of protecting against a critical fall from height, rubber grass mats are usually simply laid on a grass or soil surface and immediately offer protection against serious harm. Usually made from a virgin rubber material and a featuring a design which is around 90% open cell, the mats allow for grass to grow within the structure, offering a green and free draining solution to improving safety in play areas and playgrounds.

Also used commonly for temporary events, such as festivals or weddings, rubber grass mats can be used to create a removable path or standing area and help to protect the grass from erosion or churn. As the mats are usually simply pegged into the ground and cable-tied to each other, they are usually installed very quickly and can also be removed at speed with minimal to no impact on the turfed surface.

Others

 * an anti-vibration mat, which performs the function of isolating vibration between that which is above the mat and that which is below. Such a mat might typically be used when mounting a heavy machine which vibrates, onto a concrete floor; in the absence of the anti-vibration mat, the machine tend to erode the floor through abrasion. Contrawise, some machines, such as the lithography machines used in chip fabs, need to be isolated from vibrations in their locale, and so are mounted on anti-vibration mats.
 * a slipmat, a circular piece of slippery cloth or synthetic material designed to allow disc jockeys to turn or stop vinyl records on record players, or to scratch.
 * a bar mat (not beermat), a rectangular piece of rubber or towelling material that is used to protect the counter top and/or soak up spilt drinks in a bar or pub.
 * an entrance mat, which performs the function of trapping and retaining dust and soil at the entrances. It will also trap moisture to prevent slip and fall accidents. The purpose is having better indoor environment and better air quality. It should be easier to clean the entrance mat than all the interiors.

History

Matting or floor covering  or  rugs is any of many coarse woven or plaited fibrous materials used for covering floors or furniture, for hanging as screens, for wrapping up heavy merchandise and for other miscellaneous purposes. In the United Kingdom, under the name of "coir" matting, a large amount of a coarse kind of carpet is made from coconut fibre; and the same material, as well as strips of cane, manila hemp, various grasses and rushes, is largely employed in various forms for making doormats. Large quantities of the coconut fibre are woven in heavy looms, then cut up into various sizes, and finally bound round the edges by a kind of rope made from the same material. The mats may be of one colour only, or they may be made of different colours and in different designs. Sometimes the names of institutions are introduced into the mats. Due to the silky nature and tensile strength, jute mats or mattings have started being used as floor covering or doormats, runners and in different forms. Jute floor coverings consist of woven and tufted and piled carpets. Jute Mats and mattings starting from 1 m width to 6 m width and of continuous length are easily being woven in Southern parts of India, in solid and fancy shades, and in different weaves such as boucle, Panama and herringbone. Jute mats and rugs are made on both powerlooms and handlooms in large volumes in Kerala, India. Indian jute mattings / rugs are being widely used in USA and European countries, due to its soft nature. Jute can be easily bleached, colored or printed, similar to textile fibres, with eco-friendly dyes and chemicals. Hand-knotted jute carpets and mattings are also being made from Kerala, India.

Another type of mat is made exclusively from the above-mentioned coir rope by arranging alternate layers in sinuous and straight paths, and then stitching the parts together. It is also largely used for the outer covering of ships' fenders. Perforated and otherwise prepared rubber, as well as wire-woven material, are also largely utilized for door and floor mats. Matting of various kinds is very extensively employed throughout India for floor coverings, the bottoms of bedsteads, fans and fly-flaps, etc.; and a considerable export trade in such manufactures is carried on. The materials used are numerous; but the principal substances are straw, the bulrushes Typha elephantina and Typha angustifolia, leaves of the date palm (Phoenix sylvestris), of the dwarf palm (Chamaerops Ritchiana), of the Palmyra palm (Borassus flabelliformis), of the coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) and of the screw pine (Pandanus odoratissimus), the munja or munj grass (Saccharum Munja) and allied grasses, and the mat grasses Cyperus textilis and Cyperus pangorei.

The mats made from Cyperus pangorei (Korai in Tamil) are called "Korai paai" in Tamil and can be found widely in the households of Tamil Nadu, usually in the size 6 feet by 3 feet. They are usually dyed in colors of bright red, green or purple, resulting in patterns. These mats differ in their levels of flexibility, fineness and price. Pattamadai paai (named after the region Pattamadai, near Tirunelveli) is generally considered the finest "paai". Many of these Indian grass-mats are examples of elegant design, and the colors in which they are woven are rich, harmonious and effective. Mats made from Vandavasi are also famed and used commonly. These days, along with these natural grass mats, one can also find plastic mats, which are easier to maintain and are cheaper. This class of work obtains in India, Japan and other Eastern countries. Vast quantities of coarse matting used for packing furniture, heavy and coarse goods, flax and other plants, etc., are made in Russia from the bast or inner bark of the lime tree. This industry centres in the great forest governments of Viatka, Nizhniy-Novgorod, Kostroma, Kazan, Perm and Simbirsk.

Promoting safety and health
Quality floor mats improve indoor air quality (IAQ) and safety in commercial and residential applications. Studies have shown that most toxic chemicals that end up inside a home are tracked in on people's shoes. A well-used door mat can trap and hold dirt and allergens, preventing their spread into the rest of the building, significantly improving IAQ and reducing the need for extensive cleaning. Additionally many floor mats are resistant to welding sparks and can keep employees from slipping on industrial lubricants or water.

Floor mats also provide safe surfaces on which to walk, preventing slips and falls that cause injury and liability damages. Anti-slip mats are now required in many areas to ensure maximum protection for both employees and customers. Specialized anti-slip mats are now available that provide extra resistance to the chemicals and grease that are sometimes found in industrial and food service settings.

Custom made anti-fatigue mats are also used in work areas where employees are required to stand for long periods of time. Employers have found that much muscle strain and injury endured by workers is caused by improper flooring conditions. Non-supportive surfaces cause fatigue and foot, back and neck pain due to impaired circulation. Anti-fatigue mats were shown to improve worker productivity by reducing the number of sick-days and injuries sustained by workers whose mobility would otherwise be restricted.

title: Mat


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/short table debate

Why is there a short version of the table on the main page? It seems completely pointless. If the main table needs to be cut down then it should be done on an individual case. David Newton 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its just a matter of convienence, rather then having to manually remove the categories each time and for aircraft without a full listing of information. Greyengine5 00:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with David - I've removed it (twice now, from two different places on the page). With respect, Greyengine5, you don't even use these data tables - we've got a table that everyone seems reasonably happy with. Let's leave it at that or discuss and reach consensus before making changes. --Rlandmann 01:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If its that much of a problem for you even at the bottom there I'll put it on its own sub-page. I think the shortened table has merit whether or not its highly used. The short table is easly expanded to the full one, and the amount of data for the full one is often not easily available.
 * As for not using the current table-I have been waiting for the basic structure to be completed so variants (such as this short table) look similair to it. I was going to see what suggestions people had for this short table, and use that after a finalization.
 * I was not expecting such a total rejection since I based it directly off the table you suggested to me. The level of variety in aircraft, and the kind of pages for them, doesn't seemed to be served well by such a rigid adherence to exactly one table (that must be repeatedly modifed). Having a few sub-types is much more convenient and sacrifices little to the downsides of destandardization. Greyengine5 03:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Cutting directly to the chase - as I see it, there is absolutely no need for this constant tinkering. I did not suggest a table to you - I merely responded to your question about if I had my way, what would I include. I am reasonably happy with the longer table, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone else. Even if it wouldn't be my personal first pick, I will continue to use the current standard - that is the nature of consensus. The suggested "short table" invites people to use it in place of the longer one, thereby eroding the "standard" nature of the table. What do you suggest are the benefits of the shorter table?

 * I have personally used the current table with a variety of different aircraft types, and seen it used by others on a wider variety. Based on everything I've written or read so far, I can personally assure you that the current table works well and doesn't need any more "help". The only time I had to make major modifications was for the helicopter I used it on (AgustaWestland EH101). Even then, it was just a case of swapping "wingspan" for "main rotor diameter" and "wing area" for "main rotor area".

 * Based on your actions to date, I now have visions of this "Other tables" page soon overflowing with numerous minor variations on the theme. In my opinion, that would be a Bad Thing.

 * Experience shows me that the only "Other tables" that it might be useful to have are a helicopter version (to ensure standardisation of what we translate "wingspan" and "wing area" to) and perhaps metric-first versions of the table and helicopter table (just as convenient templates).

 * I'm extremely tempted just to go ahead and revert your latest attempts at table proliferation, but I'll wait until someone else here chimes in so I can see whether I'm too off-base here. --Rlandmann 04:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Once again I dont understand many of these comments. Im sorry if insinuated that you officially suggested that table, but aside from that I already explained my reasons. How "a few subtypes" becomes a 'proliferation' and what I thought was a resonable suggestion becomes a 'tempting reversion target' exceeds my understanding of the current project goals. All i can say is I will continue my work on tables and offer them on the project for those who would want to use them. Greyengine5 04:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The only reason you've given for wanting to add another table is because you feel that some data on the longer table may be hard to find for some types. The simple solution is just to leave it out if it's too hard to find - someone else will come along later and fill it in if the information is indeed out there (and for some obscure types, it well may not be, in which case the blanks speak for themselves).

 * I chose the word "proliferation" because I've lost track of how many variant tables you've advocated so far - and wonder how many more are to come.

 * I maintain my position that the Wikiproject page is not the place to be advocating your own personal alternatives to what the consensus of contributors is already using. What table you personally choose to use for your own contributions is, of course, your own choice. --Rlandmann 05:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * -Yet again I don't understand these comments. Lack of data, outright, is NOT the only reason I suggested. Having subtypes is convienent and they can be easily expanded into the larger form, not to mention the reasons you suggested yourself for subtypes. Aside from that, many minor aircraft do not need a full table- and information can be filled in later same as with the empty tables.  Also, repetitious deletion of categories for every 'helicopter' page, for example, is a waste of peoples time.
 * -The long sought after finished main table has effectively been reached, thus I started work on subtypes that may be of use to people, such as this short table. As I said earlier I hoped people would offer there suggestions and then it too would be finalized, now much easier since the 'basic structure' of the table is complete (also mentioned before).
 * -The idea that im advocating "personal alternatives" is totally contradictory to what i though was happening with this project. I viewed my work as part of the contribution team that has created the table, and these new ideas and extention of that. They have always been up for and part of the consensus of contributors, the same has everbody else's changes and ideas.
 * I will it admit to being bold and suggesting so many ideas, you 'have lost count'- but its criticism I gladly accept- becasue its benifited the project and it benifited the wiki. Greyengine5 06:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the logic of having a subtype unless there's a particular class or category of aircraft where the same data is missing, inapplicable, or hard to find. I disagree vigorously with arbitrarily suggesting that "many minor aircraft do not need a full table", if only because of the subjectivity of defining a "minor aircraft".

 * I'm sorry if you're offended by the suggestion that these are "personal alternatives", but when you make broad changes without any prior discussion or warning, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. --Rlandmann 07:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * -I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.
 * -The short table of course has its drawbacks, but serves a usefull role in standardizing the many pages where only few facts are listed. It can be expanded easily since it has a identical format. I dont think it 'erodes' the standard as is it will aid in the distrobution of the basic table code. I also do not view suggesting a specific table design as "broad change".
 * - The general use of subtables is already happening as people make them, and making tables that adapts to these need is a matter of convinence. The 'hard time' you have in 'drawing' correct conclusions is a confusion over the nature of wiki, as virtially all changes to the table have been made first and disccussed later, from the choice for the intial table, to the many categories that have been added, to minor coding issues.
 * -I am not exacly sure why this issue is so problematic after good resolutions of countless other issues, such as the kg-kgf, dates, manufacturer, table categores, etc, but I do know it must end, as this debate doesn't seem to be accomlishing such resolution.
 * -To this end, i propose a comprimise consiting of: a unconditional withdrawl of my support for the short table. I will use the full table and not use any abridged table, in the manner you describe. On the other hand, I will continue to create other tables and offer them for discuusion and potential use by you are anyone else interested in them. Also, creation of a standard sub-tables for helicopters or gliders should be pursued at least a matter of convience to avoid having to replace the same categories 100's of times for some of these classes.
 * -I hope this offers some conclusion to what has become a rather drawn out argument, and a increasingly difficult one for me to carry on. I hope this comprimise is acceptable as a comprimise between our differing views of the project. While I do not appreicate the manner in which you presented many of arguments, I do aplogize for possible offense taken from any of mine. Greyengine5 20:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rlandmann about the proliferation of tables. There is no point having a shorter table for 'minor' aircraft. 'Minor' aircraft have the same number of performance stats as 'major' aircraft, it's just they might be a little more tricky to track down. The point about helicopters perhaps needing a separate template is well taken though I would have to say. David Newton 19:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2

 * I don't understand the logic of having a subtype unless there's a particular class or category of aircraft where the same data is missing, inapplicable, or hard to find. I disagree vigorously with arbitrarily suggesting that "many minor aircraft do not need a full table", if only because of the subjectivity of defining a "minor aircraft".

 * I'm sorry if you're offended by the suggestion that these are "personal alternatives", but when you make broad changes without any prior discussion or warning, it's hard to draw a different conclusion. --Rlandmann 07:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * -I am offended by the manner and amount of work you have put into countering an idea that does not seem that unreasonable to me.

 * My intention has never been to offend - but to me, the ideas does seem unreasonable, in the sense that (in my experience) it is neither logical nor necessary. The work I have put in is at best only equal and opposite to what you have invested.

 * Subtypes are a practical reality. Standardizing a few major subtypes is not illogical. As a matter of convience I suppose it could be unecessary, but for the same reason we comprimised on a main table, other main classes deserve standarization as well.

 * Agreed- standardising a few major subtypes is not illogical. It's the short table I find illogical and unnecessary. Which classes do you think need standardisation?
 * The matter of the short table has already been decided. I thouroughly understand you didnt agree with the my reasons for the short table, and conceed the matter.

 * -The short table of course has its drawbacks, but serves a usefull role in standardizing the many pages where only few facts are listed. It can be expanded easily since it has a identical format. I dont think it 'erodes' the standard as is it will aid in the distrobution of the basic table code. I also do not view suggesting a specific table design as "broad change".

 * Where only a few facts are listed, leave blanks. It doesn't get much easier than that. It also doesn't contribute anything to standardisation unless there is some particular category of aircraft where a large majority of types vary from the standard table in the same way. We seem to be getting a general agreement that helicopters are an example of this. Maybe gliders are too - I haven't explored this yet, and haven't researched which figures reference works on gliders commonly quote.

 * I have already explanined my reasons for the subtypes many times now. As for the short table, I thought a comprimise had been reached. Since as part of the comprimise I have withdrawn support for the short table, I will not re-say or try and defend its merits. Im glad to see that you understand the usefullness of other types, and have ideas for them.

 * Glad we can agree. Other than helicopters and gliders - any other ideas?

 * Perhaps dirgables or balloons, though these dont have very many entries to warrant it really.

 * True - they're also different enough from heavier-than-air machines that they probably warrant their own WikiProject.
 * "not very many entries" hence not enough for a project.

 * I had been thinkning about doing a standardized comparision table that looks simiar to the look/format of the main table, which might be handy.

 * Where would this go?
 * In the places where comparision tables are currently and wherever somone though they were needed.

 * A specialized table for a specific airforce's planes, perhaps with a flag like the boats pages had been on the back of my mind too.

 * The practice at WikiProject Ships is to create a new page for a vessel when it changes hands. On the other hand, we have types here that are operated by dozens of airlines or airforces simultaneously. While attractive, I don't know how practical that idea is…
 * I said for a specific air forces plane, obviously this cant be used for a page on gneral type in service with many nations.

 * - The general use of subtables is already happening as people make them, and making tables that adapts to these need is a matter of convinence. The 'hard time' you have in 'drawing' correct conclusions is a confusion over the nature of wiki, as virtially all changes to the table have been made first and disccussed later, from the choice for the intial table, to the many categories that have been added, to minor coding issues.

 * Yes - people are adapting the table as required to fit the particular aircraft they are writing about - which is precisely why we don't need a cut-down version of the table.

 * This issue has already been covered serveral times now. Once again, this adapting to the same types over and over is "precisely" why subtypes are usefull.

 * They're useful if and only if the table in question is one that's likely to be useful across a broad range of aircraft. I don't think that anyone's disputing that...

 * In the beggining I thought you were disputing the more general 'proliferation' of tables as well as the short table. I geared my response to that understanding of things. Its now a moot point as support for the short table has been withdrawn, and having other subtypes does not seem so controversial now.

 * I was and I am disputing a proliferation of tables - I think that the fewer we can get away with, the better. On the other hand, when experience demonstrates that a particular variant is useful for a particular class of aircraft, it makes no sense to not develop that variant.

 * My stance on support for the cut-down table had already been mentioned, and I'v conceded the matter. Accepting the stance that people can create there own cut-down table was from the main when if they choose was a part of this compromise.

 * Anyone's free to use whatever table they want any time they want - a WikiProject is just a suggested guideline. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

 * I totally agree. This was one of the main reasons why I thought it was ok to offer the short table in the first place.

 * Yes, but a WikiProject is about creating standards for the presentation of information. Any user can use whatever table she/he likes, or no table at all. The WikiProject, on the other hand, advocates a standard and asks for people's voluntary compliance with that standard. It's a form of self-regulation.

 * Yes i created a presentation format that i though other people might find usefull, and could also be standardized, thus, I offered to be part of the project.

 * As I pointed out to you on your talk page, "being bold" works well most of the time, since in most of the articles we contribute, we're working alone. But when you're trying to make changes to areas that other people are working in, actually discussing things is not only a good idea, it's good manners too.

 * The debate over this is the actual discussion, neither you or nor I nor anyone else discusses things very much before they do them, and this practice is totally inline with wiki rules. As for weather this is "good manners" I do think its in inline with 'wikietiquette' if thats what you mean, and I think you've been around wiki long enough to agree.

 * And this discussion is taking place after the fact. I never said that you were breaking any "rules" - there are practically no rules. I wasn't referring to any wikietiquette - I'm referring to common courtesy. But that's just a subjective opinion.

 * The only common courtesy thats being broken, is by a debate thats continued long after I offered a comprimise, through your continued comments and my responses to them. All you had to do was say yes to compromise thats happened anyway and this could have been over awhile ago.

 * -I am not exacly sure why this issue is so problematic after good resolutions of countless other issues, such as the kg-kgf, dates, manufacturer, table categores, etc, but I do know it must end, as this debate doesn't seem to be accomlishing such resolution.

 * Two reasons. First, I think the idea is bad to begin with (in the sense of illogical and un-necessary). Second, I see it as part of a general pattern of bloat. We will never have a single table that fits every aircraft equally well for every reader. But we can (and do) hold up an agreed "ideal" table, which in practice we all know many individual articles will deviate from to a greater or lesser degree.

 * The self-contradictory nature of this statement offers a better explantion I think. How can all the 'deviant articles' be acceptable for the sake of maintaining the ideal, yet attempts and standardizing a few common deviations be 'illogical and un-necessary'. Of course we cannot have a standard table that suits every circumstance, such is the value of haveing some subtypes.

 * Once again, if a table variant is one that will carry over into a broad range, then it's perfectly logical and useful thing. But that's not where this discussion started, nor what I was commenting on (ie, the "short table").

 * It was a debate over the short table and over the usefullness of variant tables from the beggining, as well expanding into a more thorough examination of other tables and some other more general issues. I did not see the short table or the other ideas as 'bloat'. If you were just talking about the short table then many of the comments do not apply of course and result from a misinterpretaion. Regardless the issue is resolved now, both with this short table and the merit of the subtypes in general.

 * -To this end, i propose a comprimise consiting of: a unconditional withdrawl of my support for the short table. I will use the full table and not use any abridged table, in the manner you describe. On the other hand, I will continue to create other tables and offer them for discuusion and potential use by you are anyone else interested in them. Also, creation of a standard sub-tables for helicopters or gliders should be pursued at least a matter of convience to avoid having to replace the same categories 100's of times for some of these classes.

 * As I see it, the central, bottom line issue here is that you are advocating solutions to problems that apparently only you see. I would suggest that instead of creating more and more and more tables, you either go out there and actually write some articles and find out what does and doesn't work, or at the very least, talk to the people who are doing that. If you had asked "do we need a shorter version of the table", people would have had a chance to say "no" straight away. Alternatively, if you had been using the current table in articles, you would probably have found this to be the case for yourself.

 * I have spelled out my reasons for subtypes many times now. Since you have mentioned yourself that there could be value in creating a subtable I think I have at least some company in my views here. As part of the comprimise I have withdrawn support for the short subtable. Ironically, working on articles was one of the primary reasons for the short table- a inablity to find enough info and as well as articles with blank tables.

 * Can you be specific - Where have the problems been? And what do you think the advantage is of just eliminating the categories rather than leaving them blank for someone else to fill in?

 * I'v decribed my reasons for creation of the table before. As a further explanation, I did not view the difference between having to add a row versus having to fill in data to be fundementally different. It was a calculated disadvantge weighed agaist the benifits of increased standardizaion of small tables and potential for increased distrobution of the basic table coding.

 * The main disadvantage of the short table, as I see it, was that blanks invite people to fill them in, whereas the provision of the cut-down template invites laziness. I note that you didn't answer the question about specifically where the problems have been? (What aircraft, if I wasn't clear)

 * I told you this was a "calcualted disadvanatge". I new this when i made it. The aircraft are ones that have little data or are all blank, and you can go find them yourself.

 * I dont think your qualified to speak for other people either as to what there views on the short table are.

 * I'm not, and have not claimed to. I've been careful to frame my opinions as my opinions. Others have spoken for themselves.

 * I would prefer my paragraphs not be split as out of context as meaning can shift, as in this case. I did not intend this as a criticism of your writing style. In the paragraph it was meant as a response to "If you had asked "do we need a shorter version of the table", people would have had a chance to say "no" straight away.". Its meant more to mean that some people might say 'yes' straight away, and rejection was not a forgone conclusion. This is now a non-issue as to be in line with the comprimise I now say 'no' to the short as well here(the project).

 * Sorry - I find it much more convenient to respond to specific points this way. I apologise for the shift in meaning. Sure - people could have said "yes" straight away, but all three people who actually commented on the short table all commented in the negative. In fairness, I should have said "yes or no".

 * If you sorry why are still splitting my comments up? Thanks for including more information on a issue thats no longer supported.

 * In any case, I have withdrawn support for its general use (the short table) in the project as a concession to you. As for my record of table use, I made my stance on the issue of my use of the table clear at the begging, when you brought up a similar argument.

 * Yes, you did. I still feel, however, that you'll be better equipped to know what works and doesn't work after having done the hard yards yourself.

 * Once again the idea that the merit of these suggestions is somehow dependent on working on tables more is incorrect. Not only have I worked on tables and pages, not only have many succsefull changes been made people through predictions, but the table design orginated from actual pages. I have been waiting for the full table to be essentaily finsihed( as there's no use in spreading a design that will have to be redone).

 * I find this last comment highly ironic coming from someone who has made numerous unannounced changes to tables while other people are using them… To me, that seems very much like putting the cart before the horse, but that is, of course, your prerogative.

 * Others have made unannounced changes and you have not engaged in such  intense discussion. Others have made changes the full table and you ahve not engaged in such a drawn out debate, and in this case I wasn't making a change to a table that anyone was using! The short tables and subtables were placed to be standardized. Its not "my perogative" its how wiki works- everything from the footer, to new catgories, to coding, to article development in general.

 * However, I often was lacking enough information to fill in a full table, and seeing a number of tables with empty catgories I decided to make the short table.

 * Which aircraft?
 * Take your pick, there are several. You'v worked on enough pages to know what Im talking about, however your welcome to spend your own time looking for them. Once again I thought this debate was already over.

 * The idea being it to could be standardized, and that it might be of use to other people- factored into its presentation it on the project page. This also seemed inline with the goal of standardized other tables as a extension of the work on the main table (now that it was complete) and the footer. Practical experience no doubt aids knowing what 'works and what doesn't', but it is not prerequisite for it, nor is it largely applicable in this sititaion.

 * We have to agree to differ on that point. --Rlandmann 08:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
 * These are the same reasons for footer development, so I cant understand how you can disagree. Its not applicable here beacause practical experience was the reason for my ideas. Also, for example having a good knowledge of airplanes does not require, but is certainly aided by, flying them. I dont see how its possible to differ here.

 * I don't want this to be a personal feud of any kind - I just find it frustrating to be confronted with solutions to problems that don't actually exist. --Rlandmann 22:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't consider the debate over the usefullness of subtables to be a fued, but rather a objective discussion over it and related forms of it. It has been both benificial to both my understanding of the matter and, ultimately, the quality of the wiki. Whats personal about is that we are the two people that happen to be debating it, any arguments in the debate that are used that are conditional to a individual, and the manner in which ideas are presented. Subtables can solve problems that do exist, the use of modifidied tables already is a testament to that. Some standardizing will aid in that solution- just the same as it did for the main table. Greyengine5 01:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Subtables can solve those problems only if and when the problems arise on account of a general category or class that the aircraft belongs to, rather than an idiosyncracy of the aircraft itself. It could well be that the modifications made by a number of people "in the field" result in a good idea that can be incorporated into the template, but I'm far more confident in such changes when they result from actually having done the work than when they result from speculation as to what problems might possibly exist at some point in the future. --Rlandmann 02:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Even without a explict acceptance of the comprimise it seems to have already become a reality. I certainly underestimated the importance of the short tables faults, and will end promoting it in its current form here. The idea of subtypes, such as mentioned for helicopters, seem to be recogized as having some merit. The primary matters have certainly been resolved to my satisfaction-both the subtable and the short table discussion.
 * The debates subservant to the main issues within the debate, as well as arguments tied the specifity of me our you being the ones engaged in this debate are largely concluded. I prefer not spending time pursuing these sub-debates as indepent issues now that the larger one is done, unless it is so desired.
 * In the future I would prefer my paragraphs are not split when you reply. I often have sentences that are not meant to be stand alone thoughts and many times can be connected or refer to eachthother.
 * Finally, I do not regret putting effort in to resolving this matter. There is always much to be learned from reconciling differences of opinion, and this case was no different. I have certainly advanced my understanding of the whole matter and know I will benifit from what I have learned from reconciling of the matter, and wiki will to. It(wiki) will no doubt benifit from being spared the short table and enjoy whatever benifits come from other standardized tables, even beyond the full table and the footer designs. However, carrying on the debate as drained both my enthusaim for working this stuff and the wiki in general. Combined with pressures from renewed time demands, I shall be going on a hiatus from wiki for some time. I have enjoyed working on the team, and the project. I have learned a great deal from you especially RL, both from your articles and our various debates. I will attempt to keep some tabs on developments and will try answer talk. Goodbye morven, newton, and rl - till next time! Greyengine5 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * See you later. I can't say I'll miss a reprieve from this bickering over standards, which is not to say that I don't value your contributions. I only wish that both of us could have put this time and energy into articles instead. --Rlandmann 08:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I hopefully wont be gone to long, so dont be to overjoyed. My hope is that you will let up on this bickering that you engage in, which i find most unenjoyable despite what things I learn from it. Looking back at other changes, it apperent you tended argue especially with my changes. Perhaps some changes have warrented it, such as the color thing, but many have recived undue debate. A new row one person puts recieves no argument, but mine requires a drawn out debate to allow it to exist. Unannouced changes by some people are no problem, yet mine are somehow 'bad manners'. And with this debate, we'v continuned long after I offered a compromise thats alrady happened. If you want to spend more time writing articles, I reccomend you give upon fighting minor issues so fiercely. I make no aplogizes supporting my ideas and resolving these issues with you, as I both learn from it and defending things you believe in important. However it has been thoroughly unpleasant doing this, and its a shame it has to happen as its not very much fun to wiki when it is. I cant resist working on airplanes if I work in wiki, and as result being a part of the project is required too, and as result I feel obligated to share ideas as a part of this team- and of course this has lead me into constant conflict with you, which I dont like at all(the conflicts not you individually, i still think your ok despite these issues). I know well your stance on many of my changes, but I dont understand them since they dont seem that different from you or anyone else's work. As for this debate, which as we both recognize has gone on far to long, I would much prefer if we can identfy what issues remain and 'table' them as Im not especially interested in continuing branches of the original arguments now that the core issues have been decided. If you want to continue, regardless, I will do my best to find time to resolve these issues with you though Im not sure what this will accomplish. Finally I reccomend we move this debate to its own sub-page, though I'll leave this to you. Greyengine5 19:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3
Specific air force's plane - So are you suggesting using one table when an aircraft is used by only one operator, and another when an aircraft has been used by more than one operator?

 * If such a table were to be made, by its very nature it would only apply to aicraft of a single airforce, or the primary user of such an aircraft. For example the Sptifire could have the either uk flag or alternantively just the dot ingsignia of the raf. If you serious about working on this we could flesh out the details later.

 * No - I was just curious about what you meant. Personally, I would oppose any such move for two reasons - firstly, the disparity between "single user" tables and "multiple user" tables and secondly, the subjectivity of defining "primary user" in many cases. The examples that leap out are aircraft originally produced for one user, but which achieved greater success in the hands of another. Immediate examples that spring to mind would be the P-39 Airacobra, F2A Buffalo, Dassault Ouragan, DFS 346 - I'm sure there are many many others. Even with the Spitfire, while the overwhelming majority were RAF machines, "badging" the type exclusively with that marking seems to me to belittle the contributions of the hundreds (thousands?) of other Commonwealth and Allied airmen and crews who operated them.

 * I don think it belittles anything, especially since non-primary users could evenetauly get there own page. Such as the US F-18 and the canadian CF1-18. The country of orgin is not that subjective for many, many airplanes and have seen the practice done in some books. To your ceredit, some books list small flags of all the countries it served with ( usally not more then several). I dont think the fact that certain planes were widely used (these could be excluded from such a format) discounts it entirely as just as many did not, especially for pages development types. Finally, the whole idea of pages custimized pages for specific airforces was a casual idea and I do not want to examine these intracises any further without making an example of it for a aircraft it would apply to. Since I want to work on other ideas first, this will have to wait, and I highly reccomend we table this. If you wish to pursue it further I reccomend you develop a appilicable table and consider other ideas about it within yourself. Lets see how this idea would actually work in the 'hard yards' (to borrow a expression) after its implmented before to much theorizing about its pro's and cons is done (a concept I apprecieate much more after the early disccussion).

Which aircraft? - You continue to studiously avoid this question, while insisting that some class of aircraft exists that you think (or thought) benefits from the short table. Perhaps despite appearances, I'm not harping on and on over this simply for its own sake - I want to be able to test my belief that the short table is not necessary.

 * I have 'studiously avoided' this question beacause I utterly refuse spend time gathering pages just so you can further satiate an issue thats been dead in the water for days now. Nobody else has had to give such and account, nor would i ask this of you, nor does it accomplish anything as I already conceded that matter as a part of a comprimise that you seem to not care about. I have thoroughly explained my reasons over and over for the short table, and  understand its drawbacks, which is why I though it was ok to withdraw support.
 * However-(in contradiction of this)- If you are actually not harping on this as some sort of misguided vendetta agaist me(not that you are), I would, however be willing to work on different (perhaps less flawed) short table design with you and, as part of that I would be willing to find and show you specific examples of what pages would be helped, though i woudl expect the same of you. I honestly believed that the short could usefull, though as I mentioned earlier, I underestimated the importance of its drawbacks. If you were honestly interested in the idea and its potential use then we could work on it together. I am of course cautious, as I would not want this to be used as some way of draggin this debate on any further.

 * I was only trying to offer you the benefit of the doubt - in the chance that your experiences "in the field" had differed from mine. I may be pig-headed, but I certainly don't claim omniscience...

 * Fair enough, I will try to you show at some point then. It shall be some time though as Im not in mood to work on this stuff anymore right now.

Your changes vs everyone else's changes - the central fact is that no-one has made as many changes, as frequent changes, or as broad changes as you have. In fact, until you started tinkering, the impression I have is that people were generally happy using the old, green table. I'll be the first to admit that what we've ended up with is better though (while also pointing out that it's also a good sight better than some of the more far-out things you've wanted implemented). It may be instructive to compare the relatively trouble-free footer design and implementation - where three of us all collaborated on something and beat it into shape before incorporating it into the project. Again, it's nothing personal - I would have (and would again) respond as strenuously to the same type of actions - regardless of who they come from. I'm not singling you out. --Rlandmann 00:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well perhaps its simply beacasue I'v made more changes, I have received more criticsm in due kind. The footer was indeed a fine example of our cooperative work, as was albeit more unrealted the rlm page. Once again, I dont apologize at my attempts at advancement- as I was not satisfied with even the quite reasonable original table- such is the case witha all changes done to it (someone see a chance at imporvement). I err on the side of openess with my suggestions so it can be hit or mess, and its certinaly better that some were filtered out. I will certainly try and change my menthods more to the footer schema- as the projects become much more formal from the early days from which these methods are largely a carry over. (i.e. no need for such formal discussion beacue there nobody to discuss with) In any case  I reconginze I must adapt to the developlement of this project, and, as I said will try to suggest things to be more in line with these changes. I would ask however that you make a change as well, and that is -that you respond less strenuously. This whole affair is most unpleasant(for both of us i think)- and since working on wiki is  activty that takes liesure time I would prefer it not be so intense, and I would place a priority on us resolving these things with less difficulty. I can respect your un-waivering adherence to your ideals, but I think we can resolve these things much more effiecently. Honestly, over half this debate took place after I offered my comprmise, and on issues that branched out quite far. I highly reccomend you make changes to you style of debate that take some of the stress out of this stuff, after all this should be fun, not draining. On my part I hope changes I can make to my methods will cause less trouble with people such as yourself- while maintaing the same benifits I can gleam for much more drawn out affair such as this beacame (as it was witht the footer dev). Certainly 'change is difficult'- not for me, not for you, and certainly not for project-but if its for the better its ok, and i think thats something we both can agree on.- Greyengine5 05:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said here. Let's work together rather than against each other... --Rlandmann 07:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed! Greyengine5 18:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Quarterstaff

Shepards
"Shepards (sic) used to have one with a sort of cup on one end of the staff, making the staff useable as a catapult..." Is there a source for this information? The traditional notion of a shepherd's staff has a crook at the end. This sounds like a confused notion of Biblical stories where shepherds carry a sling, which is entirely separate from the staff. --Ortonmc 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Obviously wrong. --— Sverdrup 21:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hold Up. ..
My jujitsu sensei says to dive the bo into 3rds, should i change the page? --Rey

No. The bo is from Japan, whereas the quarterstaff is from England. They're both staves of roughly similar length, but the fighting styles are not the same.

Scope of article?
Should this article cover just the actual English quarterstaff, or fighting staves in general?

I would have no opposition to moving the article to Staff(weapon) and including multiple "genres" of staves, though because of the current naming convention, I think that if it isn't called a "quarterstaff" it probably shouldn't go in this article. Also, please use the ~ four times in a row to sign your comments. -- Xiliquiern 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

18 foot staves?
"long staves of 12 to as much as 18 feet (3.6 to 5.4 metres) were employed in Early Modern times" - 18 foot staves? I don't believe you! references please? Also, can you define "Early Modern" ?

 * I believe George Silver Joachim Meyer (edit from below!) and Mair make mention of staves well over 12 feet, with the "usual recommended" falling somewhere between 7 and 10 feet. I'll have to double check later today, but an 18ft stave would have been a nice training, drilling and, in a rough spot (lack of supply chain?) a relatively nice weapon during the age of pike warfare. Early Modern probably refers to the later parts of the 15th century into the 16th century when pike formations became an extremely powerful weapon on the battlefield. The pike was another long weapon, as long as 22 feet, and, if I remember correctly, century masters comment on the relation between the staff and the pike (I know they comment on pike and spear in this manner) as learning nearly the same weapon. Use in formation, however, would be considerably different to to inherent spatial restrictions. -- Xiliquiern 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * David Lindholms Fighting with the Quarterstaff makes note that Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Mair provided techniques for use with staves "11-14 feet long". The text also notes that these staves would not (and probably could not) be used in the same manner as shorter 7-8 foot staves. I do not have a source for anything above 14 feet though, so I too would like to see that reference. And for a chronological period, Meyer's work showing the "11-14" foot long staved is dated to 1570. -- Xiliquiern 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

George Silver doesn't recommend the use the long staff himself, but he does refer to "...the long staff of twelve, fourteen, sixteen, or eighteen foot long, or of what length soever." Megalophias 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable enough, given the length of pikes. For future knowledge, what source is this from? -- Xiliquiern 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Paradoxes of Defence Megalophias (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It may bear reference to an early meaning of the word "quarter". One of the early meanings was "the fourth part". It also meant "a portion of the body which has been dismembered" and it also meant "a portion of town". I think it honestly has nothing to do with length. The most likely explanation I can give is that a quarterstaff would be named for either it's use (close quarters combat) or it's original developers (a class of the city which was too poor to afford metal weapons). But it's all just speculation from me, I'm not vetted for anything beyond. -- Jaerune 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

General Observations of a Martial Artist
A "Quarterstaff" is usually three quarters of the height of the man using it, generally, and thus for a six-foot man it is four and one-half feet long (54 inches). My teachers explained to me that this is the reason why it is called a quarterstaff - it is one-quarter shorter than the man using it. The Japanese Jo staff is typically four feet long but sometimes can be found four or five inches longer than that, similar in length to the quarterstaff (usually 53 inches). The fighting dynamics of the quarterstaff make it separate from a standard staff of six feet (a Japanese Bo) and separate from a Japanese "hanbo" of three feet. (Short hanbos are thirty inches). A quarterstaff, or jo staff, can do some of the things that a Bo can and some of the things a Hanbo can and well as some things that neither of them can do easily. Dr. Hatsumi of the international Bujinkan organization has an excellant book out on the hanbo, written with a Phillipine stick fighting master, which shows many hanbo grappling techniques that would be potentially awkward with a longer stick like the quarterstaff even though some of the techniques would still apply. The comparision between the quarterstaff and the two-handed sword is absurd, and I have enough experience with both to consider this fact obvious. Using a quarterstaff instead of a two-handed sword would be acceptable for training purposes when you are learning sword techniques similar to what the article describes, but those are sword postures and sword techniques, not quarterstaff methods. The quarterstaff fights with both ends. If you imagine a sword to be similar to a quarterstaff, try spinning the sword from the center to develop swinging power and grip it by the blade. Until recently, Bo staves and Jo staves (or quarterstaves) were rarely used to thrust with one end like a spear, but the artists who use these weapons are developing modern usages that incorporate more thrusting. I believe that the article as it stands has some interesting references to historical manuals, but medieval scholars with experience would realize the weight and length distinctions between quarterstaves and staves that are six or seven feet long. You have to understand that some medieval writers had espionage purposes in mind just like modern writers do, and thus many medieval fighting manuals taught poor technique in the hope that good technique would remain secret. This is particularly true with sword techniques. The hand transitions during spins are different with a four and half foot weapon that they are with a six foot weapon - with a Bo one hand rarely touches the end of the Bo, for example, while this can still be done easily with a Jo or quarterstaff for practical striking at a distance. Weapons that are 13 to 22 feet long are rare battlefield weapons that require hundreds or thousands of men to stand shoulder to shoulder with them so that the points form a wall. If you encounter a single man with a twenty foot weapon, getting around his spear point will enable you to close in and dispatch him with a sword or short spear. Quarterstaves strike with either end of the weapon, as I said, and are generally held diagonally in front of the body at one-third intervals along the weapon's length. The upper right side strikes the head and the lower left side strikes the lower body. The right hand grip is palm up and the left hand grip is palm down. Jamming the opponent's hand by thrusting both arms forward so that the center of your staff collides with his hand is common. It would be good for this article to emphasize the similarity between the Japanese Jo and the quarterstaff, which were used by the peasant classes of Japan and Europe in similar ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.231.73 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Quarterstaff is a very vague term but it is not normally applied to jo-length sticks. These would normally be called sticks or batons, as used in Jogo do Pau, Savate, etc. I don't know of any source that refers to quarterstaves as being that short (your teacher's etymology is certainly mistaken) though of course it is very possible that one exists. I can point you to multiple sources referring to 6 to 9 feet lengths. But really the term is a very broad one and people apply it to all kinds of things. Megalophias (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture
If we listed every time the quarterstaff appears in fiction it would take pages. Is any of this remotely significant, excepting maybe Robin Hood? Megalophias (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes. Wikipedia is not a cross-reference to every use of a term in the media. There's a certain attraction to the "Well, people might want to see an example of quarterstaff" argument...except those examples, when in modern cinema or manga, often represent the real, physical object incorrectly. I.e., they aren't helpful, they are misleading, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Is the reality misconstrued in some meaningful way? Then it should be given a citation from a reputable source, explaining why the misperception is important. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

while the robin hood refrence is a big historical one is it worth including king monkeys staff from journey to the east? (knowing me I probally goofed that name). I have not read the media in ages but in all varients I have seen the weapon is deffinatly not a BO or traditional fighting staff as it lacks the identifiers of being split into 3 equal parts. instead it matches perfectly all descriptions and fighting methods of a quaterstaff. it may be that when converted from novel to media someone altered it toa quarterstaff but that is know how it is famously known. i feel since this staff has great mythical and historical refrence in the asian community it is worth a mention of notable weilders/pop culture152.91.9.153 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning for removing link to game
The reason for deleting the link at the top of the Quarterstaff article is that virtually everyone typing "quarterstaff" in the basic Wiki search text box is, in fact, looking for the the Quarterstaff article. And practically no one at all is looking for the Macintosh-only game released 30 years ago. (I may still own the game, somewhere. It ends annoyingly without any particular reason, at the point the project ran out of money.) Like recipe articles, where I am fond of removing the "also, some people like to add X" statements, there is a difference between what might be interesting to a fraction of people, and what obstructs what the majority are seeking. Like an advertisement, such add little, but interfere with the majority of readers.

Using, I had checked the number of views to Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth before deleting the link. It's on the order of 130 per month. Quarterstaff, however, has 9500. That's a ratio of 100 to 1.4. Next, how many people got to Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth through the Quarterstaff link? As many as 50%? It's unlikely to be nearly that high, but assume that's the case. How many of those readers, clicking the link, were actually interested in a game that likely can't be run on any computer they have had in their house in the last ten years?

So, the idea is the greatest good for the greatest number. If someone sees some other good...go for it. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I have no vested interest in this game "Quarterstaff". I have never played it.  In fact, I have never heard of it.  However, I do know that the number of times I have typed in the name of something I am familiar with on Wikipedia and been misdirected has numbered in the dozens, if not the hundreds (for example, the genus zelotes; I wasn't looking for an apostle, I was looking for information on this).  I suspect there are individuals who are looking for the game, but only remember it as "Quarterstaff", without the subtitle.  If they type in "Quarterstaff", and then see the notice at the Quarterstaff page, they can get where they want.  People that are interested in the weapon, and not the computer game, however, will not be misdirected, however, because if they type in "Quarterstaff", they get brough to the page they're looking for.  They are most likely to ignore the notice at the top, as they're not looking for the game.  Why in the world do you think they would be so confused and click on the game's link when they're already at the page they're looking for?  I was just thinking of those 130 people who are trying to find the other article every month.  It doesn't kill us to help them out, you know?  The Jade Knight (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kendo ref
"Quarterstaff techniques as described in the early modern manuals closely resemble those of modern Kendo, a Japanese fencing style utilizing a two-handed bamboo staff close to 4 ft long." I am deleting this because it is misleading. While quarterstaff play does resemble kendo, it also resembles pretty much any other way of fighting with an elongated object, that being the nature of this kind of thing. In addition, the shinai is sword simulator and the techniques are based on two-handed sword use, not staff fighting. Megalophias (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Staff Guards: translating from older English word usage and writing styles
I wish to raise a point here before wading into the article to edit it willy-nilly.

I believe the description of the hanging guard is incorrect, describing a reverse guard. "Raising the staff directly back over the head letting the tip point back at the ground behind oneself and looking under the butt end of the staff in front of oneself is called the high or hanging guard." This is probably a poor modern rendering of the hanging or pendent guard described by Wylde:

"From the Medium you may come to the Pendent, which I call the high Guard thus, Slip your right Hand almost to the left, and return your Staff round the back of your Head, then your Point will slope or hang dipping; but observe that you see your Opposer's Head twelve Inches under the Butt end of your Staff, or you can in no measure be safe: I do not approve of this Guard, although it was in much esteem formerly, but it is not valued; the Reason is, Because the Point of your Staff being dipped, your Defence is weak: The in or outside Guard at length, which I call the low Guard, is much the stronger, and far the better." See http://www.the-exiles.org/Manual%20Zach%20Wylde.htm

What we should see from this is essentially the hanging left guard of the longsword. "From the Medium" mean Wylde is describing a movement from one guard to the next. The phrase "return your Staff round back of your Head" means to switch sides, the medium and low guards being on the left of the body, but now raised and swung over to the right side. The hands are behind the head, not the whole staff. "Dipping" means the point is still in front of the body, otherwise it would be called trailing. In this configuration, leverage between the hands is lost and the great length in front of the hands is slow to move, and thus Wylde is correct to say that this stance is not valued.

Wylde says that the pendent guard "was in much esteem formerly." That may be because it was executed differently in those former times. The hanging staff guard is also done by slipping the leading hand forward on the staff and held chin high, lifting the rear hand over the head. The staff stays on the left side of the body and hanging to the right (without "returning" or switching sides). This position affords excellent leverage, and with less of the staff in front of the leading hand it is even quicker to move in defense or offense. This stance is indeed estimable.

Wylde's interpretation of the pendent guard works only with a very short staff. A six-foot staff cannot be held comfortably in this position for a long time, much less Silver's perfect length staff of seven to nine feet. The long staff up to twelve feet cannot use the guard Wylde described at all. I would conclude that the proper technique, in that it works with any length of staff, was unknown to Wylde for whatever reason.

Swetnam also describes this guard, and calls it the high guard. See http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam.htm Trueguard (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Trueguard

Length of quarterstaff
I was told once that a quarterstaff was so named because it is a quarter of a rod, which is 5½ yards, or 16½ feet, making the quarterstaff 4'1½", although I have no written or on line evidence for this.Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quarterstaff


text:
User talk:Jason Ford

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jason Ford


text:
Keeper

Keeper may refer to:

People

 * Keeper (surname)
 * Archivist
 * Beekeeper
 * Gamekeeper
 * Gatekeeper
 * Greenkeeper
 * Keeper of the Privy Purse
 * Keeper of the Royal Archives
 * Legal guardian
 * Lighthouse keeper
 * Museum curator
 * Prison warden
 * Regius Keeper of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
 * Zookeeper

Sports

 * Goalkeeper, a player who protects a goal
 * Quarterback keeper, a slang term for a play in American football
 * Wicket-keeper, a position in cricket

Literature

 * Keeper: Living with Nancy, a 2009 biographical book by Andrea Gillies
 * Keeper (Peet novel), a 2003 sports novel by Mal Peet
 * Keeper (Appelt novel), a 2010 novel by Kathi Appelt

Video games

 * In Homeworld 2, Keepers are deadly destroyers built by the ancient Progenitors
 * In Thief (series) games, a Keeper is a member of a secret society who are charged with "keeping the balance" of power even within The City
 * The Keepers (Mass Effect), a fictional artificial species from the BioWare game Mass Effect
 * Keepers, an artificial life-forms that protect the Earth in the Nintendo game Sin & Punishment: Star Successor
 * The Keeper, a playable character in the game The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth introduced in the Afterbirth DLC

Other

 * Keeper (film), a 2015 film
 * Keeper (chemistry) a small quantity of solvent added in an evaporative procedure to prevent analyte loss
 * "Keeper", a 2022 song by Tobi and Manny Brown
 * The Keepers, English title of Head Against the Wall, a 1959 French drama film directed by Georges Franju
 * Keeper (password manager)
 * Keeper Hill, an Irish mountain
 * In the game of Quidditch from Harry Potter, a position that defends the goal hoops
 * Keeper (Transformers), a comics character
 * Keeper, see Drakh, a parasitic creature in the universe of Babylon 5
 * Magnet keeper
 * Menstrual cup
 * Strike plate of a door latch
 * Keeper, a space wizard from the TV show Dino Charge

title: Keeper


text:
User talk:Tangerine Cossack

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Padua, Italy
There are other things that could easily (not likely, but still possibly) be confused with "Padua". There's nothing that could be confused with "Padua, Italy". Articles should be named as clearly as possible, at least in my opinion. Why don't you agree?  Matt Yeager   ♫  ( Talk? ) 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a pointless redirect when most pages link using Padua . I'm sure this is why none of the other examples I gave use the convention that you are suggesting. Also if you are going to start adding "clarifications" you may as well expand it to "Padua, Italy, Europe (city)" to give even more inforamtion. Tangerine Cossack 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tarkine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rosebery and Boat Harbour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tangerine Cossack


text:
Trike

Trike may refer to:

Vehicles with three wheels and seated

 * Drift trike, a type of recreational tricycle with no pedals
 * Electric trike
 * Motorized tricycle
 * Three-wheeler
 * Tricycle (non-motorized)
 * Ultralight trike, a type of powered hang glider

Music

 * Trike (album), by Bob Log III
 * Trike (EP), by You Am I

Other uses

 * Triceratops, a dinosaur with three horns
 * Trichloroethylene, a chemical compound commonly used as a solvent

title: Trike