text:
Talk:Fleet Admiral

Article
This article seems to imply that "Fleet Admiral" is the default name and that all others are variations on it, but doesn't provide any evidence for this other than that the US Navy uses Fleet Admiral. "Admiral of the Fleet" is a far older rank and was undoubtedly adapted to produce the US rank, and treating it as a variant is a little US-centric to say the least. Proteus (Talk) 13:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You can always split the articles and make one for Fleet Admiral (UK) or Fleet Admiral (US). I'm actually planning on doing that when I get around to it since the article started as USA only and expanded to the other countries User:Husnock 2 Aug 04

"(In some navies, however, such as the German Kriegsmarine during World War II, "Admiral of the Navy" has been considered an even higher rank than Admiral of the Fleet or its equivalent.)" In Germany, as far I know, there was just one Admiral rank above the four-star-Admiral: Grand Admiral. This holds true for WWI and WWII. So there is no specialty as this remark suggests, Germany fits into the "normal" pattern of four "normal" admiral ranks plus one admiral rank above, called Grand Admiral in the German case. Chris, 11 May 2005

Mergy mergy
It looks to me like there are many articles about essentially the same rank, in different nations. Currently, to get a good overview, you have to look at almost a dozen articles, and it's easy to miss most of them because of inadequate inter-linking, and a reader may get tired of jumping between stubs before they find anything useful. Many links between these articles point to a reference that's not the best choice. Couldn't most of this material be covered with less duplication in one or two comprehensive articles?

Some of the general introductory information from Admiral is completely missing and un-linked from the various Fleet Admiral/Admiral of the Fleet articles. If nothing else, each of these articles should link more prominently to Admiral.

Are the following articles about the same thing? I realize the exact terms are used differently by some nations, but the nuance could be explained in the text.
 * Admiral of the Fleet
 * Fleet Admiral

Since the differences aren't consistent, couldn't we also throw in the following, and make it a comprehensive article about superior and supreme admirals?
 * Admiral of the Navy
 * Grand Admiral

These three are definitely about the exact same rank:
 * Admiral of the Fleet (USSR)
 * Admiral of the Fleet (Russia)
 * Fleet Admiral (Russia)

And the dozen-plus articles about particular nations' fleet admirals: I'd like to see the rank insignia and major features outlined in a section on one page, and then some more detailed histories could remain broken out in the individual articles.

What do you think? —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 16:09 Z

 * This was at one time a combined article and it was very long, very confusing, and very combersome. The page was changed to a disambig some time ago.  Also, bear in mind, some the articles like Fleet Admiral (U.S.) and Wonsu are pretty detailed with their own article specific links and sources.  I actually like it the way it is.  Emphasis could be placed on expanding some of the shorting Fleet Admiral rank articles into large more comprehensive article.  About the Russia thing, World War III is going on with tha right now.  See: Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation for current battle casualities. -Husnock 16:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge 2007
It seems this topic was raised and dropped two years ago, so perhaps it is timely to consider it again. I have proposed merging Admiral of the Fleet into this article. Reasons: Please comment below. --Russ (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This article already explains the variety of terminology used in different navies for more-or-less equivalent ranks, including "Admiral of the Fleet."
 * 2) Admiral of the Fleet is marked as a disambiguation page, but doesn't really serve that function, and therefore is likely to confuse readers.

Admiral of the Fleet
This article should not be redirected or replaced by the US article. It should redirect to the Admiral of the Fleet article, to do the US thing would be extreme US bias. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Admiral (United States)

 * See the close WP:RM discussion at Talk:Fleet Admiral (United States) where it is decided to NOT use Fleet Admiral for the US. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the natural redirect for fleet admiral is Fleet Admiral (United States)
--diremarc (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * linguistically, fleet admiral (United States) is a much closer match than "admiral of the fleet" is.
 * usage:
 * the fleet admiral (United States) is addressed as "fleet admiral".
 * the admiral of the fleet is addressed as "admiral of the fleet".
 * relevancy:
 * military personal in the US outnumber commonwealth military personal 5 to 1.
 * combat zone US military personal outnumber combat zone commonwealth military personal over 100 to 1.
 * in the news, the phrase "fleet admirals" is predominately used and used to mean "fleet admiral (United States)"
 * in the news, the phrase "admirals of the fleet" is seldom used and when used means "admirals of the fleet"
 * consistency: the redirect and the target should be as consistent as possible.
 * logic: the logical redirect for fleet admiral is Fleet Admiral (United States).
 * hermeneutically: understanding "fleet admiral (United States)" is established by reference to the individual components "fleet admiral" and the "United States" and understanding individual components "fleet admiral" and the "United States" is by reference to the entirety, "fleet admiral (United States).
 * say what you mean and mean what you say:
 * "fleet admiral" means "fleet admiral" and "admiral of the fleet" means "admiral of the fleet".
 * conversely, "admiral of the fleet" does not mean "fleet admiral" and "fleet admiral" does not mean "admiral of the fleet".

 * Fleet admiral is listed as one of the topics covered in the Admiral of the Fleet article, so what you're saying doesn't matter, since fleet admirals are covered in the Admiral of the Fleet article. The US is not the only place the term is used or referred to. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fleet Admiral


text:
Borromean rings

In mathematics, the Borromean rings are three simple closed curves in three-dimensional space that are topologically linked and cannot be separated from each other, but that break apart into two unknotted and unlinked loops when any one of the three is cut or removed. Most commonly, these rings are drawn as three circles in the plane, in the pattern of a Venn diagram, alternatingly crossing over and under each other at the points where they cross. Other triples of curves are said to form the Borromean rings as long as they are topologically equivalent to the curves depicted in this drawing.

The Borromean rings are named after the Italian House of Borromeo, who used the circular form of these rings as an element of their coat of arms, but designs based on the Borromean rings have been used in many cultures, including by the Norsemen and in Japan. They have been used in Christian symbolism as a sign of the Trinity, and in modern commerce as the logo of Ballantine beer, giving them the alternative name Ballantine rings. Physical instances of the Borromean rings have been made from linked DNA or other molecules, and they have analogues in the Efimov state and Borromean nuclei, both of which have three components bound to each other although no two of them are bound.

Geometrically, the Borromean rings may be realized by linked ellipses, or (using the vertices of a regular icosahedron) by linked golden rectangles. It is impossible to realize them using circles in three-dimensional space, but it has been conjectured that they may be realized by copies of any non-circular simple closed curve in space. In knot theory, the Borromean rings can be proved to be linked by counting their Fox $$-colorings. As links, they are Brunnian, alternating, algebraic, and hyperbolic. In arithmetic topology, certain triples of prime numbers have analogous linking properties to the Borromean rings.

Definition and notation
It is common in mathematics publications that define the Borromean rings to do so as a link diagram, a drawing of curves in the plane with crossings marked to indicate which curve or part of a curve passes above or below at each crossing. Such a drawing can be transformed into a system of curves in three-dimensional space by embedding the plane into space and deforming the curves drawn on it above or below the embedded plane at each crossing, as indicated in the diagram. The commonly-used diagram for the Borromean rings consists of three equal circles centered at the points of an equilateral triangle, close enough together that their interiors have a common intersection (such as in a Venn diagram or the three circles used to define the Reuleaux triangle). Its crossings alternate between above and below when considered in consecutive order around each circle; another equivalent way to describe the over-under relation between the three circles is that each circle passes over a second circle at both of their crossings, and under the third circle at both of their crossings. Two links are said to be equivalent if there is a continuous deformation of space (an ambient isotopy) taking one to another, and the Borromean rings may refer to any link that is equivalent in this sense to the standard diagram for this link.

In The Knot Atlas, the Borromean rings are denoted with the code "L6a4"; the notation means that this is a link with six crossings and an alternating diagram, the fourth of five alternating 6-crossing links identified by Morwen Thistlethwaite in a list of all prime links with up to 13 crossings. In the tables of knots and links in Dale Rolfsen's 1976 book Knots and Links, extending earlier listings in the 1920s by Alexander and Briggs, the Borromean rings were given the Alexander–Briggs notation "6$n$", meaning that this is the second of three 6-crossing 3-component links to be listed. The Conway notation for the Borromean rings, ".1", is an abbreviated description of the standard link diagram for this link.

History and symbolism
The name "Borromean rings" comes from the use of these rings, in the form of three linked circles, in the coat of arms of the aristocratic Borromeo family in Northern Italy. The link itself is much older and has appeared in the form of the valknut, three linked equilateral triangles with parallel sides, on Norse image stones dating back to the 7th century. The Ōmiwa Shrine in Japan is also decorated with a motif of the Borromean rings, in their conventional circular form. A stone pillar in the 6th-century Marundeeswarar Temple in India shows three equilateral triangles rotated from each other to form a regular enneagram; like the Borromean rings these three triangles are linked and not pairwise linked, but this crossing pattern describes a different link than the Borromean rings.

The Borromean rings have been used in different contexts to indicate strength in unity. In particular, some have used the design to symbolize the Trinity. A 13th-century French manuscript depicting the Borromean rings labeled as unity in trinity was lost in a fire in the 1940s, but reproduced in an 1843 book by Adolphe Napoléon Didron. Didron and others have speculated that the description of the Trinity as three equal circles in canto 33 of Dante's Paradiso was inspired by similar images, although Dante does not detail the geometric arrangement of these circles. The psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan found inspiration in the Borromean rings as a model for his topology of human subjectivity, with each ring representing a fundamental Lacanian component of reality (the "real", the "imaginary", and the "symbolic").

The rings were used as the logo of Ballantine beer, and are still used by the Ballantine brand beer, now distributed by the current brand owner, the Pabst Brewing Company. For this reason they have sometimes been called the "Ballantine rings".

The first work of knot theory to include the Borromean rings was a catalog of knots and links compiled in 1876 by Peter Tait. In recreational mathematics, the Borromean rings were popularized by Martin Gardner, who featured Seifert surfaces for the Borromean rings in his September 1961 "Mathematical Games" column in Scientific American. In 2006, the International Mathematical Union decided at the 25th International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid, Spain to use a new logo based on the Borromean rings.

Partial and multiple rings
In medieval and renaissance Europe, a number of visual signs consist of three elements interlaced together in the same way that the Borromean rings are shown interlaced (in their conventional two-dimensional depiction), but with individual elements that are not closed loops. Examples of such symbols are the Snoldelev stone horns and the Diana of Poitiers crescents.

Some knot-theoretic links contain multiple Borromean rings configurations; one five-loop link of this type is used as a symbol in Discordianism, based on a depiction in the Principia Discordia.

Linkedness
In knot theory, the Borromean rings are a simple example of a Brunnian link, a link that cannot be separated but that falls apart into separate unknotted loops as soon as any one of its components is removed. There are infinitely many Brunnian links, and infinitely many three-curve Brunnian links, of which the Borromean rings are the simplest.

There are a number of ways of seeing that the Borromean rings are linked. One is to use Fox $$-colorings, colorings of the arcs of a link diagram with the integers modulo $n$ so that at each crossing, the two colors at the undercrossing have the same average (modulo $n$) as the color of the overcrossing arc, and so that at least two colors are used. The number of colorings meeting these conditions is a knot invariant, independent of the diagram chosen for the link. A trivial link with three components has $$n^3-n$$ colorings, obtained from its standard diagram by choosing a color independently for each component and discarding the $$n$$ colorings that only use one color. For standard diagram of the Borromean rings, on the other hand, the same pairs of arcs meet at two undercrossings, forcing the arcs that cross over them to have the same color as each other, from which it follows that the only colorings that meet the crossing conditions violate the condition of using more than one color. Because the trivial link has many valid colorings and the Borromean rings have none, they cannot be equivalent.

The Borromean rings are an alternating link, as their conventional link diagram has crossings that alternate between passing over and under each curve, in order along the curve. They are also an algebraic link, a link that can be decomposed by Conway spheres into 2-tangles. They are the simplest alternating algebraic link which does not have a diagram that is simultaneously alternating and algebraic. It follows from the Tait conjectures that the crossing number of the Borromean rings (the fewest crossings in any of their link diagrams) is 6, the number of crossings in their alternating diagram.

Ring shape
The Borromean rings are typically drawn with their rings projecting to circles in the plane of the drawing, but three-dimensional circular Borromean rings are an impossible object: it is not possible to form the Borromean rings from circles in three-dimensional space. More generally proved using four-dimensional hyperbolic geometry that no Brunnian link can be exactly circular. For three rings in their conventional Borromean arrangement, this can be seen from considering the link diagram. If one assumes that two of the circles touch at their two crossing points, then they lie in either a plane or a sphere. In either case, the third circle must pass through this plane or sphere four times, without lying in it, which is impossible. Another argument for the impossibility of circular realizations, by Helge Tverberg, uses inversive geometry to transform any three circles so that one of them becomes a line, making it easier to argue that the other two circles do not link with it to form the Borromean rings.

However, the Borromean rings can be realized using ellipses. These may be taken to be of arbitrarily small eccentricity: no matter how close to being circular their shape may be, as long as they are not perfectly circular, they can form Borromean links if suitably positioned. A realization of the Borromean rings by three mutually perpendicular golden rectangles can be found within a regular icosahedron by connecting three opposite pairs of its edges. Every three unknotted polygons in Euclidean space may be combined, after a suitable scaling transformation, to form the Borromean rings. If all three polygons are planar, then scaling is not needed. In particular, because the Borromean rings can be realized by three triangles, the minimum number of sides possible for each of its loops, the stick number of the Borromean rings is nine.

More generally, Matthew Cook has conjectured that any three unknotted simple closed curves in space, not all circles, can be combined without scaling to form the Borromean rings. After Jason Cantarella suggested a possible counterexample, Hugh Nelson Howards weakened the conjecture to apply to any three planar curves that are not all circles. On the other hand, although there are infinitely many Brunnian links with three links, the Borromean rings are the only one that can be formed from three convex curves.

Ropelength
In knot theory, the ropelength of a knot or link is the shortest length of flexible rope (of radius one) that can realize it. Mathematically, such a realization can be described by a smooth curve whose radius-one tubular neighborhood avoids self-intersections. The minimum ropelength of the Borromean rings has not been proven, but the smallest value that has been attained is realized by three copies of a 2-lobed planar curve. Although it resembles an earlier candidate for minimum ropelength, constructed from four circular arcs of radius two, it is slightly modified from that shape, and is composed from 42 smooth pieces defined by elliptic integrals, making it shorter by a fraction of a percent than the piecewise-circular realization. It is this realization, conjectured to minimize ropelength, that was used for the International Mathematical Union logo. Its length is $$\approx 58.006$$, while the best proven lower bound on the length is $$12\pi\approx 37.699$$.

For a discrete analogue of ropelength, the shortest representation using only edges of the integer lattice, the minimum length for the Borromean rings is exactly $$36$$. This is the length of a representation using three $$2\times 4$$ integer rectangles, inscribed in Jessen's icosahedron in the same way that the representation by golden rectangles is inscribed in the regular icosahedron.

Hyperbolic geometry
The Borromean rings are a hyperbolic link: the space surrounding the Borromean rings (their link complement) admits a complete hyperbolic metric of finite volume. Although hyperbolic links are now considered plentiful, the Borromean rings were one of the earliest examples to be proved hyperbolic, in the 1970s, and this link complement was a central example in the video Not Knot, produced in 1991 by the Geometry Center.

Hyperbolic manifolds can be decomposed in a canonical way into gluings of hyperbolic polyhedra (the Epstein–Penner decomposition) and for the Borromean complement this decomposition consists of two ideal regular octahedra. The volume of the Borromean complement is $$16\Lambda(\pi/4)=8G \approx 7.32772\dots$$ where $$\Lambda$$ is the Lobachevsky function and $$G$$ is Catalan's constant. The complement of the Borromean rings is universal, in the sense that every closed 3-manifold is a branched cover over this space.

Number theory
In arithmetic topology, there is an analogy between knots and prime numbers in which one considers links between primes. The triple of primes (13, 61, 937) are linked modulo 2 (the Rédei symbol is −1) but are pairwise unlinked modulo 2 (the Legendre symbols are all 1). Therefore, these primes have been called a "proper Borromean triple modulo 2" or "mod 2 Borromean primes".

Physical realizations
A monkey's fist knot is essentially a 3-dimensional representation of the Borromean rings, albeit with three layers, in most cases. Sculptor John Robinson has made artworks with three equilateral triangles made out of sheet metal, linked to form Borromean rings and resembling a three-dimensional version of the valknut. A common design for a folding wooden tripod consists of three pieces carved from a single piece of wood, with each piece consisting of two lengths of wood, the legs and upper sides of the tripod, connected by two segments of wood that surround an elongated central hole in the piece. Another of the three pieces passes through each of these holes, linking the three pieces together in the Borromean rings pattern. Tripods of this form have been described as coming from Indian or African hand crafts.

In chemistry, molecular Borromean rings are the molecular counterparts of Borromean rings, which are mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures. In 1997, biologist Chengde Mao and coworkers of New York University succeeded in constructing a set of rings from DNA. In 2003, chemist Fraser Stoddart and coworkers at UCLA utilised coordination chemistry to construct a set of rings in one step from 18 components. Borromean ring structures have been used to describe noble metal clusters shielded by a surface layer of thiolate ligands. A library of Borromean networks has been synthesized by design by Giuseppe Resnati and coworkers via halogen bond driven self-assembly. In order to access the molecular Borromean ring consisting of three unequal cycles a step-by-step synthesis was proposed by Jay S. Siegel and coworkers.

In physics, a quantum-mechanical analog of Borromean rings is called a halo state or an Efimov state, and consists of three bound particles that are not pairwise bound. The existence of such states was predicted by physicist Vitaly Efimov, in 1970, and confirmed by multiple experiments beginning in 2006. This phenomenon is closely related to a Borromean nucleus, a stable atomic nucleus consisting of three groups of particles that would be unstable in pairs. Another analog of the Borromean rings in quantum information theory involves the entanglement of three qubits in the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state.

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

title: Borromean rings


text:
Daigo, Ibaraki

Daigo (大子町) is a town located in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 15,771 in 6431 households and a population density of 48.4 pd/sqkm. The percentage of the population aged over 65 was 46.6%. The total area of the town is 325.76 sqkm.

Geography
Located in northwestern Ibaraki Prefecture along the upper reaches of the Kuji River, Daigo is bordered to the north by Fukushima Prefecture and to the west by Tochigi Prefecture.

Surrounding municipalities
Ibaraki Prefecture Fukushima Prefecture Tochigi Prefecture
 * Hitachiōta
 * Hitachiōmiya
 * Yamatsuri
 * Tanagura
 * Ōtawara
 * Nakagawa

Climate
Although the altitude is relatively low at 120 meters, Daigo is very chilly in the morning and evening in winter because it is located in a basin. The average minimum temperature of minus 5.5 °C in January is almost the same as Morioka, Iwate, much further north, and Daigo is known for having some of the coldest winters in the Kantō region. However, during the daytime, the temperature rises to nearly 10 °C due to solar radiation. In addition, summers often record hot days.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Daigo has decreased drastically and is now less than half of what it was 60 years ago.

History
Daigo village was created with the establishment of the modern municipalities system on April 1, 1889. It was elevated to town status on July 20, 1891. On March 31, 1955, the villages of Yorigami, Fukuroda, Miyagawa, Kurosawa, Namase, Kamiogawa, Shimoogawa and Murotono merged with Daigo.

Government
Daigo has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 13 members. Daigo, together with neighbouring Hitachiōta, contributes two members to the Ibaraki Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Ibaraki 5th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
Daigo is noted for many onsens (hot springs) and agricultural products of many kinds.

Besides that Daigo is well known for its tea production. It is one of the northernmost places in Japan where tea grows. The area's fertile soil, clean air, and mild climate provide ideal growing conditions for tea plants. Tea production has been a vital part of Daigo's economy and culture for centuries, with many small family-run tea farms still operating in the region.

Education
Daigo has six public elementary schools and four public middle schools operated by the city government, and one public high school operated by the Ibaraki Prefectural Board of Education. There is also one private high school. The prefecture also operates one special education school for the handicapped.

Railway
JR East – Suigun Line
 * Saigane - Kami-Ogawa - Fukuroda - Hitachi-Daigo - Shimonomiya

Local attractions

 * Fukuroda Falls – one of Japan's Top 100 Waterfalls
 * Daigo onsen
 * Fukuroda onsen

Noted people

 * Yasunori Kikuchi, professional baseball player
 * Yasumitsu Toyoda, professional baseball player

title: Daigo, Ibaraki


text:
List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Bongandini

Territory in present-day Burkina Faso.


text:
Talk:Privilege of peerage

Material which might be better elsewhere
Some sections of this (lengthy) article might really be in other articles, e.g. Precedence (although now that I look I see we also have United Kingdom order of precedence, and not much on the generic topic of precedence) and some of the material here (other than an overview of the topic as it related to this article) might be usefully moved/merged there. Noel (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unclear on Access to the Sovereign
I am unclear what this means:
 * The privilege of access was recommended for formal abolition in 1999, and may be retained, arguably, by peers whether members of the House of Lords or not, but it is no longer exercised.

I think the order of clauses needs to be reversed:
 * The privilege of access is no longer exercised, and it is unclear whether it is still retained by peers whether members of the House of Lords or not. In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended its formal abolition.

However, it is misleading to say the privilege of access was recommended for abolition, since the Committee in fact made a broader recommendation that the Privilege of Peerage be abolished, and thus also merits mention in the "Freedom from arrest" subsection, and indeed in the lede.Paragraph 369 of the Report states:
 * 329. `Privilege of peerage' belongs to all peers, whether or not they are members of the House of Lords, and also to the wives of peers and widows of peers provided they do not marry commoners. The extent of the privilege has long been obscure and ill-defined, and for that reason alone the present situation is unsatisfactory. Three of its features survived into the twentieth century. The first was the right of trial by peers, which was abolished by statute in 1948. The second is the right of access to the sovereign at any time. The third is freedom from arrest; but the application of this aspect of the privilege appears to have arisen in only two cases in the courts since 1945. In view of our recommendation that the privilege of freedom from arrest be abolished, privilege of peerage should also be abolished. We so recommend.

BTW the List of committees of the United Kingdom Parliament does not include the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege jnestorius(talk) 11:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"temporal peers"
Could this technical term be explained the first time it occurs? Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The monarch enacts laws "by and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons:" an expression which refers both to the House of Lords and the House of Commons taken together. The Lords Spiritual are those bishops of the Church of England (and earlier also abbots, until Henry VIII threw them out) who have seats in the House of Lords. The Lords Temporal are all the rest. NRPanikker (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Right to be hanged by a silk rope
Did it use to be the case that when sentenced to death a peer could choose to be hanged by a sliken rope rather than the normal hemp one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struman (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation for what "Legal Opinion: holds
Placed fact tag on statement that confounds "Legal Opinion" on a broad privilege with a very narrow statement about mentally ill Peers, assuming that it was supported by that cite in the body of the article. The usage "Legal Opinion" in the lede is implictly the consensus of some sort, not a single rendered opinion, and particulary not one on a corner case. Lycurgus (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Restating the essential point in a changed form and with hedged language instead of a simplistic assertion but with no further support doesn't change the situation. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Other historic privileges
The phrase "Only three survived into the 20th century" in the intro implies there were other privileges beyond these three, which are not mentioned in the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certain boys or men at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin (i.e. Trinity College) used to have academic privileges including obtaining the degree of Master of Arts without examination after two years' residence, without first becoming a Bachelor of Arts (however most people in this category did not stay for long enough). They also had special gowns, were exempt from some rules of discipline and ate apart from the ordinary students. In return they paid four times the normal fee. These privileges were gradually reduced over the 18th century and had more or less gone by the middle of the 19th century: e.g. the two histories of the University of Dublin published in the 1840s say only that nobles could obtain the BA after two years. I have seen no mention of anything similar at the Scottish universities.
 * I don't know when this started - presumably the nobility was mostly illiterate before the Tudor monarchs - but it was in place in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. :Exactly who had these privileges may have changed over time: at the maximum it included male relatives of the monarch, peers, eldest sons of peers, possibly also younger sons of peers, sons of bishops, and baronets. University documents note when students qualified early for this reason with the Latin annotations "nob." (for nobilis) or "fil. nob." (for the sons).
 * Presumably the privileges were not withdrawn at the same time for all classes or in all three universities. Other people with connections claimed privilege of nobility to get round other university regulations, such as for doctorates - there was one example of a man who was only the son of a knight - but that is perhaps more a matter of the sort of string-pulling that goes on all the time.
 * The universities do not publicise this aspect of their histories, for obvious reasons, which may explain why it was not mentioned when the newspapers complained about Prince Charles's special treatment at Cambridge.
 * This was distinct from the lesser privileges given to commoners who could afford to pay double fees: fellow-commoners or gentleman commoners. They also had (different) special gowns, ate with the fellows and did not have to attend lectures or take the colleges' own examinations (at Oxford and Cambridge). They could collect an ordinary BA after 3 rather than 4 years. NRPanikker (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511194446/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4305.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4305.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306094534/http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=0&lev2=0&menu=16&showPage=article&ID=118 to http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=0&lev2=0&menu=16&showPage=article&ID=118

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040109162205/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldcerint/078/cere01.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldcerint/078/cere01.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040628004149/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/43ap16.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/43ap16.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txt''R.
 * Added tag to http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txt''R.
 * Added tag to http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txt''R.

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

FA criteria
Article has non-cited content, excessively long quotations, a 3-year old cleanup tag on the top of the article. Does it still meet the FA criteria? (t · c)  buidhe  20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Torture?
In Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England he says that legally speaking at least, peers could not be tortured, though he says that with Elizabeth on the throne, nothing was certain. I presume they kept this privilege up until legal torture ended in England in 1772. But I could be wrong. LastDodo (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Privilege of peerage


text:
Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 1

This page contains old talk from 26 April to 19 July 2004, archived from Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week, then known as Wikipedia talk:Article of the week.

Article in a Day/Week idea
Anyone like the sound of this? Over a certain timeframe, we have a specific featured non-article which either didn't exist or was a very basic stub to begin with. The idea being that within a day, a week or whatever the article gets to Featured Article standard, or as close as possible.

It could help fill in big missing gaps in Wikipedia, and would also give users something to concentrate and work on collaboratively.

Any thoughts? Tom- 21:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this is a great idea, and it is something that seems to be working well on some other Wikipedias. See fr:Wikipédia:Article de la semaine, ro:Wikipedia:Articolul săptămânii and sv:Wikipedia:Veckans artikel for example. There is also the related Qualitätsoffensive on the German Wikipedia. Angela. 22:40, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Interesting, FR changes every week, DE every two. So some questions that need answering for EN are...
 * How would the article be picked? Public vote?
 * How often should it be changed? Every day? 2 days? Week? Or "when it's good enough"?
 * Where should the article be featured?
 * Tom- 22:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How does this differ from the 5 requested articles listed at the top of Recent Changes? Even when we have a wider range of choices (as opposed to one, possibly very narrow and boring ONE), we -- as a group -- don't really work on them. Reducing the # from 5 to 1 would just be more restrictive to people's interest.

In any case, it's impossible to get a stub or non-existent article to be feature article-standard in 1 day. Maybe 3. --Menchi 00:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Surely the reason nobody edits those is that they don't really notice them. Sure, there's always plenty of articles we could write. The idea of an "article of the week" is surely to get lots of people to focus on it, and turn it into a kind of event, something to be proud of and that people will appreciate an individuals work on. At heart, it's an incentive scheme, like offering WikiMoney. - IMSoP 10:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the idea. How about a week? About selection, maybe 2 or three people (Tom should certainly be one of them if he agrees) decide on what article to select. Any user can nominate an article to be "featured" and the selectors pick it. The page to be written is then advertised. That work? L UDRAMAN | T 19:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think a week would probably be the best idea, at least to begin with. Could we not just have a public vote? Anyone can vote on an existing suggestion, or add a new suggestion? Tom- 13:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Ya. We may as well go on ahead and try it. I nominate either Duet or Duo as our first project. Tom, its probably your choice as it was your idea. How about the two or three "selectors" idea? L UDRAMAN | T 19:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've converted the above discussion into Article of the week and added a few points such as who can vote etc. Does this seem ok to go with? We could do with a few more nominations for the article, which I propose will be worked on starting from next Thursday, if there are no objections. Angela. 11:30, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

The choosen article should also be featured on the Main Page, as is done at Swedish Wikipedia and French Wikipedia. Den fjättrade ankan 11:45, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An Article of the week could also be an article with lots of red links, with the aim of making all those links blue. Den fjättrade ankan 15:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe... or could that work better as a totally different project? Tom- 19:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see a Category of the week project, which would take one of the links from the main page each week and bring it up to featured status. It is cute to pick a random page, but those are the really important high-level pages... and not all of them are breathtaking like, say, Astronomy or Archaeology. +sj+ 06:51, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * here's a stab. +sj+

What next?
So what happens after this vote is done? Do we reset all the votes? Keep the suggested topics? Or remove topics nobody voted for (other than the original nominator), and carry others over? -- Tom- 19:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It'd make sense to just leave the nominations in place. Each week the article of the week is whichever one had the most cumulative votes by the beginning of the week.  As for featuring, I'd say that the article currently being worked on should be featured on the Community Portal, not on the Main Page.  After all, the idea is to make it a featured article, so it'll be on the Main Page eventually anyway.  Besides, the "article of the week" is an event for editors more than for readers, hence appropriate for the Community Portal.  Isomorphic 23:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * If we leave all nominations in place, the list is going to become unwieldy eventually, it'll need trimming at some point. Personally I'd like to see the AOTW featured on the Main Page if only in a small way, it'd be a good place for new users to start editing, and to see how work can progress. Tom- 23:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * We could leave in place only the higher vote-gatherers out of the week's nomination. That'd help with unwieldiness.  I definitely do not think we should wipe all the nominations each week, because that will just put a lot of people in the position of re-nomination and re-voting.  Certainly I would renominate Academia if it isn't chosen this time.  Isomorphic 22:21, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Mind, readers are potential editors. Fredrik 23:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the ones that don't win this week should be left up, though obviously people can change their votes at any time. Perhaps those with less than 3 supporters should be archived and not nominated again for at least a month. Angela. 08:50, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * If that happens I suggest votes are NOT RESET, since I imagine that people will complain if they are removed or will add them in again with a sense of mounting boredom. --bodnotbod 11:51, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Angela. 20:18, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Preserving history
We need to decide how to manage the history of the selections. I just ran across this idea today, and started looking for some history to get a sense for how it worked. It took me a while to discover that I found it before any articles of the week had been selected, so I took the liberty of creating and linking to a mostly empty /History page.

I note that the French page keeps the history on the main page, and has a sub-page for the current /Vote. I think doing it the other way around is more likely to focus the attention on the current vote, so I did it this way, but as always the community will evolve to the solution it perfers.

Another question is how much history to preserve? All the votes? And should any statitistics be maintained on how much each winner grows in its week-in-history? NealMcB 20:38, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

 * I think the /History page should only have a list of winners and how many people voted for them. Tom moved all the topics and votes from this page to the History page which seems at odds with the agreement above on retaining the losers each week so more votes can accumulate.  It also looks like the decision was made before "Thursday 6 May, 18:00 (UTC)" - be careful about time zones!   So I think the previous topics need to be moved back here, leaving just a summary of the winner - something like "Situs Inversus (12 votes)" NealMcB 13:39, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

 * Forgive me if this is jumping the gun, but I've now brought this page and the /History page into line with the comments above by Isomorphic, Angela, bodnotbod, and myself, vs Tom's input. NealMcB 21:33, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I misread what people were asking for as regards to archiving. I don't think I mucked the time zone up though, it was 20:19 BST (UTC+1) when I updated the page with the result. Tom- 21:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand correctly, situs inversus is currently the article of the week. Someone started working on it on Sunday, with the comment that they were starting the article of the week. Shouldn't we have a link to it somewhere (my own vote is for the community portal, but there are other possibilities) and moving it and its votes to a new section at the top of the votes page to show the current AOTW? Isomorphic 22:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Um, the project page says new nominations and votes can be made til May 6th... so it's too early for a winner, surely? I suppose you then have to say whether May 6th meant as midnight struck at the end of May 5th or midnight May 6.  I suppose the latter sounds more like the default position?  --bodnotbod 22:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. The voting started before the beginning of this week, so I thought this week was our first AOTW. Isomorphic 23:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The page says "Thursday 6 May, 18:00", which should clear up any confusion as to whether it's midnight on the 5th or 6th. :) Angela. 07:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course, the great thing is that - even articles that don't win - may very well benefit from their nomination. --bodnotbod 15:13, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Limit on number of nominations
I think we may need to bring in a limit on the number of nominations every week. People are still nominating new articles which almost certainly won't win the vote, if this continues then we'll end up with an unmanageable number of nominations, and it could be difficult for users to pick between them. Not entirely sure how to do that though... Tom- 17:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * How about nominations can only be made on one day, rather than throughout the week? This could lead to a massive list appearing on that day.  But I reckon that, given the size of this project, enough people won't know it's there at all, and a significant second group won't remember to nominate on that day, and - third - some people won't be around that day.

 * An alternative is to say the first ten or what have you, but that will probably be more open to abuse.

 * The other thing to remember is that there's a recommendation that those that don't win this week remain. Because, some feel - me included - that they will just be renominated every week anyway. --bodnotbod 19:32, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * One idea I had would be to have a two-stage vote process: one page where anyone can list any page at any time and anyone can vote on it, and another which changes every week with just the top 5 or 10 pages from the first vote. That might over-complicate matters a bit though! Tom- 19:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Pruning
Perhaps each item could have a date that it was proposed, and items with less than x votes after a month could be removed? NealMcB 21:33, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

 * I think something like that will have to be done, yeah. --bodnotbod 21:43, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ideally I'd picture having a goal of less than, say, 30 candidates. When the number goes much over that, old unpopular ones would be removed.  Popularity would be calculated based on both number of votes and freshness of the votes.  Votes from a month ago would be weighted much less than votes from the current week.  People could refresh their vote if they wanted to (hopefully after checking that the article was still in need of lots of work).  Practically, the calculations would be hard to do manually.  Perhaps we can just see how it evolves and prune manually for a few months? I'd say candidates should stay up at least two weeks, though.  NealMcB 16:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't feel comfortable putting the burden of doing the math(s) on somebody. Leave aside that a lot of people might not sign with a date, which would then entail going through the history.  Let's not overcomplicate this, for all our sakes.  In short.  No! Nealmcb.  No I say!  Imagine the tooth pulling tedium of dealing with complaints because somebody's nomination got  removed and they think it was just because someone forget to carry the 1.  --bodnotbod 19:59, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess I wasn't clear. "Practically" speaking, I agree that asking people to do math is a "No!".  I was trying to start off stating the "ideal" weighting approach.  And then suggest that we just prune things gently by hand for a while with that general notion in mind since we do have to come up with some notion on how to procede in the short term at some point.  NealMcB 03:04, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

 * I suggest now removing the few nominations that have been there for 2 weeks or more without any votes. We could move them to a sub-page and users can re-nominate them if they wish? Tom- 20:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless anyone complains, on Thursday I'm going to move nominations which have been there for more than two weeks and haven't gained any votes or articles which clearly don't fit the critera to a sub-page. Currently those are:
 * European Union (good article already, no votes)
 * Advaita Vedanta (good article already, no votes)
 * Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) (quite a good article, no votes for over 2 weeks)
 * Chicken nugget (no votes for over 2 weeks)
 * Doctor Who (good article already, no votes)
 * Tom- 21:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, with the clarification that all these articles do have one vote, that of the nominator. That leads me to wonder it would make sense to require a "second" within the two weeks you suggest, or perhaps "If two thursday deadlines have passed and a nomination has not received a "second" vote, it will be moved to /limbo" (thus requiring a second in between one and two weeks).  Though I'm still thinking that a simple procedure that prunes unpopular, old candidates to stay under a limit like 20 or 30 would be best - just hard to make it simple :-) NealMcB 17:57, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Placement
I suggest replacing the current "Ancient pages" section on the Community Portal with the AOTW. The ancient pages section is mostly ignored, so it's no big loss.--Eloquence* 20:10, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * See the Community Portal talk page. Tom- 21:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Time limit
How about instead of a time limit, we only switch articles when the one being worked on has actually reached FA status? Situs inversus is still pretty far from it, in my opinion. We could rename this page to Article workshop.--Eloquence*

 * My sense is that this whole process is more useful for highlighting new articles to work on and actually getting community input on that, rather than actually achieving FA status on any regular basis or schedule. We just don't have the clout to get experts to do that reliably.  If we delay votes I think people will just stop coming here. Perhaps we should get some of the other Wikipedia places that point to things to work on, and point them to the /History page here also.  NealMcB 04:14, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
 * We don't want to stall out just because we can't get a certain article to featured status. After all, I'm not sure what else there is to say about situs inversus.  It's a good article as it stands.  Unless someone who really knows a lot about it comes along, it probably won't go much further. As long as the article ends a lot better than it was, I'm happy.  Isomorphic 20:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Please don't do this. It'll just turn into yet another pages needing attention/ requests for page expansion. It makes the whole thing seem very boring when it isn't limited to a week. The weekly deadline provides a necessary focus and I believe will encourage more people than something not similarly limited in time. Angela. 03:45, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm for the weekly time limit. Please keep it.   —  Adam Conover † 17:12, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sequence
I just took another bold step of adding another guideline: add new nominations to the bottom of the page.

If people don't object, I'll re-order the list to be in the original sequence. Actually this was just an excuse to put the XML export (Special pages) to use and think of a way to easily determine what order they actually were added in. I extracted the XML and fed it into this little unix pipeline:

$ grep == /tmp/Special:Export.html | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn

Which yielded this after a few tweaks. NealMcB 04:14, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

 * 1) Indian Railways
 * 2) Duo
 * 3) Duet
 * 4) Advaita Vedanta
 * 5) Dinosaur
 * 6) Battle of Breitenfield (1631)
 * 7) Academia
 * 8) Situs inversus
 * 9) Conceptual blending
 * 10) Hemicorporectomy
 * 11) Chicken nugget
 * 12) Baluchitherium
 * 13) Seven-arm Octopus
 * 14) European Union
 * 15) Advertising agency
 * 16) Comedy film
 * 17) Accompaniment
 * 18) Unicode Collation Algorithm
 * 19) Cordite
 * 20) Brazilian Tapir
 * 21) McDonald's Corporation
 * 22) dry stone wall

Quick question
Just stumbled on this page, great concept, I hope to be able to help out. The goal, however, is to have a great article "by the end of the week". Is this point in time defined? I would think Saturday at midnight, but not everybody ends their week there, so we might want to add a specific 'transition point'. Radagast 23:17, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * The end of the week is Thursday at 18:00 (UTC), which is mentioned on the page. It's not a conventional end of week, but Thursday was the day the page was created and the first vote started, and 18:00 UTC is a time when Europe and America are awake, unlike using midnight which is 1-3am in Europe. Angela. 20:34, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Why require prior registration?
vote open to users who registered at least one week ago

I'm wondering if it is helpful to require this. We could require use of a registered userid, but are people really caring about, or checking, when the user registered? Removing this might even encourage more people to register. Are there examples like this where longevity rules have been helpful? I would think that votes from anyone motivated enough to do so would be helpful in this case. NealMcB 02:24, 2004 May 21 (UTC)

 * It was just to prevent sockpuppets being created to vote. It doesn't really stop them, but it at least makes them wait a week rather than being able to register a dozen accounts and cause an inappropriate article to be voted in on the same day. Angela. 03:15, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly see the value of this sort of rule in votes where there is significant risk involved. I'm just wondering if the stakes are high enough in this case to motivate people to game the system in that way. And if they are motivated enough to create a bunch of sockpuppets, they'd probably be willing to meet the letter of the law by just engaging the sockpuppets after a week of existence, affecting as many future elections as they like. Is there an easy way to check whether votes qualify? I don't mean to over-emphasize this question. I'm just trying to avoid unenforced rules and encourage participation. Thanks. NealMcB 05:21, 2004 May 21 (UTC)

 * I doubt it would do any harm to take it out. It's probably best to take it out now and add it back if it does seem to be needed than to leave it in unnecessarily. Angela. 07:49, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * A good compromise. I just took it out. ✏ Sverdrup 23:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Tom- 00:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Errr
If I see an article on here that I like and am compelled to work on, wouldn't I be endangering its "stub" status, and therefore hurt its chances of becoming article of the week? I'm so confused... - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, you would be endangering its "stub" status. However, that is a good thing, AFAIC; giving a stub some good, hands-on TLC is surely better than letting it languish around here for weeks on end. - jredmond 23:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, so now proponents of candidate articles can sabotage rival articles by... helping them grow. Very twisted; doublethink, but in a good way. :-) --Benc 04:32, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Academia promoted
Academia has been promoted and is now a featured article. Congradulations to those who worked hard on it. →Raul654 19:16, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

More on Pruning
As the page has reached 27 entries as of today (June 24), and most of them have 5 or more votes, I suggest the following pruning method. Edit as you desire. Burgundavia 20:29, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Minimum - Remove one article every week when the winner is chosen, in addition to the winner. This is article would have the lowest number of votes, tie breaker being age of votes (older before newer)
 * We could remove more than one article everyweek, following this principles.

Two articles of the week
Just an idea; would it work to have two articles each week? If two vastly different topics are chosen each week, I don't think having more than one place to work on would necessarily cause less effort to go into either; on the contrary, it might make it easier for people to find a place where they feel able to contribute. It'd also help keep the growth of the candidates list down, of course. Fredrik | talk 20:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * That might cause a splinter that I don't think would really benefit either article. We just need some slightly more agressive pruning, so as to have more turnover. Burgundavia 20:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

First suggestion
As the length of this list blows out, I really think we need a more concrete pruning policy. Perhaps we could implement a time limit, such as a less severe version of VFD's five days. Alternatively, we could draw up better guidelines. At the moment, we have articles like Comedy film that have sat here for two months, and gathered half the votes that Kofi Annan was able to get in a couple of days. If this page isn't to become stale, we need to be clearing out this stuff. Ambivalenthysteria 15:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's use a threshold of perhaps 3 or 4 votes per week. For example, using 4, a listing with 3 votes after a week will be removed; a listing with 7 votes after 2 weeks will be removed etc. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 16:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I was going to suggest approximately the same thing. I think 4 votes/week is a good requirement (subject to change later) →Raul654 16:25, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that's fine idea. For the record, by my estimates, this would nuke Seven-arm Octopus, Comedy film, Drama, Denim (*sob*), Studio, Color photography, Computer network, Journalism and Flinders Petrie, which would go a long way towards shortening down the page. Ambivalenthysteria 16:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, then let's implement it starting with the new week at 1800 UTC. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 16:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If we do this, how will this apply retrospectively, to the nine articles mentioned above? Ambivalenthysteria 16:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * How about first asking the nominators if they mind withdrawing them? - David Gerard 18:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a week-counter to each article to make it easy to figure out how many votes the articles should have. →Raul654 18:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives
It seems a bit weird to me to remove articles that have a lot of votes just because they've been waiting in line several weeks behind articles that had more votes to them. With this policy, we will get AOTWs with a low number of votes, but recent ones. This might be a good thing assuming that people's interest in a particular article fades over time, but is that actually the case? Fredrik | talk 00:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Think of the converse - that we have nominations aging on this page for *months* before they become AotW. →Raul654 00:59, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just pruned a bunch, but there was a string of new entries just in the last few days. Burgundavia 01:01, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe the best thing would be to start a vote from scratch for each week. Fredrik | talk 01:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And then the same articles get nominated over and over again? Bad idea. →Raul654 01:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most people would get the drift if their nominations only get one or two votes week after week. And you could have a rule along the lines of articles getting less than 5 votes being ineligible for re-nomination for a month. Fredrik | talk 01:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What about a hard 4 week cutoff, with the provision that it doesn't get more than 1 vote in the 1st week it will be pruned. Burgundavia 01:21, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Make it easy - one month and it's deleted. If after a week, it doesn't have a certain number of votes, (4-6 is probably better), it's deleted. We can always fiddle with the numbers later to make it more suitable. →Raul654 01:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the system that was suggested last night? We'll end up with a considerably longer list, which is probably unnecessary. It's pretty rare for an article, if it hasn't gathered enough votes to pass last night's test, after one, two, three weeks, to suddenly get a massive boost of votes and become a featured article. If we leave them up there for a month, we'll just have one massive list - and we'd have been able to do none of the trimming that Burgandavia did earlier. Ambivalenthysteria 01:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
FWIW, I agree with the original proposal of a pruning threshold of 4 votes per week to remain on the list. I have added headings to make it easier to see how many articles are in which "week".

This may sound banal, I think we need to be clear how the weeks are counted when the threshold is applied - a nomination added on Monday has lots more time to gather the required votes by the following Sunday than one added on Friday. Perhaps articles should be in "week 0" until the first Sunday following nomination, and then the pruning threshold can be applied for the first time on the second Sunday (the end of "week 1")? This still means that some articles may be been on the list for almost 14 days versus some for less than 8, but that is what happens when you count in weeks and it is not so bad as checking at the end of the first week. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We could simply remove articles that hasn't got enough votes every 7 days. So an article nominated on thursday getting only 3 votes would be removed the next thursday. That would be a bit more complicated, but alot more fair in my opinion. --Conti|✉ 12:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds fair enough to me, provided someone is going to prune regularly (I just thought it would be easier to do once per week, when a new article is selected, but I see that that could be unfair).

 * On that basis, I think the following should go:
 * drama did not have 16 votes after 4 weeks (2 July) (nor, indeed, 12 votes on 25 June or 8 on 18 June);
 * U.S. Army Reserve did not have 4 votes earlier today;
 * nor did sensationalism
 * and Marie Taglioni will be out of time later today unless she gets another couple of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ambivalenthysteria 13:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I still think we should only prune when the new article is chosen. I have seen articles double their votes in one day, just before the new article is chosen. Burgundavia 08:36, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've removed Dick Cheney - it's so far from a stub as to be totally unsuitable even for consideration.--   ALargeElk | Talk 08:54, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I didn't realise pruning should only happen after new candidate is chosen. I've pruned a couple out of sequence, then - I'm 99% certain they wouldn't have made the grade, but if anyone wants to reinstate them, please feel free. --   ALargeElk | Talk 10:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We need to reach a consensus on how pruning is going to work. The candidates pruned for having too few votes since Jean-Paul Sartre was chosen are:
 * drama (5 weeks, 13 votes)
 * U.S. Army Reserve (1 week, 2 votes)
 * sensationalism (1 week, 2 votes)
 * Marie Taglioni (1 week, 2 votes)
 * History of literature (1 week, 3 votes)
 * Jeff Koons (1 week, 1 vote)
 * I think it is pretty unlikely that any of these would have been chosen in due course (there are plenty of candidates left with many more votes) so I think pruning as we go along (when a candidate has been on the list 7 days, 14 days, etc) does seem to work.
 * Returning to my previous point, if we only prune once per week, when a new article is chosen, how to we apply the 4 votes per week threshold, given that a candidate could have been on the list for almost 7 days longer than one nominated in the same week? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I have carried on pruning after 7 days, etc. - I don't think it is particularly likely that Cornelius Cardew, No Taxation Without Representation, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Imperial Seal, Orange juice or Politics of Cuba would have got there, and there are still 25 or so candidates left. And I have just realised that I should not have deleted Art theft and will reinstate it pronto, but, even so, its 12 votes in 3 weeks is nowhere near Kofi Annan's 32 votes in just over 2 weeks.

 * I'm not sure that the "last minute voting" is a particularly strong argument - in any event, after 7 days on the list, a candidate will have had the "last minute" effect once - if it doesn't have 4 supporters after 7 days then it can't be that popular. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Can I remind people to remove from article talk pages when pruning. Cheers. --    ALargeElk | Talk 10:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you taking to me? :) Thanks for the reminder. Also to add when nominating an article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:AOTW
As it didn't seem to be in use (was only linked to from one user's page) I've edited Template:AOTW and placed it at the top of the talk page for each of the current candidates. We'll need to make sure to remove it when pruning. --   ALargeElk | Talk 14:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sayed Qutb -> Sayyid Qutb
This article has a link saying it had been nominated as article of the week. It has recently had its name changed, and I thought I would move the link to the new t Noticed that its no longer nominated, did it win? Should I delete the link, put a mention of it having been article of the week in the new talk, or what? Thanks for you advice, Sam [Spade] 20:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry - I should have deleted this when it was moved to /Removed. Now done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Last removing of articles
Can someone explain to me why Art theft and Medieval warfare were removed? User:Pjamescowie removed them with the explanation "removed articles of more than 4 weeks duration". They weren't put in the /Removed section either. I can't find any discussion or rule about that tho, nominations can be here as long as they get enough votes, other things should be discussed here first. If no one objects, these two nominations should be reinserted. --Conti|✉ 22:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Until we sort out what the policy should be, I just added them to Wikipedia:Article of the week/Removed for consistency. --Lexor|Talk 10:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless they have failed to garner sufficient votes to stay on the list, they should be put back, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Sam Bettens

Sam Bettens (formerly Sarah Bettens, born in 1972) is a Belgian musician and the lead singer of the Belgian band K's Choice.

In May 2019, he came out as a transgender man.

K's Choice
In the mid-1990s, Bettens formed the band K's Choice with his brother Gert. They are the two best-known faces of the band. The band is popular in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, and has toured in the U.S. with The Verve Pipe, Tonic, Alanis Morissette and the Indigo Girls, as well as on its own.

Solo
Bettens' first solo effort was the five-track EP, Go, released 31 May 2004. Four of the five songs from Go were included on his first full-length solo album, Scream, released in Europe on 14 March 2005, and in the USA on 23 August 2005.

In March 2007, Bettens released a three-track digital-only EP exclusively through online music label Fuzz (music company)/. His second full-length album, Shine, including new mixes of the tracks from the Fuzz EP, was released in 2007. It was produced by Brad Wood. The full CD was distributed for free with 13 October edition of the Flemish newspaper De Morgen in Belgium, which sold 180,000 copies. (Normally the paper sells 95,000 copies.)

In 2007, Bettens won an EBBA Award, awarded annually to ten emerging artists or groups who reached audiences outside their own countries with their first internationally released album in the past year.

In late 2008, Bettens released the album Never Say Goodbye, consisting of recordings of live performances of K's Choice and solo songs, covers, and new songs which had been played during previous tours. The album was only available at concerts and from his online shop.

There were plans to license the single "Come Over Here" from his LP Scream for episode 409 of the American series The L Word. However, the plans fell through due to problems involving the song's co-writer and record label. The song also appears on the premier Music With a Twist compilation (Sony).

After having played Michigan Womyn's Music Festival in 2006 solo, Bettens organized a band which, at the time, was identified as all-female, for a performance there in 2007.

In June 2012, he worked as a firefighter for a year in the Johnson City Fire Department.

Bettens has provided vocals for movie soundtracks, including Underworld, Wild Things, Zus and Zo, and Leef!.

Rex Rebel
In 2018, Sam formed the electronic music group Rex Rebel with fellow musicians Reinout Swinnen (K's Choice's keyboardist) and Wim Van der Westenthe (K's Choice's drummer). The band released its debut single, "Big Shot", on 21 October 2019, and full-length debut album, Run, on 28 February 2020.

Personal life
On 17 May 2019 Bettens came out to the public as a transgender man and had his name changed from Sarah to Sam. Sam started transitioning in 2019. In a YouTube video, Bettens said, "being transgender is not a choice. I always have been, I just didn't know it until now." He said he is taking hormone replacement therapy and noted that this would affect his voice and singing, and that he was working with a voice coach. Before coming out as trans, there was a period where he publicly identified as a lesbian (starting in May 2002), and he has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice in the 90s.

Sam Bettens was born in Kapellen, Belgium. He currently lives in Palm Desert, California, having moved there from Johnson City, Tennessee in 2017, with his partner, two step-children, and two adopted children.

Albums

 * 2004 Go (EP)
 * 2005 Scream
 * 2007 Fuzz Exclusive EP (EP) – digital-only
 * 2007 Shine
 * 2008 Never Say Goodbye

Singles

 * 2002 "Someone to Say Hi To"
 * 2002 "You Always Know Your Home"
 * 2004 "Fine"
 * 2005 "Not Insane"
 * 2005 "Stay"
 * 2005 "Leef"
 * 2006 "Come Over Here"
 * 2006 "I Need a Woman"
 * 2007 "Daddy's Gun"
 * 2007 "I Can't Get Out"

Duets

 * 1993 "Why Don't You Try Me (with Frankie Miller)
 * 1996 "Not an Addict" (with Skunk Anansie)
 * 2000 "I Alone" (with Anouk)
 * 2016 "All I Want" (with Niels Geusebroek)
 * 2017 "Mob Wife" (with a balladeer)
 * 2020 "Hat in Hand" (with a balladeer)

Video

 * Backstage video of Bettens
 * "I Can't Get Out"
 * "It's Alright"
 * "Put It Out for Good"
 * Bettens live at l'Elysée Montmartre, Paris - part 1
 * Bettens live at l'Elysée Montmartre, Paris - part 2

title: Sam Bettens


text:
Jūō, Ibaraki

Jūou (十王町) was a town located in Taga District, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan.

As of 2003, the town had an estimated population of 13,373 and a density of 185.43 persons per km2. The total area was 72.12 km2.

On November 1, 2004, Jūō was merged into the expanded city of Hitachi and no longer exists as an independent municipality.

title: Jūō, Ibaraki


text:
Taga District, Ibaraki

Taga (多賀郡) was a district located in Ibaraki, Japan.

On November 1, 2004, the town of Jūō was merged into the neighboring and expanding city of Hitachi. Therefore, the Taga District was dissolved as a result of this merger.

As of 2003, the district had an estimated population of 13,373 and a density of 185.43 persons per km2. The total area was 72.12 km2.

Towns and villages
Prior to November 1, 2004, the district included:
 * Jūō

title: Taga District, Ibaraki


text:
List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Con

Below is a list of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Con, a territory located in present-day Burkina Faso.


text:
Chrysler LH engine

The LH engine was a series of V6 engines developed by Chrysler Corporation for its LH platform cars. It is a 60-degree V6 designed for front-wheel drive applications, later adapted to rear-wheel drive ones. The 2.7 liter LH engine is based on the SOHC 3.5 L engine, though bore spacing, cylinder bore, stroke, and assembly site are different.

2.7 L
The 2736 cc EER version debuted in 1998 and is built in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It is a DOHC 24-valve design. Bore and stroke is 86x78.5 mm. It is an aluminum block with cast-iron cylinder liners and aluminum heads. Output has varied depending on the application but typical was 200 hp at 5800 rpm with 190 lbft of torque at 4850 rpm. In terms of emissions, this was a TLEV engine; it runs on regular-octane (87) gasoline. Compression when launched in 1998 was 9.7:1 (increased to 9.9:1 in the LX cars). Redline occurred at 6,464 rpm, originally; and at 6,600 rpm as revised for the LX. The 24 valves are actuated by hydraulic end-pivot roller followers and hydraulic lifters. Fuel injection was sequential for six ports for all engines.

The 2.7 differed from the 3.5 liter engine from which it was derived in many ways. The Magnum version featured a variable intake system to create a "supercharging" effect at different engine speeds. A three-row chain replaced the timing belt of the 3.5 liter engine, and the 2.7 in the LX also has electronic throttle control and an enhancement to the intake manifold (described in greater detail below), the former to allow for the use of electronic stability control.

In 2004, the 2.7 liter engine was adapted for use in the LX series of cars, dropping peak power to 189 hp at 6400 rpm and 190 lbft of torque at 4,000 rpm; but increasing torque at launch and during mid-range operation for everyday driving. Chrysler claimed that part-throttle torque was increased by up to 10% in the primary driving range, 2100–3400 rpm. Horsepower again dropped in 2009 on the LX cars to 178 hp on the Chrysler 300 and Charger, but remains at 189 for the Chrysler Sebring.

 * 1998–2001 Chrysler 300M (Europe)
 * 1998–2004 Chrysler Concorde
 * 1998–2004 Dodge Intrepid/Chrysler Intrepid
 * 2001–2006 Dodge Stratus sedan
 * 2001–2010 Chrysler Sebring convertible and sedan
 * 2005–2008 Dodge Magnum SE
 * 2005–2010 Chrysler 300
 * 2006–2010 Dodge Charger SE (Initially, only fleet models received the 2.7 L in 2006)
 * 2008–2010 Dodge Avenger
 * 2009–2010 Dodge Journey (non-US markets)

Oil sludge and other known problems
Buildup of oil sludge is a common issue that plagues this engine. Higher than average operating temperature, an insufficient oil capacity and the timing chain driven water pump leaking into the crankcase are all factors in why this occurs. The 2.7 L V6 engines have suffered from oil sludge contamination. In February 2009, five separate class action lawsuits related to the alleged oil sludge defect were consolidated to the District of New Jersey. During the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings, there was concern among consumer advocate groups that Chrysler's proposed "free and clear" sale of assets to "New Chrysler" would allow the automaker to avoid liability for the oil sludge defect.

The engine was affected by an oil sludge problem and premature timing chain tensioner failure. The oil sludge issue appears to have been caused by issues with the crankcase ventilation system, and while it affected a minority of engines, it could cause complete failure In some cases, neglected maintenance aided in premature failure (missed oil changes or increased intervals between oil changes). Also this engine was plagued with issues regarding the water pump gasket leaking coolant internally and diluting the oil. Such coolant leaks must be addressed instantly or engine failure is imminent.

title: Chrysler LH engine


text:
Differential TTL

Differential TTL is a type of binary electrical signaling based on the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) concept. It enables electronic systems to be relatively immune to noise. RS-422 and RS-485 outputs can be implemented as differential TTL.

Normal TTL signals are single-ended, which means that each signal consists of a voltage on one wire, referenced to a system ground. The "low" voltage level is zero to 0.8 volts, and the "high" voltage level is 2 volts to 5 volts. A differential TTL signal consists of two such wires, also referenced to a system ground. The logic level on one wire is always the complement of the other. The principle is similar to that of low-voltage differential signaling (LVDS), but with different voltage levels.

Differential TTL is used in preference to single-ended TTL for long-distance signaling. In a long cable, stray electromagnetic fields in the environment, or stray currents in the system ground, can induce unwanted voltages that cause errors at the receiver. With a differential pair of wires, roughly the same unwanted voltage is induced in each wire. The receiver subtracts the voltages on the two wires, so that the unwanted voltage disappears, and only the voltage created by the driver remains.

A second advantage of differential TTL is that the differential pair of wires can form a current loop. The driver sources a current from the power supply into one wire. This current passes along the wire to the receiver, through the termination resistor and back up the other wire, then back through the driver and down to ground. No net current is exchanged between the driver and receiver, which means that none of the signal current has to return through the ground connection (if there is one) between the two ends. This arrangement prevents the signal from injecting currents into the ground connection, which might upset other circuits attached to it.

Differential TTL is the most common type of high-voltage differential signaling (HVDS).

Applications
Differential TTL signaling was used in the Serial Storage Architecture (SSA) standard devised by IBM, but this is mostly obsolete. More efficient signaling techniques such as LVDS are now used instead.

title: Differential TTL


text:
Chrysler Sebring

The Chrysler Sebring is a line of mid-size automobiles that was sold from 1995 through 2010 by Chrysler. Three generations of convertibles, two generations of sedans, and two generations of coupes were produced. Although the coupe shared the same name and some styling cues, it was mechanically unrelated to the other Sebring models.

The Sebring line was introduced in 1995 with the Chrysler Sebring coupe. It was the replacement for the Chrysler LeBaron coupe. In 1996 the convertible was introduced, replacing its LeBaron counterpart as well. For 2001, both body styles were redesigned and a sedan version was offered, replacing the Chrysler Cirrus. The coupe was discontinued after 2005 with no replacement model planned.

The redesigned sedan was introduced for 2007, and a convertible the following year. New options included all-wheel drive on sedans and an available retractable metal top for the convertible. All Sebring models were replaced by the Chrysler 200 for the 2011 model year.

First generation (FJ/JX; 1995)
The Chrysler Sebring was introduced as a coupe for 1995, and as a convertible in 1996, both models replacing the Chrysler LeBaron convertible and coupe. The convertible was built off the Chrysler JA platform also used for the Cirrus sedan, while the coupe was based on the Mitsubishi Eclipse. The Chrysler Sebring was named after Sebring, Florida, the site of the renowned endurance car race called the 12 Hours of Sebring. The name was first used by Chrysler Corporation's Plymouth division trim line of the Satellite mid-size coupe of the 1970s.

Coupe (1995–2000)

The 1995 through 2000 Chrysler Sebring coupe was the successor to the Chrysler LeBaron coupe.

The first generation Sebring coupe was introduced in April 1995, several months after the related Dodge Avenger. Despite its similarities to the Avenger, Chrysler's suspension was tuned slightly on the softer side compared to Dodge's stiff suspension. Although the Sebring did not really offer true "off-the-line" muscle, it did handle well over long, curvy roads, offering minimal body roll. LXi models further benefited from rear sway bars, a slightly different tuned fully independent suspension, along with 17-inch wheels wrapped with Goodyear Eagle performance tires. Recorded slalom speeds proved to be impressive for a car of its class, and were a result of Sebring's 4-wheel double wishbone suspension and variable speed rack and pinion steering; both of which were key contributors to the car's road manners.

The coupe version of the Sebring had seating for five and was considered to be one of the larger, more roomy coupes on the market. Trunk capacity was similar to that of many mid-size cars, capable of handling more than one set of golf clubs. At the time of its introduction, the Sebring sported a crosshair grille, reminiscent of the original Chrysler 300 letter series. The grille was non-functional, with the lower half under the bumper used for airflow intake in a "bottom breather" function.

The Sebring coupe was built on a Mitsubishi Motors platform shared by the Eagle Talon, Mitsubishi Eclipse, Mitsubishi Galant, and Dodge Avenger. They share a great deal with their Talon sibling, including much of their dash and instrument panel along with most mechanical components. Parts of the Sebring coupe cannot interchange with the sedan or convertible, which were not built by Mitsubishi.

The Sebring underwent a minor facelift for 1997. Its grille was replaced with a slightly larger black grid. The facelift also made the Sebring the first car to use Chrysler's "wings" logo. The 1997 restyle also saw the addition of ribbed lower body cladding and new wheel styles. Features offered on Sebring coupes included 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS, adaptive automatic transmissions, and fully independent suspensions, along with a host of power-operated features. Sebring also offered variable speed rack and pinion steering, 17-inch aluminum wheels with Goodyear Eagle tires, 4-wheel double wishbone suspension, one-touch power windows, one-touch moonroof, electrochromic mirror with compass, power accessory delay ignition (which allowed occupants to operate power window switches when the ignition is turned off), and Homelink universal transmitter, among other options.

The Sebring coupe received a 5-star frontal safety rating, the highest rating possible. First-generation body style coupes continued to be sold past the 2000 model year to select export markets.

Trim levels:
 * LX — 1995–2000
 * LXi — 1995–2000

Convertible (1996–2000)
The Chrysler Sebring convertible was launched in 1996 alongside the Sebring coupe, replacing the LeBaron convertible. The convertible did not share any parts with the coupe and was instead based on the Chrysler Cirrus sedan. Consequently, both the Cirrus and the Sebring convertible were sold in Europe as the Stratus.

All Stratus convertibles were assembled in Mexico. The Chrysler Stratus convertible was marketed in Mexico, but the sedan version was not. The Sebring convertible was sold alongside the Chrysler Stratus convertible in Mexico. In Mexico, a turbocharged 2.4 L DOHC I4 engine was optional.

Trim levels:
 * JX — 1996–2000
 * JXi — 1996–2000
 * JXi Limited — 1998–2000

Second generation (ST-22/JR; 2001)
The Sebring name was then used on three different cars for 2001: the coupe was based on the Mitsubishi Eclipse, while the sedan and convertible utilized the Chrysler JR platform successors to the Chrysler Cirrus. The 2004 Chrysler Sebring had received minor tweaks to its front end: a redesigned grille, reworked headlights, and a Chrysler winged emblem placed in the center on the rear deck; furthermore, after the 2004 Chrysler Sebring sedan had seen a mild cycle refresh, the company discontinued the Chrysler Sebring coupe after the 2005 model year. In Mexico, the Sebring was sold as the Chrysler Cirrus. Exclusive for the Cirrus was the availability of Chrysler's turbocharged 2.4 L DOHC engine. The Cirrus was available as a sedan and convertible body styles. Models with this engine are identified with a "High Output" badge on the back of the vehicle. Also unique to the Cirrus were the trim levels; the sedan was offered in two while the convertible had only one. All were equipped with an automatic transmission.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gives the 2001–2006 Sebring an Acceptable overall rating in frontal crash tests. In the side impact test, a Poor overall rating was given to models without side airbags. The IIHS did not test the Sebring with side airbags since Chrysler declined another test.

Convertible

For 2001, the Sebring Convertible was restyled. It now closely resembled the sedan, and continued to be built on the same platform as the sedan. Many interior and exterior components were carried over from the first-generation car. The Sebring received minor styling revisions (mostly the appearance of the front end) for the 2004 model year.

Coupe
A redesigned Sebring Coupe was introduced for the 2001 model year, based on the third-generation Mitsubishi Eclipse. Like the previous generation, the coupe shared very little in common with the sedan or the convertible, other than the name and a few exterior styling cues to help market all three vehicles together as one model. The Sebring Coupe received a minor facelift for 2003, and was discontinued after the 2005 model year.

The Sebring Coupe was only sold in Canada for the 2001 model year.

European versions

Chrysler also manufactured export versions of the 2001–2006 Sebring sedan and convertible for the mainland European market. Front and rear lights are to European standards, different from the USA & Canada in that turn-signal indicators are orange, with additional side-turn repeaters on the front fenders. The rear bumper has a larger recess for the longer European-size license plates, and two rear fog lamps are fitted; one on each side of the license plate. The LHD headlamps incorporate Euro-type H4 bulbs, together with three-way up and down beam-level adjustment via a dash-mounted switch to the left of the steering wheel. Emissions controls are to the EURO 3 standard; later versions are compliant with EURO 4. Engine ranges offered were the 2.0 L DOHC 16V inline 4-cylinder (later replaced by the 2.4L unit in some countries), and the 2.7 L DOHC 24V 6-cylinder unit. The 2.0 and 2.4L engines are available with the 5-speed manual or four-speed 41TE auto transmission (depending on the country); the six-cylinder engine is automatic only.

The Canadian-market 240 km/h-160 mph speedometer (with km/h predominant) is fitted to the European models. The odometer and trip meter are in kilometers. As the 2001–2006 Sebring sedan and convertible were made in left-hand drive only, they were not sold in the UK and Ireland. Chrysler UK did, however, import 50 convertibles with the 2.7 L engine in 2001/2002, and these were sold through selected dealers. Being non-standard in Chrysler's UK range at the time though, no more were imported.

Trim levels offered in Europe were LE (equivalent to North American market LX) and LX (equivalent to North American market LXi). From 2004, Touring and Limited versions started to replace the LE and LX designations respectively.

The lack of a diesel engine and right-hand drive availability prevented this Sebring from being a true pan-European model unlike other Chryslers such as the Chrysler 300M, PT Cruiser, and Voyager. In addition, the model was dropped from Chrysler's lineup in some countries, notably France, before production ended in 2006. In France, the three domestic car-makers Peugeot, Citroen, and Renault dominate the new car market, which meant very low sales of the Sebring there. As a result, the sedan was only imported by Chrysler France in 2001 and 2002. The 2003 and facelifted 2004–2006 year models were not. The convertible was only sold until 2004. The 2005 and 2006 models were likewise not imported.

Despite not being available in the UK and Ireland, some Sebring convertibles have been brought in from the U.S. as grey imports. Some Euro-spec models have also been privately imported, mostly from Germany. The European versions are easier to re-register in the UK as they have EU-type approval. The dual km/h-mph speedo-display and twin rear foglights mean only headlamp beam-aim adjustment for left-hand traffic is necessary. The sedan is much rarer in the UK though; a few EU models have been imported, but most are likely from North America as grey imports.

Trim Levels

 * Base (sedan and convertible 2004–2006) (coupe 2004–2005)
 * GTC (Convertible 2002–2006)
 * Limited (sedan 2004–2006) (convertible 2001–2006) (coupe 2004–2005)
 * LX (sedan and convertible 2001–2004) (coupe 2001–2003)
 * LXi (sedan and convertible 2001–2004) (coupe 2001–2003)
 * Touring (sedan and convertible 2004–2006)
 * TSi (sedan 2005–2006)

Note: Additional packages could be added to various standard trim levels.

Volga Siber
In 2006, the license, tooling, and assembly line for the second-generation Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Stratus sedan was sold to Russian firm GAZ for about US$151 million (€ 124 million). After some minor modifications the vehicle was renamed the Volga Siber. It went into production in March 2008 at the Gorky Automobile Plant in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. However, due to the Great Recession sales were not as expected and production ended in 2010 after 9,000 examples were built.

Third generation (JS; 2007)
The Sebring was replaced with a new model based on the JS platform for the 2007 model year. The third-generation Sebring was assembled in Sterling Heights, Michigan, containing over 82% of parts sourced in North America. Since no 2007 convertible was offered, the 2006 Sebring convertible was left to fill the void, remaining in showrooms and on the company's website until the 2008 model's release. The third-generation Sebring borrowed many styling cues from the 2003 Chrysler Airflite concept. It also has several Chrysler-signature styling cues, several of which were borrowed from the Chrysler Crossfire. The Sebring sedan and convertible were also sold in right-hand drive through Chrysler's UK and Ireland dealer network.

Chrysler offered three engines for the 2007 Sebring; the 2360 cc GEMA I4, the 2736 cc EER V6, and the 3518 cc EGF V6. The 3.5 L V6 is coupled to Chrysler's first ever six-speed automatic transmission, which employs Autostick technology, and the 2.7 L V6 is capable of running on cleaner-burning E85. Export vehicles will be offered with a 2.0 L turbocharged PDTDI (pumpe düse) diesel made by Volkswagen and the 2.0 L GEMA engine. The 3.5 L V6 sedan is available with all-wheel drive as an extra cost option for 2008 only.

Trim levels:
 * base — 2007
 * LX — 2008 (replaced base)
 * Touring — (2007–2010)
 * Limited AWD — (2008)
 * Limited — (2007–2010)

In 2008, the optional MyGIG Multimedia Infotainment System became available. In addition, the Limited received the 2.4 L four-cylinder engine and was priced at the same level as the 2008 Touring model. Also for 2009, the rear badge placements were modified. For the model 2010 year, the hood was redesigned, eliminating the longitudinal grooves. The IIHS gave the 2010 Models a G for good in the frontal crash test, the side impact test, and the roof strength test, giving the 2010 Sebring a Top Safety Pick.

Convertible

For the 2008 model year, the Sebring convertible was redesigned with hood strakes recalling the Chrysler Crossfire. The new convertible body style debuted at the 2007 Los Angeles International Auto Show as an early-2008 model. It was the second bestselling four-place open-top cars in the United States, trailing only the Ford Mustang convertible.

The new convertible offered both a retractable hardtop and soft tops, with the Sebring's roofs manufactured by Karmann. A vinyl top came on the base LX model, a cloth roof on the Touring and Limited models with the option of a retractable metal top. The convertible top retracts into the trunk with a power tonneau cover and a luggage protector for the top. The top can also be retracted with the remote keyless entry, meaning the top can be stowed without being inside the car or starting the engine.

The LX model included a new 2.4 L I4 engine, the Touring version came with a retuned version of the 2.7 L V6, while the Limited featured a new 3.5 L V6. Unlike the Sebring sedan, the convertible was not available in all-wheel drive.

Chinese versions
Production of the Chrysler Sebring sedan for the China market began in 2007 at the Beijing-Benz DaimlerChrysler Automotive Co. (BBDC) in Beijing. BBDC is a joint venture between the Beijing Automotive Industry Holding and Chrysler.

Production of the Sebring leveraged assembly capacity for the new BBDC plant which also built the Chrysler 300C, the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, and Mitsubishi Outlander.

Four-cylinder World Engines for the Sebring were built at the Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance (GEMA) plant in Dundee, Michigan for export to China. GEMA began as a joint venture of Chrysler, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai. Since 2009, GEMA is wholly owned by Chrysler.

European version
Chrysler introduced this generation Sebring in the European markets (including right-hand drive markets) as their first competitor in the D-segment. It received a generally unfavorable reception from European motoring journalists.

European reviews

 * Auto Express
 * Caradisiac
 * Honest John
 * MSN Cars
 * Parker's
 * Verdict On Cars
 * Wise Buyer's

Mid-cycle refresh and replacement
The Chrysler Sebring was extensively refreshed in 2010, but was rebadged as the Chrysler 200. The JS platform and bodyshell had been retained, but there were extensive cosmetic and powertrain changes to the vehicle. The name change helped distance the vehicle from the Sebring's reputation for quality issues and fleet pervasiveness.

title: Chrysler Sebring