text:
Talk:Mount Kitchener

Merger proposal
I propose that Mount K2 (Alberta) be merged into Mount Kitchener. The poorly sourced article describes K2 as a secondary peak, and the available sources for the two will generate a short article. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Mount K2 Article has been expanded, no need to merge. Ron Clausen (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on your expansion, I find no reason not to merge. You put the identical information in the Mount Kitchener article. The external link to Jasper national Park does not contain anything about K2. Another external link to it describes Mount Kitchener. The climate zone map is not a specific source for either peak. The paucity of specific information remains.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Kitchener


text:
La nouvelle manga

Nouvelle Manga (La nouvelle manga) is an artistic movement which gathers French and Japanese comic creators together. The expression was first used by Kiyoshi Kusumi, editor of the Japanese manga magazine Comickers, in referring to the work of French expatriate Frédéric Boilet, who lived in Japan for much of his career but has since returned to France in December 2008. Boilet adopted the term for himself and encouraged other artists to participate.

History
The Nouvelle Manga movement was born of several observations. Whereas European cinema often bases its theme on everyday life, French/Belgian bande dessinée has, for a long time, been restricted to stereotyped genres such as science fiction or westerns. Japanese authors on the other hand exploit daily life extensively – but these are often the least likely to be widely translated.

For the participants of Nouvelle Manga there are bridges to build between the comics of all nationalities, not least between the comics d'auteur in each country.

People often restrict Nouvelle Manga to the world of alternative comics, yet there are many examples of Nouvelle Manga authors publishing in all kinds of arenas. For instance, Boilet himself has been published in mainstream Seinen magazines like Big Comics in Japan as well as in alternative editorial structures such as Spore in Japan, Ego Comme X in France and, more recently, Fanfare / Ponent Mon in the US.

Boilet prefers to refer to Nouvelle Manga as being in the French feminine form (la) as opposed to the French masculine form (le) which is used for the very mainstream action-oriented manga that is more usually published in France.

Examples of artists who are associated in varying degrees with the outputs and debates surrounding Nouvelle Manga are: Moyoko Anno, Aurélia Aurita, David B., Matthieu Blanchin, Frédéric Boilet, Nicolas de Crécy, Étienne Davodeau, Yoji Fukuyama, Emmanuel Guibert, Kazuichi Hanawa, Daisuke Igarashi, Little Fish, Taiyō Matsumoto, Fabrice Neaud, Loïc Néhou, Benoît Peeters, Frédéric Poincelet, David Prudhomme, François Schuiten, Joann Sfar, Kiriko Nananan, Hideji Oda, Kan Takahama, Jiro Taniguchi, Yoshiharu Tsuge, Vanyda and Naito Yamada.

A great exhibition and a cycle of debates were held in Tokyo in September and October 2001, notably at the Tokyo Museum of Fine Arts and at the French-Japanese Institute.

Nouvelle Manga has extended to other media with Nouvelle Manga Digitale, a creation of the multimedia author Fred Boot.

Nouvelle manga books in English

 * Yukiko's Spinach - Frédéric Boilet (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2003)
 * Monokuro Kinderbook - Kan Takahama (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2003)
 * Mariko Parade - Frédéric Boilet & Kan Takahama (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2004)
 * Doing Time - Kazuichi Hanawa (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2004)
 * The Walking Man - Jiro Taniguchi (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2004)
 * Blue - Kiriko Nananan (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2005)
 * The Times of Botchan vol. 1 - Jiro Taniguchi & Natsuo Sekikawa (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2005)
 * The Times of Botchan vol. 2 - Jiro Taniguchi & Natsuo Sekikawa (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2005)
 * Japan as Viewed by 17 Creators - Various Authors (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2006)
 * A Patch of Dreams - Hideji Oda (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2006)
 * Sweet Cream and Red Strawberries - Kiriko Nananan (Central Park Media, 2006)
 * The Building Opposite - Vanyda (Fanfare/Ponent Mon, 2006)

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

title: La nouvelle manga


text: User:Scott Burley

title: User:Scott Burley


text:
Voluntary childlessness

Voluntary childlessness or childfreeness describes the active choice not to have children. Use of the word "childfree" was first recorded in 1901 and entered common usage among feminists during the 1970s. The suffix -free refers to the freedom and personal choice of those to pick this lifestyle. The meaning of the term childfree extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to one's own children), and this distinguishes it further from the more usual term childless, which is traditionally used to express the idea of having no children, whether by choice or by circumstance. In the research literature, the term child-free or childfree has also been used to refer to parents currently not living with their children, for example because they have already grown up and moved out. In common usage, childfree might be used in the context of venues or activities wherein (young) children are excluded even if the people involved may be parents, such as a childfree flight or a childfree restaurant.

In most societies and for most of human history, choosing not to have children was both difficult and socially undesirable, except for celibate individuals. The availability of reliable birth control (which has severed the link between sexuality and reproduction), more opportunities for financial security (especially for women), better healthcare (which has extended human life expectancy), and elderly care financed by the government or by one's own savings rather than one's family has made childlessness a viable option,  even if this choice might still be frowned upon by society at large. Nevertheless, in some modern societies, being childfree has become not just more tolerated but also more common.

Reasons cited for being voluntarily childless
Supporters of this lifestyle cite various reasons for their view. These reasons can be personal, social, philosophical, moral, economic, or a complex, nuanced combination of such reasons.

Many suffered abuse by the hands of their own parents and as such have little interest in parenthood, or the duplication of their family's genes. They also fear the continuation of the cycle of abuse or other defects in their styles of parenting. Indeed, fear is in general a major motivation for voluntary childlessness, and some are also concerned with disabilities, rendering childcare even more challenging; or that the children might grow up to be immoral people. However, childfree individuals are unlikely to have the fear of missing out on the alleged benefits of parenthood because there are parents who regret having children, leaving the childfree to deem the decision to "just try" to have children irresponsible. And parents can become less empathetic towards non-family members. Some people simply do not feel the "biological clock" ticking and have no parental drives. On the other hand, some meet the right partners at too advanced an age to safely bear children. Among some women, there is a fear or revulsion towards the physical condition of pregnancy (tokophobia), and the childbirth experience. Some are worried that an existing (and strained) romantic relationship or marriage might be damaged (beyond repair) with the arrival of children, and this could be the case if one partner does not want children. Among women, the mental health of those of reproductive years declines among mothers relative to those with no children, whose psychological well-being remains more or less stable during this period. In general, couples experience a drop in the level of happiness after having a baby, though the level depends on a variety of factors, including sex, age, and nationality. But in the long run, there is a gap in happiness between parents and the childfree in favor of the latter, even in places with generous programs to support (working) parents. On average, unmarried women with no children are among the happiest in society. (For men, marriage is correlated with higher income, greater life expectancy, and more happiness. Both men and women who are married benefit from financial and emotional support.)

For some, it is sufficient to spend time with their nephews, nieces or stepchildren, or to provide childcare and babysitting services as part of an extended family or godparent, and to nourish existing friendships, which might falter if they were to become parents. Some are also taking care of elderly parents. Some childfree individuals consider themselves to be already working for the benefit of the next generation or of humanity as a whole by making charitable donations, or working as schoolteachers or pediatricians. In addition, one's partner might already have children from a previous relationship and is unable or unwilling to have more. On the other hand, some people simply dislike children's behavior, language, or biological processes.

Medical concerns constitute an entire class of reasons why some people do not want to have children. Some people carry genetic disorders,  are mentally ill, or are otherwise too sick for parenthood, and children are vectors of numerous infectious diseases. But even among healthy couples, new parents are often sleep deprived. Pregnancy and childbirth might come with complications for the woman's body and lasting effects on her health, including, but not limited to, weight gain, hemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, accelerated cellular aging, and even death. Substantial neurological changes during and following pregnancy could lead to sentiments of insecurity and inadequacy, postpartum depression, something men might also face. This information is traditionally not provided to parents in advance to avoid frightening them. In an agrarian society, children are a source of labor and thus income for the family. But as society shifts towards industries other than agriculture and as more people relocate to the cities, children become a net sink of parental resources. For this reason, people tend to have fewer children, or none at all. This change is known as the first demographic transition. The second demographic transition occurs when the cultural attitude towards children changes. In particular, this is when society shifts from traditional and communal values towards individualism, whereupon support for traditional gender roles declines and fewer people believe that they need to have children in order to be complete, successful, or happy. Whereas in the past, a woman typically had to get married and bear children in order to ensure her own survival, in a modern society, people—including women—have more choices, and they are increasing aware that reproduction is an option, and not an obligation. Consequently, people who choose to have children tend to have fewer of them, and an increasing number prefer to be childfree. Moreover, contemporary young people, especially women, tend to be more ambitious and career-minded than their counterparts in the past, and for them, children count as a distraction, an unwanted expenditure, or an undesirable commitment. Childfree people could take advantage of other opportunities in life, such as pursuing a career, retiring early, making charitable donations, having more leisure, and being more active in the community. Some find themselves exhausted with work and are therefore in no position to be parents. Furthermore, the cost of raising a child tends to be quite high as a society industrializes and urbanizes. Simply reviewing the full financial expense of having a child can shift a person's opinion on whether or not he or she should have one. But the cost of raising a child is, for most, not as important as the desire for personal growth and fulfillment. As parenthood loses its appeal, pets gain in popularity, at least among those who wish to have something or someone to care for. In South Korea, young couples of the 2010s are more likely to have pets, which are cheaper than children. In the English language, the phrase "fur baby" was first introduced in the 1990s and steadily became more commonplace afterwards as Millennials came of age. In the West, members of the countercultural or feminist movements in the 1960s and 1970s typically had no children. They disapproved of the how women were treated differently from men. Some feminists recall how their own mothers were treated when they were young. Among radical feminists, the traditional family is viewed "a decadent, energy-absorbing, destructive, wasteful institution." Similarly, in China, a socially conservative and patriarchal country, women have become much less interested in marriage and children, viewing these as burdens.

The next group of reasons why people prefer to not have children is economic in nature. Childfree people reject the claim that their national economies are at risk just because they have no children. For many, existing burdens of taxes and debts are already great, and yet they are facing stagnant or falling wages and a high cost of living. But even among those who are not facing dire financial circumstances, not having a child means more savings and possibly early retirement. They realize that having children is not a guaranteed safety net for parent-child relations might be strained. For women, the lack of adequate support for working mothers is a major concern.

Some people face general existential angst due to the state of the world (pestilence, war, famine, economic recession, the breakdown of civilization, among other issues) or the politics of their countries, and therefore question whether having children really is such a positive contribution. The human population has grown significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution, leading many to believe that overpopulation has become a serious problem and some to question the fairness of what in their view amounts to subsidies for having children—such as tax credits for parents (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States), paid parental leave, and public education —as well as social welfare programs that require more people to be born to ensure said programs can be funded by taxes. To this end, concerns over the impact of human activities on the environment—overpopulation, climate change, pollution, resource scarcity, and the ongoing Holocene Extinction—are a major reason behind voluntary childlessness.

Having fewer children or no children at all drastically reduces one's carbon emissions compared to, for instance, owning a car with improved fuel efficiency, replacing incandescent light bulbs with more energy-efficient models (such as LEDs), or avoiding air travel. Among a subset of environmentalists, there is opposition to anthropocentrism, and support for deep ecology, or putting non-human lives first. Some even call for the gradual and voluntary extinction of Homo sapiens, viewing it as not entirely a tragedy but rather an act of empathy and nobility. In their opinion, human existence inflicts harm not just upon humans themselves but also other species via predatory practices.

But these (misanthropic) perspectives are not unique to environmentalists. A school of philosophy known as antinatalism asserts that it is inherently immoral to bring people into the world. Antinatalists argue in favor of the asymmetry of pleasure and pain, viewing the absence of pleasure is neutral whereas the absence of pain is positive. For them, refraining from reproduction can be thought of as a form of compassion for the unborn. Moreover, since parents can never secure the consent of their unborn child, the decision to procreate would be an imposition of life, a source of suffering, and a form of narcissism. However, some childfree people explicitly reject antinatalism; they may even like the children of others, but just do not want any themselves.

Modern societies often have high expectations of parents, which some people consider distasteful. In English, the (pejorative) term "soccer mom" is used to described women obsessed with being mothers. In general, as a society becomes better developed, it is generally true that parental investment per child goes up, causing fertility rates to go down. In countries where having children out of wedlock is either highly unusual or socially ostracized, such as China, having trouble getting married is a reason why most choose to not have children.

Proponents of childfreeness posit that choosing not to have children is no more or less selfish than choosing to have children. Choosing to have children may be the more selfish choice, especially when poor parenting risks creating many long-term problems for both the children themselves and society at large. As philosopher David Benatar explains, at the heart of the decision to bring a child into the world often lies the parents' own desires (to enjoy child-rearing or perpetuate one's legacy or genes), rather than the potential person's interests. At the very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent. They will also have more time to focus on themselves, which will allow for greater creativity and the exploration of personal ambitions. In this way, they may benefit themselves and society more than if they had a child, and describe the joys and freedoms of childfree living, freedoms such as travel previously associated with males in Western culture.

But simply not wanting children is the most important reason for many. Compared to the 1970s, social attitudes towards voluntary childlessness have been slowly changing from condemnation and hostility to greater acceptance by the 2010s.

Challenges to and criticisms of remaining childfree
Childfree people face not only social discrimination but political discrimination as well. Most societies place a high value on parenthood in adult life, so that people who remain childfree are sometimes stereotyped as selfish, self-absorbed, or unwilling to take on responsibility. Some are deemed too career-focused, although this is not necessarily true. In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costs. The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important. Some parents argue that they deserve special treatment for raising future workers and taxpayers. During the summer, requests for vacation leave from parents are typically approved quickly while the childfree are generally expected to stay behind to cover the workload. To alleviate friction and to maintain goodwill, some employers have offered everyone paid leave at the same time. More broadly, some human-resources departments and managers have introduced paid time off (PTO) to replace of the traditional paid family leave, paid sick leave, or paid vacation leave.

It is traditionally held that womanhood must include motherhood and care giving. Even today, these responsibilities fall largely on women. Historically, it has been a social taboo to discuss the negative aspects of pregnancy and childbirth, or to express regret for having had children, making it more challenging for the childfree to defend their decision. A number of religions—notably Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—place a high value on children and their central place in marriage. There are, however, some debates within religious groups about whether a childfree lifestyle is acceptable. Another view, for example, is that the biblical verse "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28, is really not a command but an expression of blessing. Alternatively, some Christians believe that Genesis 1:28 is a moral command but nonetheless believe that voluntary childlessness is ethical if a higher ethical principle intervenes to make child bearing imprudent in comparison. Health concerns, a calling to serve orphans, serving as missionaries in a dangerous location, etc., are all examples that would make childbearing imprudent for a Christian. A small activist group, the Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree, defends this view, saying "Jesus loved children but chose to never have any, so that he could devote his life to telling the Good News."

Some have argued that the conscientiousness of childfree environmentalists is self-eliminating since they only aid in the deterioration of concern for the environment and future generations, though this argument assumes that attitudes are heritable.

People who express the fact that they have voluntarily chosen to remain childfree are frequently subjected discrimination or pressure to change their minds. The decision not to have children has been derided as "unnatural" or attributed to insanity, and frequently childfree people are subjected to unsolicited questioning by friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances and even strangers who attempt to force them to justify and change their decision,  for example during holiday family gatherings. Some women interviewed by the BBC have argued that revealing their decision to not have children was akin to coming out as gay in the mid-20th century, while others avoided such conversations to avoid social pressure to change their decision. People with no children of their own who want to be sterilized might be refused the procedure by their doctors. If the person requesting to be sterilized is a woman, her doctor might tell her to ask her husband for permission. Childfree women might be told to first have a child before deciding whether or not they do not want one, to "hurry up" and lower their standards for suitable men, that they would make good mothers, that they have not yet met the "right" man, or are assumed to be infertile rather than having made a conscious decision not to make use of their fertility. Many parents pressure their children into producing grandchildren and threaten to or actually disown them if they do not. Some childfree people are accused of hating all children instead of just not wanting any themselves even though these people might still be willing to help others rear their children.

While the idea of a childfree flight has become popular in the 2020s, with individuals even willing to pay extra, it is unlikely to be instituted by a major airline for reasons of public relations, regulations, and profit. On the other hand, this is not an issue for certain other venues, such as restaurants.

Organizations and political activism
Childfree individuals do not necessarily share a unified political or economic philosophy, and most prominent childfree organizations tend to be social in nature. Childfree social groups first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, most notable among them the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood and No Kidding! in North America where numerous books have been written about childfree people and where a range of social positions related to childfree interests have developed along with political and social activism in support of these interests. The term "childfree" was used in a July 3, 1972 Time article on the creation of the National Organization for Non-Parents. It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced 'vehement') is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. Despite its name, the movement also includes those who do not necessarily desire human extinction but do want to curb or reverse human population growth in the name of environmentalism. VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an American activist who became involved in the American environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the movement's view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The movement states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the movement as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation.

In some countries like Russia, the movement Childfree Russia has been equated with extremism. And individuals like its founder Edward Lisovskii, is persecuted by the government.

World
The childfree lifestyle had become a trend by 2014, and the Internet has enabled people who pursue this lifestyle to connect, thereby making it more visible. Worldwide, higher educated women are statistically more often choosing to remain childless. Research into both voluntary and involuntary childlessness and parenthood has long focused on women's experiences, and men's perspectives are often overlooked.

China
In China, the conflict between women's work and family is a contributing factor to the nation's low fertility rate. In the 1990s, the Chinese government reformed higher education in order to increase access, whereupon significantly more young people, a slight majority of whom being women, have received a university degree. Consequently, many young women are now more likely to be gainfully employed and financially secure. Traditional views on gender roles dictate that women be responsible for housework and childcare, regardless of their employment status. When there is a tense relationship between women's internal expectations and external women's rights and opportunities, the results are reflected in a decrease in women's willingness to have children. Workplace discrimination against women (with families) is commonplace; for example, an employer might be more skeptical towards a married woman with one child, fearing she might have another (as the one-child policy was rescinded in 2016) and take more maternity leave. Consequently, there no strong incentive for young women to marry and have children. Not only women but also men who delay or refuse to have children because of the trade-off between work and family, are also heavily considered some respondents felt that they could not fully engage in work at home with underage children and that parental responsibility could neglect important work tasks and even affect promotion progress. Moreover, the cost of living, especially the cost of housing in the big cities, is a serious obstacle to marriage. The problem facing China's current social situation is that "the standard of living has improved, but the overall level is low and uneven." In recent years, Chinese society has been accompanied by rapid urbanization and rising per capita income, and the demand for housing has gradually increased. However, income disparities and inadequate policies have put enormous pressure on housing for young people. Based on the traditional Chinese concept of marriage, housing is often an important condition for marriage, especially for men. And the increase in housing pressure has led to the fatigue of young people's marriage, which in turn has affected the desire to have children.

In the past two decades, the increase of the age of first marriage and the reduction of the interval between marriage and first childbirth have been the most important characteristics of China's demographic changes. The traditional concept of marriage is no longer prevalent in China, and the younger generation's view of marriage has changed dramatically. For example, traditional Chinese marriage aims at inheritance and can fulfill sexual needs under the premise of following social morality. Today, China's socialization is evolving, and premarital sex is no longer considered shameful and unachievable, so the meaning of marriage is more likely to be accompanied by each other. This has led to a much lower perception of the importance of marriage. In addition, Chinese Millennials are less keen on tying the knots than their predecessors as a result of cultural change; many are now skeptical of the institution of marriage. Because this is a country where having children out of wedlock is quite rare, this means that many young people are foregoing children.

The "lying flat" movement, popular among Chinese youths, also extends to the domain of marriage and child-rearing. Over half of Chinese youths aged 18 to 26 said they were uninterested in having children because of the high cost of child-rearing, according to a 2021 poll by the Communist Youth League. While the Chinese economy has improved steadily, an explosive bloom of the real-estate market post-2008 has triggered an increase in house prices disproportionate to income. This is the commonly cited reason for childlessness and "lying flat" among the Chinese youth. A normal apartment unit in Beijing (with an average area of 112 square meters), for instance, costs on average ¥7.31 million ($1.15 million), and one would need to work non-stop for at least 88.2 years at Beijing's average monthly income of ¥6906 ($1083.7) without any expenditures.

On the Internet, statements such as "no marriage, no children will make life happier" make obvious their negative views of marriage and reproduction.

As of 2021, the national fertility rate is about 1.5 or even lower. In the more developed regions of the country, the fertility rate has been even lower for over a decade, only slightly higher than giving birth to one child per couple, which is comparable to the world's lowest fertility rate. This has been proven to be closely related to the aging population. China's population is rapidly aging, so much so that this demographic transition far exceeds the capacity of elderly care facilities. It is expected that by the mid-21st century, more than one-third of the population will be over 60 years of age. Of whom, more than 100 million will be over the age of 80. This means that there will be fewer than two working adults per senior citizen.

Taiwan
In Taiwan, it has become much more affordable for young couples to own pets instead of having children. In addition, those who want children face obstacles such as short maternity leaves and low wages. By 2020, Taiwan has become home to more pets than children.

South Korea
South Korea's low birth rate in recent years (2020s) is mostly due to people avoiding getting married and having children. That young people increasingly choose to remain single is influenced by a combination of not just economic factors but also cultural change. Among economic factors are the high cost of housing, the difficulty of finding a job, and job insecurity. In South Korea, social housing as non-state-owned, non-profit housing accounts for a small percentage of South Korean housing. This is because the Korean housing system is dominated by public housing. At the same time, the legal and economic infrastructure of social housing in Korean society is not perfect, which has led to a serious housing problem in Korea.As a result, many young people experience housing stress, which affects their willingness to marry and have children. In 2016, the average youth unemployment rate in South Korea was 9 to 10 percent. Unemployment can hurt mental health, and can even lead to depression, suicide, and so on. As a result, employment pressures have reduced young Koreans' hopes for marriage and childbirth.

As for cultural change, South Korean youths no longer deem marriage to be necessary, while contemporary young South Korean women are increasingly unwilling to sacrifice their own needs and aspirations in order to help their husbands to succeed in the labor market. South Korean women have a high percentage of higher education, yet they have very low graduation and employment rates. This is because the proportion of Korean women who have lost their jobs is very high. They have been married, given birth, and raised a child. At the same time, due to the lack of equal treatment in the workplace and at home, young Korean women's desire to have children continues to decline, once becoming one of the lowest fertility rates. In addition, the heavy demands of Confucian family values have also led to a tense relationship between the rigid obligations of marital life and the socioeconomic reality of young people. Because in Korea, Confucian traditions have a great and lasting influence on women's roles, deeply affecting Korean culture and society. Transitioning to a dual-income family means that young women will find it challenging to strike a balance between their responsibilities at work and at home. Married Korean women prefer to continue working and despite the new policies, there are still obstacles in achieving work-life balance. For this reason, working Korean women who choose to be mothers typically prefer to have very few children.

Vietnam
As Vietnam continues to industrialize and urbanize, many couples have chosen to have fewer children, or none at all, especially in better developed and more densely populated places, such as Ho Chi Minh City, where the fertility rate fell to 1.45 in 2015, well below replacement. Rising cost of living and tiredness from work are among the reasons why. By 2023, polls show that significant numbers of married Vietnamese are choosing to not have children in order to focus on their lives and careers, or because they are wary of the demands of parenthood.

Europe
In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40–44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010–2011). Among surveyed countries, childlessness was least common across Eastern European countries.

Belgium
By March 2020, some 11% of Belgian women and 16% of Belgian men between the ages of 25 and 35 did not want children.

Netherlands
By 2004, 6 in 10 childless women are voluntarily childless. It showed a correlation between higher levels of education of women and the choice to be childfree, and the fact that women had been receiving better education in the preceding decades was a factor why an increasing number of women chose to be childfree. The two most important reasons for choosing not to have children were that it would infringe on their freedom and that raising children takes too much time and energy; many women who gave the second reason also gave the first.

By March 2017, reports showed that 22% of higher educated 45-year-old men were childless and 33% of lower educated 45-year-old men were childless. Childlessness amongst the latter was increasing, even though most of them were involuntarily childless. The number of voluntarily childless people amongst higher educated men had been increasing since the 1960s, whilst voluntary childlessness amongst lower educated men (who tended to have been raised more traditionally) did not become a rising trend until the 2010s.

By March 2020, 10% of 30-year-old Dutch women questioned had not had children out of her own choice, and did not expect to have any children anymore either; furthermore, 8.5% of 45-year-old women questioned and 5.5% of 60-year-old women questioned stated that they had consciously remained childless.

Raising a child cost an average of €120,000 from birth to age 18, or about 17% of one's disposable income as of 2019.

Russia
By October 2020, some 7% of population between the ages of 18 and 45 did not want children, and this figure reached 20% within Moscow population. Most often, educated, wealthy and ambitious people refuse to have children. They are unwilling to sacrifice their comfort and career for the sake of their children.

Sweden
According to a 2019 study amongst 191 Swedish men aged 20 to 50, 39 were not fathers and did not want to have children in the future either (20.4%). Desire to have (more) children was not related to level of education, country of birth, sexual orientation or relationship status.

Some Swedish men 'passively' choose not to have children as they feel their life is already good as it is, adding children is not necessary, and they do not have to counter the same amount of social pressure to have children as childfree women do.

United Kingdom
A poll released in January 2020 revealed that among Britons who were not already parents, 37% told pollsters they did not want any children ever. 19% said they did not want children but might change their minds in the future and 26% were interested in having children. Those who did not want to be parents included 13% of people aged 18 to 24, 20% of those aged 25 to 34, and 51% aged 35 to 44. Besides age (23%), the most popular reasons for not having children were the potential impact on lifestyles (10%), high costs of living and raising children (10%), human overpopulation (9%), dislike of children (8%), and lack of parental instincts (6%).

Canada
In 2010, around half of Canadian women without children in their 40s had decided to not have any from an early age. Among Canadian women aged 50 and over, about 17.2% had no biological children, as of 2022. A 2023 report states that over a third of Canadians aged 18 to 49 do not want to have children. Many are also delaying having children or want to have fewer children than their predecessors.

Pursuit of higher education, unaffordable housing, economic precariousness, and the rising cost of living are among the reasons why. These trends have accelerated in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like the case in other countries, there is a generational gap in attitudes towards reproduction. Baby Boomers are more likely to consider raising (grand) children to be a source of fulfillment or the glue that holds a marriage together. But not that many young Canadians share this view. Moreover, while Canadians today are more tolerant towards the idea of not having children, many seniors still struggle with this decision coming from their own family members.

In Canada, childfree venues are growing in popularity, including among parents who, despite loving their children, would like to spend some time away from them on occasions.

United States
Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s. However, the proportion of childfree adults in the population has increased significantly since then. A 2006 study found that American women aged 35 to 44 who were voluntarily childless constituted 5% of all U.S. women in 1982, 8% in 1988, 9% in 1995 and 7% in 2002. These women had the highest income, prior work experience and the lowest religiosity compared to other women. Research revealed that childfree people tended to be better educated, to be professionals, to live in urban areas, to be less religious, and to have less conventional life choices.

From 2007 to 2011 the fertility rate in the U.S. declined 9%, and in 2010 the birth rate was the lowest in U.S. history and childlessness rose across all racial and ethnic groups to about 1 in 5 versus 1 in 10 in the 1970s; although some of this may be involuntary. However, despite persisting discrimination against especially women who chose to remain childless, acceptance of being childfree was gradually increasing. Overall, the importance of having children has declined across all age groups in the United States, especially the young. A cross-generational study comparing Millennials (graduating class of 2012) to Generation X (graduating class of 1992) revealed that among both genders the proportion of undergraduates who reported they eventually planned to have children had dropped in half over the course of a generation. In 1992, 78% of women planned to eventually have children. But by 2021, that number fell to 42%. The results were similar for male students. However, voluntary childlessness in the United States was more common among higher educated women, but not higher educated men. A 2021 survey found that the number of non-parents aged 18 to 49 who said they were not too likely or not at all likely to have children was 44%, up seven points compared to 2018. Among these people, 56% said they simply did not want to have children. A 2023 poll found that about 23% of people adults below the age of 30 thought that having children was important, 9 percentage points below those aged 65 and above.

Student debts, a serious problem among Millennials and Generation Z in the United States, discourage many from having children.

Women who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States. And by 2019 single people, women without children made more money than men without children or men and women with children.

In the U.S., although being voluntarily childless or childfree is not without its disadvantages, such as higher taxes, less affordable housing options, and concern of old age, parenthood continues to lose its appeal. After the Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which returned the right to regulate aspects of abortion not covered by federal law to the individual states, the number of young and childfree adults seeking sterilization went up. Previously, it was usually middle-aged fathers who obtained vasectomies.

New Zealand
It is estimated that that the share of childfree women grew from under 10% in 1996 to around 15% in 2013. Professional women were the most likely to be without children, at 16%, compared with 12% for manual workers. At least 5% of women were childfree by choice.

In popular culture
The novel Olive (2020) by Emma Gannon includes several voluntarily childless characters.

One character from the television series True Detective (2014–19) upholds the anti-natalist philosophy.

Antonyms

 * Natalism
 * Parent
 * Quiverfull

title: Voluntary childlessness


text:
Breeder

A breeder is a person who selectively breeds carefully selected mates, normally of the same breed to sexually reproduce offspring with specific, consistently replicable qualities and characteristics. This might be as a farmer, agriculturalist, or hobbyist, and can be practiced on a large or small scale, for food, fun, or profit.

About
A breeder can breed purebred pets such as cats or dogs, livestock such as cattle or horses, and may show their animals professionally in assorted forms of competitions In these specific instances, the breeder strives to meet standards in each animal set out by organizations. A breeder may also assist with breeding animals in the zoo. In other cases, a breeder can be referred to an animal scientist who has the capabilities of developing more efficient ways to produce the meat and other animal products humans eat.

Earnings as a breeder vary widely because of the various types of work involved in the job title. Even in breeding small domestic animals, the earning differ. It mostly depends on the type of animal being bred and whether or not the breeder has a reputation of breeding champions. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that large animal breeders that work as veterinarians earned a median annual income of $61,029 in 2006. The other individuals employed in the field of animal science earned $47,800.

Required education
To breed small and domestic animals, no formal training or credentials are required, though it is recommended they familiarize themselves with the desired and standard characteristics of the breed they work with. For those who are seeking to breed more exotic animals, such as those in a zoo, a bachelor's degree in veterinary science is needed. It is also recommended that an individual also goes onto graduate school and specializes in zoology. To breed agricultural animals, a 4-year degree in agricultural science is needed for most entry-level positions.

title: Breeder


text:
Capital Regional District

The Capital Regional District (CRD) is a local government administrative district encompassing the southern tip of Vancouver Island and the southern Gulf Islands in the Canadian province of British Columbia. The CRD is one of several regional districts in British Columbia and had an official population of 415,451 as of the Canada 2021 Census.

The CRD encompasses the thirteen municipalities of Greater Victoria and three unincorporated areas: Juan de Fuca Electoral Area on Vancouver Island, Salt Spring Island Electoral Area, and Southern Gulf Islands Electoral Area. The CRD also acts as the local government for most purposes in the Electoral Areas. CRD headquarters is in the City of Victoria, although there are many office and operational facilities throughout the region. The total land area is 2341.11 km².

The CRD was formed in 1966 as a federation of seven municipalities and five electoral areas to provide coordination of regional issues and local government in rural areas in the Greater Victoria region.

Demographics
As a census division in the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, the Capital Regional District had a population of $415,451$ living in $185,206$ of its $198,435$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $383,360$. With a land area of 2338.22 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Ethnicity

 * Note: Totals greater than 100% due to multiple origin responses.

Political divisions
The CRD comprises the 13 municipalities of Greater Victoria, three electoral areas and 10 Indigenous reserves. The reserves have a relatively small portion of the population with 5,244 participating in the 2016 census. Some reserves did not participate; those that did are included in the population figures of the municipality or electoral area encompassing them, however the CRD regional government and local governments have no jurisdiction over reserves. Saanich and Victoria together have over 50 percent of the region's population.

Salt Spring Island Electoral Area
The Salt Spring Island Electoral Area of the Capital Regional District (CRD) of British Columbia consists of unincorporated areas in the CRD located on Salt Spring Island. It is represented by one director on the CRD.

The major localities encompassed by the electoral area are:
 * Ganges
 * Fulford Harbour
 * Vesuvius Bay
 * Long Harbour
 * Beaver Point
 * Musgrave Landing

According to the Canada 2021 Census:
 * Population: 11,635
 * % Change (2016-2021): 28.9
 * Area (km².): 182.23
 * Density (persons per km².): 63.8

Southern Gulf Islands Electoral Area
The Southern Gulf Islands Electoral Area of the Capital Regional District (CRD) of British Columbia consists of unincorporated districts in the CRD located on Galiano, Saturna, Mayne, and North and South Pender Islands, as well as many smaller islands located in the Gulf of Georgia north and east of Victoria. It is previously known as the Outer Gulf Islands Electoral Area. Its population of 6,101 is represented by one director on the CRD.

The major localities encompassed by the electoral area are:
 * Bedwell Harbour (South Pender Island)
 * Montague Harbour (Galiano Island)
 * Otter Bay (North Pender Island)
 * Saturna (Saturna Island)
 * Sturdies Bay (Galiano Island)
 * Village Bay (Mayne Island)

Juan de Fuca Electoral Area
The Juan de Fuca Electoral Area is an Electoral Area of the CRD. It consists of the District's unincorporated land on Vancouver Island, including the neighbourhood of Willis Point (Greater Victoria) on the Saanich Inlet, Malahat, on the western shore of Saanich Inlet, and the Western Communities localities of East Sooke, Jordan River, Otter Point, Shirley, Port Renfrew, inclusive of the First Nations reserves of Gordon River 2 and Pacheena 1, which are within its territory. Its population of 5,531 is represented by a single director of the CRD. The total land area is 1,502.24 km2 (580.0 sq mi). Population figures do not included residents of Indian Reserves, whether band members or non-indigenous persons.

Administrative role
The board of directors are either directly elected officials or are appointed from within the region's elected municipal councils.

The CRD's responsibilities include recycling, operating the regional landfill, building and operating sewage treatment plants, a sewer source control program, regional water supply, funding for non-profit arts groups, regional planning, funding health facilities, and overseeing thirty regional parks, trails, and regional park reserves encompassing over 100 km2. The CRD is the sole shareholder of the Capital Region Housing Corporation, which owns and operates over 1200 rental housing units. In certain areas, the CRD can pass bylaws that are binding on a portion of the geographical area or the entire geographical area. These include a "clean air bylaw" smoking ban in all public places and patios in restaurants/pubs.

The CRD assumes responsibilities ordinarily undertaken by municipalities in unincorporated areas of the CRD. These responsibilities include animal control, building inspection, fire protection, and bylaw enforcement. Some of the region's municipalities avail themselves of some of these services in a contractual arrangement with the CRD.

Capital Regional Hospital District
The CRHD's primary responsibility is to provide the region's share of capital funding for the region's health facilities and equipment. The region's health care delivery is the responsibility of the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). The CRHD shares the same Board of Directors with the CRD.

title: Capital Regional District


text:
User talk:Tomruen

Happy New Year, Tomruen!

Happy New Year! Tomruen, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Octagonal trapezohedron for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Octagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Octagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Heptagonal trapezohedron for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heptagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prism tilings
Template:Prism tilings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you do 1001-gon?
. Otimaomo24 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 * There are lots of polygon articles being deleted or redirected. But if you have source articles that explain its significance. I see 1001 is 13x11x7. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So it is not classically constructible, if that's the question. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks
Comments like these are not acceptable, especially when dealing with a contentious topic. Focus on the content, not the contributor. You've certainly been here long enough to know how to edit civilly, so please do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When you see crap articles and the person defending them, it is hard. Ideologues are real people, and they have agendas. Denying that is hopeless. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Continuing personal attacks is not the way to proceed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great job deleting hist versions of the article showing possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Women's Declaration International) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now others can see the horrible article as undefendably bad. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can civilly discuss your objections and issues on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great job deleting my edit revisions. We wouldn't want people to be able to look at possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Revisions that contain copyright violations are routinely deleted. In fact, that is the first listed acceptable use of revision deletion. See WP:RD1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I added that could possibly be a problem was a list of Declaration items. I reduced to a single sentence to try to make it acceptable. Actually linking to the source is useful, unless you're an ideologue onyl writing content to demonize it. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last warning on civility. Maybe take a break for a while, or have a cup of tea. You've been here for a very long time with a clean block log, and I don't want to sully it more than I already have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I saw the reason for blocking as unjust, so I spoke up as any self-respecting person would do. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use an article talk page for general discussion, as you did at Talk:Martine Rothblatt. You have been on Wikipedia since 2004, which is before some of our other editors were born. You know how things work around here perfectly well. Your trolling was entirely deliberate. You have been blocked for similar behaviour before. I see no reason to make this anything less than a final warning. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I know. Trolling truth is still trolling. Truth is not allowed for special people who have special protections against factual reality. The emperor may have no clothes, but no one but children are allowed to say so, and they will be properly punished. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Are you really going to throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account by behaving like this? I hope not. That would be truly sad. You don't have to do this. Please, just drop the WP:STICK. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Am I free to editorialize on my own talk page? I see you are allowed your gender-cult biases against reality. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you OK? You used to edit constructively but now you are making personal attacks and getting into trouble over complete nonsense in a way that you never did before. Back when you tried to get Women's Declaration International spuriously deleted I was moved to speculate on the AfD that maybe your account had been compromised. I now doubt that is the case as you are still editing your mathematical essays but clearly something has changed radically, and very much not for the better. Please ask yourself honestly, are you OK? A lot of people are not. Please seek help from appropriate sources if you need to. Your behaviour isn't helping anybody, least of all yourself. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I've stayed the same. (Articles that can't be corrected for bias because cult editors have control are best deleted.) The cult thinking on Wikipedia and elsewhere in society is what changed. Of course there will be pushback when cult-beliefs take over institutions. And it is all dangerous, and the clarity for a NEED of pushback only increases every time we see censorship of facts is the rule. Groupthink is always bad, but worse when a group has social power to enforce it. Society won't survive these lies. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I think it is pretty clear who is engaging in cult like thinking here but I'm fully aware that there is absolutely no way for me to persuade you of that if you are not willing to consider the possibility. If you will just lay off the personal attacks and disruptive editing then we can just leave it here. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia after final warning then you know what will happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reality must be a cult then, recognizing biological reality matters and defending sex-base boundaries. But the troubled cult can only exist in people who deny reality and use their power to silence others who are not in the cult. It'll reverse eventually, but I'm unhappy how much will be destroyed because the left can't police its own cults. We can check back our mutual assessment in 2030. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * As you're already blocked, and I'm trying to let you edit areas where the are no issues I'll give you a warning rather than just blocking you for a longer time. Your topic ban applies to all edits anywhere on-wiki, including your talk page. Your post below is a violation of the topic ban. Hopefully this warning is clear enough. You cannot make any edit to any page that deals with gender related controversies or disputes anywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 * That sounds fair. Does that mean the 7 day ban wil be lifted? If so, thank you. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have an open unblock request where you're referring to other editors as ideologues and have two topic-ban violating ChatGPT outputs that you posted after my warning directly above. There is no chance of an unblock while you continue personal attacks and flagrantly violate your topic ban. Additionally, due to your doubling down on topic ban violations three hours after you acknowledged the warning directly above I'm extending the block another thirty days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I've never seen such behavior. I see no personal attacks. I see opinions that should be reasonable to express. I don't see the purpose in this power you are exercising. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy things
Weee! Congrats, Tom!

A present to you, another kitty, hope you have fun with him too, for your contribution for eclipse Articles

RazorTheDJ (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind me giving you some advice
I see that you have been blocked for making personal attacks, but that none of the admins involved has told you how you have been making personal attacks. This is in WP:NPA, which includes: There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. You have been referring to people with certain views on transgender matters as ‘cult editors’ and ‘cultists’. I am (very much!) not an admin, but I think that that is what got you blocked. You are now subject to a GENSEX ban. These are broadly construed – so do not mention anything to do with gender, transgender, sex, sexuality, sexual orientation anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes your own Talk page. Please don’t get yourself indefinitely blocked. Best wishes Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 30 days for violating your topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed after a warning was issued and acknowledged.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solar eclipse of July 1, 2011

The article Solar eclipse of July 1, 2011 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Although this is the closest we have to the start of a new sequence, this eclipse occurred only in the ocean and is therefore of no scientific value."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q𝟤𝟪 23:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of February 1933 lunar eclipse

The article February 1933 lunar eclipse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "The eclipse was too small to be of scientific interest."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q𝟤𝟪 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Tomruen is currently on a temporary block so he won't be able to address these issues. Rather than put multiple of his articles up for PROD would it be possible for you to make a list of all the eclipse articles you think are not sufficiently notable (whoever made them) and put them all on a single AfD? That way it can be discussed by more people and we won't risk any possibility of valid or fixable articles getting deleted by default. Maybe I am being overcautious here but lets not risk it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say something similar. There's no rush on these, no BLP or promotional concerns, so I'd appreciate if you let it ride for a bit or bring them to AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:FAST J0139+4328
Hello, Tomruen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FAST J0139+4328, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:FAST J0139+4328

Hello, Tomruen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FAST J0139+4328".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Lunar eclipse from moon-2022May16.png
I reverted this file back to its previous revision for consistency. Per COM:OVERWRITE, a major change to a file should be uploaded as a separate file instead of a new revision. If you're unable to upload the reverted revision (as a separate file) I have it downloaded, so I can reupload it if necessary. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

astronomical diagram request
Harmonic Convergence

Maybe I'm confusing this with another date, but: I remember cranks warning of super earthquakes because all the planets would be "aligned", and astronomers saying don't be silly, they're spread over like 150 degrees of arc.

Could you easily add to that article a diagram of where the planets were on that date? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nomination of Pentaapeirogonal tiling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pentaapeirogonal tiling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pentaapeirogonal tiling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Tetrads in this century
Hi Tom

In your graph you show seven tetrads in the 21st century, but there are eight. See here. By the way, I just added a graph to Tetrad (astronomy). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Graph from . I wonder if it is a technical limit of definition of shadow limit, total versus near total? 2601:447:CE00:89B0:451A:BD94:4E7A:249D (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I've figured it out. According to Canon of Lunar Eclipses, 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000 by Liu Bao-Lin, the catalog of Meeus (used in the link you provide) categorizes the eclipse of April 4, 2015, as partial when in fact it was total. So the tetrad of 2014-2015 was not counted by Meeus. And he has one too few total umbral eclipses in this century -- there are 85, not 84. If you reply, please Ping me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Tetraapeirogonal tiling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tetraapeirogonal tiling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tetraapeirogonal tiling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of IC 3 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IC 3 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/IC 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. C messier (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Orthobifastigium for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orthobifastigium, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Orthobifastigium until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tomruen


text:
Disk cloning

Disk cloning is the process of duplicating all data on a digital storage drive, such as a hard disk or solid state drive, using hardware or software techniques. Unlike file copying, disk cloning also duplicates the filesystems, partitions, drive meta data and slack space on the drive. Common reasons for cloning a drive include; data backup and recovery; duplicating a computer's configuration for mass deployment and for preserving data for digital forensics purposes. Drive cloning can be used in conjunction with drive imaging where the cloned data is saved to one or more files on another drive rather than copied directly to another drive.

Background
Disk cloning occurs by copying the contents of a drive called the source drive. While called "disk cloning", any type of storage medium that connects to the computer via USB, NVMe or SATA can be cloned. A small amount of data is read and then held in the computer's memory. The data is then either written directly to another (destination) drive or to a disk image.

Typically, the destination drive is connected to a computer (Fig. 1). Once connected, a disk cloner is used to perform the clone itself. A hardware-based drive cloner can be used which does not require a computer. However, software cloners tend to allow for greater flexibility because they can exclude unwanted data from being duplicated reducing cloning time. For example, the filesystem and partitions can be resized by the software allowing data to be cloned to a drive equal to or greater than the total used space. Most hardware-based cloners typically require for the destination drive to be the same size as the source drive even if only a fraction of the space is used. Some hardware cloners can clone only the used space but tend to be much more expensive.

Deployment
A common use of disk cloning is for deployment. For example, a group of computers with similar hardware can be set up much quicker by cloning the configuration. In educational institutions, students are typically expected to experiment with computers to learn. Disk cloning can be used to help keep computers clean and configured correctly. Further, while installing the operating system is quick, installation of programs and ensuring a consistent configuration is time consuming. Thus, disk cloning seeks to mitigate this administrative challenge.

Digital forensics
One of the most common applications of disk cloning is for digital forensics purposes. This aims to ensure that data is preserved at the time it was acquired for later analysis. Techniques for cloning a disk for forensic purposes differ from cloning a drive for other purposes. Typically, the cloning process itself must not interfere with the data. Because software cannot be installed on the system, a hardware-based cloner is generally used to duplicate the data to another drive or image. Further, the hardware-based cloner also has write-blocking capabilities which intercepts write commands to prevent data being written to the drive.

Backup
Disk cloning can be used as a backup solution by creating a duplicate of data as it existed when the clone was started. The clone can be used to restore corrupted files such as corrupted databases. In modern software solutions, it is not uncommon for disk cloning techniques to be combined with disk imaging techniques to create a backup solution.

Drive upgrade
Upgrading to a larger or faster drive can be facilitated by cloning the old drive to the new drive once it is installed into the system. This reduces the need to having to manually reinstall applications, drivers and the operating system. The procedure can be used when migrating from mechanical hard disk drives to solid state drives. Modern cloning software tends to communicate with storage devices through a common interface, which means, that any storage device can be cloned and migrated. Sometimes, booting from the destination drive can fail and require adjustments in the computer's UEFI or BIOS to make the new clone bootable.

Technical challenges
There are several technical challenges that need to be considered when planning to clone a drive.

Drive in use
Often, cloning software runs within the operating system which is running off of one of the drives being cloned. As a result, any attempt to clone the contents of the drive, even to a file, would result in data corruption. Consequently, the drive cloner must ensure that the data on the source drive remains in a consistent state at the time of reading. Further, in the case, that the user desires to clone to the computer's system drive, this generally cannot be done while the operating system is running.

A common solution to cloning a drive that is in use, which is utilized by software such as CloneZilla, is to boot from a Linux-based operating system so the drive can be copied and/or overwritten. This approach is not suitable for servers that need to be running all the time and cannot be shutdown routinely to perform the backup (or cloning) operation. Further, the Linux-based operating system must provide appropriate drivers for the system's hardware. Drivers are also required for the source and destination drives and for any attached storage involved in facilitating the cloning operation such as USB, tape device and networking drivers.

Some server-based operating system incorporate mechanisms to allow the drive to be safely backed up while the system is running to overcome these challenges. For example, Windows Server 2003 (and later) includes volume shadow service (VSS). VSS takes a snapshot of the drive so that any changes are not written to the snapshot. The snapshot creates a virtual drive called a shadow volume that is backed up (or cloned) by the software.

Slow
Disk cloning can be time consuming, especially, for large disks because a true clone needs to copy all the data on the disk even if most data resides in unallocated drive space. Software solutions can determine the space in use and only copy the used data reducing the time needed to clone the drive. Some drive cloners make use of multithreading to further speed up the cloning operation.

title: Disk cloning


text:
BBC South East Today

BBC South East Today is the BBC South East regional television news programme, serving Kent, East Sussex, part of West Sussex and a small part of Surrey. Prior to its launch on 3 September 2001, most of the viewers in the region received Newsroom South East, though some had been receiving South Today.

South East Today is produced and broadcast live from the BBC's South East Regional Production Centre in Royal Tunbridge Wells with district reporters covering Brighton, Canterbury, Chatham, Dover and Hastings.

Overview
Launched on 3 September 2001, South East Today airs with short programmes and bulletins at varying times.

The programme can be watched in any part of the UK (and Europe) on digital satellite on the BBC UK regional TV on satellite service.

Launched with a sole main presenter Laurie Mayer, the programme was briefly the centre of a minor BBC scandal, after Mayer resigned amid accusations of management bullying. Mayer lost his case, but the managers concerned have since moved on.

The show then became double-headed, with Beverley Thompson (formerly the programme's health correspondent) and Giles Dilnot presenting. In 2004, Geoff Clark joined the programme. Clark and Thompson presented the programme together for five years until their departure in September 2009. Long-serving weather presenter Kaddy Lee-Preston, who had been with South East Today since its launch left the programme in March 2012.

The main presenter is Natalie Graham with weather presenters Nina Ridge and Sara Thornton. The programme's editor is Quentin Smith and the sports producer is Ben Moore. Rob Smith left the programme in November 2020.

The main transmitters that carry the regional news are Heathfield, Bluebell Hill and Dover, with associated relays including Hastings, Tunbridge Wells and Whitehawk Hill. As of 7 March 2012 (following digital switchover), the Whitehawk Hill relay transmitter (which serves the Brighton & Hove area) now carries BBC South East output instead of BBC South, and the region extends as far west as Worthing.

In 2020, the weekday lunchtime bulletin of South East Today merged with that of BBC London News to join forces with the latest on COVID-19 as BBC London and South East, hosted by the South East Today team in Tunbridge Wells. All other bulletins remained separate between the two regions. The two separate newsrooms were restored in September 2020. Very occasionally a joint bulletin will still be broadcast, usually due to staff shortages in one newsroom or the other. On 27 December 2021, South East Today merged with BBC London News and South Today to create BBC London, South and South East Today due to staff shortages over the 2021 Christmas holidays.

On 31 March 2023, South East Today merged with South Today to create BBC South and South East Today for one late night only.

News

 * Natalie Graham (newsreader)
 * Ellie Crisell (newsreader)
 * Charlie Rose
 * Piers Hopkirk

Weather

 * Nina Ridge
 * Rachel Mackley

Former presenters

 * Christopher Blanchett (Reporting Scotland)
 * Giles Dilnot (Daily Politics)
 * Polly Evans
 * Michael Fish

 * Kaye Forster
 * Nazaneen Ghaffar (Sky News)
 * Rachel Mackley
 * Tomasz Schafernaker (BBC Weather)
 * Rob Smith (journalist)
 * Caroline Feraday

title: BBC South East Today


text:
Talk:House of 1000 Corpses

Musician vs. "heavy metalist"
In case anyone is offended, I changed the obtuse phrase "heavy metalist" used to describe Rob Zombie to "musician" because firstly, I've never heard the phrase heavy metalist used in my life, and secondly, calling Rob Zombie's music heavy metal is debatable. I don't mean it as a slight to him or his music, but a case could be made that it's not heavy metal. It definitely is music, though, so I think that "musician" is a better word to use. MikeBC 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. "Heavy metalist" sounds like bad magazine writing (although at least they didn't say "metalster"). MrBook (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the article
This article comes off as a fan tribute page to the extreme and many portions of it are quite redundant. I'm extremely new when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia articles, which is why I don't fix a lot of this page myself. But in the future I’ll do what I can to fix it.Red VonMunster 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll put a POV tag on it for now.--CyberGhostface 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at it, but I didn't notice too many problems. It does go rather indepth, but besides that, I didn't see that many POV statements. It even goes on to describe how it was panned by most of the critics.--CyberGhostface 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, from what I've seen you know what you're doin.Red VonMunster 04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't edited this article much at all so I don't really have much investment in it. If you or anyone else wants to edit the article, go ahead. Welcome to wikipedia, btw. :)--CyberGhostface 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is necessarily "bad" it just doesn’t seem very encyclopedic to me.Red VonMunster 07:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red VonMunster (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change the part in the section "Backwoods Horror" pertaining to

"Though most backwoods slasher flicks involve no element of the supernatural, House of 1000 Corpses does utilize some stylistic elements similar to the Evil Dead series to give some of its villains a supernatural vibe."

I really see nothing substantial in the film that would lead someone to believe that "House" is substantially similar to any of the Evil Dead movies. I'll wait a bit to see if there are any objections though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red VonMunster (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is absolutely terrible. It in no way resembles an encyclopedia entry. Example: "The film hung out for a while but soon found a distributor." - Really?? The film hung out? Where? With whom?

Example 2: "The film pulled in $3,460,666 on its limited opening weekend" - No. The film GROSSED $3 million. It is a film. It can't pull anything.

Example 3: "Altogether the film made a worldwide gross of $16,829,545. It was successful compared to its $7 million budget." - No. The film grossed $16.83 million worldwide. Period. Comments as to it being financially successful are not backed up with references. No citations here. Just opinions and speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.197 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Original Universal Trailer
This is the trailer for the film when Universal was going to release the film. I remember seeing this in theaters before The Two Towers, if I'm not mistaken. It has some deleted scenes in it. Thought everyone would enjoy this and it may be relevant to the article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFtWHPbkQu4

Forgotten Marx Brother Reference
Whereas, the Firefly Family & Captain Spaulding all get their names from characters played by Groucho Marx , one character gets their name from a character played by Chico Marx! Irwin Keyes, whom plays "Ravelli" , the semi-silent assistant of Sid Haig's Capt.Spaulding , is named for "Signor Emanuel Ravelli" , the character played by Chico Marx in "Animal Crackers". Harvey J Satan (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ( no relation )

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of 1000 Corpses. 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.ifc.com/videos/house-of-1000-corpses
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426065635/http://www.thechopshop.com/about.html to http://www.thechopshop.com/about.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of 1000 Corpses. 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/20050309234847/http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4247 to http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4247
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012100506/http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/5da244ef271690fb88256d0900187b41?OpenDocument to http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/5da244ef271690fb88256d0900187b41?OpenDocument

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) 06:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Expansion
This article is looking good, however it's missing information in the production section of the filming of House of 1000 Corpses.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

“Teenagers”!?!
The four rubes in the car are supposed to be “teenagers” ? I don’t recall them being referred to as that young. They are more like 20-somethings, even though the actors were all pushing 30. ( But, then, I don’t recall if the cheerleaders were High School or College cheerleaders. ). Just reads odd, to me, to call them teenagers. 75.107.41.198 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:House of 1000 Corpses