text:
Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military

Note on footnote format
I am shortly going to edit the article now to replace all footnotes with the type of hovernote detailed in Template:hnote. This will remove the list of footnotes from the bottom of the article. Each footnote is accessbile as alternative text when hovering the mouse over the footnote key (N) in question. I realise this template is not widely used and may even cause problem for somone with a text-based article, but the fact is the article is getting too long with several screens worth of footnotes. This is an easy way of reducing the amount of screen estate given over to footnotes. If you have any concerns over this style and template use, please air them here. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm concerned with this change. Accessibility tells us not to use hover text because screen readers won't read it (and I tested it with Fangs, a JAWS simulator, and that seems to be true). I don't know how well our usual links-to-notes system works for screen readers, but this one you've changed to doesn't work at all.

 * I wouldn't be too concerned about the screen space taken up by the notes. It'd be nice to reduce them where possible (thus my previous suggestion of merging the dupes), but screen space isn't so precious (especially at the end of the article) that you should sacrifice accessibility in favor of shrinking the page. I recognize that you had to put quite a lot of work into this to make the change, but I'd recommend reverting.

 * And, incidentally, you didn't put the footnote markers after the punctuation as you ought to have done. You'll want to correct that, whatever you choose to do. --Sopoforic 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input on this subject. I will have a good think about how to format these footnotes and may well revert - what would be ideal would be if I oculd format the footnotes in three shorter colukmns, but this doesn't seem to be technically possible at present. As for the placement of the footnote markers before or after punctuation, this is another example of imperial collonial differences I think! (ie the American style differs from the British style, as discussed in part here). Whilst its always good to have uniformity, its also good to allow for cultural differences - wikipedia already allows for local-language-variation spellings (ie "British English") in articles etc, I don't see that allowing "British English" punctuation style causes a great deal of problems so long as the article is internally consistent. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * As I said before, if you used named refs then the list will be much shorter. There are lots of duplicates in the list that could be eliminated. Regarding the footnote markers: I'm aware that the British convention is the put the punctuation outside the quotation marks--but the footnote guidelines specifically say "Wikipedia uses American convention for the placing of reference tags." I don't especially care, personally, since I don't think it's especially important. As long as you're consistent within the article I'll be happy.

 * If you want, I can go through and fix all of the duplicate refs, so you can see what it would look like without dupes. I'll try it later this evening, perhaps. --Sopoforic 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If you're willing to put all that effort in then I would be grateful, if you don't get a chance then this might be something I could look at tackling tomorrow - PocklingtonDan 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. I removed 97 duplicate refs, so the list as 3 columns is shrunk by 32 lines. I returned it to the 3-column format since that's what I was using while finding the duplicate refs. When the box is hidden, clicking on the superscripts doesn't show the footnotes, so you probably shouldn't use that again. I fixed several typos in the footnotes, too. The list is still a bit over a page, but it's not so bad, I think. Screen space at the end of an article is cheap. --Sopoforic 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, many thanks for your help with this, sterling work! I'm still waiting for someone besides me to copyedit so I'm sure there are still a few typos lurking about here and there but I think I have cleared most of them from the main body of the article at least now. Thanks again - PocklingtonDan 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ID of reference
One of the refs listed is: Nigel Rodgers, From the Rise of the Republic and the Might of the Empire to the Fall of the West, unknown publisher, unknown date. Does that refer to this book? I didn't add the ref, so I'm not sure, but it seems likely. If so, then you you now have the info you need for publisher/date/isbn. --Sopoforic 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Heather, P., The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History, MacMillan Press, 2005, ISBN 0-330-49136-9. This indicates that is was published by macmillan press, but my research indicates that it was published by Pan Macmillan, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers. I don't have access to the book itself, but whoever added that ref should check to see who actually published it. --Sopoforic 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Soporific, I'll look into both of these and correct as needed. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nits from Dave, Part 1

 * 1) city, state and empire. The term in general use is city-state. There was no city without being state. Perhaps "city-state of Italy"?
 * Agreed, much better phrasing, have updated this now. - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Bolding. The bolded phrases in the intro now do not match the title. "Military history" need a link rather than bolding and the other one if linked would redirect to the same article.
 * Thats something I just wasn't seeing the wood for the trees over, thanks! Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, good point. Changed now - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Split from east. East what? The reader has not yet been told of the Eastern Roman Empire.
 * Good point, ammended now - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Bloody-minded. Too judgemental. In their minds they were just defending themselves not trying to kill people. They almost always allowed surrender and did not massacre. The gladiatorial games were another matter.
 * Bloody-minded doesn't always mean literally with blood on the mind, it means something like "stubborn","cantankerous" and "Ready and willing to accept bloodshed or to resort to violence". I wasn't trying to emphasise the Romans' killing of other peoples but rather their acceptance of massive losses themselves and not seeing that as a deterrent, ie in the punic war, or in the numerous cases where a slaughtered army was simply replaced by another one. It's hard to argue that the Romans shied away from blood, they didn't, and they were willing to pursue goals against great losses of manpower. This is what I am trying to get across - PocklingtonDan 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Whilst. This is archaic and is considered bombastic and oratorical. A charismatic professor in a military academy might stand up and bombast away to a delighted audience of teen-age lions but I think it looks out of place in an encyclopedia.
 * Yoiks. I didn't even realise until I did a find and replace just how often I used "hilst". Chalk me up as bombastic! Fixed now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) through towards. Awkward. I still ain't sure what it means.
 * yep, awkward, revised wording now. whole article could probably benefit from a copyedit - PocklingtonDan 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Rome apparently lacks the processs..... Too much of a conclusion. The main problem was the total destruction of Rome by the Celts, which took away all their inscriptions and books. I suppose if you razed the city now you might find fragments of inscribed stone reused (guess). Livy does mention that.
 * You're quite right, the religious figures at least were literate in the early years, so it is possible there are lost written histories that haven't survived. Hadn't considered this, updated the article to reflect this now - PocklingtonDan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) in the nifty blue box. "than" instead of "that."
 * thanks, corrected now. I keep finding more and more typos, easy to see why spellcheck missed that one! - PocklingtonDan 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) apocryphal. This is the very first time I have ever seen that word in this context; moreover, the article linked by the apocryphal title in the box does not mention it. I don't like it. This is an attempt to link in the apocryphal books of the Bible and brand them as mythological. Let's keep the two separate, shall we? Legendary will do just fine.
 * Must disagree with you on this one. My dictionary defines the primary definition of apcryphal as "being of questionable authenticity". I feel there is an important distinction between this and "legendary", which has unfortunate connotations of "heroic", "Extremely well known", and "entirely fictional". Apocryphal rather means questionable, but not certainly fictional. It is a useful word and I can't think of a suitable subsitute here - PocklingtonDan 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Notes. Lots of notes, not many references and not much said by the notes. Noteworthily absent are the professional articles you find online in large numbers.
 * I tend not to use footnotes but just references to cite facts. I find footnotes distracting even in a book (having to scan to the bottom of the page) let alone on a webpage (having to scroll down to the foot and losing your place). I don't tend to work from online sources much either since all the best ones tend only to be accessible by JSTOR and I no longer have access. The more popular, open pages I do not trust since they state facts without references and have not undergone peer review before "publication" on the web. If there are some great online secondary sources, I will gladly include them if you let me know of them - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Little is known. Vastly overworked phrase. You only have to use it up front once.
 * Good point. Removed second instance - readers already know at this point the reason for lack of detail is lack of extant information - PocklingtonDan 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) The Veii. I never heard of any tribal Veii. It is strictly a city name I believe. Many Greek and Roman cities were in the plural, such as Mycenae, Athenai. But anyway, it probably was not an Indo-european name and so its final form is only a twist.
 * Well spotted, my fault, the correct term for the (city-based) people of Veii should be "Veientes", will change this now - PocklingtonDan 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Re-established. Re-established? Not to my knowledge. What do you mean there, the interregna? But was there not a dictator?
 * I really meant something closer to "(restructured itself) as a republic" rather than "established itself as a republic again". Altered the wording now to make this clearer - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. More later if you still have the heart for it. Most excellent format.Dave 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great feedback, I am working through the article addressing these points now - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost done correcting these points, I'm a glutton for punishment so feel free to dish up some more problems you find - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

point 4 isn't always that clear some books write about the relationship between Boii and Romans that the latter did intent to kill them all. Should perhaps receive some research. Polybius account about the taking of Carthage in Spain comes to my mind. He explicitly states there that the Romans made a firxt rush and massacred the population to frighten them. Wandalstouring 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nits Part 2
This is pretty good, I shan't have much to say. I am definitely getting an impression of the sweep of Roman history and the critical role of the military.
 * bloody-minded. This is a British provincialism not at all understood by Americans. I can't speak for our brethren in the southern hemisphere.
 * Ah, OK, wasn't aware this had a different meaning in the US, will change to "stubborn" or similar instead - PocklingtonDan 07:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Notes. I have a suggestion. Where you have a series of notes mentioning a series of pages in the same chapter of the same work, why not cover them in one note; e.g., blah-blah-blah pp xx-yy and have only one reference to that note at the end of the paragraph. There are some scholarly abbreviations insisted upon by professors in my youth but of which I have not seen much lately: ibid. "the same place", op cit., "the work just cited", loc. cit., "the place just cited."
 * I did think of doing that but it seems that Ibid and Opcit etc are explicitly advised against by wikipedia in that if someone inserts a new reference between your two references, the ibid is then thrown out of sequence and the cite points then to a different work, which is obviously a problem. I realise I have cited several items separetly in some sentences but this is because in those sentences all those points were explicitly made in the source and I feel someone might reasonably request a cite for certain of the facts in the sentence even whilst accepting the general thrust of the sentence as a whole. Better to head that off now than spend hours trying to find a cite if someone tags something as at a later date. What I do need to do is complete the naming of the references, which should remove duplicate references from being listed twice in the footnotes. - PocklingtonDan 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. But how are you going to do that if you throw the article away?Dave 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Italy...

 * defense for defence
 * The whole article is actually meant to be in British/Commonwealth english, so all the spelling should be in this form. I might have got a mix going on though because i lived in the US for a while and my spelling tends to be "translantic"! - PocklingtonDan 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Dan, don't take me TOO seriously. You have to assert yourself as a writer. There never lived a writer who did not nitpick other writers. I will tell myself to go to the hot place for you.Dave 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Suggest indent quote with : for readability.
 * Good idea. Done this for the large multi-line quote, left the smaller 2-3 word quotes in-line in the prose - PocklingtonDan 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * the capture of fidenae needs a comma before
 * Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * verb before still minor
 * Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * only just even - meaningless in American English. Must be a British provincialism. Maybe it is time for a Wikipedia in British English.
 * That was just lack of copyediting, doesn't scan well in British English either! - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Period after Greeks.
 * Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Celtic invasion

 * Too many this. Sound like Greek, but the Greek had concrete uses for this.
 * Not following you here I'm afraid, can you explain the problem?? - PocklingtonDan 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I only meant there seemed one too many "this." For the rest, no problem, forget it. Leave it if you want.

 * particularly warlike. I'm against it. No more warlike than the others.
 * I don't know, I have two cites that they were a particularly warlike tribe. Granted, both sources are from a Roman POV, but that's not really all that relevant, since the Romans clearly considered them more warlike than other Gallic/Celtic tribes. I could change "particularly warlike tribe" to "tribe the Romans considered to be particularly warlike" if you want? My thoughts are that that would be a bit clunky - PocklingtonDan 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Just a thought. Leave it. When I say "I'm against" I don't mean "I oppose this horrible deadly mistake with my entire soul", I only mean "Gee Dan, I just had a tentative and transitory impression, what do you think?"

expansion into Italia

 * meaningless then set off by commas.
 * Fixed - PocklingtonDan 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * to which the Latins submitted is the formerly correct way - you starting a language revolution?
 * Awkward phrasing fixed - PocklingtonDan 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

you still have a "whilst" in there or two. there really needs to be a restriction on the use of that word, which appears with appalling frequency in many Wikipedia articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.205.118 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

fac archive
Withdrawn FAC archived here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Map Request Details
As per the map request template, I need some help with maps please. The article has several maps in it, but all are shown in different scales, different details, different colours etc (one is even just a satellite photo). I would be looking for a unified series of maps to use in this article, each to replace the existing maps/satellite photos used, and each ideally showing invasions using arrows (I could provide all this info where it isn't obvious from the article text). Let me know if this is possible and if you are able to help out. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The Map of the Punic Empire is wrong. Will create a new one within the next days. Wandalstouring 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Map sourcing

 * Image:English-Pyrrhus-route.png
 * Image:Caesar campaigns gaul.gif
 * Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png
 * Image:Alemanni expansion.png (in German, may have source but it isn't clear to me)

These maps are not clear about what information they use to draw their borders. They may be from reliable source but this must be marked. Their copyrights are fine but the information they contain may not be. Can users find replacements if sources for these cannot be found, or somehow find out some sources. This is separate from the new map-making request above so if replacements are made then these can be discarded. gren グレン 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Purinos Polemos?
Assuming that the words are derived from Greek, some kind of specification would be nice (e.g. who coined the term, as Numantia wasn't a Greek-speaking region IMO). --Brand спойт 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed this now, not giving latin or greek names for any of the other wars, so this was an odd man out - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Serville War - 120,000 or 150,000?
Seems to be a difference of opinion between this article, and the one on the Third Servile War about the number of rebelling slaves involved - and both seems to have a supporting source. So which is it? :) - 74.13.4.220 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the ancient Romans didn't have census counts for rebelling slaves and were a little prone to exaggeration so in all likelihood neither figure is correct. If there is a cite for both figures though I will change to "between 120,000 and 150,000" and include both cites - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaignboxes
This WAS a top-notch article and had a top-notch format when Dan Pocklington finished with it. We even had Bill Thayer putting a hand in. However, maybe you have noticed the big wide spaces that have opened up in the Punic Wars articles. The reason for the spaces is the new campaignboxes. That is why I personally never use the campaignboxes. They are BROKEN, BROKEN, BROKEN! These Punic War campaignboxes are unacceptable in such fine articles for two reasons: 1) They are broken 2) They are redundant. Now, I don't have time at the moment to find out who did it and address that person personally. As far as I'm concerned, it is vandalism. You must have seen the effect when you put them in! So what I am going to do is comment them out and leave it up to YOU to work on the two issues I mentioned. There are different things you might do. First is abandon the campaignbox as hopeless (it has been broken for some time) and find some other way to do it. Second is fix the campaignbox. But then there is the redundancy problem. Too many boxes with the same title! I'll be repeating this message everywhere I find the campaignbox vandalism.Dave 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, thanks for the words on the article - I have pretty much left the article alone since getting it to FA status and allowed the natural drift of the article by passing editors, many of which have corrected certain details. However, I think the campaignboxes have been in the article since pre-FA - I don't have the campaignboxes themselves on my watchlist so I couldn't say whether they have been edited since themselves, but certainly they have always been in place on the page since I used to tend it. I was not aware that the campaignboxes were causing display/layout problems - I've just gone back to an earlier version of the page and checked and they display fine to me (i'm using a browser called "epiphany"). What browser are you using that the campaignboxes cause problems? I do think this would be best handled by correcting any coding in the campaignbox template that is causing layout problems, rather than removing them from the page altogether, since they do contain links to battles it is not possible to mention all of in the prose of the article. Let me know your thoughts and if you are happy to restore the campaignboxes while I try and have a look at the layout problem. If you are able to describe what formatting/layout problems they cause exactly, that might help - where is the white space that you talk about located in relation to the campaignboxes? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, I uncommented the campaignboxes to show you the effect and lo and behold it is not happening now. I will check the Punic Wars articles also. I doubt if it was my browser. It gets kept up-to-date by MS. It might have been some effect that tweaking usually takes care of; you know, where you put the box, etc. In essence those boxes that I just uncommented were not allowing text to the left resulting in big gaps. Maybe someone retweaked it a bit. Some of the articles I have worked heavily on suffer the same sort of thing. Someone adds some improvements and the next thing you know the layout becomes ridiculous and I have to reformat it. Well, if I can't reproduce the effect this is like taking your car to the garage and asking them to fix a problem that isn't happening at the moment. I'm going to take my comment marks out and if I see it happening again I will just leave you a message. Thanks.Dave 11:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Justinian I
Why is the Byzantine Empire and Justinian I in particular excluded from this article? They were Romans, weren't they? Mallerd 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't really Romans, they were Byzantine - in keeping with the tradition of wikipedia and most written work on the topic, the article on Rome covers up to 476 AD and treats post-476 AD in the east as Byzantine history. Post-476 AD events are found in the Byzantine series of articles. The empire in the East after 476 AD was not based in Rome - indeed had no possession of Rome for the vast majority of the time, and was Greek rather than Roman in nature.  Consequently, it is not treated as being an extension of but rather a successor to the Roman Empire. Fromt he wikipedia Roman Empire article:
 * The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally, if not strictly accurately, placed at September 4 AD 476, when the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustus, was deposed and not replaced. However, Diocletian, who retired in AD 305, was the last sole Emperor of an undivided Empire whose capital was the City of Rome. After the division of the Empire by Diocletian into East and West, each branch continued to style itself as "The Roman Empire."
 * As above, wikipedia is just following tradition in accepting 476 AD as the end of the Roman Empire. The Byzantines may have styled themselves the Roman Empire for some time after 476 AD, but then as stated above so did the West. Both had increasingly little in common with the earlier empire. A cutoff must be drawn somewhere - surely you agree that Constantinople in the 1300s was no longer the Roman Empire? - and 476 AD is the traditional date. Much of history involves emphasising certain dates as ends of eras where real life is never so neat. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was concerned about the fact that the Byzantines called themselves Romans but you are right about maintaining a cutoff. Thanks Mallerd 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines. They were Romans until the last day. Thats an invention of western scholarships, which was influenced from the 16th century ideology of western kingdoms. As for the end of Roman Empire, after 300 years of academic historical research, this is still disputable, but Wikipedia has come to a conclusion...as Pocklingtondan states....well done Wikipedia...u r solving scientific problems in 4 lines. Both had increasingly little in common with the earlier empire, so tell us, Pocklingtondan, which was the relationship between the Romans of 300 AD and the Romans of 30 BC? Did they have a lot in common, so we can say that they belong to the same state? What do u think that the Roman Empire was? A solid, unchangeable thing which lasted from 14 BC until 476 AD? And when a feature is Roman and when it becomes Byzantine? Will u answer it in 4 lines again to give us a solution? The most annoying thing is that u write with such confidence about matters u approach like a highschool student. I wonder when u will stop seeing things from this poor western view. Poor Byzantines...your faith is in hands of Pocklingtondan... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.164.23 (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of the main battle
The batles should be presented not only by their name/place but also with the date or at leat the year. Without this, it is impossible to follow the time frame of the campaigns and most are very long. this will accentuate the resiliance of the romans in their first half of history when they suffer continous line of horrific defeats and the strategy was just to send fresh armies until a "deccisive victory" is obtain. In fact this final victory might be just the result of of the enemy'exhaustion and not a fatal blow from a brilliant general.

More some campaigns are concomitent and this is far from obvious. Maybe somebody can make a timeline graph.BdB-18 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this page
To me there seem a lot of problems with this page. There are lots of minor false facts e.g. Germanicus invades Britain, the huns appear far too early, before 268 etc. But on the whole the content is O.K. the problem is the structure, associating facts together in other than strict chronilogical order raises as many problems as it solves. I agree that a timeline is needed running down the side of the page. Some mention ought to be made of the change in nature of the army from a militia with allies, to a professional army of legions, to the mobile armies of the Empire with 2-4 emperors. Indeed maybe the page should be split into these three periods. too much is trying to be forced into a small space.Sheredot (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where you believe minor innaccuracies have been introduced accidentally or deliberately by vandals, do what you do on any wikipedia article - edit them, if they are unreferenced. However, in terms of the large picture of the content and strucure of the article, this article doesn't need content on the change in the nature of the army, since this is the CAMPAIGN article, and that content you mention is covered in the partnering STRUCTURE article linked to from the menu on the right. - 81.174.157.135 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"this void may be due to lack the will to record their history at that time, or such histories as they did record were lost" Is is just me, or is there a tiny error in this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.105.67 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Might want to include the Roman-Kushite conflict just south of Egypt. It is not well known but very interesting. It established Roman Egypt's southern border.Scott Free (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The Amanirenas page has some info, but I wouldn't use it verbatum. It is not well sourced. I'll see what I can do to come up with some good info for you.Scott Free (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful, thank you, please add info on this conflict, I don't think I'm really aware of it - 81.174.157.135 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire lasted until 1453, not 476. And the Eastern Part was much more important from political, social, military and economical point of view from 330 to 476, if we accept this year as an end, than the Western Part. So, add a this article needs improvement, because it's unreliable historically. And read some books before u give a title in an article.
 * This has been discussed ad infinitum with relation to this and other articles on ancient Rome and a clear consenses was reached that the majority of sources refer to Easter Roman Empire post-476 as Byzantine rather than Roman, hence not covered in this article but in partner articles with "Byzantine" in the title. This is the clear consensus in modern literature meant to address the changed nature of the remaining eastern remnant with its Greek language and customs, loss of Rome the city and differing legal, military and judicial structures, as well as its very different social makeup. When writing a wikipedia article you are reporting on literature on the subject, and the literature makes a clear distinction between Roman (ancient Roman) up to 476 and Byzantine (eastern roman empire) only after 476. As for your flippant comment about reading books, the article is as you can see referenced with hundreds of footnotes from dozens of books and journals. - 81.174.157.135 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Assessment"
I found the assessment section interesting but properly should be removed to another entry because one would expect discussion on the impact of Roman military philosophies/techniques rather than a more culture-oriented assessment of the legacy of the Roman rule in Europe. For example, how the Roman military system operated and what exactly happened as a result of the prevalent institutions were in place to induce the kind of behaviour we observed, e.g. the alleged transition from self-sacrifice in the early periods to self-interested behaviours towards the end of the imperial era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.219.216 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph of this section also currently reads like a synthesis. Since its content is necessarily opinion, it would make sense to attribute the opinion to individual historians inline as well as by reference, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version of this section is rife with conjecture and bias. Is it really necessary to have an Assessment section? Arthurian Legend (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly biased and it seems out of place in this particular article on Roman military campaigns. Since there are four users agreeing that it doesn't add to the article and there are no objections thusfar, I'm removing it; if someone decides to revert my edit please give a valid reason for doing so. 207.133.248.241 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation help
The section Campaign history of the Roman military contains wikilinks to Antiochia and Siege of Antiochia (the latter redirects to the first, by the way). This is a disambiguation page. Can someone with knowledge of this please disambiguate so the wikilink points to the proper article? Thanks. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Collapse of the Western Empire (402–476)
The final sentence of the first paragraph in this section reads like a synthesis. It doesn't really add much to the article; unless the idea that disagreement on a date for the fall of the Roman Empire can be attributed to a reliable source, it should be removed. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Pyrrhus?
"...such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal..." - Which Pyrrhus is that? -- The wikilink points to a disambigs with many entries -- is it several of them?? 121.44.24.201 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Poorly Titled Sections like Jewish revolts (66–135)
For a empire as vast as Rome, I think it is rather futile to try to label long periods by particular names. For example from the section titled Jewish revolts (66–135) the reader would be led to believe that for 70 years the major occupation of the Roman army was to fight the Jews. I believe the wars with the Jews were similar to other revolts that the empire faced on a constant basis on all its frontiers. Also in the period 66-135 we have from another Wiki article: In 112, provoked by Parthia's decision to put an unacceptable king on the throne of Armenia, a kingdom over which the two great empires had shared hegemony since the time of Nero some fifty years earlier, Trajan marched first on Armenia. He deposed the king and annexed it to the Roman Empire. Then he turned south into Parthia itself, taking the cities of Babylon, Seleucia and finally the capital of Ctesiphon in 116. He continued southward to the Persian Gulf, whence he declared Mesopotamia a new province of the empire and lamented that he was too old to follow in the steps of Alexander the Great. But he did not stop there. Later in 116, he captured the great city of Susa. He deposed the Parthian King Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne. LuxNevada (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think someone needs to rewrite the section headings, especially as this seems to be a FA LuxNevada (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Is someone going to change the section titles or should I give it a go. This article has significant gaps, I wonder how it made it to the front page. LuxNevada (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page
If you're going to feature this article on the main page, might as well block it, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.48.122 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate map of Ancient Greece
Image:Athenian empire atheight 450 shepherd1923.png is 200 years prior to the period that it is supposed to be illustrating. Can a better map of the region at the time not be found? 78.32.103.197 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit now needed
This has a star on it and ordinariy I do not meddle with starred articles. Then I noticed the kingdom was listed as going to the middle of the 5th century BC, which is clearly wrong. After looking cursorily at it I perceived quite a few errors. The problem with starred articles is that they don't get checked. Gradually I intend to break my rule and give this an edit, as lightly as I can, of course. So don't get excited and don't automatically revert what I do. Many statements in there are without adequate sourcing. They need a reason to be there; I don't need a reason to ask for a reason. In a way, a star can be an impediment to improvement. As I need to check the sources given, this will take a while.Dave (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One quarter of the world's population
"one of the largest empires in the ancient world, encompassing around one quarter of the world's total population;[3]". Sorry old chaps but the reference on that, which is a pdf and can be searched and read from beginning to end, says no such thing. The article in the pdf is very good, excellently professional, and ought to be referenced here. A figure such as that ought to be in there but in point of fact it isn't. Think about it. How can anyone say what the world population was in the first centuries BC and AD? Think - all the people of India, southeast Asia, China, the Americas - if there is any such figure it is not in the reference cited. The page number is the first page of the article and it is not there, but I wasn't stopped by that - I looked - and looked. Maybe it is somewhere else or maybe the editor was in a big hurry. If you are in a hurry in this kind of work - stop. Don't be in a hurry. So where do we go now? I want to keep that excellent reference, which has just about every kind of estimate you can think of, except the one stated, so I'm putting in the next best estimate, the total estimated population of the empire, with correct page number. Sorry. I said I was going to edit.Dave (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The best you're going to get is a hazy estimate based on a vast worldwide archaeological effort, since the only other contemporary civilization which bothered keeping any sort of records and tabs on population was that of China, under the Han Dynasty ("57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households", or so they say). Even with civilizations that bothered reporting this for the purpose of taxation, the ancient census records should be viewed with intense scrutiny. This is due to irregularities spawned by gender bias, the countless young children and slaves that could be miscounted or deliberately hidden from view, or the obvious challenge of reaching remote rural areas.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Win the battle lose the war
"Nevertheless, it was generally the fate of even the greatest of Rome's enemies, such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal,[6] to win the battle but lose the war" The reference given on that one does not mention that philosophy on the page given or anywhere else in that chapter or book. It is however an accurate assessment. It appears as though someone forced someone to find a ref. However in my judgement it does not need a ref as it is perfectly general and common knowledge; everyone knows the Romans lost nearly all the battles of the Punic Wars only to destroy Carthage anyway. No one needs to point to anyone saying that. No big innovative conclusion is involved. What I propose to do then is take out the phony reference but leave the true statement in.Dave (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The ... references, the ... references
I have looked at the references in the overview and find them somewhat disturbing. Most are from non-reviewable and non-accessable books; in other words, without the book in hand you can't check it. The two that I can check I find are not really references; they do not contain the information they are supposed to contain. And finally, the references tend to be incomplete as though someone copied the reference from another reference, so we get it third-hand (or more). The more copies, the more errors. I'm going on with my edit, which I would classify as a light edit. I think now even more the star is a "perfect" stamp under which errors get concealed. I note with dismay some administrators are all too willing to push anything out there as long as it has the appearance of being OK, and will try to prevent you from tagging what is wrong. Well. There's no merit in having lies out there no matter how pleasant-seeming, and although I am sure it gives you a thrill to dominate the issue, there is not really any victory in it unless you are right. On with the show.Dave (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This constant negativity and pointless criticism reminds me why I stopped bothering to edit wikipedia - I was spending as much time defending actions as actually writing anything productive. I wrote the majority of this article and the sources are not "non-reviewable and non-accessible", they are widely published press works that I have copies of in my personal library and that tens of thousands of copies of exist in the world. There's over 40 sources cited from primary sources including Livy, Tacitus and Caesar, secondary sources from historic luminaries such as Gibbon, Mommsen, Bury and Churchill, and modern writers with the most recent tertiary analysis including Grant, Goldsowrthy and Holland. I'm not sure what you can possibly find to object to, that the works aren't populist enough that they're not stocked in every branch of Barnes and Noble? - 81.174.157.135 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly entirely apocryphal
"almost certainly entirely apocryphal" (the first 4 kings). This is an unbalanced view. The legends concerning the first 4 kings are extensive; i.e., there is plenty of evidence of the legends. Along comes Michael Grant and says, well, there were no first 4 kings. However, he does not even have as much evidence as the legends do. It is entirely speculative based on what he thinks (off the top of the head) the government should have been. Well, it is an interesting theory but has no more in favor of it than the legends do. It's just another legend, a "Grantian" one. It is interesting and we are glad he made his speculation but I do not see it as the proven answer to the problem, only as another view. The problem is, to what degree are the first 4 kings mythical? The answer "entirely" is only one point of view. There are thousands of scholars and writers on the topic and his view in only one. I think the reader needs to be tipped off to that status so I am going to alter the language slightly - not much - just to take the "done deal" aspect from it. It is not a "done deal."Dave (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apocryphal just means "of doubtful authenticity". So the sentence means the first 4 kings are "almost certainly of doubtful authenticity". No-one's disputing the legends exist, but a legend is "An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical". I think it is more than fair to say that the first four kings are legendary in that they are historically unverified, and more than fair to say that a person that is historically unverified is "almost certainly of doubtful authenticity". There may be different beliefs or theories about this, but the lack of historical evidence for the first 4 kings is fact, not theory. - 81.174.157.135 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campaign history of the Roman military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718205608/http://www.roiw.org/1984/263.pdf to http://www.roiw.org/1984/263.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Modern Sources
Many of the sources used here are very questionable to me. Should a book written by Boris Johnson, or even Churchill, be included in a featured article, on a subject that is outside their sphere of competence? Moreover, Bury, Harkness, Gibbon, and Pennell are really dated; Davis Hanson and Liddell Hart have dubious reputation; Holland, Welch, and Wood are more popular writers than academics. I suppose the criteria for featured articles were different in 2007, but I think this article should be delisted as it relies too much on sources that should not be used in a featured article. T8612 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


text:
Stereolithography

Stereolithography (SLA or SL; also known as vat photopolymerisation, optical fabrication, photo-solidification, or resin printing) is a form of 3D printing technology used for creating models, prototypes, patterns, and production parts in a layer by layer fashion using photochemical processes by which light causes chemical monomers and oligomers to cross-link together to form polymers. Those polymers then make up the body of a three-dimensional solid. Research in the area had been conducted during the 1970s, but the term was coined by Chuck Hull in 1984 when he applied for a patent on the process, which was granted in 1986. Stereolithography can be used to create prototypes for products in development, medical models, and computer hardware, as well as in many other applications. While stereolithography is fast and can produce almost any design, it can be expensive.

History
Stereolithography or "SLA" printing is an early and widely used 3D printing technology. In the early 1980s, Japanese researcher Hideo Kodama first invented the modern layered approach to stereolithography by using ultraviolet light to cure photosensitive polymers. In 1984, just before Chuck Hull filed his own patent, Alain Le Mehaute, Olivier de Witte and Jean Claude André filed a patent for the stereolithography process. The French inventors' patent application was abandoned by the French General Electric Company (now Alcatel-Alsthom) and CILAS (The Laser Consortium). Le Mehaute believes that the abandonment reflects a problem with innovation in France.

The term “stereolithography” (Greek: stereo-solid and lithography) was coined in 1984 by Chuck Hull when he filed his patent for the process. Hull patented stereolithography as a method of creating 3D objects by successively "printing" thin layers of an object using a medium curable by ultraviolet light, starting from the bottom layer to the top layer. Hull's patent described a concentrated beam of ultraviolet light focused onto the surface of a vat filled with a liquid photopolymer. The beam is focused onto the surface of the liquid photopolymer, creating each layer of the desired 3D object by means of crosslinking (generation of intermolecular bonds in polymers). It was invented with the intent of allowing engineers to create prototypes of their designs in a more time effective manner. After the patent was granted in 1986, Hull co-founded the world's first 3D printing company, 3D Systems, to commercialize it.

Stereolithography's success in the automotive industry allowed 3D printing to achieve industry status and the technology continues to find innovative uses in many fields of study. Attempts have been made to construct mathematical models of stereolithography processes and to design algorithms to determine whether a proposed object may be constructed using 3D printing.

Technology
Stereolithography is an additive manufacturing process that, in its most common form, works by focusing an ultraviolet (UV) laser on to a vat of photopolymer resin. With the help of computer aided manufacturing or computer-aided design (CAM/CAD) software, the UV laser is used to draw a pre-programmed design or shape on to the surface of the photopolymer vat. Photopolymers are sensitive to ultraviolet light, so the resin is photochemically solidified and forms a single layer of the desired 3D object. Then, the build platform lowers one layer and a blade recoats the top of the tank with resin. This process is repeated for each layer of the design until the 3D object is complete. Completed parts must be washed with a solvent to clean wet resin from their surfaces.

It is also possible to print objects "bottom up" by using a vat with a transparent bottom and focusing the UV or deep-blue polymerization laser upward through the bottom of the vat. An inverted stereolithography machine starts a print by lowering the build platform to touch the bottom of the resin-filled vat, then moving upward the height of one layer. The UV laser then writes the bottom-most layer of the desired part through the transparent vat bottom. Then the vat is "rocked", flexing and peeling the bottom of the vat away from the hardened photopolymer; the hardened material detaches from the bottom of the vat and stays attached to the rising build platform, and new liquid photopolymer flows in from the edges of the partially built part. The UV laser then writes the second-from-bottom layer and repeats the process. An advantage of this bottom-up mode is that the build volume can be much bigger than the vat itself, and only enough photopolymer is needed to keep the bottom of the build vat continuously full of photopolymer. This approach is typical of desktop SLA printers, while the right-side-up approach is more common in industrial systems.

Stereolithography requires the use of supporting structures which attach to the elevator platform to prevent deflection due to gravity, resist lateral pressure from the resin-filled blade, or retain newly created sections during the "vat rocking" of bottom up printing. Supports are typically created automatically during the preparation of CAD models and can also be made manually. In either situation, the supports must be removed manually after printing.

Other forms of stereolithography build each layer by LCD masking, or using a DLP projector.

Materials
The liquid materials used for SLA printing are commonly referred to as "resins" and are thermoset polymers. A wide variety of resins are commercially available and it is also possible to use homemade resins to test different compositions for example. Material properties vary according to formulation configurations: "materials can be soft or hard, heavily filled with secondary materials like glass and ceramic, or imbued with mechanical properties like high heat deflection temperature or impact resistance". Recently, some studies have tested the possibility to green or reusable materials to produce "sustainable" resins. It is possible to classify the resins in the following categories:
 * Standard resins, for general prototyping
 * Engineering resins, for specific mechanical and thermal properties
 * Dental and medical resins, for biocompatibility certifications
 * Castable resins, for zero ash-content after burnout
 * Biomaterial resins, formulated as aqueous solutions of synthetic polymers like polyethylene glycol, or biological polymers such as gelatin, dextran, or hyaluronic acid.

Medical modeling

Stereolithographic models have been used in medicine since the 1990s, for creating accurate 3D models of various anatomical regions of a patient, based on data from computer scans. Medical modelling involves first acquiring a CT, MRI, or other scan. This data consists of a series of cross sectional images of the human anatomy. In these images different tissues show up as different levels of grey. Selecting a range of grey values enables specific tissues to be isolated. A region of interest is then selected and all the pixels connected to the target point within that grey value range are selected. This enables a specific organ to be selected. This process is referred to as segmentation. The segmented data may then be translated into a format suitable for stereolithography. While stereolithography is normally accurate, the accuracy of a medical model depends on many factors, especially the operator performing the segmentation correctly. There are potential errors possible when making medical models using stereolithography but these can be avoided with practice and well trained operators.

Stereolithographic models are used as an aid to diagnosis, preoperative planning and implant design and manufacture. This might involve planning and rehearsing osteotomies, for example. Surgeons use models to help plan surgeries but prosthetists and technologists also use models as an aid to the design and manufacture of custom-fitting implants. For instance, medical models created through stereolithography can be used to help in the construction of Cranioplasty plates.

In 2019, scientists at Rice University published an article in the journal Science, presenting soft hydrogel materials for stereolithography used in biological research applications.

Prototyping
Stereolithography is often used for prototyping parts. For a relatively low price, stereolithography can produce accurate prototypes, even of irregular shapes. Businesses can use those prototypes to assess the design of their product or as publicity for the final product.

Advantages
One of the advantages of stereolithography is its speed; functional parts can be manufactured within a day. The length of time it takes to produce a single part depends upon the complexity of the design and the size. Printing time can last anywhere from hours to more than a day. SLA printed parts, unlike those obtained from FFF/FDM, do not exhibit significant anisotropy and there's no visible layering pattern. The surface quality is, in general, superior. Prototypes and designs made with stereolithography are strong enough to be machined and can also be used to make master patterns for injection molding or various metal casting processes.

Disadvantages
Although stereolithography can be used to produce virtually any synthetic design, it is often costly, though the price is coming down. Since 2012, however, public interest in 3D printing has inspired the design of several consumer SLA machines which can cost considerably less. Beginning in 2016, substitution of the SLA and DLP methods using a high resolution, high contrast LCD panel has brought prices down to below US$200. The layers are created in their entirety since the entire layer is displayed on the LCD screen and is exposed using UV LEDs that lie below. Resolutions of .01mm are attainable. Another disadvantage is that the photopolymers are sticky, messy, and need to be handled with care. Newly made parts need to be washed, further cured, and dried. The environmental impact of all these processes requires more study to be understood, but in general SLA technologies have not created any biodegradable or compostable forms of resin, while other 3-D printing methods offer some compostable PLA options. The choice of materials is limited compared to FFF, which can process virtually any thermoplastic.

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

title: Stereolithography


text:
Talk:Rapid manufacturing

Stereolithography most common?
The article claims that Stereo Lith is the most common method. Any reference on that? From my own experience Fused Deposition Modeling seems more common these days, but an actual reference would be good. -- Kaszeta 14:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you may be right in that FDM is becoming more popular than STL, but most likely any indication of one of these being favored over another is POV and will be quickly dated. Probably the reference should be removed or weakened. --ssd 12:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I reworded it to be less POV.  -- Kaszeta 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

STL file format?
Where would be a good place to mention the widely used STL file format? This format is used not only in the rapid manufacturing industry. It is also used to exchange sets of triangles that approximate components to be manufactured. The format is for example used in the toolmaking industry.

Getting a little silly here...
This article is accumulating more linkspam than actual content. Before long it will just be a directory of machine shops. Can anyone with who knows the subject manage to go through and strip out the chaff from the wheat, so to speak? If there's no takers I'll have a go myself, but it's not my subject so I'd prefer not to risk making a mistake. • TheBendster (talk) 14 May 2008, 19:21 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rapid manufacturing


text:
User:Marco.org

About me

 * Name: Marco Arment
 * Website: Marco.org
 * Education: BS in Computer Science from Allegheny College, 2004
 * Employer: Tumblr, and self-employed with Instapaper
 * Location: Hastings-on-Hudson, New York
 * Hometown: Columbus, Ohio.

I'm a regular Wikipedia reader and very rare contributor. My contributions are generally basic grammar and spelling corrections, although I've occasionally added actual content that isn't important enough to mention here.

 * Contact me: [mailto:me@marco.org me@marco.org]

title: User:Marco.org


text:
Talk:Identifier

Untitled
Move from Name and identifier to Identifier?

Motivation: This article really only discusses identifiers. "Name and identifier" is plain silly.

-- Eelis 02:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

 * This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

-

I made the following changes:
 * "Language object" was awkward.
 * List of example language entities was.. unusual.
 * "Token" is more accurate than "lexical unit" (which didn't have an article anyway).
 * Description of "label" made very little sense and was probably associated with a specific language.
 * Computer languages is more accurate than programming languages (think markup languages).
 * We don't need to define "keyword", there's a separate article for that.
 * Made the C++ identifier example a bit simpler, we don't need full detail here.
 * Opening statement should aim to define. Usage is secondary.
 * Usage remark should be as broad as possible: information processing systems.
 * Examples of what we can identify in general is impossible. We can identify _anything_ we can model.
 * The identifiers in telecommunications and data processing section really didn't add anything to the general definition.
 * I've moved the naming conventions section to a new article: naming conventions (programming).
 * The "to be merged" section didn't describe identifiers.
 * The reference to the federal standard didn't add anything.

-- Eelis 23:34, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Merging Object identifier into this article
It was suggested by User:Nichtich to merge Object identifier into this article. I disagree: Even though the object identifier is indeed a type of identifier, it is by itself a key concept of ASN.1 and has well-defined syntax and meaning.

 * This justifies an own article, so  [don't merge] . Dr. Hok 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't merge. OIDs are very specific approach to distributed management of unique identifiers which deserve to be discussed in its own article. Gschadow 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * OID was just announced in Korea as a world standard for RFID. The reasons to not merge just keep piling up. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704240005.html Scmdn 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't merge. Object identifier is a very specific kind of identifier with a well-defined community and area of use. MarkWahl 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Absolutley do not merge. OID is specific in its nature and wildly enough used and respected to warrant its own entry.Si Smith  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipsmi (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "merge" on OID since it does not make much sense to merge it and here are five cons and no pros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpeylo (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Identifier (metadata)
The Identifier (metadata) article does not present sufficient information to stand individually. It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse merge. However, "in metadata" is insufficient context for the definition given. Technical definitions such as this representation term are meaningless without specific reference to the particular frameworks or standards that so define them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I note that a bunch of definitions from Representation term have spawned similar separate articles with insufficient context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Standardized virus and bacteria identifier...?
Any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.202.23 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

and software identifier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.202.23 (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Info about product batch identifier.....
--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+product+batch+number&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+batch+code&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22product+number%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22product+number%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Info about service batch identifier.....
--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+service+identifier&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+service+batch&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

New Article Titled "Identifier (Computer Science)"
I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a new, separate article for identifiers in computer science. The way they're currently smooshed together with the generalized term is awkward and confusing. Similarly, saying that they're one and the same is like saying a variable in mathematics is the same as one in computer science. Yes, they're similar, but they're also distinct, with their own rules and nomenclature. A variable in math is an abstract concept. A variable in computer science is a location in memory. Until I can compile the "Identifiers on the back of a statue in the Louvre", the pages should be split. Opinions? Damienivan (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Identifier analagous to Name?
I have removed the following sentence: Aside from the rather useless wikilink to the English language word Analogy, this sentence is also of dubious truth. The term "name" (at least in data circles) is often something used to identify the entity to a human, for example "John Smith". This is very different from the identifier (e.g. 427761), in particular because there is no guarantee that a name is unique. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept is analogous to that of a "name".
 * Yes, they are analogous. They serve the same basic purpose of designating or identifying, one generally to humans, the other for system purposes. You have pointed out how they differ, but "analogous" does not mean "identical".--Ericjs (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The claim that identifiers are names is mere assertion. I don't believe it; names are a part of speech while identifiers aren't, they simply have a role in some identifying process (which I won't put in the article because I don't have a reference). A reference to a reputable linguist, philosopher, or semiotician would be helpful here (and throughout), otherwise the claim should be withdrawn. In general the whole article, while it contains some good information, reads like someone talking off the top of their head, expounding a personal theory, as opposed to connecting with any appropriate intellectual tradition or doing empirical linguistic scholarship. Jar354 (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The word identifier is a hypernym of the word name when name is used in the sense that is most common (i.e., typical natural language names). Not all identifiers are names in that sense, but all names (in that sense) are identifiers, even though they are often not unique identifiers (which have one-to-one relationships of name to named entity within the agreed context). However, if using the widest, most general senses of the word name, it is tenuous to argue that identifier and name are denotationally distinct—rather, they are only idiomatically and connotationally distinct. — ¾-10 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

opaque identifier
Could someone please add a few sentences to this article mentioning -- perhaps even defining -- "opaque identifiers", "opaque identifier strings", and "opaque strings"? They are mentioned or alluded to in several other Wikipedia articles, including "Handle (computing)", "HTTP ETag", "Semantic URL", "Document type definition", "Handle System", and "Digest access authentication".

Is the term "opaque identifier" synonymous with "arbitrary identifier"?

I added one sentence describing the difference between serial-number style arbitrary identifiers and version 4 UUID style opaque identifiers, but I'm not really sure that difference really applies to *all* kinds of arbitrary identifiers and *all* kinds of opaque identifiers. --DavidCary (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

a predicate is not an identifier
The article says: "For example, both "Jamie Zawinski" and "Netscape employee number 20" are identifiers for the same specific human being" Actually, I totally disagree. While we all know who jzw is, both descriptors ("someone called Jamie Zawinski", and "Netscape employee number 20) do not uniquely point to a specific person; I am sure there's more than one Jamie Zawinski in this world, and, since Netscape does not exist anymore, and Jamie, the one we are talking about, is not an employee anyway, both predicates are ambiguous. They are not pointers. They don't identify uniquely a specific person. So they are not identifiers. Of course there's a common misconception that a predicate that is supposed to have a singleton as a solution is something like an identifier; I believe it is important to disambiguate. Know the difference, roughly speaking, between an equation and its root(s). Vlad Patryshev (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Certainly both "Jamie Zawinski" and "Netscape employee number 20" are identifiers. It is true that they are not unique identifiers, and it is true that one of them is not an up-to-date or currently used identifier. But those facts don't make them "not identifiers". — ¾-10 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Could a better image have been chosen?
I'm not fully convinced about the example image chosen, mostly concerned about the legibility of the text. Plus the fact it has literally zero description until you click for details on the image itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.240.54 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Agreed! I just changed it to an image of a car's registration plate. Hopefully that's more useful for readers. Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

White round pill with numbers on one side, 627 initials AH 2601:83:8100:FD00:E4E0:514D:291A:4C09 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Identify white round drug number 671 AN at the top 2601:83:8100:FD00:E4E0:514D:291A:4C09 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Shakan sh 83.121.87.182 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Shovanshaydaei 83.121.87.182 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Identifier


text:
Waxworm

Waxworms are the caterpillar larvae of wax moths, which belong to the family Pyralidae (snout moths). Two closely related species are commercially bred – the lesser wax moth (Achroia grisella) and the greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella). They belong to the tribe Galleriini in the snout moth subfamily Galleriinae. Another species whose larvae share that name is the Indian mealmoth (Plodia interpunctella), though this species is not available commercially.

The adult moths are sometimes called "bee moths", but, particularly in apiculture, this can also refer to Aphomia sociella, another Galleriinae moth which also produces waxworms, but is not commercially bred.

Waxworms are medium-white caterpillars with black-tipped feet and small, black or brown heads.

In the wild, they live as nest parasites in bee colonies and eat cocoons, pollen, and shed skins of bees, and chew through beeswax, thus the name. Beekeepers consider waxworms to be pests. Galleria mellonella (the greater wax moths) will not attack the bees directly, but feed on the wax used by the bees to build their honeycomb. Their full development to adults requires access to used brood comb or brood cell cleanings—these contain protein essential for the larvae's development, in the form of brood cocoons. The destruction of the comb will spill or contaminate stored honey and may kill bee larvae or be the cause of the spreading of honey bee diseases.

When kept in captivity, they can go a long time without eating, particularly if kept at a cool temperature. Captive waxworms are usually raised on a mixture of cereal grain, bran, and honey.

Waxworms as a food source
Waxworms are a commonly used food for many insectivorous animals and plants in captivity. These larvae are grown extensively for use as food for humans, as well as live food for terrarium pets and some pet birds, mostly due to their high fat content, their ease of breeding, and their ability to survive for weeks at low temperatures. They are recommended for use as a treat rather than a staple food, due to their relative lack of nutrients when compared to crickets and mealworms. Their high fat and food energy (caloric) density can also contribute to obesity in captive animals if they are fed waxworms too often, especially in animals with a low metabolism, such as reptiles.

Most commonly, they are used to feed reptiles such as bearded dragons (species in the genus Pogona), the neon tree dragon (Japalura splendida), geckos, brown anoles (Anolis sagrei), turtles such as the three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis), and chameleons. They can also be fed to amphibians such as Ceratophrys frogs, newts such as Strauch's spotted newt (Neurergus strauchii), and salamanders such as axolotls. Small mammals such as the domesticated hedgehog can also be fed with waxworms, while birds such as the greater honeyguide can also appreciate the food. They can also be used as food for captive predatory insects reared in terraria, such as assassin bugs in the genus Platymeris, and are also occasionally used to feed certain kinds of fish in the wild, such as bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus).

Waxworms as bait
Waxworms may be store-bought or raised by anglers. Anglers and fishing bait shops often refer to the larvae as "waxies". They are used for catching some varieties of panfish, members of the sunfish family (Centrarchidae), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and can be used for shallow-water fishing with the use of a lighter weight. They are also used for fishing some members of the family Salmonidae, masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou), white-spotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Fishing
Anglers use waxworms usually provided by commercial suppliers to catch trout. Waxworms are popular bait for anglers in Japan. Anglers throw handfuls into the "swim" they are targeting, attracting the trout to the area. The angler then uses the largest or most attractive waxworms on the hook, hoping to be irresistible to the fish.

Waxworms as an alternative to mammals in animal research
Waxworms can replace mammals in certain types of scientific experiments with animal testing, especially in studies examining the virulence mechanisms of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Waxworms prove valuable in such studies because the innate immune system of insects is strikingly similar to that of mammals. Waxworms survive well at human body temperature and are large enough in size to allow straightforward handling and accurate dosing. Additionally, the considerable cost savings when using waxworms instead of small mammals (usually mice, hamsters, or guinea pigs) allows testing throughput that is otherwise impossible. Using waxworms, it is now possible to screen large numbers of bacterial and fungal strains to identify genes involved in pathogenesis or large chemical libraries with the hope of identifying promising therapeutic compounds. The later studies have proved especially useful in identifying chemical compounds with favorable bioavailability.

Biodegradation of plastic
Two species of waxworm, Galleria mellonella and Plodia interpunctella have both been observed eating and digesting polyethylene plastic. The waxworms metabolize polyethylene plastic films into ethylene glycol, a compound which biodegrades rapidly. This unusual ability to digest matter classically thought of as non-edible may originate with the waxworm's ability to digest beeswax as a result of gut microbes that are essential in the biodegradation process. Two strains of bacteria, Enterobacter asburiae and Bacillus sp, isolated from the guts of Plodia interpunctella waxworms, have been shown to decompose polyethylene in laboratory testing. In a test with a 28-day incubation period of these two strains of bacteria on polyethylene films, the films' hydrophobicity decreased. In addition, damage to the films' surface with pits and cavities (0.3–0.4 μm in depth) was observed using scanning electron microscopy and atomic-force microscopy.

Placed in a polyethylene shopping bag, about 100 Galleria mellonella waxworms consumed almost 0.1 g of the plastic over the course of 12 hours in laboratory conditions.

A non-peer reviewed research study in 2020 questioned the ability of G. mellonella caterpillars to digest and biologically degrade polyethylene.

title: Waxworm


text:
Joseph Edward Smadel

Joseph Edward Smadel (1907–1963) was a U.S. medical doctor and virologist. He introduced chloramphenicol as treatment for rickettsial diseases. In 1962, he became the first recipient of the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research.

Biography
Smadel was born in Vincennes, Indiana, the son of medical doctor Joseph William Smadel and former nurse Clara Greene Smadel. He completed his undergraduate work at the University of Pennsylvania then obtained a medical degree from the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis in 1931. It was at Washington University that he met his future wife, Elizabeth Moore. Smadel was a member of the virological team that first recognized an outbreak of St. Louis encephalitis in 1933.

Smadel then moved on to New York City to work under scientists Homer Swift and Thomas M. Rivers at the Rockefeller Institute. While there, Smadel took a strong interest in the new field of virology. He formed a productive, long term professional association with Dr. Rivers, the two of them jointly publishing numerous articles. Utilizing the then new techniques of ultra-centrifugation and chemical fractionation, Smadel made significant contributions to the understanding of myxomatosis, viral encephalitis, variola, vaccinia, and psittacosis.

Smadel joined the U.S. Naval Reserve in December, 1940, but went on full-time active duty with the U.S. Army’s Medical Department Professional Service School (MDPSS) in August, 1942. (The MDPSS officially became the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in 1953 after a number of intermediate name changes.) The freshly commissioned Captain Smadel was assigned as Chief Virologist with the First Medical General Laboratory in the European Theater with the mission of controlling the outbreak of typhus fever in the Mediterranean region in May 1943. Following the Normandy invasion, he was assigned to an advanced field laboratory in France. Following the Allied victory in Europe, Lieutenant Colonel Smadel became the director of the Department Of Virus and Rickettsial Diseases with at the WRAIR, a position he held after his return to civilian life. Perhaps Smadel's most notable professional achievement was the series of field studies in Kuala Lumpur in 1948 which established chloramphenicol as an effective treatment for typhus and typhoid fever.

In the 1950s, under Smadel's direction, WRAIR established itself as one of the première institutes for the study of infectious diseases. Research programs there included the study of leptospirosis, plague, hemorrhagic fever, arboviral diseases, enteric diseases, cholera, and rickettsial diseases such as typhus.

Smadel after exerting much pressure on Jonas Salk and Basil O'Connor was in early 1954 given the assignment of writing the production protocols for the Polio Vaccine.

In 1956 Smadel left the institute to become the associate director of the National Institutes of Health. In 1963, he assumed a new position as chief, Laboratory of Virology and Rickettsiology, Division of Biologics Standards, National Institutes of Health, which he held until his death.

Honors and accolades

 * In 1962, Smadel was awarded the Albert Lasker Clinical Medical Research Award.

title: Joseph Edward Smadel


text:
User talk:0101CHANkh

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 14:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:0101CHANkh


text:
Persephone (The Matrix)

Persephone is a fictional character in The Matrix franchise. She is portrayed by Monica Bellucci. In the films The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, Persephone is married to the Merovingian. She seems bored with her existence in the Matrix, and is dissatisfied with her husband (possibly because of his constant infidelities).

Films
In The Matrix Reloaded, Persephone meets Neo, Trinity and Morpheus when they come to talk with The Merovingian, her husband. Though her husband declines to help the human resistance, Persephone is sexually attracted to Neo and offers to help him if he kisses her with the same passion with which he has kissed Trinity. Reluctantly, he complies and she helps him free the Keymaker. Later, she kills one of her husband's employees.

In The Matrix Revolutions, Persephone warns the Merovingian that Trinity would indeed kill everyone in Club Hel to free Neo from the Train Station, simply because she is in love. This suggests that Persephone perceives and understands love, and may be disheartened by the cynicism of her husband, who seems to be driven solely by greed and lust.

In The Matrix Resurrections, Persephone makes a quick cameo appearance through archive footage from Reloaded while Neo remembers his past adventures sixty years after bringing peace to humans and Machines. While the Merovingian and some of his henchmen are revealed to have survived The Analyst's purge over the Matrix, Persephone's status is unconfirmed.

Enter the Matrix
In the video game Enter The Matrix, Persephone encounters and takes a kiss from either Niobe or Ghost (depending on whose story the player follows). She seems to be able to deduce the feelings and emotions of those she kisses, noting Niobe's love for Morpheus, or Ghost's unrequited love for Trinity. She apparently takes deep pleasure in sampling the emotions of others.

The Matrix Online
In the MMO The Matrix Online, Persephone gave the location of the Assassin's hide-out to Zion operatives in a critical mission relating to the Death Of A Destroyer event.

Cultural references
The character's name is taken from that of Persephone in Greek mythology, who is the daughter of Zeus and Demeter (Ceres), and whom Hades took to the underworld to be his queen.

Before shooting her husband's employee in The Matrix Reloaded, Persephone wonders aloud, "How many people keep silver bullets in their gun?", implying that the employee is a werewolf. In behind-the-scenes footage, Persephone herself is compared to a "vampire that seeks after emotions" by actress Monica Bellucci.

In popular culture
In a 2012 survey by Empire Cinemas, Persephone was listed among the sexiest characters in cinema.

Likewise, Nettavisen declared in 2009 that the role of Persephone qualified Monica Bellucci as one of the 25 sexiest women of all time.

title: Persephone (The Matrix)


text:
Sun City Agreement

The Sun City Agreement was signed between some of the warring parties in the Second Congo War on 2 April 2003 at the luxury South African casino resort of Sun City, as a result of the Inter-Congolese dialogue (ICD). Delegates hoped that this would be a historic "final act", ending more than four years of war and setting up a government of national unity.

The agreement was witnessed by South African President Thabo Mbeki as well as the heads of state of Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In his speech during the meeting, Mbeki praised the delegates who had spent 19 months involved in the ICD negotiations.

Participants
The partial agreement was reached between the government, the Ugandan-backed Mouvement de liberation du Congo (MLC) armed opposition group and a majority of civil society and unarmed political opposition groups. Unfortunately, the parties were not able to establish a new constitution and government, despite repeated attempts.

However, another armed opposition movement, the Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD-Goma), backed by Rwanda, along with several parties of the unarmed political opposition including the Union pour la Democratie et le Progres Social (UDPS) of the veteran Congolese politician and former prime minister, Etienne Tshisekedi refused to sign the accord, which led to concerns about a return to violence.

Treaty terms
The agreement laid down a framework for providing the Congo with a unified, multi-party government and a timeline for democratic elections.

Among other stipulations, the agreement allowed Joseph Kabila to remain president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo during a transition period of two years, extendable to three, with Jean-Pierre Bemba (the leader of the MLC) serving as prime minister in a transitional government.

It was further stipulated that Kabila would share power with four vice-presidents - one from each of the two main armed opposition movements, one from the government and one from the unarmed political opposition. Ministries would be divided up and former opposition fighters would be integrated into the army and police.

After the conclusion of the accord, critics noted that there were no stipulations regarding the unification of the army, which weakened the effectiveness of the agreement. There were several reported breaches of the agreement, but initially it resulted in a reduction in the fighting.

There was also criticism that the delegates were not provided with a complete dossier of documentation at the end of the agreement (such as minutes of meetings, commission reports and resolutions), which hindered informed debate in the Congo. It was also felt that the principles which guided the formation of the follow-up organs of the Sun City Agreement were not clear.

The Sun City Agreement did not stop the conflict, as shown by subsequent events (see Second Congo War).

During the agreement, the delegates considered giving the country of the Democratic Republic of the Congo away to the Kingdom of Belgium in exchange for humanitarian aid and sending an intervention force to help the central government fight the Rwandan/Ugandan backed Congolese rebels.

title: Sun City Agreement


text:
User talk:68.80.223.233

I am who I am, I wish to remain anonomous for the moment.--68.80.223.233 14:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome!! You just the page Navy Department. However, the redirect was wrong. I fixed it, but in future redirects should be typed like this:

 * 1) REDIRECT page name

I know this is not how they look, but this is the only way they'll work. Thanks,--Honeycake

- To say that the Cyprus debate is utter nonsense is a lie and a farce to the progress of international politics. Turkey claiming ownership to part of Cyprus is basically the equivalent of the EU saying "Here, Germany, you illegally conquered these countries, you can have them back, we don't care." Modern warfare has always seen the return of occupied lands, whether by allied force or by treaty/dissolution of a larger state (see USSR). Turkey continues to be able to ignore modern results for their actions...no penalties for the now-recognized genocide of Armenians, no return of Cypriot land, no admonishment for attacking Kurds who only seek their lands returned. These are just a few of the reasons by Turkey is not admitted to the EU, in addition to their horrific economy. Surely you've researched better than that. -- NJDevils1087 —Preceding comment was added at 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Akhand Bharat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fowj listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fowj. Since you had some involvement with the Fowj redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.80.223.233


text: Category:Equestrian sports

title: Category:Equestrian sports


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stripped of clothing

Stripped of clothing was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Postdlf 08:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stripped of clothing
This is one of a series of contributions by this author on a decontamination / nudity / forcible stripping theme. Much of this appears to me to be idiosyncratic. Suggest incorporation of useful content into decontamination, and deletion of this article. Similarly for the other related contributions -- put useful content into decontamination, or into nudity, as appropriate, and delete the rest. -- The Anome 14:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Idiosyncratic, but relatively NPOV. Very awkward name, though, and a merge would be best, and decontamination would be best. Geogre 14:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is someone's fantasy world. A proper, fact-based discussion on how privacy is handled in actual, documented cases of group decontamination would be well added to nudity, but this article is not headed in that direction. Sharkford 15:29, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think the external links section says it all. NPOV, no useful content, rumour mongering. -Vina 18:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Sharkford. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's a few bits short of a byte here. --Improv 20:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Specific constructive criticism would likely be more useful than the bits byte analogy. I've written for a number of print-based encyclopedias, and the comments that come back are usually very specific.  It would be nice if Wikipedia could use a similar peer review process in which specific aspects of the article are identified, rather than vague inuendo about the author. Also the nice thing about having the article online is that others can edit it directly, so it would be possible to rework the article, as part of a peer review process. Glogger 15:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect to nudity. -Sean Curtin 02:02, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. More of the bizarre stuff like Beachwear.  RickK 06:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, if there's a better place for this, and someone's willing to work on it, it could become encyclopedic — siro  χ  o  10:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somebody's personal fantasy.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to keep the factual elements, such as the "nude, naked, stripped" continuum, into naked? All three could be merged into one article, but nudity is already a long article, so ideally there's still room somewhere for a broader philosophical overview of related concepts.
 * Keep as a necessary counterpoint to nude i.e. for balance and NPOV. See Nude, Naked, Stripped, i.e. I believe there should either be 3 articles (one for each), or just one article naked right in the middle, with a balanced treatment of both sides.  Although I will admit that I've probably made a poorly written stripped article, I believe that, having studied the work of many artists and scholars who've questioned the neutrality of the term nude (i.e. nudism as a euphimism for nakedness, and nudity as a strongly biased term), the article could be  rewritten to capture the other point of view.  Maybe it could be converted into an article on strip searches, legal issues, or the like, because that's a point of view that falls way beyond the scope of the positive-spin aura around nudism/nudity/nude/nudists  Glogger 14:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Steve, you have your own website where you can post little essays with your musings on stuff you find interesting. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Stop treating Wikipedia as your personal blog. It's quite annoying. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Quill (film)

Quill (クイール) is a 2004 Japanese drama film about a guide dog, first released in Japan on 13 March 2004 and on DVD on 25 September 2004. It was also shown at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival in Canada on 17 September 2004.

The film is directed by Yōichi Sai and adapted from the original novel The Life of Quill, the Seeing-Eye Dog (盲導犬クイールの一生) by Ryohei Akimoto and Kengo Ishiguro, based on a true story. Prior to the release of this film, NHK produced a TV drama adaptation of the novel, which aired from June 16 to July 28, 2003.

Plot
One day in Tokyo, a yellow Labrador Retriever puppy is born among a litter of five. This puppy is unique, wherein he has a bird-shaped mark on his left side. Following a simple communication test, he is selected to become a guide dog; hence his first parting. After being picked up by dog trainer Satoru Tawada, the puppy is flown to Kyoto to live with Isamu and Mitsuko Nii - a married couple who are "puppy walkers", people who raise guide dogs for a year. There, the couple name him "Quill", after discovering the word in an English-Japanese dictionary. As soon as Quill reaches the age of one, he is handed back to Tawada to undergo guide dog training; this becomes his second parting. At first, Quill has difficulty learning the basic skills, but one day, while tending to another dog, Tawada notices that Quill is excellent in waiting - an important trait in a guide dog.

During training, Quill is introduced to Mitsuru Watanabe, a blind journalist who has relied on a white cane since losing his eyesight. Watanabe, at first, is skeptical about using a guide dog, but after walking with Quill for the first time, he realizes that he can travel faster and safer with the dog. Watanabe then undergoes training to work with Quill; most of the training involves learning English-language commands, so as to not confuse Quill when other people around him are talking in Japanese. He fails the final examination after not listening to Quill's warnings on obstacles, but they begin to work more cohesively for Watanabe to obtain his guide dog owner license. Quill moves in with Watanabe's family and works with his master for two years. Then one day, Watanabe is confined to the hospital when his diabetes takes its turn for the worse, resulting in kidney failure. Quill is returned to the training center, where he works as a demonstration dog for two years before finally reuniting with Watanabe. Their walk, however, is their final one, as Watanabe dies a few days later. Quill's third parting occurs after visiting Watanabe's funeral.

Quill no longer works as a guide dog; instead, he becomes the center's demonstration dog for seven years before he is reunited with the Nii family. He lives a happy and peaceful life for a year, but one day, while playing at the backyard, he falls off a step and breaks several bones. As they look over a dying Quill throughout the night, the couple thank him and tell him to tell those in heaven who he is. Quill passes away at the age of 12 years, 25 days.

Cast

 * Kaoru Kobayashi as Mitsuru Watanabe, the middle-aged blind master of Quill
 * Kippei Shiina as Satoru Tawada, the trainer of Quill
 * Kazu Matsuda as Etsuo Watanabe, the stubborn son of Watanabe
 * Yukika Sakuratani as Mitsuko Watanabe, the daughter of Watanabe and the narrator of the story
 * Keiko Toda as Watanabe's wife
 * Teruyuki Kagawa as Isamu Nii, the male puppy walker of Quill
 * Shinobu Terajima as Mitsuko Nii, the female puppy walker of Quill
 * Hiroko Natori as Ren Mito, the first owner of Quill and the litter he was born with
 * Mamoru Miyano

For the role of Quill, a Labrador named "Rafie" portrayed him throughout most of the film. "Chibichibiku" played the puppy Quill, "Beat" was three-month-old Quill and "Yuma" portrayed an elderly Quill, with a CG version portraying his accident toward the end of the film.

Soundtrack
The film's soundtrack, composed and recorded by the Kuricorder Quartet, consists of simple recorders mixed with acoustic instruments. The soundtrack album was released on March 10, 2004.

Box office
Quill was a commercial success becoming the 21st highest-grossing film in Japan of 2004 earning $19,270,242.

Reception
The film received generally positive reviews. Based on 19 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an 80% rating and an average score of 6.7 out of 10. On Metacritic, the film has a 60 out of 100, based on reviews from 8 critics.

Roger Ebert scored the film at three out of four, commenting that it "doesn't use fake closeups to show the dog being cute or funny. It doesn't dub Quill's 'dialogue' or even worse, use CGI to move his jaw and show him 'speaking.' Quill is a dog, and that is quite enough.". David Nusair of Reelfilm gave the film two-and-a-half out of four, saying that "while the movie does occasionally seem to dwell unnecessarily on some of the more unpleasant aspects of Quill's life, this is the sort of movie kids will probably enjoy more than adults (yet grown-ups can easily watch this without checking the old watch every couple of minutes)".

Home media
The film was released on DVD in the U.S. as Quill: The Life of a Guide Dog by Music Box Films on July 10, 2012.

title: Quill (film)