text:
U.S. Route 62

U.S. Route 62 or U.S. Highway 62 (US 62) is an east–west United States Highway in the southern and northeastern United States. It runs from the Mexican border at El Paso, Texas, to Niagara Falls, New York, near the Canadian border. It is the only east–west United States Numbered Highway that connects Mexico and Canada. Parts of US 62 follow what once was the Ozark Trail, including the historic bridge across the South Canadian River in Newcastle, Oklahoma (the first structure built with federal highway funds in Oklahoma after lobbying efforts by Stanley Draper). This bridge was damaged beyond repair by the 2013 Moore tornado that struck Newcastle and Moore, Oklahoma. The highway runs north–south in New York and Pennsylvania.

Route description

 * TX
 * 403 mi
 * NM
 * 120 mi
 * OK
 * 402 mi
 * AR
 * 330 mi
 * MO
 * 87 mi
 * IL
 * 0.92 mi
 * KY
 * 391 mi
 * OH
 * 295 mi
 * PA
 * 119 mi
 * NY
 * 103 mi
 * Total
 * 2252 mi
 * }
 * 295 mi
 * PA
 * 119 mi
 * NY
 * 103 mi
 * Total
 * 2252 mi
 * }
 * Total
 * 2252 mi
 * }

West Texas
US 62 has two separate segments in Texas, separated by a portion in New Mexico with the first section in Texas from its terminus in El Paso to the state line in the Guadalupe Mountains. Through El Paso, US 62 begins at the Santa Fe Street Bridge, and follows Santa Fe Street, then Paisano Drive. At the Paisano Drive underpass for I-10 (I-10 exit 23B), US 62 runs concurrently with US 180, while US 180 ends its concurrency with I-10. The route then follows Montana Avenue, continuing the concurrency with US 180 until Seminole. Before exiting Texas, the route passes through the Salt Flats of Texas, the southern base of Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in Texas, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

New Mexico
Through New Mexico, US 62 is entirely concurrent with US 180. The highway continues past Carlsbad Caverns National Park and White's City into the city of Carlsbad. In Carlsbad, US 285 joins US 62/US 180 for approximately 2.2 mi, then heads east to Hobbs. US 62 comes within 12 mi of the WIPP Plant while also coming across several State Highway termini: New Mexico State Road 360 (NM 360), NM 176, NM 243, NM 529, NM 483, NM 360, and NM 8 along the 70 mi stretch. US 62 comes into Hobbs along Marland Boulevard. After coming close to Hobbs High School's Watson Stadium, US 62 leaves Hobbs going east to the Texas–New Mexico state line.

Texas Panhandle
After re-entering Texas, US 62 continues east through Seminole where US 180 heads east towards Lamesa and US 62 turns north northeast along a concurrency with US 385 through Seagraves and Brownfield. In Brownfield, US 62 picks up US 82/US 380 from Plains for a four-way concurrency for about two blocks, where US 380 heads east toward Tahoka. US 385 drops off approximately 1.5 mi later to head northwest toward Levelland. US 82 continues as a concurrency with US 62 into Lubbock. US 62 splits from US 82 and joins with State Highway 114 (SH 114) for approximately 10 mi along the campus of Texas Tech University's southern border. On the east side of Lubbock, US 82 joins back into US 62/SH 114 and then continues east passes through Lorenzo, then leaves off the concurrency and forms a spur around Ralls, locally known as the "US 62 Loop". The route then turns north to form a concurrency with SH 207 up to Floydada, where US 70 joins in for 1 mi east and then SH 207 turns north of the east side of Floydada. US 62/US 70 then east through Matador to Paducah, and north again dropping off US 70 and gaining US 83 through Childress to a point 17 mi to the north of Childress where it turns east alone, before crossing the Texas–Oklahoma border 5 mi west of Hollis.

Oklahoma
US 62 runs east from the Texas border across Southwest Oklahoma through Hollis, Gould and Altus and then continues east bypassing the communities of Headrick, Snyder, Indiahoma and Cache into Lawton. On the north side of Lawton, US 62 joins I-44 as a concurrent route for 8 mi through the Fort Sill Military Reservation and then splits on its own at Exit 46 near Medicine Park to continue north through Apache then north and east toward Anadarko. From Anadarko, US 62 runs east through Verden to Chickasha and northeast through Newcastle before returning to a concurrent route with I-44 into Oklahoma City and then with I-240 and I-35 through much of the city before leaving I-35 at Northeast 23rd Street (exit 130) 2 mi east of the Oklahoma State Capitol. It leaves Oklahoma City at 23rd street and heads east through Midwest City, Spencer, Nicoma Park, Choctaw, Harrah, Meeker and Boley to Okemah. At Okemah, US 62 overlaps I-40 for 18 mi to Henryetta. US 62 then leaves I-40 to continue north to Okmulgee and east to Muskogee, and heads northeast through Fort Gibson and Tahlequah and into Arkansas.

In addition to sections of I-44, I-240, I-35 and I-40, US 62 also runs concurrent with other US highways over its miles across Oklahoma including US 281 from Lawton to Anadarko and US 277 from Lawton north about 11 miles (both including the 8 mi I-44 concurrency north of Lawton), US 81 in the Chickasha city limits, a second US 277 concurrency from Chickasha to Newcastle, US 75 from Henryetta to Okmulgee, US 64 from an intersection near Taft to Muskogee and US 69 in the Muskogee city limits. US 62 business routes are designated through the cities of Snyder and Muskogee.

Arkansas
In the state of Arkansas, US 62 runs 329.9 mi from the Oklahoma border near Summers east to the Missouri border in St. Francis, serving the northern portion of the state. The route passes through several cities and towns, including Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, and Rogers. US 62 runs concurrently with several highways in Arkansas including I-49 and US 71 between Fayetteville and Bentonville, US 412 through much of the state, US 65 in the Harrison area, and with US 63 and US 67 (Future I-57) in northeast Arkansas.

Missouri
US 62 enters Missouri from Arkansas at Whitaker Place, and proceeds more or less easterly across the Missouri Bootheel via Malden to New Madrid. Between Malden and New Madrid, US 62 was designated as Route 82 in 1922. The part southwest of Campbell was designated as Route 93 in 1930. The part from Malden to Campbell was unnumbered until it became US 62. At New Madrid US 62 begins a concurrency with US 61. The combined US 61/62 goes north as far as Sikeston, where US 62 resumes its easterly direction. From Sikeston US 62 runs east to Charleston, where it is concurrent with Business I-57 for a short distance. After crossing I-57, US 62 becomes concurrent with US 60, this concurrency continues until US 60/62 leave Missouri by way of the Mississippi River bridge into Cairo Ill.

Illinois
US 62 overlaps US 60 for its entire length, 0.92 mi, in Illinois. It crosses Illinois at its very southern tip between the Mississippi and Ohio rivers at Cairo. US 62 enters Illinois from Missouri by means of a bridge over the Mississippi River, turning east at US 51 with US 51 joining the concurrency. The three routes immediately cross into Kentucky by means of crossing the Ohio River.

Kentucky
US 62 runs right through the tourist section of Western Kentucky; between the cities of Paducah and Eddyville, it passes Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley, two large manmade lakes. From there US 62 heads east through the cities of Princeton, Central City, Beaver Dam, Leitchfield, Elizabethtown, Bardstown, Lawrenceburg and Midway. For much of this portion, US 62 is paralleled by portions of the Kentucky Parkway System, including the Western Kentucky Parkway (I-69) and the Bluegrass Parkway, which have taken most long-distance and freight traffic off the old US 62 route. After passing through Georgetown and Cynthiana it leaves Kentucky in Maysville over the Simon Kenton Memorial Bridge.

US 62 is the only US Highway to cross the Ohio River twice. It crosses the Ohio River between Illinois and Kentucky, connecting the far western region of Kentucky with the southern tip of Illinois. Its other crossing over the Ohio River connects the northeastern Kentucky city of Maysville and the southwestern Ohio village of Aberdeen.

Ohio
US 62 enters Ohio from Kentucky, crossing the Ohio River at Aberdeen. After the river crossing, the highway follows US 52 until Ripley and US 68 until just east of Georgetown. From there, US 62 enters the towns of Russellville, Hillsboro, and Washington Court House. In Washington Court House, US 62 meets up with State Route 3 (SR 3) and continues all the way into Columbus, passing through the towns of Mount Sterling, Orient, Harrisburg, and Grove City. After heading toward downtown Columbus, US 62 diverts from SR 3 onto US 40 (Broad Street) for a few blocks to Nelson Road. US 62 runs concurrently with I-670 near John Glenn Columbus International Airport until the eastern side of I-270 where US 62 heads toward Gahanna, New Albany, Johnstown, Utica, Millersburg, and Navarre. About 2.6 mi north of Navarre, US 62 joins up with US 30 into Canton, where US 62 heads north along I-77. The highway passes West Lawn Cemetery and the President William McKinley memorial and tomb in Canton. At exit 107B on I-77, US 62 heads northeast to Alliance, and Youngstown. It leaves Ohio near Hubbard and enters Pennsylvania near the interchange for I-80.

Pennsylvania
US 62 enters Pennsylvania from Ohio in Sharon. Also, at the Ohio–Pennsylvania state line, signage for US 62 changes from an east–west to north–south. US 62 also runs north-northeast from the Ohio border towards New York. US 62 passes through Mercer and runs across country to Franklin. At this point US 62 enters the Allegheny River valley and follows this river for 45 mi. US 62 crosses the river at Oil City, at Tionesta, and twice again in the Warren area, once near Buckaloons Recreational Area in the Allegheny Islands Wilderness region, where it is concurrent with US 6 for a short distance.

New York
While most of the route is an east–west route, US 62 takes a north–south directionality in Pennsylvania and New York. It is signed north–south in northern Pennsylvania and New York.

US 62 enters New York State from Pennsylvania in Chautauqua County, south of Frewsburg, past which it intersects with I-86 (Southern Tier Expressway). Following a northeasterly course, US 62 enters Cattaraugus County, crosses Cattaraugus Creek to enter Erie County and passes through the village of Gowanda, taking a more northerly direction. At the village of Hamburg, US 62 turns northeast, passing Buffalo Raceway and the Erie County Fair, New York State Thruway (I-90), continues northward through Lackawanna as South Park Avenue and passes through Buffalo as South Park Avenue and Bailey Avenue. The Bailey Avenue section from New York State Route 5 (NY 5) at the Buffalo city line to NY 324 is maintained by Erie County as County Road 152.

US 62 briefly overlaps NY 324 (Sheridan Drive) in the town of Amherst, and turns northward as Niagara Falls Boulevard, intersects I-290, then exits Erie County and enters Niagara County, as US 62 crosses the Erie Canal / Tonawanda Creek and travels into the town of Wheatfield. The highway intersects NY 425 and turns to the northwest intersecting NY 265 and I-190. On the east side of Niagara Falls the route diverges into US 62 and its parallel route, Business US 62, (formerly NY 62A). Within the city of Niagara Falls, US 62 runs "backwards", bearing west for several miles as Ferry Avenue southbound (eastbound) and Walnut Avenue northbound (westbound) and terminates on Main Street, while is still signed north–south. The northern (eastern) terminus for both US 62 and Business US 62 is at NY 104 (Main Street), less than 2,000 ft from the Rainbow Bridge and U.S. Customs. The Rainbow Bridge then crosses the Niagara River into Canada, offering side-views of the famous Niagara Falls.

In 2009, Legislation was proposed in the NY State Legislature for a bill (S.6277-A/A.9939-A) designating all of US Route 62 in New York State as the "National Veterans Highway". The measure was sponsored by then Senator William Stachowski, and Assemblyperson Francine Delmonte as proposed by the Sons of the American Legion Post 880 as a way to salute and commemorate the service and sacrifice of all veterans of the US. The Bill was signed into law by Governor David Paterson on July 30, 2010. The designation runs from the Pennsylvania State Line south of Frewsburg, NY to a northern terminus near the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, NY. Designations have also been successful in Illinois and Kentucky to this point.

Future
In Ohio, there are plans to reroute US 62 onto a divided highway from Alliance to Salem, part of a larger relocation of both US 62 and SR 14, then from downtown Youngstown to I-80 as part of the "Hubbard Arterial". Parts of the highway have long been completed to the north of Alliance and Salem; the portion northwest of Alliance is known in documents as US 62T, while the portion north of Salem not already carrying US 62 is known as SR 14T; neither carries a posted route, instead only carrying trailblazer markers indicating routes intersected at the termini.

Major intersections

 * Texas
 * Benito Juárez Street and at the Mexican border in El Paso. US 62/US 85 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in El Paso
 * in El Paso
 * in El Paso. US 62/US 180 travel concurrently to Seminole, with an approximate 106 mi concurrency through New Mexico in-between.

 * New Mexico
 * in Carlsbad. The highways have a 2.0 mi concurrency north.

 * Texas
 * in Seminole. US 62/US 385 travel concurrently to Brownfield.
 * in Brownfield. US 62/US 82 travels concurrently to Lubbock. US 62/US 380 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Lubbock
 * in Lubbock
 * in Lubbock. The highways travel concurrently to southwest of Ralls.
 * in Floydada. The highways travel concurrently to Paducah.
 * in Paducah. US 62/US 83 travels concurrently to south-southeast of Wellington.
 * in Childress

 * Oklahoma
 * in Altus
 * in Snyder
 * in Lawton. I-44/US 62 travels concurrently to east of Medicine Park. US 62/US 277 travels concurrently to north of Fort Sill. US 62/US 281 travels concurrently to Anadarko.
 * in Chickasha. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Chickasha. US 62/US 277 travels concurrently to Newcastle.
 * in Chickasha
 * in Newcastle. I-44/US 62 travels concurrently to Oklahoma City.
 * in Oklahoma City. I-240/US 62 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Oklahoma City. I-35/US 62/US 77 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Oklahoma City. I-40/US 62/US 270 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Jacktown
 * in Prague
 * in Okemah. The highways travel concurrently to Henryetta.
 * northeast of Clearview. The highways travel concurrently to Okmulgee.
 * in Henryetta
 * north-northeast of Boynton. The highways travel concurrently to Muskogee.
 * in Muskogee. US 62/US 69 travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Westville

 * Arkansas
 * in Fayetteville. The highways travel concurrently to Bentonville.
 * in Springdale
 * in Alpena. The highways travel concurrently to Imboden.
 * in Bear Creek Springs. The highways travel concurrently to Bellefonte.
 * in Ash Flat
 * in Hardy. The highways travel concurrently to Imboden.
 * in Pocahontas. The highways travel concurrently to Corning.
 * in Piggott

 * Missouri
 * southwest of Howardville. The highways travel concurrently to Sikeston.
 * in New Madrid. US 61-62 are also known as, I-55 exit 44.
 * north of New Madrid, I-55 exit 49.
 * in Sikeston
 * in Miner, I-55 exit 67.
 * in Charleston. BL I-57 forms a concurrency for 1.7 mi to I-57 on the east side of Charleston.
 * in Charleston. US 60-62 travels concurrently to Wickliffe, Kentucky, with a short Illinois segment in-between.

 * Illinois
 * in Cairo. The highways travel concurrently to Bardwell.

 * Kentucky
 * in Paducah
 * in Paducah. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Paducah. The highways travel concurrently to Riverview.
 * in Calvert City
 * in Kentucky Dam Village State Resort Park. The highways travel concurrently to Eddyville.
 * in Kuttawa
 * in Eddyville
 * in Nortonville
 * in Central City
 * in Beaver Dam. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Elizabethtown
 * in Elizabethtown
 * in Bardstown. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Bardstown. US 62/US 150 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Lawrenceburg
 * in Versailles. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Midway. The highways travel concurrently to northwest of Lexington.
 * northwest of Lexington
 * in Georgetown
 * in Georgetown
 * in Georgetown
 * southwest of Cynthiana. The highways travel concurrently through the city.

 * Ohio
 * in Aberdeen. The highways travel concurrently to Ripley.
 * in Aberdeen. The highways travel concurrently to Redoak.
 * in Hillsboro
 * in Washington Court House
 * in Washington Court House. The highways travel concurrently for 0.7 mi through the city.
 * northeast of Harrisburg, I-71 exit 94.
 * northeast of Harrisburg
 * in Grove City, I-270 exit 2.
 * in Columbus, I-70 exit 98A from westbound, no eastbound exit onto US 62/SR 3 and no entrance directly onto I-70 from US 62/SR 3.
 * in Columbus. The highways travel concurrently for 0.4 mi.
 * in Columbus. US 40 travels concurrently with US 62 and SR 3 for 0.3 mi before SR 3 heads toward Cleveland. US 40 continues 2.1 mi before heading toward Reynoldsburg
 * in Columbus, I-71 exit 108B.
 * in Columbus, I-670 exit 7. The highways travel concurrently to west of Gahanna.
 * in Gahanna
 * in Millwood
 * in Wilmot. The highways travel concurrently through the village for 0.07 mi
 * in Massillion. The highways travel concurrently to Canton.
 * in Canton. I-77/US 62 travels concurrently through the city to exit 107B.
 * in Canfield
 * in Youngstown
 * in Youngstown
 * north of Hubbard; I-80 exit 234

 * Pennsylvania
 * in Mercer. The highways travel concurrently to north of Mercer.
 * southwest of Jackson Center
 * in Franklin. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * east-southeast of Youngsville. The highways travel concurrently to Warren.

 * New York
 * in Frewsburg
 * in Kennedy
 * in Gowanda
 * near Hamburg
 * near Blasdell
 * near Cheektowaga
 * in Buffalo
 * near Amherst
 * in Amherst
 * in Niagara Falls
 * in Niagara Falls

Special routes
US 62 has special and suffixed routes in several states.

title: U.S. Route 62


text:
Category talk:Writers by genre

from 2004
How do I add Category:Beat writers to here? --bodnotbod 01:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Beat writers would seem like a sensible category. Don't know how to add it though. Somewhere there must exist a thorough discussion and instruction on this 'category' thing. Haven't been able to find it yet. I have been adding category|poet to a number of poets. I'm waiting for someone to tell me to stop. Monk Bretton 01:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't go adding category:poet. The convention is to use the plural form category:poets.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 07:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed off the s in the typing above but not in the categories I added, if you follow me. I am confusing myself. And now I see a new category 'British Poets' has cropped up. Next week it will be something else. Monk Bretton 14:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you are in doubt if a genre or any writing category should exist, check Lists of authors first. If it is there, definately add it! The list there is good, but not necessarily comprehensive. You should probably read instructions in Categorization and m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using Categories which both have helpful hints. It will take a while to fully categorize all the articles that deserve it, so any work you do will certainly help! --ssd 05:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Any suggestion on what to call writers who write cookbooks and/or books about cooking, such as James Beard? There's nothing on List of authors and "Cooking writers" doesn't sound right. Elf | Talk 01:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Food writers. --Jerzy(t) 21:45, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

IMO, besides being imprecise, "genre" ignores the need to divide writers hierarchically. Say something like: ... --Jerzy(t) 21:45, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
 * Writers
 * Lists of writers
 * Writer stubs
 * Writers by award
 * Writers by nationality
 * Writers by personal characteristic
 * Writers by form or field
 * Journalists
 * Advice columnists
 * Critics
 * Lexicographers
 * Fiction writers
 * Writers by fiction area
 * SF writers

I like it. But what do you mean by "by personal characteristic"? Examples? Never mind; found it by going up one level to Category:Writers. Elf | Talk 23:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should this category be removed?
I don't see the point of this subcategory - it just makes the subsubcategories harder to find. Why can't they all be subcategories of Writers?--Henrygb 11:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Shawnc 08:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For fiction
There's already a ; just fyi. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Writers by format & difference
waht is the difference between this category and Category:Writers by format ?? Example: so please Explain to me.
 * Category:Biographers is under the both of this two categories !!

--نسر برلين (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

title: Category talk:Writers by genre


text: Category:Aminoglycoside antibiotics

title: Category:Aminoglycoside antibiotics


text:
User talk:Goettel

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

title: User talk:Goettel


text:
Giovanni Artusi

Giovanni Maria Artusi (c. 1540 – 18 August 1613) was an Italian music theorist, composer, and writer.

Artusi fiercely condemned the new musical innovations that defined the early Baroque style developing around 1600 in his treatise L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica [Artusi, or On the Imperfections of Modern Music]. He was also a scholar and cleric at the Congregation Santissimo Salvatore, Bologna, and remained throughout his life devoted to his teacher Gioseffo Zarlino (the principal music theorist of the late sixteenth century). When Vincenzo Galilei first attacked Zarlino in the Dialogo of 1581, it provoked Artusi to defend his teacher and the style he represented.

In 1600 and 1603, Artusi attacked the "crudities" and "license" shown in the works of a composer he initially refused to name (it was Claudio Monteverdi). Monteverdi replied in the introduction to his fifth book of madrigals (1605) with his discussion of the division of musical practice into two streams: what he called prima pratica, and seconda pratica: prima pratica being the previous polyphonic ideal of the sixteenth century, with flowing counterpoint, prepared dissonance, and equality of voices; and seconda pratica being the new style of monody and accompanied recitative, which emphasized soprano and bass voices, and in addition showed the beginnings of conscious functional tonality.

Artusi's major contribution to the literature of music theory was his book on dissonance in counterpoint, L'Arte del contraponto (1598) He recognized that there could be more dissonance than consonance in a developed piece of counterpoint, and he attempted to enumerate the reasons and uses for the dissonances, for example as settings of words expressing sorrow, pain, longing, terror. Ironically, the usage of Monteverdi in the seconda pratica largely agreed with his book, at least conceptually; the differences between Monteverdi's music and Artusi's theory were in the importance of the different voices, and the exact intervals used in shaping the melodic line.

Artusi's compositions were few, and in a conservative style: one book of canzonette for four voices (published in Venice in 1598) and Cantate Domino for eight voices (1599).

In 1993, Suzanne Cusick presented a feminist analysis of the Artusi controversy in which she asserted that Artusi's attack on Monteverdi represented "an attempt to discredit modern music as unnatural, feminine and feminizing of both its practitioners and its listeners". Claudio Monteverdi's and his brother's replies, she claims, "can be understood as a defense of the composer's masculinity that acknowledges and reaffirms the femininity of the music itself". Other academics, such as Ilias Chrissochoidis and Charles S. Brauner, have challenged Cusick's analysis as selective and incomplete: "[A]nyone can project anything to the past for the purpose of legitimising one's own set of values or even fixations".

title: Giovanni Artusi


text:
Aden Meinel

Aden B. Meinel (November 25, 1922 – October 3, 2011) was an American astronomer. He retired in 1993 as a distinguished scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He also held the rank of professor emeritus at the University of Arizona College of Optical Sciences. His research interests have included upper atmospheric physics, glass technology, optical design, instrumentation and space systems.

Meinel received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1949. His dissertation is titled A Spectrographic Study of the Night Sky and Aurora in the Near Infrared. In 1944 he married astronomer Marjorie Steele Pettit who became his research partner. They had seven children together.

In 1954, he was awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy by the American Astronomical Society. He was president of the Optical Society of America in 1972 and was awarded the Frederic Ives Medal in 1980. He received the George Van Biesbroeck Prize in 1990.

In 2022 a biography of Meinel and Marjorie was published by Oxford University Press, titled With Stars in Their Eyes: The Extraordinary Lives and Enduring Genius of Aden and Marjorie Meinel.

Telescopes
During his career, Meinel was involved in the design and construction of several large telescopes, including:

 * 36 in telescope, McDonald Observatory
 * 36 in and 85 in telescopes, Kitt Peak National Observatory
 * Relocation of the 36 in telescope, Steward Observatory
 * 90 in telescope, Steward Observatory
 * 48 in telescope, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India
 * 186 in equivalent Multiple Mirror Telescope
 * 24 in telescope, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, Republic of China

Publications
Aden Meinel's publications include:

 * The Near-Infrared Spectrum of the Night Sky and Aurora, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 60, No. 357, p. 373
 * On the Spectrum of Lightning in the Venus Atmosphere, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 74, No. 439, p. 329
 * Automatic Optical Designing for Astronomy, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 77, No. 455, p. 136
 * Catalog of Emission Lines in Astrophysical Objects, Optical Sciences Center Technical Report 27, June 1968, 195 pp.
 * Power for the People, McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, 1971, 280 pp. *LOC# TJ810.M44
 * Applied Solar Energy: An Introduction, Addison-Wesley, 1976, 650 pp.
 * Sunsets, Twilights, and Evenings Skies, Cambridge University Press, 1983, 163 pp. ISBN 978-0521252201
 * Telescope Structures - An Evolutionary Overview, Structural mechanics of optical systems II; Proceedings of the Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, Jan. 13-15, 1987, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers
 * Aden B. Meinel publications

Honors

 * Founding Director Optical Sciences Center & Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona
 * SPIE Meinel Commemorative Technical Conference Sept. 22, 2003
 * Asteroid 4065 Meinel is named in his honor.

title: Aden Meinel


text:
Red Alert

Red Alert or red alert may refer to:

Alert states

 * Red alert, a high alert state
 * Red Alert, the "attack imminent" alert signal for the US civil defense siren
 * Red alert state, the most serious alert state in the UK BIKINI state system
 * Red Alert (more commonly known as "Red Color"), an early warning civil defense siren for the Israel Defense Forces

Film and television

 * Red Alert (film), a 1977 TV film
 * Red Alert: The War Within, a 2010 Indian film
 * Red Alert (game show), a British TV game show
 * Red Alert, TV programs in the Pinoy True Stories series

Gaming

 * Red Alert (arcade game)
 * Last Alert, a 1989 shoot 'em up game known as Red Alert in Europe and Japan
 * Command & Conquer: Red Alert (series), a series of real-time strategy video games
 * Command & Conquer: Red Alert, the first game in the series

 * Red Alert (Transformers), several characters in Transformers series

Music

 * Red Alert (band), a British band formed in 1979
 * Kool DJ Red Alert, Antiguan-American hip hop DJ

Albums

 * Red Alert (Agent 51 album) (1998)
 * Red Alert (Red Garland album) (1978)
 * Red Alert, a 2004 album by Sizzla
 * Red Alert, a 2002 album by Warp 11

Songs

 * "Red Alert" (song), a 1999 song by Basement Jaxx
 * "Red Alert", a 2019 song by KSI and Randolph from New Age
 * "Red Alert", a 1984 song by Quiet Riot from Condition Critical

Other uses

 * Red Alert (novel), a 1958 novel by Peter George
 * Red Alert, a fictional organization in Mega Man X7
 * Redd Alert, an Indigenous street and prison gang in Canada

title: Red Alert


text:
Santee River

{{Infobox river
 * name              = Santee River
 * name_native       =
 * name_native_lang  =
 * name_other        =
 * name_etymology    =

 * image             = I95_bridge_1304.JPG{{!}}border
 * image_caption     = I-95 over Lake Marion
 * map               = Santeerivermap.png
 * map_size          =
 * map_caption       = The Santee River Watershed
 * pushpin_map       =
 * pushpin_map_size  =
 * pushpin_map_caption=

 * subdivision_type1 = Country
 * subdivision_name1 = United States
 * subdivision_type2 = States
 * subdivision_name2 = South Carolina
 * subdivision_type3 =
 * subdivision_name3 =
 * subdivision_type4 =
 * subdivision_name4 =
 * subdivision_type5 = Cities
 * subdivision_name5 = Santee, SC, Cross, SC, Bonneau, SC, Moncks Corner, SC

 * length            ={{convert|143|mi|km|abbr=on}}}
 * width_min         =
 * width_avg         =
 * width_max         =
 * depth_min         =
 * depth_avg         =
 * depth_max         =
 * discharge1_location=
 * discharge1_min    =
 * discharge1_avg    =
 * discharge1_max    =
 * discharge2_location=
 * discharge2_min    =
 * discharge2_avg    =
 * discharge2_max    =

}}
 * source1           = Confluence of Congaree River and Wateree Rivers
 * source1_location  = Near Fort Motte, SC
 * source1_coordinates= 33.74216°N, -80.61734°W
 * source1_elevation = 75 ft
 * mouth             = Atlantic Ocean
 * mouth_location    = Charleston County, SC, Georgetown County, SC
 * mouth_coordinates = 33.13027°N, -79.25881°W
 * mouth_elevation   = 0 ft
 * progression       =
 * river_system      =
 * basin_size        =
 * tributaries_left  =
 * tributaries_right =
 * custom_label      =
 * custom_data       =
 * extra             =

The Santee River is a river in South Carolina in the United States, and is 143 mi long. The Santee and its tributaries provide the principal drainage for the coastal areas of southeastern South Carolina and navigation for the central coastal plain of South Carolina, emptying into the Atlantic Ocean about halfway between Myrtle Beach and Charleston near the community of McClellanville. The farthest headwaters are 440 mi away on the Catawba River in North Carolina. Besides the Catawba, other principal rivers of the Santee watershed include the Congaree, Broad, Linville, Saluda and the Wateree. The watershed drains a large portion of the Piedmont regions of South and North Carolina. The Santee River is the second largest river on the eastern coast of the United States, second only to the Susquehanna River in drainage area and flow. Much of the upper river is impounded by the expansive, horn-shaped Lake Marion reservoir, formed by the 8 mi-long Santee Dam. The dam was built during the Great Depression of the 1930s as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project to provide a major source of hydroelectric power for the state of South Carolina.

Description
The Santee is formed in central South Carolina 25 mi southeast of Columbia by the confluence of the rivers Wateree and Congaree. It flows southeast for 5 mi before entering the northwest corner of Lake Marion, which stretches in a long wide arc to the southeast for approximately 30 mi to Santee Dam. A navigable diversion canal first built during the 1970s at the southern end of the lake connects to Lake Moultrie, a reservoir on the nearby Cooper River. The modern canal is operated by the Santee Cooper agency as part of the larger hydroelectric project on both rivers. The dam was finished in 1941.

Downstream from the reservoir it flows east, then southeast, forming the northeast boundary of Francis Marion National Forest. Approximately 10 mi from its mouth it bifurcates into two channels, named the North Santee and South Santee, that flow parallel and separated by approximately 2 mi, creating Cedar Island. The two channels reach the ocean at Santee Point, approximately 15 mi south of Georgetown, and not far from the outlet of the Pee Dee River.

History
The river was named by early English settlers for the Santee tribe, which inhabited areas on the middle part of the river. The first European contact was by a Spanish party commanded by Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón in 1526. The early Spaniards may have named the river the Jordan (in honor of the Jordan River).

After suffering a defeat by the English and their allies during the Yamasee War in 1715–1716, the Santee were relocated. Many were shipped as slaves to the West Indies, opening the river for British settlement as part of the Province of Carolina.

During the late 18th century, the upper river was the site of the homestead of Francis Marion, a patriot of the American Revolutionary War. The original site of his homestead has been flooded by the reservoir Lake Marion, which is named in his honor.

Construction of the 22 mi-long Santee Canal, linking the river to the Cooper, was begun in 1793 and finished in 1800. It allowed direct water transportation between the upcountry of central South Carolina and the port city Charleston, at the outlet of the Cooper River. The canal operated for 50 years before being made obsolete by the introduction of railroads.

During the Great Depression, the state of South Carolina created the power utility Santee Cooper. The main source of electric power for the utility was a hydroelectric system inland from Charleston, built by the federal government during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Starting in 1939, the Santee River was dammed, forming lakes Marion and Moultrie, and diverting the river's flow into the Cooper River through a hydroelectric plant at Pinopolis. The WPA project was completed in 1941.

Though the project succeeded in providing cheap electricity to modernize rural South Carolina, unintended consequences were changes to the character of both the Cooper and Santee rivers below the project. Deprived of most its water flow, the Santee River became more saline and its ecosystem gradually changed below the dam. The Cooper River received more of the freshwater and sediment loads that used to flow into the Santee and carried them downstream. This has resulted in greatly increasing the dredging costs to keep Charleston Harbor operating as a port. During the 1980s, the Army Corps of Engineers built a "rediversion" canal to send most of the water back into the Santee, partially mitigating this problem.

Crossings
This is a partial list of crossings of the Santee River.
 * Lake Marion
 * Railroad bridge (CSX Orangeburg Subdivision) between Lone Star and Rimini. (note: This location has been proposed by representative James Clyburn for a new automobile bridge; there is considerable controversy over the project because of its potential environmental effects.)
 * Former US 15 and US 301 bridge at Santee
 * Interstate 95, US 15 and US 301 bridge between Santee and North Santee
 * Lower Santee
 * Highway 52 bridge
 * Railroad bridge (CSX Charleston Subdivision) near St. Stephen
 * ALT US 17 bridge and adjacent railroad bridge
 * US 17 bridge (S Fraser Street) over North Santee River and South Santee River

title: Santee River


text: User talk:66.30.146.164

title: User talk:66.30.146.164


text: Category:Glycopeptide antibiotics

title: Category:Glycopeptide antibiotics


text:
Category:Macrolide antibiotics

hu:Kategória:Makrolidok nl:Categorie:Macrolide

title: Category:Macrolide antibiotics


text:
User talk:Qef

Image for secant method
Hi. There seems to be a problem with the image Image:Secant_method_example_code_result.svg that you created. The blue lines should be secant lines, that is, they should go through two points of graph (the red curve). However, they don't. It looks like there is an error in the coefficients that you used to draw these lines. For the moment, I put the old image, Image:Secantmethod_jaredwf.png, back. There you see what the line in the last iteration should look like; it touches the graph at the root. It would be great if you could correct your SVG image, as I think it's very useful to have the secant lines at the earlier iterations. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right, those lines have the wrong gradient. I'll try to fix it.  --Qef (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, how's that? I think I have the gradients right now (I was calculating x/y instead of y/x). --Qef (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks good now. Thanks for the image. I put it back in the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypercube graphs
Hi Geoff!

Regarding User:Qef/Orthographic_hypercube_diagrams, I figured out the solution for the regular polygon perimeter skew orthogonal projections for the hypercubes, see results: File:Hypercube petrie polygons.png. I can tell you how. Maybe you could make a second set of graphs in SVG? The advantage of my graphs over the existing (regular) ones (and your SVG versions) is coloring vertices by overlap frequency. I tested up to 16-cube, edges get overwhelming, although maybe it would be better in SVG with thin/light antialiasing edges.

What do you think? Do you have some time to try some more? (I also want to do the demihypercube family, same as hypercubes, but alternate vertices are deleted) Tom Ruen (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I have a request for you: could you please extend the diagrams over 10-cube? It seems that the color of the dots form a circular pattern around the center point of the diagram, it would be educational if the overall pattern (when lim n -> infinity) would be visualized.

While I'm at it, here's another request: Could you also produce a same kind of series for all the platonic solids and beyond?

The also looks interesting too. I bet the n-dimensional extensions of it are just iterations of this symmetry exhibiting the golden ratio. If so, showing this would too be educational. Probios (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Time Runner DVD or VHS cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Time Runner DVD or VHS cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yuv420.svg
Kudos on makings such a clear and understandable image! Well done, and thanks!

Scraimer (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Harmonic_partials_on_strings.svg
lovely work. 98.184.160.112 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qef


text: Category:Fluoroquinolone antibiotics

authors: حسن علي البط

title: Category:Fluoroquinolone antibiotics


text:
Rapa

Rapa may refer to:

People

 * Oltion Rapa (born 1989), Albanian footballer

Places

 * Rapa Nui, the native name of Easter Island, a special territory of Chile
 * Rapa Iti, one of the Bass Islands in French Polynesia
 * Rapa, Poland, a village in Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship

Rivers

 * Rapa River, a tributary of the Lesser Lule River in Sweden
 * Râpa (Mureș), a tributary of the River Mureș in Transylvania, Romania
 * Râpa (Vișa), a tributary of the Vișa in Sibiu County, Romania

Other uses

 * Rapa language, the language of Rapa Iti, in the Austral Islands of French Polynesia
 * Rapa (gastropod), a genus of sea snails
 * Rapa, a name for the plant rapeseed (Brassica napus)
 * Rapa (TV series), a Spanish television series

title: Rapa


text: Category:Tetracycline antibiotics

title: Category:Tetracycline antibiotics


text: Category:Sulfonamide antibiotics

title: Category:Sulfonamide antibiotics


text:
Ozark Trail (auto trail)

The Ozark Trail was a network of locally maintained roads and highways organized by the Ozark Trails Association that predated the United States federal highway system. The roads ran from St. Louis, Missouri, to El Paso, Texas, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, over a series of routes. These roads were maintained by both private citizens and local communities. In one case, however, the U.S. government was directly involved; it built the Newcastle Bridge in 1923 over the South Canadian River between Newcastle, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma City, as the first federal highway project built in Oklahoma.

These roads comprised the major highway system in the region until U.S. Highway 66 was built in the 1920s. In Oklahoma, portions of the section-line roads between Anadarko and Hobart are still referred to as "The Old Ozark Trail."

Route
The Ozark Trails Association were a group of private citizens that tried to encourage local municipalities to build and maintain road systems in the Ozarks in the early 20th century. It was established in 1913. They erected large obelisks marking the various roads and indicated distances to various towns and communities. Twenty-one were constructed and of those only 7 still remain in existence, at Stroud, Oklahoma, Farwell, Dimmitt, Wellington, and Tulia, Texas. The Ozark Trail ran through southwest Missouri and across Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, and on into New Mexico. Much of this route became the famed U.S. Route 66. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1925, which finally incorporated the Deep South into the Federal roads program, made the group's basic functions obsolete and it disbanded.

William Hope "Coin" Harvey was closely associated with the organization.

title: Ozark Trail (auto trail)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 4

Administrative
Older discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old.

Not so old discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old2.

Even less old discussions moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/old3.

See Wikipedia talk:Category titles for the current discussion involving future category structures and naming. This pertains to, but is not limited to: " by Country", Abbreviated country titles, US versus American, Continents, Formal names versus common names, etc.. Thank you. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review proposal
In a post a few sections up, I mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion. That proposal received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review.

There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splash talk 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming this page?
This page is called "categories for deletion" but deletion is only one of the things it is for. I suggest it should be renamed "Categories for deletion or amendment". Osomec 11:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * support this concept, see below, as the use of the tool as outgrown its name. Ancheta Wis 09:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming is a mess
Speedy renaming has an even higher rate of inappropriate entries than I expected. What an unnecessary mess CalJW 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The flip side of this is that every "regular" CFD entry takes effort for multiple editors to read and then support or oppose and then more effort to close. For cases where the outcome is obvious, this is an unnecessary waste of multiple editors' time.  The question is whether it's worse to make an occasional mistake with speedy (and the 2-day waiting period is intended to catch at least the immediately obvious mistakes) or to burden "regular" CFD with numerous, effectively redundant requests.  Using by-country naming conventions for speedy renaming is an attempt to unburden CFD from dealing with these requests. It's new.  There might be some startup issues.  But it's far too early to decide it's a mess.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What burden? Listing a bunch of cats for renaming requires listing them (which must be done anyway) a couple of editors saying "fine" and waiting five days instead of two. What's the rush? Septentrionalis 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They're listed in both cases (same front end) and they end up in the cleanup overhead bucket (same back end), but there's a large difference in the middle. With speedy, no one need comment unless there's an issue.  With regular CFD, at least one other editor needs to comment (and several probably will), there's a possibility (perhaps remote) that the CFD commenter(s) won't reach a consensus, and then after waiting a week somebody has to "close" the CFD discussion.  Would you use regular CFD for typos and miscapitalizations?  Keeping these separate also reduces the sheer volume of CFD discussions, which at least some editors are concerned about. For discussions with an essentially preordained outcome, why the delay?  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

category:institutions
As what I have suggested in the CFM discussion, I have modified category:institutions according to the definitions in the institution article. I would like to have the assistance from different people to reorganise the subcategories of category:institutions by country according to institution. Thanks. — Instantnood 07:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose using ambiguous words as categories. This will only add confusion. Categories are used to classify things into clearly distinctive groups, not to put oranges and orangs into one basket. Why would one want category:Professional associations and morality in one category? I relisted the category for deletion. mikka (t) 07:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact I've already added an intro, according to the institution article.. But then alright.. can anybody suggest a better alternative for the same meaning? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 08:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion has continued at categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 4. — Instantnood 18:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This category has already been slotted for merging, after which it will be deleted. This is a duplicate and pointless Cfd, which I will be closing. The only reason the category even still exists, is because I am out of town and Cfd closings are seriously backed up. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have closed this Cfd. Please discuss, or list any objection, or suggestions for the "merge/deletion" here. Thank you. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * copied from closed cfd. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What did Charitable trust and some others do in this category then? It is an organization, pure and simple (I recategorized it a sec ago). mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC

As I see from Instantnood's intentions, you may be looking for "category:Social institutions" (it turns out someone else created it, empty, a while ago), which may be further subdivided in category:Informal institutions (ethics, justice) category:Formalized institutions (marriage, law, government). Since this is a pretty high-level category, any additions into it must be discussed at its Category talk:Social institutions page. mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (taken from Mikka's comment at the Cfd page )

 * In response to Mikka's comment at the Cfd page, is a much younger category than . What I said was that category:institutions looks to be originally created to be intended for institution as according to the definitions in that article. It was people who were unaware of that and grouped articles on organisations to it, and thus changed the scope of it. I admit "social institutions" could be an alternative, though.  — Instantnood 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To answer the above question, yes unfortunately the category will probably be merged by a bot. Not many other users have been participating in the Cfd cleanup. I invite you, and any other user to move any articles to an appropriate category, if you feel it should not be merged into the new category. I do not have the time at the moment to do any by hand. Thanks.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  19:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can the merge be suspended? Since it involves the definitions of institutions, which was actually not addressed in the previous Cfm. A bot may not be able to tell what are organisations, and what are not. I have tried recategorised some of the articles, but it takes time and it may not be entirely accurate. — Instantnood 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a note on the entry to not be done by a bot, and possibly by users familiar with the subject area. I don't believe Beland is using Pearle for CFD's right now, so I won't run my bot on it. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. In addition to the parent category, I have manually recategorised the content of category:Hong Kong institutions, since that's what I am familiar with. I would like to have the assistance from other people to help fixing the categories of other countries. — Instantnood 21:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * (in addition to my previous comment at 19:41, October 4) I have taken a look at the social institution article, and compared it with institution. It seems to me that they are not exactly the same thing. I'd say category:social institutions is not a good alternative to category:institutions, if the word "institutions" is deemed confusing. — Instantnood 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

New speedy criteria
These were discussed previously at Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming but I am reproposing them and modifying them slightly as it's possible too much time has elapsed to list them as criteria. Hiding talk 11:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviations of country names
''In category names, any instances of abbreviated country names should be expanded: for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States; instances of UK or U.K. should be renamed to the United Kingdom, instances of U.S.S.R or USSR should be renamed to the Soviet Union.''

In accordance with Naming conventions (categories), which states:  the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country,'' any instances of abbreviated country names should thus be so expanded: for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States; instances of UK or U.K. should be renamed to the United Kingdom, instances of U.S.S.R or USSR should be renamed to the Soviet Union.''

This proposal is as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style: ''When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (e.g. "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S..'' Since categorisation is a form of listing by country, as sub-categories are displayed as a list in parent categories, this policy should apply here.

Comments

 * It would seem Naming_conventions_%28categories%29 should be mentioned above. (SEWilco 15:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Like so? Hiding  talk 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong oppose This is represented as a non-controversial issue, but it actually touches on the most controversial issue in categorisation, ie. the "American" / "United States" people issue. Under this policy category:U.S. businesspeople could be speedy renamed as United States businesspeople when many people strongly prefer category:American businesspeople. There may be other sensitive cases, and there have been considerable and quite recent objections to such changes. Thus this is highly inappropriate as a speedy criterion. CalJW 09:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This has become de facto on CfD now. It would be nice to write it down and give ourselves somewhere of 'our own' to point to, as well as the MoS. -Splash talk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been a week and no objections so I have added it as criteria. Hiding talk 09:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The American versus United States issue is reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. However, this criterion doesn't really touch on that issue, it merely expands abbreviations in country names as per the Manual of Style, and Naming conventions (categories).  It makes no assertion in terms of the use of phrase to denote nationality as CalJW seems to suggest.  If there are other sensitive cases, they can be debated as and when they arise.  Hiding  talk 10:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are more categories which use "United States" that is an argument in support of using it for all categories. I am wholly unsatisfied with your response, which does nothing to address my concerns. You always want to rush things at the policy level, but I will probably make more nominations in this area than you.. Please report back when all the people categories have actually been renamed. CalJW 21:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having had a thorough trawl through the United States menu, most of the categories which use "U.S." could probably do with a change of word order too. Thus it is better that they are properly debated. If we merely expand "U.S." this is less likely to get done, and we will be left with less than ideal category names. I have made a good number of nominations and will do another batch at some point. CalJW 11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hiding: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American is not gathering a "consensus", it is collecting lists of arguments. That is structured for discussion, and readers who agree with random arguments there will have no reason to write there.  (SEWilco 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

Use the most neutral and/or generic name
This is a clause from Categorization of people. It was previously debated as "Famous" people and "Controversial" people or things.

The proposal is:
 * Any category name which utilises an adjectival modifier, for example referring to "famous things", "controversial people", "bad objects", etc. should be renamed to exclude the adjectival modifier. Exceptions to this proposal would be categorising by race, nationality or gender.

This follows from Naming conventions which states: Convention: Put a list of Xs as list of Xs, rather than Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, list of all Xs, etc. See wikipedia:list.

And from the afore mentioned Categorization of people, which reads: Some categories can be used in a stigmatizing way; always try to find the most neutral and/or generic name.

Comments

 * So should be just ?  (SEWilco 15:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC))
 * If it was speedied for a rename under this proposal and no-one objected in the two day period, then it would become that, yes. I can make no judgement on what it should be, that's the purpose of listing it. I'm sorry if I'm sounding facetious, it's just that I'm not clear what your question is asking. Hiding talk 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of speedy for this. Whether a rename or delete is more appropriate under this rule is not obvious, which I think means this takes case by case thought (I think the idea of speedies is that they should be entirely obvious).  -- Rick Block (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, help me out a little here. The Famous People clause from which this clause is derived had consensus and can technically be added as a criteria, yes? Hiding  talk 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think so (although there might be a more or less legitimate argument that Centralized discussion has no offiical standing since it is only marked as "proposed"). If you're actually wondering why I oppose this but supported that, dropping "famous" or "notable" from a category name seems substantially different from dropping any adjective. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair play, but what I'm trying to get at in my own clumsy way is if it is possible to move those from being proposals to being accepted criteria. If the above proposal is no good, is that one still okay? Hiding talk 19:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm? Which one? -Splash talk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support almost any CfD that was brought on these grounds. However, I am not sure this can be a speedy since it is not always obvious what the new name should be or, as Rick Block says, whether we need to merge or delete. The phrasing is also too broad since there are tons of adjectives that are fine in cat names. I can't quickly think of a phrasing that would catch the ones we mean to catch and miss the rest; but my first concern is the more important I think. Perhaps we can just rely on the document cited above for these purposes but, if we can construct a suitable phrasing, I'd support it as a speedy. -Splash talk 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It isn't always going to be obvious whether the category should even exist, or what it should be called if it should. CalJW 09:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Forbidding an entire class of words can alter meanings too much. (SEWilco 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

Talk pages of categories
Would the discussion pages of categories be moved accordingly after the corresponding categories are renamed? Or would they be kept (for record) if the corresponding categories are deleted? — Instantnood 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. What is the current practice when renaming for tipos? Hiding  talk 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the category is deleted, it's talk page would be too. If it had been renamed, I'm not sure whether the talk would first be moved to the new name before deleting the redirect but it probably ought to be. If it had been merged....then I'm not sure what to do, but I would personally be inclined to delete it. -Splash talk 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I move any talk page associated with a merge/rename, and I also fix links under "what links here" on the category before I delete it. If I delete a category, I just delete the talk page, as per guide to deletion.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But what if source and target cats both have talk pages? History merge? Might be quite tricky. -Splash talk 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Should the talk page of deleted categories be kept? From what I experienced talk pages of some deleted articles were kept. — Instantnood 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, talk pages of deleted anythings should not be kept, they're a G8 speedy. Prior to the present construction of V/AfD debates were pasted onto talk pages and so they serve as a record that may not exist elsewhere. For a long time now, though, any orphaned talk pages are almost always accidental. The same applies to category talk:. -Splash talk 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a guideline or policy on this, I have been trying to find the link for you. Basically it states that the talk page should be deleted before the category, either that or I'm on some new drug ;-o If I can find it I will provide a link, so you can ask about it on that talk page.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  21:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually this was the page I've recently found, but now it sounds more like something that was left.. [1] [2]. :-) — Instantnood 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy criteria being talked about...
...over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 5. An opportunity (imo) to dispose of the speedy-if-empty-for-an-indeterminable-period rules that have caused unfortunate happenstances at times. -Splash talk 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CFD cleanup
I have been considering adding a small note or banner to Recent Changes page to invite users to help with CFD Cleanup. Though I would prefer to propose it first, not sure where to do that, or to advertise that users are definately needed to help with cleanup. I've been out of town, just got back today, and been totally swamped, so there are plenty of articles to move. All this talk of editcountitis, I think this is your chance to boost yours :)  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't advertise other backlogs anywhere, because most deletion processes have them. It's better to 'advertise' on Beland's talk page; he's usually quick to unleash Pearle. Or I could learn how to clone Pearle or something. Oh, and James F. has a bot to that he's been using lately. I think talk page messages are probably sufficient. -Splash talk 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with not advertsing stuff like this, the difference with AFD is a ton of users and admins work on it. We usually only have the same users that vote, and then the ones that vote on one particular cat, but as far as cleanup is concerned, that activity has gone way down. Beland has been buzy with cleanup tasks a lot lately, I think. I guess I could get CanusRufis and James F a ring. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"?
A "whobot" is busy switching people from the "House of Plantagenet" category to a "House of Anjou" category, referencing the categories for deletion page. Yet I cannot find any discussion of this rather peculiar choice there. Where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"? Did it occur to no one that "House of Plantagenet" is a subset of the First "House of Anjou" and that Plantagenet kings are usually referred to as Plantagenets, or, if referencing their connection to France, an "Angevin Dynasty"? We shouldn't be needlessly confusing, and we should use the more specific category. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27. -Splash talk 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. These should really remain linked from the CFD template while bots are working. The decision seems to have been made on the basis that a foolish consistency is better than clarity in categorization. - Nunh-huh 00:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it was still listed under its CFD day page on CFD cleanup, but I moved it to Whobot's task page. The cfd tag is still on the cat, and it was placed on that day, so you could find it in the archives that way. However, I will put the CFD day link on User:Whobot/tasks.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  00:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't listed on the page linked to today, when whobot was making the changes, and no, I couldn't find it, which is why I asked, and you'd have had trouble finding it too if you hadn't already known where it was. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had just removed it about 10 minutes before you asked, and put it on Whobots task list. As for the CFD link on the category, that just points to CFD, not to the CFD day page, so if you click on it, it only goes to the main CFD page. I didn't say anything about you asking where it was, that is fine, I was just saying, one could check the history of the category and would have found what day it was tagged cfd, that would tell you what day to look in the archives. Reguardless, since it is a few days old, there would not normally be a link to the discussion on the main CFD page while anyone was doing cleanup, we recently just added the CFD day link to the cleanup section for that reason. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thats why I copied the day link pages to Whobot's task page.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Links should remain until you (or anyone else involved) have finished mucking about with the categories involved. I wouldn't have, and didn't have, any idea or clue where to look for the discussion. The fact that you can enumerate a list of links I could have (somehow intuited that I might have) clicked thru is of no assistance whatsoever to anyone monitoring your bot's changes. My suggestion is you remove the page AFTER you have finished, not before. If the CFD template needs fixing so that it points to the discussion, it should be fixed. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reguardless, there was ample notification of this change on the category, cleanup is the inevitable step. I admitted to my mistake of moving the link w/o having a day link, that does not change the fact that the consensus was to delete. This category will be deleted, again, please do not recreate it, especially after we provided you a link to the discussion. I also ask that you visit WP:Civil, as I have been nothing but cordial with you. Thank you. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What have I said that you find uncivil? I've disagreed with your way of doing things, and told you a better way to do them. That's not uncivil, and it's inappropriate of you to suggest that it is. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

templates need updating
The current templates used with this page do not take into account the per-day scheme, and the links go bad when the article goes off the main page. Does anyone lese thing this needs to be fixed? Templates to update would include I don't know if it would be better to update these or make new ones, as per template:cfdud. --ssd 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:cfd
 * Template:cfdu
 * Template:cfr
 * Template:cfru
 * Template:cfm

Category:International student societies
I think the cat name is cofusing: is it about societies that have chapter in different countries or societies of international students (those with f1 or j1 visa in the US). However, I cannot come up with a rename. Can you help?

P.s. I know it's not the greatest place to post it, but, well... Renata3 03:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Category:Basque symbols?
I find that Basque symbols has been moved to Category:Basque cultural icons with a note by User:Whobot of Cleanup per WP:CFD (moving Category:Basque_symbols to Category:Basque_cultural_icons)) but I don't find anything about it in 2005-08-03. --Error 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I manually add the date to the list the bot runs, It should have been 1 Oct. Here is the cfd log. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of rivers of Iceland
Somehow this just looks wrong. Should the few that look like this in Category:Lists of rivers be renamed? Not sure that something is wrong, it's just that the double 'of' looks odd. Vegaswikian 05:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope it's right. See it's parent Category:Lists of places, we categorize all the lists too, easier to find them than looking at the list of lists. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  05:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of a speedy criteria
CalJW removed this criteria from Categories for deletion
 * Abbreviation expanding for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country (e.g. US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States)

I thought it had gained consensus both on this page and at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming. There already exists guideline and policy to the effect that abbreviation should be avoided, as stated when I proposed this criterion. How do we move this on in a way that avoids a revert war. I don't quite understand the objection that it actually touches on the most controversial issue in categorisation, ie. the "American" / "United States" people issue. This renaming does not engage in that area since the controversy will exist regardless of whether it is U.S. or United States. Nowhere does this policy attempt to state that United States should be preferred over U.S., and I woould appreciate other people's thoughts on this, and also on the correct procedure for debating the removal of a criterion. Can one simply remove any part of policy one does not like, or must there be debate and a consensus arrived at first? CalJW's other objection, that a speedy renaming under this move would prevent another renaming also seems flawed to me. Surely that would also apply to any typo in a bad name. Should we thus remove criteria number 1? If a bad name exists, it will be caught whether it has been speedied under this criteria or not, indeed, one could argue that listing it here for speedying would enhance the chance that it is spotted. Hiding talk 11:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added it back with a clarification intended to address at least one of CalJW's concerns. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur. This criterion does have consensus by earlier discussion, not to mention our manual of style entry to avoid abbreviation. Consensus does not equal unanimity, and speedy renames are neither set in stone nor impossible to reverse. Radiant_ >|< 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All this fuss to get this bad policy imposed, and the only person who has done anything much about removing the abbreviations since is me. CalJW 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename 'Categories for deletion'
There has been a request to rename a category which links to this page. Unfortunately, the reflex action to simply call for a deletion when the request was for a rename calls for this category itself to be renamed: The template said "This category has been nominated for renaming" while the link comes here to CFD. Thus the category has been somehow augmented to Deletion or Renaming. Please consider renaming this category itself.

My motivation is that the Category:Reference is being considered for renaming to another name. Now it is subject to a vote for Deletion as well! Can you imagine how this will be received if it becomes known that the encyclopedists here do not consider "Reference" to be part of an encyclopedia? The Reference section of a Public Library includes Encyclopedias, Atlases, Who's Who, and other works typically too valuable to loan out. Thus there is a precedent for mirroring the operation of a Library, just like the Reference Desk section of a Library. Ancheta Wis 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * So you want Categories for deletion renamed, not the category? It's pretty much a catch all, for deletion, merging, and renaming. Although it is similiar to Articles for deletion name, we do it all here. Problem is, if we rename it to del and ren, we would have to add merge too, which would make it long. How about a more neutral naming of something like WP:Category discussions (not really but an idea). Also CFD was recently renamed if I recall correctly. Any suggestions? «» Who ? ¿ ? meta  07:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some possible names: Categories under Review, or Categories to Review or Categories for Review, ... any D word ought to be expunged if you don't want Defensive behavior. Ancheta Wis 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Current page is the subject of Feature Creep: First Deletion, then Merging, Renaming, etc. If a Fundamental category is up for rename (only), then we should not also be questioning whether it should exist at all. That is another discussion on another page, preferably. It's like discussing Library Fines on the same Docket as Murders. Ancheta Wis 14:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Renaming fairly clearly implies deletion in the case of categories. Leaving the old category lying around is pointless if it is empty, unless there is a need for a categoryredirect. Merging is much the same, usually, since here it means "move the articles from this cat to the other, but retain the idea of the categorization". It's basically the same as a rename, except that the target category already exists. Since it's basically a rename, the reason for deletion is the same as in that case. There's no scope creep. And the divergence of editor's comments from the nominator's desire is entirely in keeping with the other deletion processes, most notably AfD. On AfD things are frequently merged/redirected/transwikied rather than deleted. But should we rename AfD to Articles for Deletion, Keeping, Renaming, Transwikiing and Merging? Surely not. Also changing to one of the above names would generate quite a bit of work for little return and leave it out of step with all the other deletion processes. -Splash talk 16:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Splash here. Rename really means move to a new category and delete the old one, as there are no category redirects. Fine as it is. BD2412  talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, I really think it is fine as is, I was merely offering suggestions on neutral ground :) Or something like that. I think, if we rename it, it should be Wikipedians:Category complaint department >B-)  «» Who ? ¿ ? meta  04:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what about Categories for Comment. Ancheta Wis 09:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One (probably minor) issue is that some people might be afraid of filing a rename request since they risk having the category actualy deleted instead of renamed once it's "on the radar". Also ocationaly such requests end in a "no consensus" because the votes are split 3 ways between rename, keep and delete. Another problem is that when people see the "this category have been nominated for renaming" tag on the category they might think that the rename is a "no brainer" and don't bother to vote, or they don't care what it's named, and thus they never visit the vote page resulting in 3-4 deletionists sucessfully getting it deleted even if lots of people found it usefull but didn't bother with what they thought was a rename debate (I'm not saying this happens often, but I've seen one or two people confused by it). I fully understnad why it's all currently handled in one place, what with all the boot work required to manage categories, but aside from that it might IMHO be an idea (though I bet it's been discussed to death somewhere else before) to split the scope of CFD in two and have a new page dealing purely with renames. The CFD page can then focus on mergers and deletions, simmilar to how WP:RM and WP:AFD work for articles. That way if someone want to delete something that's up for renaming they have to at least slap a seperate "nominated for deletion" tag on it. Just something to ponder, I don't rely care much either way myself. --Sherool 19:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CSD G changes
I have upated the CSD policy page based on a prior discussion, or the lack of opposition to. I have set the minimum time for empty categories to 72 hours, and a new sub rule that it doesn't apply to categories currently listed on CFD. Reasoning:
 * Category gets created, population doesn't quickly commence, technically empty for 24 hours, gets deleted.
 * Flaw, recreation is CSD criterion, should allow time for population.
 * The populate tag can be placed and listed.
 * Categories listed on CFD have a chance of being renamed and may prompt users to work on category.

 * According to Category deletion policy if a CFD discussion on an empty category is closed "no consensus", it should not be deleted for 30 days.
 * Since speedies have no discussion, technically there is no consensus. Speedies should not have to match this, but should allow for change based on this.

Any comments appreciated. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CFM target template?
The instructions say to put cfm on the category page proposed to be merged from. This template text includes "...nominated for merging into Category Y". (my bolding). Is there a corresponding template for the target category to say something like "Category X has been nominated to be merged into this category. Please see that page's entry on the categories for deletion and renaming page for the proposal, justification, and discussion." ? --Scott Davis Talk 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, no. Feel free to create one. Radiant_ >|< 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is one at template:cfmf. 19:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

cfr template link to discussion does not link to any discussion
The link with the name this page's entry on Template:Cfr links to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. However, that is not the place where the discussion is situated when following the procedure described on this page. According to that procedure, the discussion is placed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/[current date]. I'm a little confused and I hope I didn't get this all wrong. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 23:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem because both links point to the same page. That's because the /log/currentdate pages are all included into the main CFD page. Radiant_ >|< 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Parks
Can someone look at the sub cats in Category:Parks? I think these should be renamed to Parks of Foo if I understand the convention. I'm not sure so would like a more experienced editor to comment or make the recommendation. Vegaswikian 07:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've put it on the main page. But feel free to nominate things, it's not that hard :) Radiant_ >|< 15:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

SFD?
Any objections to removing the list of all items on SFD from here? I think that everybody who needs to know about SFD already knows it, so no point in listing everything twice. Radiant_ >|< 17:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Category search tool
Many of the most disputed listings on CfD are combined categories like (Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people + Category:Murderers →) Category:LGBT murderers. If we ask nicely, maybe we can persuade our wonderful developers to create a new tool for category pages. This tool would allow users to search a category for articles that are also members of another category. For example, specifying Category:Murderers in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people would list all the people who are GLB and have been convicted of murder. This would return Aileen Wuornos among others. Guanaco 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Has been a feature request for almost a year, if not longer. Status unknown, but given our load problems the devs probably have better things to do than introduce a relatively database-heavy function. Radiant_ >|< 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikinews seems to be using a Category combination tool. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States shows boxes with articles, such as those which have both Category:United States and Category:Sports.  (SEWilco 23:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Hm, that's interesting. That would be a DynamicPageList. Radiant_ >|< 11:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Old CfD discussions link template
I've created something that looks like template:oldvfd/template:oldafd See I think this would be useful, as sometimes I'd like to know about past CfDs - 132.205.44.134 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * template:oldcfd
 * template:oldcfd2

Cats with non-standard decade nomenclature--delete or rename?
The recently created cats Category:Pop songs of the 2000 zeroes, Category:Pop songs of the 1970's, Category:Pop songs of the 1980's, and Category:Pop songs of the 1990's don't seem OK as is, but I don't know if they should just be renamed to match the standard decades format (EG Category:Pop songs of the 1990s to match 1990s, Category:Pop songs of the 2000s to match 2000s, etc.), or deleted as redundant with Category:1991 songs, Category:1992 songs, etc., (or deleted for other reasons, such as potential size) and the CfD instructions don't seem to allow for 'multiple possible outcome' nominations. Any suggestions? Anybody want to take over driving this issue? 24.17.48.241 06:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * CFD (or CFR in this case) is actually fairly free-form on multiple outcomes. You nominate it with a suggested outcome, but are free to express alternatives in your supporting arguments.  The submission then has a week to find a conscensous as to the best way to go.  It's not locked into just yes or no on your original outcome. Easy enough to do. - TexasAndroid 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is misnamed
I have just added two categories but I don't want either of them to be deleted. Please can the page be renamed? I see no counter arguments in the previous discussion that amount to more than a defense of inertia. Sumahoy 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Victims of Nazi justice
Category:Victims of Nazi justice is category with a too large scope, it's not well defined
 * Can someone look into this? --Melaen 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions from RFA
Requests for adminship seems to make use of some good ideas that CFD would be improved by. Specifically, a) have each nomination in its own template, rather than lumped in with an entire day's worth of templates, to make watching a particular category easier, and b) having subsections for support/oppose (or in CFD's case keep/rename/merge/delete), with people using separate number of votes for each side effortless. —Simetrical (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) auto-numbered lists
 * 2) to make counting the
 * I don't mind much about the pages thing, but would adamantly oppose the numbered lists. We don't use them in deletion processes, period. We tried it, and it didn't work because it reduces it to a vote and makes what is actually a discussion hard to follow because the comments aren't threaded anymore. RfA is different for a variety of reasons. Splash 03:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a somewhat fuzzy vote that involves discussion. Part of the process is that if consensus is not reached, the category is kept. The degree of consensus is determined almost entirely by how many people say "support" vs. "oppose", therefore it's a vote with a supermajority requirement and some leeway under unusual circumstances (e.g., perhaps if one side has only 50% of the vote but debates their point extensively, while the other side makes no comments on their reasoning).

But that part is academic. I'm not a frequent contributor to this particular page, so I guess if you tried that but decided to stop consensus must be against it. (I can't see why, though—you can thread comments easily enough in numbered lists. But whatever.) —Simetrical (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Splash on the voting/discussion issue. I also don't believe it will help to have each discussion on a separate page.  There are many discussions that have only one or two people weighing in.  That would seem to be more work than is really necessary for not much gain.  --Kbdank71 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bot needed
Anyone running a bot that could help out with CFD cleanup, please see Categories_for_deletion. We've got quite a backlog that needs to be taken care of. Thanks in advance. --Kbdank71 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a bot, but I do have AWB, which makes doing this chore a lot easier. I'll do what I can. K1Bond007 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:American people by national origin
The subcategories of Category:American people by national origin are totally inconsistent over hyphenation. Which form is correct? The rest will need to be changed. --TimPope 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

categoryredirect abuse
There has been some recent abuse with categoryredirect. Under further consideration, I believe that the feature should be restricted to sysops or bureaucrats who were the last one to edit. (Under the premise that the last edit was made to add the categoryredirect template, and no one should be really adding anything else other than to correct vandalism... in which case, most vandalism is reverted by an admin anyway...) NekoDaemon will generate a list of categories that were skipped due the fact that the last edit was not made by a sysop or a bureaucrat. Questions? Thoughts? Comments? --AllyUnion (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I'll take that a week of silence is an indication that no one cares, and I'll proceed with the changes. --AllyUnion (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Due to the fact that Who is on break (and thus Whobot), we've been using it to have NekoDaemon move over categories to the new renamed category - then deleting the old. This is the only reason I've been using it. If you don't wish me to use it in this manner, just let me know. K1Bond007 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. BTW - both K1Bond007 and myself are admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about either of you, specifically, but there has been incidents of vandals using the category redirect without a CFD discussion. In regards to the suggestion for using CFD to move stuff for deletion or some kind of tool for the bot to make a high speed edit in removing, moving, etc the category, I am willing to create such a feature, but I'm thinking using it based on a restriction (like you have to have a sysop flag) would be better. And I had indicated in the past that was an unintended side effect anyway. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be very open to whatever aid you can give CFD in lightening the load and making it so we don't get backed up all the time. The sysop idea would be great. K1Bond007 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just my opinion that it is more troublesome for the bot to search for a related CFD discussion and it would be easier to just limit access to the community of trusted users. NekoDaemon would be able to perform categoryredirects if and only if the last edit was made by an sysop/bureaucrat.  It would save the hassle of reverting and such. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation/holiday. I agree with the above proposal.  --Kbdank71 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Category being moved" tag?
Is there a tag that could be placed on a category that is currently being moved? The reason I ask is that I was doing a category move as part of WP:SFD and someone slapped a merge tag on both categories and added a note to the talk page of the assocated template.

If I could have added a tag that said something like "The contents of this category are currently being moved to category:x" it might have helped matters.

So, does such a thing exist? If not, would it be OK if I created one along the same lines as cfm? --TheParanoidOne 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-stub categories that are nominated for renaming have a {{cfr}} (or equivalent) tag referring to the CFD discussion about the proposed rename. Stub categories should similarly have a {{sfr-c}}.  Seems to me this should be sufficient. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:BuckeyePhysicist

My home page is at:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~meng/

title: User talk:BuckeyePhysicist


text:
Commercial software

Commercial software, or seldom payware, is a computer software that is produced for sale or that serves commercial purposes. Commercial software can be proprietary software or free and open-source software.

Background and challenge
While software creation by programming is a time and labor-intensive process, comparable to the creation of physical goods, the reproduction, duplication and sharing of software as digital goods is in comparison disproportionately easy. No special machines or expensive additional resources are required, unlike almost all physical goods and products. Once the software is created it can be copied in infinite numbers, for almost zero cost, by anyone. This made commercialization of software for the mass market in the beginning of the computing era impossible. Unlike hardware, it was not seen as trade-able and commercialize-able good. Software was plainly shared for free (hacker culture) or distributed bundled with sold hardware, as part of the service to make the hardware usable for the customer.

Due to changes in the computer industry in the 1970s and 1980s, software slowly became a commercial good by itself. In 1969, IBM, under threat of antitrust litigation, led the industry change by starting to charge separately for (mainframe) software and services, and ceasing to supply source code. In 1983 binary software became copyrightable by the Apple vs. Franklin law decision, before only source code was copyrightable. Additionally, the growing availability of millions of computers based on the same microprocessor architecture created for the first time a compatible mass market worth and ready for binary retail software commercialization.

Commercialization models for software
Common business wisdom is that software as digital good can be commercialized to the mass-market most successfully as proprietary good, meaning that the free sharing and copying of the users ("software piracy") can be prevented. Control over this can be achieved by copyright which, along with contract law, software patents, and trade secrets, provides a legal basis for the software's owner, the intellectual property (IP) holder, to establish exclusive rights on distribution and therefore commercialization. Technical mechanisms which try to enforce the exclusive distribution right are copy-protection mechanisms, often bound to the physical media (floppy disc, CD, etc.) of the software, and digital rights management (DRM) mechanisms which try to achieve the same also in physical media-less digital distribution of software.

When software is sold in binary form only ("closed source") on the market, exclusive control over software derivatives and further development are additionally achieved. The reverse engineering reconstruction process of complex software from its binary form to its source code form, required for unauthorized third-party adaptation and development, is a burdensome and often impossible process. This creates another commercialization opportunity of software in source code form for a higher price, e.g. by licensing a game engine's source code to another game developer for flexible use and adaptation.

This business model, also called "research and development model", "IP-rent model" or "proprietary software business model", was described by Craig Mundie of Microsoft in 2001 as follows: "[C]ompanies and investors need to focus on business models that can be sustainable over the long term in the real world economy…. We emphatically remain committed to a model that protects the intellectual property rights in software and ensures the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development. This research and development model … based on the importance of intellectual property rights [was the] foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term, and create sustainable business models…. [A]n economic model that protects intellectual property and a business model that recoups research and development costs have shown repeatedly that they can create impressive economic benefits and distribute them very broadly."

Free and open-source software commercialization
While less common than commercial proprietary software, free and open-source software may also be commercial software in the free and open-source software (FOSS) domain. But unlike the proprietary model, commercialization is achieved in the FOSS commercialization model without limiting the users in their capability to share, reuse and duplicate software freely. This is a fact that the Free Software Foundation emphasizes, and is the basis of the Open Source Initiative.

Under a FOSS business model, software vendors may charge a fee for distribution and offer paid support and software customization services. Proprietary software uses a different business model, where a customer of the proprietary software pays a fee for a license to use the software. This license may grant the customer the ability to configure some or no parts of the software themselves. Often some level of support is included in the purchase of proprietary software, but additional support services (especially for enterprise applications) are usually available for an additional fee. Some proprietary software vendors will also customize software for a fee. Free software is often available at no cost and can result in permanently lower costs compared to proprietary software. With free software, businesses can fit software to their specific needs by changing the software themselves or by hiring programmers to modify it for them. Free software often has no warranty, and more importantly, generally does not assign legal liability to anyone. However, warranties are permitted between any two parties upon the condition of the software and its usage. Such an agreement is made separately from the free software license.

Reception and impact
All or parts of software packages and services that support commerce are increasingly made available as FOSS software. This includes products from Red Hat, Apple Inc., Huawei, Sun Microsystems, Google, and Microsoft. Microsoft uses "commercial software", to describe their business model but is also mostly proprietary.

A report by Standish Group says that adoption of open source has caused a drop in revenue to the proprietary software industry by about $60 billion per year.

title: Commercial software


text:
User:BuckeyePhysicist

My homepage is @: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~meng/

title: User:BuckeyePhysicist


text: Category:Rivers

title: Category:Rivers