text:
Talk:HMS Warspite (03)

Dreadnought class?
I understood the Warspite to be a Dreadnought class battleship

 * She was a super-dreadnought, but she was part of a particular class of super-dreadnoughts, the Queen Elizabeth-class. The name Dreadnough inspired from the first such all big gun battleship, HMS Dreadnought. And thus, irrespective of a specific class, all ships after her were became known as dreadnoughts, and ships before her were known as pre-dreadnoughts. SoLando 22:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Med
Should there not be a section for her early action in the Mediterranean fighting the Italians, there are references about it later on and it is a little confusing?say1988 01:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes indeed. It was lacking some rather critical information... I have added it, although I think more could be said. I have also added a picture and switched some of the others around so that the formatting of the page is neater. Wiki-Ed 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My grandfather was on the Warspite during the second world war. He told me that after the German bombing by Fritz X (FX-1400)'s on 16 September 1943, the American tugs initially refused to help. The captain of the Warspite ordered the 15 inch guns to be aimed at the tugs, which seemed to change their minds.

He also told me that after D-day some Canadian soldiers on shore leave, learning that my grandfather had been on the warspite, were suddenly very friendly and bought him a drink. They told him that on D-day they had been making their way up from the beach, and crested a ridge to see a couple of German Tiger tanks bearing down on them. There was a sudden explosion, and the tanks disappeared, leaving a large crater - the 'shells as big as Volkswagons' that destroyed them had been fired by the Warspite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.152.2 (talk • contribs)

 * This article is pretty good, but a lot more could be said. I'm sure there are still many tales to be told here, but we need to have written sources to cite. Wiki-Ed 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace Shattered
"Warspite's Fairey Swordfish, a bi-plane fragile in appearance, attacked and sunk the German U-boat U-64, to become the first aircraft to sink a U-boat in World War II." - should that not have been a Supermarine Walrus or such? IIRC, the Swordfish was never used as a catapult aircraft aboard battleships. Dysmorodrepanis 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * u-boat.com (usually reliable) has this for U-64: "Sunk 13 April, 1940 in the Herjangsfjord near Narvik, Norway, in approximate position 68.29N, 17.30E, by a bomb from a Swordfish aircraft L 9767 carried on the British battleship HMS Warspite. 8 dead and 38 survivors."

 * From : "Two days later, on 13 April, a Swordfish launched by catapult off the HMS WARSPITE flew up Ofot Fjord, which led to Narvik, and spotted seven German destroyers for the WARSPITE's guns. All the destroyers were sunk or so badly damaged that they had to be scuttled. There were no casualties on the British side. The Swordfish in question also discovered a German submarine, the U-64, and sank it in a dive-bombing attack. It was the first U-boat sunk by an FAA aircraft in the war."

 * From "One day later, on 13 April, a Swordfish launched by catapult from HMS Warspite flew up Ofot Fjord towards Narvik, and spotted seven German destroyers for the Warspite's guns; all the destroyers were sunk or so badly damaged that they were scuttled. The same aircraft, L9767, flown by PO FC Rice, Lt Cdr WLM Brown and L/A MG Pacey later that day again flying from HMS Warspite discovered a German submarine, U-64, and sank it in a dive-bombing attack at Herjangs Fjord."
 * and "At the outbreak of war, the Fleet Air Arm had 13 squadrons equipped with Swordfishes, most of them based on the six fleet carriers, and three flights of Swordfishes with floats, that operated from catapult-equipped warships."

 * However, I agree that it should be checked again. Folks at 137 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that HMS Warspite did embark Swordfish, as my father (who served on her as a Midshipman for most of 1939) filmed two being catapulted off - the film is held in the Imperial War Museum at  https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/28784. However the entry is not completely correct in referring to Swordfish floatplanes, in the section under Construction and Career/Interbellum/Armament, because the first of the two planes filmed being catapulted off has a wheeled undercarriage. Turnbullmike (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Turnbull film was shot in early 1939 while Warspite was in port. A wheeled aircraft would not normally be carried on an operational cruise because the ship could not recover it after flight and it could only land onshore. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Warspite carried a float-equipped Swordfish during the Norwegian Campaign--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment
The introduction to this article needs work - it should summarize the main points of the entire article, in particular touching upon the significance of the ship and its ultimate fate. However, this article appears, upon cursory examination, to be surely long enough, detailed enough, and with enough pictures, infoboxes, etc to be far beyond the class of a good "Start". But before it gets nominated to go any further, the intro needs work, and where are the references!? There are no sources listed here, let alone in-line citations. LordAmeth 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reassessed the article and it still needs some references, any references and then inline citations for it to be above even Start Class. Woodym555 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problems
The "general characteristics" are anything but general. Rather than trying to summarize it goes into excruciating detail. Please summarize this in the main article space rather than bloating the template.

Peter Isotalo 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to HMS Warspite (1913)
Back at Naming conventions (ships) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), I have suggested to move back to launch dates for older (e.g. pre-1945) British ships, as the pennant numbers are not necessarily unique, and certainly not well known. Since there was no opposition, I've modified the policy accordingly. It's now been up for 6 days with no comments. I would like to move the QE's back to a consistent disambig by launch date, in particular to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Is there any strong opposition? --Stephan Schulz 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I suggested doing that some days ago on another page but I did get some objections. On reflection, I think pennant numbers may be the best way of listing ships so long as it's made clear in the text what the numbers actually refer to. I'm undecided about it though, and I don't think you should go making changes to policy without adequate discussion. Gatoclass 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Making it absolutely clear in the text that in this case the number is the pennant number of the ship does not help a bit someone who is looking for information about British battleship 'Warspite' that participated in WWI and WWII, and after writing 'HMS Warspite' in the search box gets a longish list of 'HMS Warspite's - most with launch year (of which none looks really appropriate) and two with something else. I really don't think that even every other of those who know that some 'HMS Warspite' participated with distinction in both World Wars remembers its pennant number .. Kala-Eemeli (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the description of the WWII Warspite to make clear it is the most well known one. Feel free to add to it or expand it to explain it any better. This article is named in accordance with the naming conventions so you would need to get the conventions changed or get a discussion going to have this as an exception. Woody (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Style
With all due respect to the authors, I feel that this article has a very dramatic style and is not in keeping with the Wikipedia encyclopaedic form []. For example, phrases such as "providing essential battleship support", "a bi-plane fragile in appearance", "when she poured heavy fire", "met her lamentable end", etc. are emotive and should be replaced by neutral prose that conveys only the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.51.211 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange Sentence
Under the sub-topic "Mediterranean (1943-1944):" On 10 September, Warspite, which had battled the Italian Fleet during her time in the Mediterranean in 1940-41, led them, now surrendered to the Allies, into internment at Malta.

This sentence makes it sound like the Warspite somehow led the Italian Fleet and surrendered to the allies (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.59.80 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * As written the sentence does make sense but it is overly convoluted. I've rewritten it to remove all the separate clauses. Benea (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Warspite
I was told by a long deceased Jutland veteran (HMS New Zealand)that as the Warspite turned in circles attracting so much German firepower that that small area of the North Sea was nicknamed "shell fire corner".AT Kunene (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'Excessive amount of intricate detail'?
Strange view. I think this a good article and for any Briton, the length and detail seems appropriare for one of our greatest ever fighting ships. But then I am just an ordinary user and not one of the Wiki bureaucrats so what do my views matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.228.250 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, any user has the same voice as any other user. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Small details
One persistant story attached to the Warspite is that as a result of action damage one of the rear turrets was permanantly disabled. As wartime experience was to show that maximum fire astern wasn't necessary, despite the expensive refits, no attempt was ever made to repair the turret. Several photographs do seem to show a defective rear turret late in the ships career. Ernle Bradford makes some reference to this.

The other point is regarding illustrations. The picture details of the ship early in its career are fine but by the time of WW2 and final scrapping its appearance was completely differant so how about a picture of the ship after the final refit.AT Kunene (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 * IIRC, at the time the ship was soon to be needed for Normandy and the time out-of-service in the dockyard for proper repairs to the turret could not be accepted.

 * In addition, IIARC, the only two spare 15" turrets had been used to build the two Roberts-class monitors so there wasn't a turret available anyway - the turrets and guns are the most time-consuming items on a battleship to make and by the time a new turret had been built for Warspite the war, with hindsight, would have been over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Fate
The infobox says that the Warspite was "[s]crapped 1950–57". The main text, particularly in under "Decommissioning", gives the distinct impression (which was my own recollection) that she sank in 1947 on the way to the breakers and that salvage attempts failed. Can someone more knowledgeable resolve the discrepancy? Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems they couldn't salavage her intact, so broke her up there, a image search for "HMS Warspite wreck" shows some shots of her. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is explained clearly in the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but it's not clear to me. Take this sentence: "Aided by her compressor and two jet engines from an experimental aircraft the hulk was finally moved 130 feet closer to shore and by the summer of 1955 she disappeared from view." Does that mean she was scrapped in place? It's unclear. It might have disappeared from view for any number of reasons. Also, what was going on between 1955–1957? Finally, the article lede says the Warpsite was wrecked on the way to the scrap yard and says nothing about being scrapped in place afterwards. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The narrative is factual and correct, but I am reading it with the benefit of visual aids. She ran aground and was wrecked in 1947 in Prussia Cove. It's not a suitable place to scrap a battleship so several attempts were made to move the wreck along the coast between 1947 and 1950; a bit of scrapping took place in situ to facilitate this. In 1950 she was finally moved beached in a slightly more accessible area, but it wasn't a scrapyard, nor a particularly convenient location. It took until 1955 for the wreck to disappear as a landmark (former crew members in the RNAS at Culdrose were using her hulk as an aerial navigation aid) and another two years to complete the job (i.e. 1957). They couldn't remove the boilers and I read somewhere that they're still buried in the sand at Marazion - there's even a poem about it (by Lieutenant-Commander R.A.B.Mitchell): You say you have no subject And your brushes all have dried; But come to Marazion At the ebbing of the tide. And look you out to seaward, Where my Lady battle scarred Hugs the rock that is more welcome, Than the shameful breakers yard. Paint her there upon the sunset In her glory and despair, With the diadem of victory Still in flower upon her hair. Let her whisper as she settles Of her blooding long ago, In the mist than mingles Jutland With the might of Scapa Flow. Let her tell you, too, of Narvick With its snowy hills, and then Of Matapan, Salerno And the shoals of Walcheren; And finally of Malta, When along the purple street Came in trail the Roman Navy To surrender at her feet. Of all these honours conscious, How could she bear to be Delivered to the spoiler Or severed from the sea ? So hasten then and paint her In the last flush of her pride On the rocks of Marazion, At the ebbing of the tide.

Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent amendments
I've removed the class-related design information to the QE article. If you want to tinker with it then do so there. Wikipedia is not a technical manual and this article is about the history of a warship, not how many boilers it had. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I disagree. Despite what may may seem to you to be excessive detail on the technical side, it's critical to understand the ship's capabilities and limitations, IMO. Despite what you may believe this is actually less detailed than will go into the class article, although the alterations specific to Warspite herself will get less coverage as that's best covered here. The HMS Barham (04) article will show you how I think once of these articles ought to be done now that I've finished it. I don't think that you can justifiably accuse me of shorting the account of her actions and history in favor of technical specs, although we seem to have very different ideas on the appropriate level of detail for ship articles as when you complained about the Jutland section in that article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have concrete suggestions on what could be shortened from the description, feel free to bring them up here for discussion. Just keep in mind that every parameter in the infobox needs to be supported with text and a citation. BTW, all I intend to do for right now is expand the technical part of the ship articles in this class as working through the operational side takes a lot of time, so feel free to expand the operational history if you like as I'm not sure when I'll get to that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and right now the article could not pass through a GAN for lack of citations for the info in the infobox. Personally, I think that that's a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to lay out the changes you want to make. While I'm wary of the 'ownership' issue, I did put quite a bit of effort into reshaping/sourcing this article so I have put thought into the structure and allocation of space / content. The article is already 60kb so, bearing that in mind...
 * Technical details: While I agree that some technical information is important, I think this should be focused on the role that the designers intended the ship to perform. I think we could expect the general Wikipedia reader to visit a ship-article to learn about the history - the "story" of the ship - and the ship-class article to learn about the technical detail. (In this case, admittedly, that article does require some work.) Where the ship doesn't really have much of a story then I guess we could take up space with technical information, but that is certainly not a problem in this case. Separately, in relation to modifications: where changes to the individual ships affect the narrative then I think they should be inserted at the appropriate chronological point in the article rather than at the start - they are part of the story and are often made as a result of events that the article ought to be covering.
 * Structure: You've mentioned your changes to HMS Barham and, yes, I had commented on the length of the section you've written on Jutland. I can see how you've given material (imho that is properly covered in the Battle of Jutland article) a ship-specific perspective, but I still think it's a bit long for an encyclopedia article, but I haven't fiddled with the work you've done. However, we don't have space to do that here - there would need to be 15 sections to cover the separate notable campaigns/battles, all of which have separate articles already.
 * In my view this article should cover the ship's long and varied career in a balanced fashion. It has to be an overview; It should not focus on any one element, be that the ship's design or a single operation or its fate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox citations... the detail in an infobox should not be dictating the content of an article, especially for non-contentious details for a which a citation can be found. Moreover, it's QE-class template, so any references should be sought there, not here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally you're making changes while this discussion is ongoing and having just posted a notice asking for comments on a noticeboard - I would think it might be polite to wait for those comments before altering the article to suit your own wording. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I did those when I realized that you'd reverted every single change I'd made, including uncontroversial things like adding sources, before I posted the message on the Ships talkpage. I don't expect to cover Jutland in this article in the same amount of detail as I did in Barham because it wasn't the squadron flagship, although covering the 360° turn will need some room to cover the varying explanations as to why that occurred. And I doubt any of her other engagements will need anywhere near as much detail as they're far less complex. Forex the account of the Battle of Calabria in the Giulio Cesare article is only a single paragraph and I see no reason why it should be any longer for Warspite. And much the same for Matapan.
 * But the basic problem is that you and I fundamentally disagree about the appropriate level of technical detail necessary for a ship article, with a side issue of differing philosophies about citations. I wouldn't argue too hard if somebody complained that I put more technical stuff in my ship articles compared to Parsecboy's, forex, but I like what I like. (Believe it or not, I have been cutting back, so no boiler pressures, propeller diameters, ammunition capacities, or gun performance data.) So tell me exactly what you think is excessive and we can discuss it, although I stand to my principle that everything in the infobox needs supporting text and a cite based on the comments I see at FAC. While I haven't actually checked, I'd be astonished if any of the templates used in the infobox had any cites so that's no good. Amusingly enough, I'd prefer to shorten the infobox down to only two states, as built and after the interwar reconstruction, much like I did with Cesare, with all the other changes covered in the text. I'm fine with covering all the alterations chronologically rather than in the description; I've done it both ways although it's easier to do with everything in one place. I'll also say that the lede is astonishingly short and generic for a ship with such a long history and needs to be somewhat more detailed. It could be argued that Barham's is also too short, but at least it tells the reader what battles she was in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Warspite is probably the most famous (and well covered) of all the British battleships and had a lengthy and incredibly active career a long article seems unavoidable. As I understand it, the designs of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships deviated considerably as a result of their differing refits during the post-war period and wartime repairs and modifications, so that probably needs to be covered in some detail as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it already is a relatively lengthy article so the question becomes 'how much longer'?. As for refits - yes I agree - Warspite had two refits and these are covered by several paragraphs in the Interbellum section.Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hood is about 50K and HMAS Australia is 48K, so that's a function of the available information and how busy the ships were. Warspite is currently only 31K and she was busier than both and has about as much detail available with at least one biography, so I expect she'll end up around the same length as the others. Currently there are some significant lacunae, there's no worthwhile coverage of her radar suite, nor of her light AA suite, each of which need to be covered when changes were made and the WWI section is pretty scanty. If she didn't have so many accidents, it would be pretty minimal. The WWII section is significantly better, I think, and shouldn't require as much work/expansion as the earlier stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I got 61k - we must be looking at different sources. I was under the impression radar was only added in October '41, after all her major naval battles were over and done. It would be notable for the article on Valiant, but from what I have read it did not play a notable role on Warspite and therefore does not need to be covered in detail. Ditto AA, although it might be notable if you have a source indicating why it was upgraded. WWI: The section on Jutland is twice as long as the section on Matapan; the former is historically more important than the latter (though arguably less decisive), but she played a more significant role in the latter, much less so in the former. We should be balancing importance with the role of the individual ship. What the reader does not need is a lengthy but partial account of a battle which is properly covered in another article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go and read two articles in order to read about one ship, so I expect to find all the technical details in the individual ship articles as well as the class article. Moreover, you can't expect readers to know that there is going to be substantially more detail in the class article than the ship article. Ship articles without a comprehensive technical section are totally deficient in my view, as without a detailed description, you don't have a clear idea of the ship and its capabilities when coming to the service history. Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying don't include it, but it has to be proportionate; some of the detail is important, some of it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical manual, and it should be written with readability (for an average reader) in mind. If we insert a huge chunk of text discussing the merits of particular makes of boiler then we'll lose those readers. It should be suffice to say (as it does currently) that oil fired boilers were an important innovation at the time and the service history can show (as it does currently) how speed and weight saving + more armour was important. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a bit much use of hyperbole here, n'est-ce pas? Nobody's proposing to do any such thing as you well know and the whole bit about oil-firing belongs in the class article not here. For individual ship articles I limit the background to the design to a single sentence or a short paragraph as can be seen at Russian battleship Peresvet as more detailed info is best served in the class article where there's room to cover the entire design history and the strategic rationale for the design parameters.
 * Perhaps I'm flattering myself, but I'd like to think that an inexperienced reader can follow my complicated account of Barham at Jutland, while still offering enough detail for knowledgeable readers. You seem to ignoring the fact that we also need to account for the latter, while keeping it accessible for the former. All I can say is that I get no complaints on this issue at FAC, even from my most-valuable reviewers, the non-Ships people. Any reader can skim details that he deems unimportant and I wouldn't be surprised that that's what people are doing with my articles, but if he does care, the detail is there with all the jargon linked to keep it accessible. So I agree with you about the necessity to keep it accessible, although we have differing ideas about what constitutes accessibility in this context and how to do that.
 * I'm checking the prose length with this script, not the overall length which includes wikicode invisible to the reader plus refs, cites, etc. A lot depends on how complex the battle is and the role of the ship within it; not so much the relative importance of the battle. Jutland is complicated, although Warspite's role in it is less complicated than Barham's, but the battleships' role in Matapan or Calabria is relatively simple, so I don't see why the coverage of the latter two battles should be anywhere near as long. Hell, I've covered Jutland in a single sentence for those left-flank British armored cruisers that never even fired a shot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes - hyperbole. I still think the historical coverage of each period should broadly reflect the importance that RS allocate to them. However, I'd agree we don't need to be rigid about that and the size should be comparable to similarly notable ships. While we've been having this discussion I've flicked through the main secondary source I was using (Ballantyne). I can see that I allocated space to particular sections (generally) in line with his narrative approach and simply supported this with material from primary sources (and only a few alternative secondary sources). Obviously I've been careful to avoid plagiarising, but the article would certainly benefit from a wider range of sources and perhaps a slightly different layout.
 * I am, of course, aware of the sterling work you've been doing on a wide range of other warship articles and I'm conscious I'm demonstrating 'ownership' issues, so I'll step back. If I've got concerns I'll raise them here on a case-by-case basis (e.g. why remove the "sixth of her name" bit from the intro?). PS. I was actually serious about the boilers on Warspite - both the originals and the second set were important (cf the R-class in WWI and her unmodernised sisters in WWII). Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, I'm happy to discuss any particular issues that you might have with the text here; I find it a lot easier to work with specifics rather than blanket statements. As I said earlier, I only intend right now to work on the technical stuff and will probably cover her career in stages as there's a lot of research required (just synthesizing the Jutland section for Barham took me most of a week, IIRC). Since I don't intend to work on the service history for a while, I'll expand your current chronological coverage of the various upgrades so as not to confuse readers in the meantime. I agree with you about the evolution of the boilers, but I don't really see any reason to have more than about a sentence for each set. A bit for the latter about how much smaller and more powerful the new ones were than the old ones were plus a link to the article on the new ones should suffice, IMO. I know a lot of editors like to put the namesake or the x ship of the name into the lede, but I truly don't know why they do that as it doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the summary of the article that the lede is supposed to contain. It seems to me that a much more logical place to put is in the construction para, but I'd not fuss much if you strongly preferred to have it in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of salvage??
A photograph from the salvage could potentially improve the article as well as the reader's knowledge of marine salvage -thanks to 80.79.80.235 for the link. Sphilbrick recommends use of the Interative Release Generator (IRG) -a prominent blue link on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and I'll email the salvage company website with a request to upload a photo. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The lead sentence of an article should feature a succinct declarative description of the most salient point on the subject.

What was the Warspite? A Queen Elizabeth Class battleship. What is it secondarily (at best, in order of precedence of its relevance)? One of five ships of that class. This principle - of what first; what else later - is fundamental to journalism, technical and academic writing, etc..

The sentence was originally edited to read "The Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth-class battleships built for the Royal Navy during the early 1910s, one of five of its class."

This sentence structure was challenged by another user as "bad grammar". It most certainly is not. It is perfectly sound, no different than a simple compound declarative sentence such as, "John was first in his class, and second in the school." Or "John finished first in his heat, and third overall in the race."

In order to avert an edit war launched by that user I have modified the lead to simply read, "The Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship built for the Royal Navy during the early 1910s," with the matter of its standing in its class appended to the following sentence (as an introductory adverbial clause, supplanting the prior introductory adverbial clause, which was simply integrated into the balance of the compound sentence).

I hope this resolves the issues over the lead sentence of this article, both its focus and its grammar. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 * No it doesn't. You've just made another sentence read poorly instead. I see from your talk page that (a) other users have complained about your sentence construction previously and (b) you're familiar with BRD, so you also know that trying to circumvent policy this way isn't going to cut it. If you want to make a change and you get reverted you need to get consensus. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained edits
User Mr.Lovecraft has made a number of unexplained edits and is unhappy that they have been reverted. Although the onus is on them to expain their edits, I'll make a start: This article might not be perfect, but it's not factually wrong or missing facts. The Queen Elizabeth article is, however, perhaps a little light on detail, so if you're looking for an article to improve, that might be a good one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Design: These are single, short paragraphs and don't need to be split. A Wikipedia article should read as an encyclopedia, not as a technical manual. Not wedded to this - if there was more detail then it might make sense to have subheadings - but as it is, it does not.
 * Modifications: The article is structured chronologically, including design changes. The reconstructions changed the ship significantly so we don't want to confuse the reader by introducing post-1937 design elements while they're still reading about the First World War.
 * First World War: Generic material about the Grand Fleet was added. Some of this duplicated what the article already covers; some of it over-emphasised a single battle which is covered by another article; some of it added extraneous detail which is not relevant to Warspite. In particular, Warspite was not always stationed in Scapa Flow and so didn't sail with the Grand Fleet as suggested (which you would know if you'd double checked your sources like you said you had), so additional detail about Grand Fleet manouevres is not needed.
 * Second World War: Paragraphs were reorganised for no apparent reason, merging different operational periods.
 * Random stuff: There was some overlinking and removal of pictures.

 * @Wiki-Ed Ok so the subheadings i add them on because of better overview. But thats might be because Im used to the german wikipedia.
 * To WWI Indeed Warspite wasn´t always at Scapa Flow but in the time period I described, the 5th battle squadron was always there. you can check out yourself here  Would you mind giving an exemple what you consider over-emphasised... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * You inserted five paragraphs
 * First para: Grand fleet in 1914 and the spring of 1915. Warspite wasn't commissioned until March 1915 and didn't arrive at Scapa Flow until April. So whole paragraph is irrelevant.
 * Second para: Grand fleet advances - this sounds like an operation - not clear what it refers to or whether Warspite was involved. She was involved in gunnery exercises between May and Sept 1915 so that bit is at least correct, but not really notable.
 * Third para: Grand fleet cruise and gunnery exercises in September and October 1915. Warspite was grounded in Sept and underwent repairs until 20 November so all the assertions about Warspite doing such and such a thing are incorrect.
 * Fourth para: Grand fleet North Sea cruise in Feb 1916. Not clear if Warspite was involved. Also not notable.
 * Fifth para: Grand Fleet movement in spring 1916. As above. Warspite moved to Rosyth towards the end of this period, so would not automatically have been inclded in fleet movements.
 * Further down you inserted more material on the Grand Fleet post Jutland, but again, not notable (so over-emphasised) and not clear if Warspite was present (she had a number of accidents during the remainder of the war and was often under repairs). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Reference links not working, and confusing mismatched dates
Some of the references when you click on them take you to the relevant entry in the Bibliography, others, eg Ballantyne 2013 or Churchill 1948 don't. This is not helpful to readers. Also, some of them have mismatched dates, eg Churchill 1948 apparently refers to a work with a listed date of 1985, or Campbell 1998 linking to a work dated 1985. Again, this is unhelpful to readers.

Warspite hitting Von Der Tann
The article states Warspite scored her first hit into Jutland on the German battlecruiser SMS Von Der Tann. However, pretty much every source I've seen states Von Der Tann was explicitly hit by four battleship caliber shells, first a 15-inch shell from HMS Barham, then two 13.5-inch shells from HMS Tiger, then finally one 15-inch shell from HMS Revenge. Never has it been stated that Warspite hit Von Der Tann, at least not with a battleship caliber shell. Could you elaborate on the source where it is stated Warspite hit Von Der Tann? Micheal Harrens (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Ballantyne is quoting Humphrey Walwyn in the ship's B turret at the start of the battle: "I distinctly saw one salvo hit No.5 and she turned away six points to port and went away in a cloud of black and white smoke." Ballantyne says this is Von der Tann, and Von der Tann should indeed have been fifth in the line of battle after Moltke during this early encounter... although at the time this quote refers to the German ships heading southeast would presumably have appeared to have been turning back on themselves, so perhaps we should assume it wasn't 100% clear which ship was which. But then again, I can't see how any of the other sources you're referring to - without being at all specific - would have had any more clarity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Perhaps adding that Warspite allegedly hit Von Der Tann would be a more accurate description. I recall that, according to Combined Fleet, the allied force at the battle of the Java Sea reported hitting the heavy cruiser Haguro several times, which proceeded to burst into flames and sink, when in reality Haguro was not hit once during the battle and in turn crippled the heavy cruiser HMS Exeter via gunfire damage and sank the light cruiser De Ruyter and the destroyer Kortenaer via torpedo hits Micheal Harrens (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's a comparable example; in this case we know Von Der Tann was hit and did fall out of line, so the description is accurate even if the attribution is in question. In any case, your propsoal would mean we'd have to add "allegedly" to practically every description of every engagement throughout history that involved more than two warships. Regardless of how many secondary sources reference a particular exchange, they'll all be drawing from a limited pool of primary source testimony. I can think of a few ways I might be persuaded to think some sources are stronger than others, but generally they're all pretty unreliable. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Massey's Castles of Steel, Warspite didn't start shooting at Von der Tann until after the hit from Barham (he does not assign credit to individual hits, but notes that Moltke was hit shortly after Von der Tann, while Warspite was still shooting at that vessel). Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting states that Barham was responsible for the hit in question (though he is not able to assign credit to the hit on Moltke, other than it having come from 5th BS). Visibility during this period was very bad for the British, the German ships being mostly obscured by smoke, so I would not place much stock in the number in line.
 * Probably the best we can do is state that Warspite may have hit Von der Tann, but other sources credit Barham. As an example, see SMS_Markgraf where it discusses the sinking of Defence. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:HMS Warspite (03)


text:
Council of Constantinople

Council of Constantinople can refer to the following church councils (also known as synods) convened in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul, Turkey):

Councils prior to the East–West Schism of 1054

 * Council of Constantinople (360), a local council
 * First Council of Constantinople (381), the Second Ecumenical Council
 * Council of Constantinople (382), a council convened by Theodosius I.
 * Council of Constantinople (383), a local council, rejected teachings of Eunomius
 * Council of Constantinople (394), a local council, produced several canons
 * Council of Constantinople (518), affirmed the Council of Chalcedon (451)
 * Council of Constantinople (536), deposed Anthimus I of Constantinople, condemned opponents of the Council of Chalcedon
 * Synod of Constantinople (543), a local council which condemned Origen of Alexandria
 * Second Council of Constantinople (553), the Fifth Ecumenical Council
 * Third Council of Constantinople (680), the Sixth Ecumenical Council
 * Council of Constantinople (692), also called the Quinisext Council or Council in Trullo
 * Council of Constantinople (754), better known as the Council of Hieria
 * Council of Constantinople (815), a local council that restored iconoclasm
 * Council of Constantinople (843), a local council that restored the veneration of icons (the 'Triumph of Orthodoxy')
 * Council of Constantinople (861), a local council that confirmed the deposition of Ignatios of Constantinople and election of Photios I of Constantinople

Councils of differing interpretation between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches

 * Council of Constantinople (867), a local council convened by Photius to discuss Papal supremacy and the Filioque
 * Fourth Council of Constantinople (Catholic Church) (869), considered the Eighth Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church, deposed Photios I
 * Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) (879), considered the Eighth Ecumenical Council by some Eastern Orthodox, also called the Photian Council as it reinstated Photios I

Councils after the schism (only attended by Eastern Orthodox bishops)

 * Council of Constantinople (1082), a local council convened to condemn John Italus
 * Council of Constantinople (1094), also known as the Council of Blachernae (1094), a local council convened to condemn Leo of Chalcedon
 * Council of Constantinople (1285), also known as the Council of Blachernae (1285), a local council that rejected the Roman Catholic Second Council of Lyon
 * Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341–1351), considered the Ninth Ecumenical Council by some Orthodox, resolved the Hesychast controversy
 * Synod of Constantinople (1484), condemned the Roman Catholic Council of Florence
 * Council of Constantinople (1583), decided not to accept the Gregorian calendar
 * Council of Constantinople (1593), approved the creation of the Moscow Patriarchate
 * Synod of Constantinople (1638), condemned Cyril Lucaris' Confession
 * Council of Constantinople (1722), condemned all forms of Catholicisation
 * Council of Constantinople (1756), affirmed the necessity of rebaptism for Roman Catholics converting to Orthodox Christianity
 * Council of Constantinople (1848), issued the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, a reply to Pope Pius IX's In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede epistle (also titled the Epistle to the Easterners)
 * Council of Constantinople (1872), condemned phyletism as a non-Orthodox schismatic movement
 * Council of Constantinople (1923), a major council, (although not ecumenical,) introduced several reforms, most controversially the revised Julian calendar reform

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

title: Council of Constantinople


text:
Archie Goodwin (comics)

Archie Goodwin (September 8, 1937 – March 1, 1998) was an American comic book writer, editor, and artist. He worked on a number of comic strips in addition to comic books, and is known for his Warren and Marvel Comics work. For Warren he was chief writer and editor of landmark horror anthology titles Creepy and Eerie between 1964 and 1967. At Marvel, he served as the company's editor-in-chief from 1976 to the end of 1977. In the 1980s, he edited the publisher's anthology magazine Epic Illustrated and its Epic Comics imprint. He is also known for his work on Star Wars in both comic books and newspaper strips. He is regularly cited as the "best-loved comic book editor, ever."

Early life and career
Archie Goodwin was born in Kansas City, Missouri, and lived in many small towns along the Kansas-Missouri border including Coffeyville, Kansas. He considered Tulsa, Oklahoma as his home town. There he spent his teen years at Will Rogers High School and in used magazine stores searching for EC Comics. His classmates at Will Rogers included illustrator Paul Davis and Broomhilda creator Russell Myers forming a cartoonist's club that met daily at the Owl Drugstore at 11th Street and Pittsburg in Tulsa. After one year at the University of Oklahoma, Goodwin moved to New York City to attend classes at what became the School of Visual Arts.

Goodwin began as an artist drawing cartoons for magazines and as a freelance "writer and occasional art assistant" to Leonard Starr's newspaper comic strip Mary Perkins, On Stage. His first editorial work was for Redbook magazine from 1960-1964, on which he worked both before and after his Army service as a draftee. He also did cartoons for Fishing World magazine in 1959.

Warren
His first story written before he went into the Army was drawn by Al Williamson and Roy Krenkel and published in 1962 just after his discharge from the Army. He was never on staff at Harvey Comics. By 1964 he was the main script writer for Warren's Creepy magazine. Much of his work there, according to Batman editor Mark Chiarello, was a "homage to the favorite comics of his youth, the E.C. line." By the second issue he was co-credited (alongside Russ Jones) as editor, and soon became editor of the entire Warren line: Creepy, Eerie and Blazing Combat. He worked for Warren between 1964 and 1967, as head writer and Editor-in-Chief, in which roles he is credited with providing a mythology for Warren's classic Vampirella character, as well as penning her most compelling stories. ''

After his departure from Warren in 1967, Goodwin would occasionally contribute stories over the next 15 years and even returned for a short stint as editor in 1974.

Famous name
Archie Goodwin's first prose story was published by Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine, which warned him he could not use Archie Goodwin as a pen name because it was a Rex Stout character in the Nero Wolfe books. According to Goodwin's wife Anne T. Murphy, the magazine's editors "then were so delighted when he wrote back to say that it was his real name that they used the anecdote as the introduction to the story, which ran in the July 1962 issue." (It was actually the July 1964 issue.)

Comic strips
From 1967 to 1980, Goodwin wrote scripts for King Features Syndicate, including the daily strip Secret Agent X-9, drawn by Al Williamson and editor Sylvan Byck, as well as working on other strips ghost writing Captain Kate by Hale and Jerry Skelly. He also worked with Williamson on Flash Gordan comics #3-7 published by King Comics in 1966.

Star Hawks was a comic strip created by Ron Goulart and Gil Kane, first published on October 3, 1977, that ran through May 2, 1981 by United Feature Syndicate. It was written through April 1979 by Goulart, followed by Archie Goodwin (1979-1980).

His experience ghost writing Dan Flagg inspired "The Success Story" (drawn by Williamson, who had ghosted on Flagg) for Creepy #1 (1964), famed among comic strip fans for its EC style dark humor in depicting a creator whose only contribution to the strip that made him rich was his signature.

Blackmark
Blackmark is a paperback book (Bantam S5871) published by the American company Bantam Books in January 1971. It is one of the first American graphic novels. It was conceived and drawn by comic book artist Gil Kane, and scripted by Archie Goodwin from an outline by Kane.

DC Comics
Goodwin worked briefly for DC Comics during the 1970s, where he edited the war comics G.I. Combat, Our Fighting Forces, and Star Spangled War Stories, and replaced Julius Schwartz as editor of Detective Comics for one year. Goodwin's collaboration with Walt Simonson on the "Manhunter" back-up feature in Detective Comics won several awards. Goodwin also wrote the Batman lead feature in Detective Comics, where his collaborators included artists Jim Aparo, Sal Amendola, Howard Chaykin, and Alex Toth.

Marvel Comics
Goodwin first worked for Marvel Comics in 1968 and was the original writer on the Iron Man series which launched that year. According to Goodwin, when he entered editor Stan Lee's office to apply for a job with Marvel, Lee was in the middle of writing an Iron Man story and handed him photostats of the pages he was working on for his writer's test. Goodwin speculated, "I assume if he had been working on Sgt. Fury, I'd have been writing Sgt. Fury. Thank God he wasn't writing Millie the Model when I walked in." Goodwin and artist George Tuska co-created the supervillain the Controller in Iron Man #12 (April 1969).

Luke Cage, the first African American superhero to star in an eponymous Marvel comic book series, was created by Goodwin and artist John Romita Sr. in June 1972. While briefly writing The Tomb of Dracula series, Goodwin and artist Gene Colan introduced the supporting character Rachel van Helsing. Goodwin co-created (with Marie Severin) the first Spider-Woman, as well as writing her first appearance in Marvel Spotlight #32 (February 1977).

Goodwin also co-designed Marvel's New Universe line and created four of the eight series in the line. He explained, "[Marvel editor-in-chief] Jim Shooter keeps saying of me: 'Well, here's this guy, in one meeting, he suddenly spews out half the ideas for the New Universe.' What that doesn't take into account is that for about five or six years I've had these half-formed notions and finally here is a situation where they would all fit in. ...it wasn't like I just went into the meeting and suddenly four concepts sprang full-blown from my brow."

Star Wars
In 1976, Goodwin replaced Gerry Conway to become the eighth editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, with the understanding that it would only be temporary until a permanent replacement could be found. He ultimately resigned at the end of 1977 and was replaced by Jim Shooter. While Goodwin was editor-in-chief, Marvel secured the rights to publish the Star Wars film's comic adaptation and tie-in series, which then sold phenomenally well (helped by a dearth of other Star Wars merchandise at the time) at a point when the comics industry was in severe decline. Goodwin recalled about the Star Wars comic book, "That really worked ... but I can't take any credit for it. Roy Thomas is the one who brought it to Marvel, and he had to push a little bit to get them to do it." He followed Thomas in adapting the Star Wars characters into an ongoing comic book with artist Carmine Infantino, as well as continuing the story (pre-Return of the Jedi) in a daily comic strip. Goodwin wrote the strips under his own name, although many websites and other sources erroneously claim he used the pseudonyms R.S. Helm and Russ Helm. Writer Mark Evanier corrected the matter by stating "Archie did write the Star Wars comic strip (as well as other Star Wars material) but only under his own name. Russ Helm was a completely different person writing under his own name." During Goodwin and Infantino's tenure on Marvel's Star Wars series, it was one of the industry's top selling titles. He wrote comic book adaptations for Marvel of the two Star Wars sequels as well as other science-fiction films such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Blade Runner. In 1979, Goodwin wrote an adaptation of the first Alien movie named Alien: The Illustrated Story which was drawn by Walt Simonson and published by Heavy Metal.

Epic
After Marvel Comics passed on publishing the American incarnation of Metal Hurlant (Heavy Metal), Editor-in-chief Jim Shooter was charged with producing an alternate title, which became Epic Illustrated. It was initially edited by Rick Marschall, but Shooter approached publisher Stan Lee to urge a replacement: "I told Stan, 'There's one guy who could do this. I don't know if we can get him.' He said, 'Who's that?' 'Archie Goodwin.' The reason I didn't think we could get him is because he used to be my boss and I didn't know how he'd feel about coming back and me being his boss."

Goodwin was at the time still working for Marvel as a writer, and Shooter recalls concocting a plan whereby the company "pretended that Archie reported to Stan. In fact, I was doing all the paperwork and all the employee reviews and the budgets" so that Goodwin could have the illusion of not working for his successor. In the autumn of 1979, Marschall was fired and Goodwin hired as Epic's editor.

Shooter approached Goodwin after the moderate success of the Epic magazine and creator-owned graphic novels to produce a full-fledged line of creator-owned comics, Epic Comics. Goodwin initially balked at the additional workload, and Shooter turned the line over to Al Milgrom before Goodwin ultimately accepted editorship.

Goodwin introduced the first English translation of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira and published English translations of the work of Jean Giraud, a.k.a. Moebius. Archie also gave many writers and artists their first jobs in comic including Todd McFarlane in Coyote #11-14 with his first cover on issue 13.

Return to DC
Goodwin returned to DC Comics as an editor and writer in 1989. He wrote the graphic novel Batman: Night Cries painted by Scott Hampton and published in 1992. Throughout the 1990s, Goodwin edited a number of Batman projects, including the Elseworlds miniseries Batman: Thrillkiller, and the Alan Grant-written/Kevin O'Neill-illustrated parody one-shot Batman: Mitefall, a take-off of the "Knightfall" saga, filtered through the character of Bat-Mite. Armageddon 2001 was a 1991 crossover event storyline. It ran through a self-titled, two issue limited series and most of the annuals DC published that year from May through October. Each participating annual explored potential possible futures for its main characters. The series was written by Goodwin and Dennis O'Neil and drawn by Dan Jurgens.

Among Goodwin's most notable last editorial projects were Starman, written by James Robinson and first published by DC in 1994 and DC's Batman: The Long Halloween by Tim Sale and Jeph Loeb. Loeb and Sale's first work on Batman appeared in Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight Halloween Special #1 (Dec. 1993) edited by Goodwin. It is a testament to Goodwin that Loeb has said that Goodwin inspired their portrayal of Gotham police chief Jim Gordon in The Long Halloween and its sequel Batman: Dark Victory, while Robinson (who considered Goodwin both a mentor and close personal friend), continued to list Goodwin as a "Guiding Light" on later issues of Starman published after Goodwin's death. Goodwin edited Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight and Azrael. Goodwin's Creepy work is cited by editor Mark Chiarello as informing the creation of the Batman: Black & White series.

Death
Goodwin died of cancer on March 1, 1998, after battling the disease for 10 years.

Archives
The Archie Goodwin Archive and Collection are housed at OKPOP (Oklahoma Museum of Pop Culture) in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Donated by his children Jennifer and Seth Goodwin.

Awards
Goodwin's work won him a good deal of recognition in the industry, including both the 1973 Shazam Award for Best Writer (Dramatic Division), and the 1974 Shazam Award for Best Writer (Dramatic Division) for the Manhunter series running in Detective Comics #437–443. In the same years, he also won Shazam Awards for Best Individual Short Story for "The Himalayan Incident" in Detective Comics #437 and for "Cathedral Perilous" in Detective Comics #441. In 1974, he also won Best Individual Feature-Length Story for "Götterdämmerung" in Detective Comics #443. All story awards were shared with Walt Simonson for Manhunter episodes). Goodwin's work on Manhunter, in which he both updated an obscure Golden Age hero, and, in the series' last episode, took the daring approach of killing him off (one of the few comic book deaths that has actually "taken" and not been reversed or retconned away in the decades since it occurred) is very well regarded by both fans and other comics professionals.

Goodwin stated in his final interview, "I think that Manhunter is one of just several projects that I've worked on that I consider a highlight in my career. It is something that I may never be able to top in a lot of ways. To have done that and for DC to have given me the opportunity to do that was great."

He won the 1992 "Bob Clampett Humanitarian" Eisner Award, and was named Best Editor by the Eisners in 1993. In 1998 he was entered into the Eisner Hall of Fame. In 2008, he was one of two recipients of that year's Bill Finger Award, which annually honors one living and one deceased comics creator. The award was presented July 25, 2008, during the 2008 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards ceremony at Comic-Con International.

Goodwin was similarly honored in 1998, being posthumously named to the National Comics Award Roll of Honour.

In 2007, Goodwin was inducted into the Oklahoma Cartoonists Hall of Fame in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, located in the Toy and Action Figure Museum.

Appearances within comics
He makes a cameo appearance in a crowd scene on the splash page of Ms. Marvel volume 1 #15, with thought balloons showing him trying out various nicknames for himself.

In The Batman Adventures — the first DC Comics spinoff of Batman: The Animated Series — Goodwin appears as Mr. Nice, a super-strong but childishly-innocent super-villain. He is one of a screwball trio of incompetent super-villains that includes The Mastermind (a caricature of Mike Carlin) and The Professor (a caricature of Dennis O'Neil). Batman: Gotham Adventures #13 (June 1999) features the last appearance of the characters with Mr. Nice leaving the group to fulfill a prophecy, with the issue being dedicated to Archie Goodwin.

He is name-checked in issues of Marvel's Star Wars comics including in the alien-language words "Niwdoog Eihcra," his name in reverse.

A character based on him appears in issue #82 of Cerebus. He stands at the foot of the giant, living stone statue Thrunk and repeats everything Thrunk says – as if he is passing Thrunk's commands to the masses. Thrunk kills him when he steps on him. The scene has often been interpreted as an allegory for Goodwin's relationship with Jim Shooter, but Cerebus writer/artist Dave Sim denies this and said "I have nothing but the greatest respect for Archie and in no way intended anything but a little 'hello' to one of my favorite New Yorkers."

The airport in fictional Gotham City, home of the Batman, is named Goodwin, after Archie.

In Marvel Comics' What The--?! #5, Goodwin appears as King Archibald the First in the short story The Alien-Ated Legion, which parodies the mature approach of Epic Comics. In the last panels, King Archibald says that he had never been interested in superhero comics.

Atlas Comics

 * The Destructor #1–3 (1975)

DC Comics

 * All-Out War #4–5 (1980)
 * Armageddon 2001 #1 (1991)
 * Batman Black and White #1, 4 (1996)
 * Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight #132–136 (2000)
 * Batman: Night Cries HC (1992)
 * Detective Comics #437–443, Annual #3 (1973–1974, 1990)
 * G.I. Combat #158–168, 170, 172–173 (Haunted Tank) (1973–1974)
 * House of Mystery #198 (1972)
 * Manhunter: The Special Edition TPB (1999)
 * Our Fighting Forces #146, 150 (1973–1974)
 * Showcase '95 #11 (1995)
 * Star Spangled War Stories #167–171, 176, 189, 197 (1973–1976)
 * Unknown Soldier #234 (1979)

Heavy Metal

 * Alien: The Illustrated Story (1979)

Marvel Comics

 * The Amazing Spider-Man 150, Annual #11 (1975–1977)
 * Bizarre Adventures #28 (1981)
 * Capt. Savage and His Leatherneck Raiders #7 (1968)
 * Captain Marvel #16 (1969)
 * Dazzler #38–42 (1985–1986)
 * Epic Illustrated #2–3, 13, 17–24, 27, 29, 31–32, 34 (1980–1986)
 * Fantastic Four #115–118, 182 (1971–1977)
 * Hero for Hire #2–4 (1972)
 * Heroes for Hope Starring the X-Men #1 (1985)
 * The Incredible Hulk #106, 148–151, 154–157 (1968–1972)
 * Iron Man #1–28, 88–90 (1968–1976)
 * Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 (1968)
 * Justice #1 (1986)
 * Kull and the Barbarians #2 (1975)
 * Marvel Premiere #4 (Doctor Strange) (1972)
 * Marvel Spotlight #32 (Spider-Woman) (1977)
 * Marvel Spotlight vol. 2 #4 (Captain Marvel) (1980)
 * Marvel Super Action #1 (Punisher) (1976)
 * Marvel Super Special #3 (Close Encounters of the Third Kind); #16 (The Empire Strikes Back); #22 (Blade Runner); #27 (Return of the Jedi) (1978–1983)
 * Marvel Super-Heroes #15 (Medusa) (1968)
 * Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 2 #4 (Spider-Man and Nick Fury) (1990)
 * Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. #6–7 (1968)
 * Nightmask #1–2, 4, 8 (1986–1987)
 * Pizzazz #7–16 (1978–1979)
 * Power Man and Iron Fist #103–104, 108 (1984)
 * Rawhide Kid #79 (1970)
 * Savage Sword of Conan #1, 3–4 (1974–1975)
 * Savage Tales #11 (1975)
 * Savage Tales vol. 2 #1, 2, 8 (1985–1986)
 * Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos #74 (1970)
 * The Spectacular Spider-Man #4–5, 7–8, 15 (1977–1978)
 * Star Wars #11–23, 25–45, 47, 50, 98 (1978–1985)
 * Tales of Suspense #99 (Iron Man) (1968)
 * Tales to Astonish #99, 101 (Sub-Mariner) (1968)
 * The Tomb of Dracula #3–4 (1972)
 * Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction Annual #1 (1976)
 * Wolverine #17–23 (1989–1990)
 * Wolverine/Nick Fury: The Scorpio Connection HC (1989)

title: Archie Goodwin (comics)


text:
Enrique Olaya Herrera

Enrique Alfredo Olaya Herrera (12 November 1880 – 18 February 1937) was a Colombian journalist and politician. He served as President of Colombia from 7 August 1930 until 7 August 1934 representing the Colombian Liberal Party.

Early years
Olaya Herrera grew up in a time of intellectual nonconformity and erudition, in a generation that had to live in through the Thousand Days War. He studied in the local public school of his hometown Guateque, in the Department of Boyacá as had his parents. He was son of Justiniano Olaya and Emperatriz Herrera, and had two brothers: Leonidas and Joaquín. When he was 12 years old, Olaya Herrera became known as the "child journalist of Guateque" after his founding of a newspaper called El Patriota (The Patriot) for which he managed to obtain many exchanges with major newspapers like El Espectador based in Medellín. Olaya Herrera studied law at the Universidad Republicana (later to become the Free University of Colombia), and founded a weekly magazine called El Estudiante (The Student) in a newspaper format, which was written by hand.

Political career
Olaya Herrera is considered a member of the "Centennial Generation," corresponding to the cohort of political and intellectual leaders prominent at the time of the first century after the war of independence, roughly corresponding to the years from 1925 to 1940. Other members of this group were Alfonso López Pumarejo, Laureano Gómez, Eduardo Santos, Mariano Ospina Pérez, Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez, Luis López de Mesa, Luis Eduardo Nieto Caballero and others.

As a journalist for the newspaper El Autonomista (The Autonomist) which was owned by Rafael Uribe Uribe and Ricardo Tirado Macias, Olaya Herrera made a name by criticizing the "Regeneration," which was the name of the numerous policies that marked the return of the country to a unitary state government system, as well as the rise of conservative, authoritarian, and clerical power following the Colombian Constitution of 1886. Back in his hometown of Guateque, Olaya Herrera maintained a newspaper called El Soldado Cubano (The Cuban Soldier) in which he showed his admiration for José Martí.

The political convulsion between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party had escalated and provoked the thousand days civil war. Most of the centennial generation was pushed into the war following their political beliefs. Olaya Herrera was also pushed into active participation in politics in the Liberal Party. Olaya Herrera was radicalized and joined the armed liberal militias led by General Cenón Figueredo. Olaya Herrera participated in a confrontation in the village of Nocaima, Cundinamarca.

After the war Olaya Herrera continued studying law and finally graduated with a thesis entitled La Liberacion Condicional (The Conditional Liberation), which was then published by the university. In 1904 he obtained a doctorate in jurisprudence and in 1906 he traveled to Belgium where he studied diplomacy and sociology at the Université Libre de Bruxelles focusing on diplomacy, politics and journalism.

Politics and constitutional reform
Upon his return from Belgium, Olaya Herrera joined the cause against the government of General Rafael Reyes criticizing the treaties between the United States and Colombia, and the loss of Panama. On 13 March 1909 Olaya Herrera publicly made a speech during a Liberal Party event against Reyes' dictatorship, in the presence of the most important members of the Liberal Party. This made him officially a part of the political movement against the dictatorship that was initiated by Nicolás Esguerra, José Vicente Concha and Miguel Abadía Méndez, a movement that was called "Trecemarcismo," from "13 de Marzo" (March the 13th), after his speech. Once President Reyes had to resign as a result of their action, on 16 March 1909, Olaya Herrera put himself forward for the Constituent Assembly and was later elected. He helped reform the Colombian Constitution of 1886 representing the then-existing Quesada Department. Among his party members participating were Rafael Uribe Uribe, Benjamín Herrera, Gabriel Vargas Santos, Nicolás Esguerra, Tomás O. Eastman, Carmelo Arango and Tomás Quevedo Álvarez. The conservative deputies were Carlos E. Restrepo, José Vicente Concha, Pedro Nel Ospina, Guillermo Valencia, Emilio Forero, Hernando Holguín, Abel Carbonell, Pedro M. Carreño and Guillermo Quintero Calderón. Both sides concluded the constitutional reform and initiated a period of reconciliation, political tolerance and a sense of nationalism. Carlos Eugenio Restrepo assumed the presidency of Colombia from 1910 until 1914 sponsored by the Republican Party which Olaya Herrera supported.

President Restrepo appointed Olaya Herrera as the first Minister of Foreign Relations on 7 August 1910 until his resignation on 23 November 1911. During the administration of President Jorge Holguín, Olaya Herrera was appointed to the same office from 1921 until January 4, 1922, and also served as Minister of Agriculture. During the 1920s Olaya Herrera served also as a diplomat (mainly improving Colombian relations with the United States) and with the Colombian congress.

Presidential candidate
During the 1930s the Liberal leadership considered Olaya Herrera as the most suitable leader to recover the presidency from the Regeneration Movement hegemony. He was appointed by the Liberal party in Bogotá as presidential candidate after a group of liberal and conservative friends registered him in the candidates list on 22 January 1930 in the town of Puerto Berrío. Olaya Herrera named his political movement "Concentracion Nacional" (National Concentration).

Olaya Herra was elected on 9 February 1930 with 369,962 votes against the other candidates Guillermo Valencia with 213,417 votes and Alfredo Vázquez Cobo with 213,417 votes. Former conservative president Carlos Eugenio Restrepo gave his support to Olaya Herrera along with other moderate conservatives.

Presidency
Olaya Herrera's government was characterized at first by compromise, allocating half of his government's public offices (mainly ministries and government departments) to the opposition party led by Laureano Gómez, although these party members were gradually pushed out of office.

His term was characterized by a profound interest in social problems and reforms: workers' legislation, public assistance, protection for workers and farmers, and others. This agenda was interrupted by the urgent attention required by the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and its repercussions all over the world. Olaya Herrera started a cycle of national protectionism, which fostered the development of industry with national capital as the basis for developmental stimuli, emphasizing internal demand. Imports decreased significantly, as did the prices of coffee in the international market. This protectionist trend promoted a nationalist consciousness that turned the country further away from the free-trade policies of the nineteenth century.

Economic crisis and War with Peru
After the Wall Street Crash of 1929 Olaya Herrera was given special powers and dictated some economic reforms that developed at some level the industry and attempted to manage the debt generated by the war with Peru which originated in 1932 when the Amazonian port of Leticia was taken over by invading Peruvian soldiers. Previously, during the presidency of Jorge Holguin, the Salomón–Lozano Treaty which defined the Peru-Colombia border was signed in secrecy. Once the treaty became known to the public in Peru, it became unpopular and a group of Peruvian citizens took the town of Leticia, which was colonized by both Peruvians and Colombians, and which the treaty had awarded to Colombia. General Alfredo Vázquez Cobo was entrusted by Olaya Herrera to lead the armed operations in southern Colombia. The war was financed by the government and the solidarity of the citizens, who donated jewelry and money to support the cause. After many battles the war ended with the signing of the Rio Protocol in 1934, which upheld the Salomón–Lozano Treaty and officially ended the border conflicts between Colombia and Peru.

Public works
During his government Olaya Herrera tried to develop the Colombian national industry and for this he supported many infrastructure projects mainly highways, maritime and fluvial ports (Barranquilla and Buenaventura) and railroads. He also supported public education and the exploration and exploitation of energy natural resources such as oil, mainly in the northern region of Catatumbo.

Olaya Herrera also tried to improve the association between guilds, for which he created a Bank of Agrarian Credit (Caja de Crédito Agrario), the Mortgage Central Bank (Banco Central Hipotecario) to finance low income housing and for the improvement of production and exporting of coffee products; the government of Olaya Herrera also created the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. He also helped introduce labor law reforms.

Public order issues
During his first two years as president there were two main foci of violence in the country; in Boyaca and Santander initially motivated by political reasons. The towns with most problems were Chiquinquirá, the towns of western Boyaca, the Garcia Rovira Province in Santander Department and some towns in the areas of Norte de Santander Department, where conservative public employees resisted being in charge of liberals until the end of his government on 7 August 1934.

Post-government and death
After finishing his term as president in 1935 Olaya Herrera was appointed Minister of Foreign Relations during the government of Alfonso López Pumarejo and later appointed ambassador of Colombia to the State of the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, where he died on 18 February 1937 serving. He had been planning to run for reelection as president upon his return to Colombia.

Personal life

Olaya Herrera married María Teresa Londoño Sáenz in 1911 and had two daughters; Maria and Lucia.

title: Enrique Olaya Herrera


text:
User talk:AndrewBonamici

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page University of Oregon has been reverted. Your edit here to University of Oregon was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/user/UOregon/featured) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Network Startup Resource Center concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Network Startup Resource Center, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Network Startup Resource Center

Hello AndrewBonamici. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Network Startup Resource Center.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Network Startup Resource Center was accepted
 Network Startup Resource Center, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Books and Bytes - Issue 21
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 21, January-March 2017 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikipedia Library User Group
 * Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Books and Bytes - Issue 22
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 22, April-May 2017

 Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * New and expanded research accounts
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
 * Bytes in brief

Books and Bytes - Issue 23
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 23, June-July 2017

 Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Library card
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
 * Bytes in brief

Books and Bytes - Issue 24
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 24, August-September 2017

 Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
 * Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
 * Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
 * Bytes in brief

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 25, October – November 2017

 Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
 * Bytes in brief

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 26, December – January 2018
 Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 27, February – March 2018
 Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New collections
 * Alexander Street (expansion)
 * Cambridge University Press (expansion)
 * User Group
 * Global branches update
 * Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
 * Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 28, April – May 2018
 Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Bib1Ref
 * New partners
 * Rock's Backpages
 * Invaluable
 * Termsoup
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
 * Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 29, June – July 2018
 Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
 French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
 * Library Card translation
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018
 French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * OAWiki
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 32, January – February 2019
 French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New and expanded partners
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 33, March – April 2019

 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019
 French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019

 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019

 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019

 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020

 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020

 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 40, July – August 2020

 * New partnerships
 * Al Manhal
 * Ancestry
 * RILM
 * #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
 * AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 41, September – October 2020

 * New partnership: Taxmann
 * WikiCite
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 42, November – December 2020

 * New EBSCO collections now available
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
 * Library Card input requested
 * Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 42, January – February 2021

 * New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Library Card

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 43, March – April 2021

 * New Library Card designs
 * 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 45, May – June 2021

 * Library design improvements continue
 * New partnerships
 * 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 46, July – August 2021

 * Library design improvements deployed
 * New collections available in English and German
 * Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 47, September – October 2021

 * On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
 * Search tool deployed
 * New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:AndrewBonamici


text:
Tag team

Tag team wrestling is a type of professional wrestling in which matches are contested between teams of multiple wrestlers. Tag teams may be made up of wrestlers who normally wrestle in singles competition, but more commonly are made of established teams who wrestle regularly as a unit and have a team name and identity.

In most team matches, only one competitor per team is allowed in the ring at a time. This status as the active or legal wrestler may be transferred by physical contact, most commonly a palm-to-palm tag which resembles a high five.

The team-based match has been a mainstay of professional wrestling since the mid-twentieth century, and most promotions have sanctioned a championship division for tag teams.

History
The first "World" tag team championship was promoted in San Francisco in the early 1950s. Tag matches with three-man teams were developed, and in some territories, a championship division was instituted for these teams, but the concept failed to become widely popular; outside Mexico, multi-man tag matches are seen as a special attraction.

Typically, a tag team championship is awarded to and defended by a team of two. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, a dominant trio in the NWA known as The Fabulous Freebirds won several regional tag team championships and were allowed to employ any combination of the group's members in their title defenses. In kayfabe, this made it difficult for challengers to prepare for their upcoming title fights since the challengers did not know exactly whom they were facing. This was an effective gimmick and is still utilized by other wrestling companies. The stipulation has become traditionally known as the "Freebird Rule".

A common storyline is former tag team partners turning on each other with one member usually turning heel or babyface in the process, which will invariably ignite a feud. This can be used when one member is being called on to develop a new gimmick.

Tag team match rules

The basic tag team match has two teams of two wrestlers facing off against each other. All standard rules for singles wrestling apply to a team match. However, only one wrestler from each team, called the "legal man" is allowed in the ring at a time (although heels will often flout this rule in an attempt to gang up on a single opponent). All other members of the team wait outside the ropes (on the ring apron or the floor) in the team's specified corner. Only an active/legal wrestler is allowed to score a fall or have a fall scored against him/her. But any wrestler, legal or outside, may face disqualification for himself or his team for violating rules.

Once a tag is made, the wrestler tagging out has a grace period (typically five to ten seconds) to leave the ring before risking disqualification. Offensive cooperation from a team member is allowed during this time window; thus it is rather commonplace for both members of a team, especially heel teams, to milk this grace period and have two men in the ring simultaneously with only one member of an opposing team

The following are standard requisites for making a legal tag:
 * Both feet of the wrestler on the outside must be flat on the apron.
 * The wrestler outside the ring must be touching the tag rope tied in the corner (or the turnbuckle pad in-rings which have no tag rope) with hand outstretched OVER top rope, not through it.
 * Tags are legal as long as the two team members touch.
 * The referee has to see and/or hear the contact between the two wrestlers in order for the tag to be legal.

As the ultimate authority over the match, a referee may overlook any of these at his discretion, and during the frenzied action, often will be more lenient with them.

In some multi-man tag matches in lucha libre, a wrestler can make himself the team's legal man simply by setting foot in the ring, and his partner then leaves. This allows for action to become nearly continuous. Two referees, one stationed inside the ring and one on the floor, are employed to maintain order for this type of match.

Types of tags
In independent discussion and analysis of matches, certain terms are used to describe specific scenarios involving tag team matches. These are planned and timed to inject drama into a match.

One spot common to many tag team match is the hot tag. One member of one team is in the ring, too weakened to move or otherwise impaired, while his partner watches helplessly, struggling to reach him for a tag. The tension builds as the legal man is unable to tag out until something happens (a second wind, miscommunication between the opponents or another stroke of luck) that allows the first team to tag and reverse the momentum of the match in their favor. When done well, this results in a large audience reaction, and was the typical climax of tag matches for decades. WWE employs this tactic in nearly every tag team match to the point that they fired a referee in 2008 after a botched finish that, while the match produced the intended finish, did not feature a hot tag.

A common variation on the hot tag sees both wrestlers from the heel team attacking a face, while his partner protests to the referee about this bending of the rules (and therefore, unintentionally "distracting" the referee away from the heels). Eventually the weakened face wrestler does make the tag to his partner, who comes in as the fresh man and is able to take on both opponents quite easily.

A blind tag is a legal tag made without the legal opponent's knowledge, usually while his back is turned. This allows the team who uses it an opportunity to confuse the legal opponent, who turns to face what he assumes to be his opponent only to be attacked by the true legal man, often from behind.

Other terminology
A tag team match involving more than two wrestlers per team is often referred to by the total number of people involved (e.g. a six-man tag team match involves two teams of three), while a tag team match involving more than two teams is referred to by normal qualifiers (e.g. a triple threat tag team match involves three teams of two).

In lucha libre, the basic tag team match is referred to as Lucha de Parejas (Doubles Fight), a six-man match as a Lucha de Trios, and an eight-man match as a Lucha Atómica (Atomic Fight).

A "bookend" tag team is a (sometimes derogatory) term for a tag team where the members look and/or dress alike (e.g., The Killer Bees, the British Bulldogs, Los Conquistadores, the Hart Foundation, etc.). Bookends are common in North America, Europe and Mexico, but not in Japan as the promotion of wrestlers to singles championships in that country is based in part on their work in tag team matches.

title: Tag team


text:
Staci Keanan

Anastasia Love Sagorsky, also known as Staci Keanan, is an American lawyer, law professor and former actress. Keanan is best known for portraying the role of Nicole Bradford on the NBC sitcom My Two Dads, from 1987 to 1990, and as Dana Foster on the ABC/CBS sitcom Step by Step, from 1991 to 1998. She has not performed as an actress since about 2010, making a transition to working as a prosecutor and law school professor.

Early life
Keanan was born in Devon, Pennsylvania, the daughter of Jacqueline (née Love) (1934 - 2009) and Irving Sagorsky, a car salesman (died 2007). She has a sister, Pilar Sagorsky Stein.

In 2002, Keanan graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Art History and a minor in French from UCLA. Her academic honors include membership in the Golden Key International Honour Society and Phi Beta Kappa honor societies.

Acting career
At age five, she began modeling and appeared in print, radio, and television advertisements, including television commercials for My Little Pony, Burger King and Hershey's Kisses. As a youth, Keanan moved with her mother and sister to New York City, where she changed her name to "Staci Love" and began appearing in summer stock. She made her credited television debut in the 1987 miniseries I'll Take Manhattan''.

At the age of 12, shortly after she moved with her family to Los Angeles, she was cast as Nicole Bradford in the TV series My Two Dads. The series ran from 1987 to 1990. Next she co-starred in the short-lived series Going Places with Alan Ruck, Heather Locklear, and Hallie Todd, which ran 1990-91. The following year, Keanan was cast as Dana Foster in the TV series Step by Step which aired from 1991 to 1998. By 1997, Keanan had changed her name from Staci to Stacy.

Keanan had roles in the short Stolen Poem (2004) and the films Hidden Secrets (2006), and Death and Cremation (2010) with Brad Dourif, Jeremy Sumpter, and Daniel Baldwin. In 2009, Keanan appeared in Holyman Undercover, and in 2010, she appeared in a cameo in You Again with Step by Step castmates Christine Lakin and Patrick Duffy. She also co-starred in the 2009 film Sarah's Choice.

Law career and teaching
Keanan attended Southwestern Law School and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2013. She currently practices law under her birth name, Anastasia Sagorsky, in the Los Angeles area. In 2014, Keanan worked as a Deputy District Attorney in the Riverside County District Attorney's office prosecuting felony cases involving violent crime or death. Keanan joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office as a Deputy District Attorney in 2016. In January 2021, she became an adjunct associate professor of law at Southwestern Law School. In 2022, she taught a course on how to properly prosecute and defend driving under the influence cases.

Personal life
On February 11, 2017, Keanan married actor and producer Guy Birtwhistle.

Musical theatre

 * Miss Lulu Bett, Berkshire Theater Festival, Stockbridge, Massachusetts
 * Annie, Theatre at Stagedoor Manor, Loch Sheldrake, New York
 * Georgia Avenue, Goodspeed Opera House, East Haddam, Connecticut
 * The King and I, Norma Terris Theatre, Chester, Connecticut
 * Gypsy, Norma Terris Theatre, Chester, Connecticut

Plays

 * Old Glories, two one-act plays by Elliot Shoenman, directed by Mark L. Taylor, Zephyr Theatre, Hollywood, California
 * Above the Fold (Diane), Zephyr Theatre, Hollywood, California
 * Red Flags (Janet), Zephyr Theatre, Hollywood, California
 * Moment in the Sun (Diane Bellini), by Elliot Shoenman, Matrix Theatre, Hollywood, California
 * Last Call at Moby Dick's (Caroline), by Ed Marill, directed by Mark L. Taylor, McCadden Place Theatre, Hollywood, California
 * Sunset Park (Young Evelyn) second run, by Marley Sims and Elliot Shoenman, directed by Mark L. Taylor, Zephyr Theatre, Hollywood, California

title: Staci Keanan