text:
Talk:USS Torsk

Snorkel
I removed the statement "Torsk is the only submarine floating today that still has the snorkel" because I don't understand it -- every submarine floating today has a snorkle. --the Epopt 20:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I re-added this information and reworded it a little better. The Torsk is the only sub from the snorkel refit program that still has the original snorkel.  These were the first ships in the navy to attempt the snorkel system, so it is significant that the ship still has hers and you can actually go and see it.--ScottyBoy900Q ∞  23:50, 09 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stripping pennant numbers
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos
A host of photos of the boat can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hull Number in Lead Paragraph
Separating the hull number from the ship name is not uniform with the thousands of other pages on here that follow the same format. The excuse of "ease of readability" for new readers is redundant as the hull number is explained later in the article anyway.

There's no reason this page needs to be different. It should be changed to match the rest of Wikipedia. GansMans (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Enforcing consistency for consistency's sake is a bad idea, not a good one. If you think we should be consistent because that structure is better, then we have something to discuss. But you haven't asserted that. Put another way: didn't your dad ever ask you that old chestnut: "if your friends all jump off a cliff, will you?"
 * Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it.
 * You may not know this, but essentially all Wikipedia articles on US warships are little more than DANFS text. Go look at a DANFS article and tell me what you see at the top. Start with the one for Torsk. Then ask yourself whether you think the decision to put the hull number where it is in most articles was the result of anyone actually considering whether or not that makes sense for Wikipedia, a non-specialist tertiary source, or if it just happened organically from copying DANFS verbatim. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Consistency has always been an important part of styling articles on Wikipedia.

Besides that, when the Navy refers to a ship by its proper name, especially for the first time, the hull number is always attached on the end. It's the official and proper way to refer to a warship especially if it's the first time it's being referred to.

Since what we're discussing is literally the first words of the article, it's only right that the ship, the whole subject of the article, is referred to by its proper title for the first time.

What I'm curious about is why this page has been different to start out with and why it's such a big deal that it can't match the rest. If this is the way to do it, why haven't all of the other articles been changed to match this one?

I'm not trying to be mean, but the only reason you've given so far as to why this shouldn't be changed is because you, personally, don't think consistency matters.

If you can give an *objective* reason, like I have, as to why this article deserves to be different, then I'll leave it alone. GansMans (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Any official photos the Navy publishes, any official statement they put out, any article they publish, when one their ships is named, it's full name, hull number and everything, is written the first time it's mentioned. After that, it shorted to its namesake. It should be no different here. GansMans (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * 1: We are not the USN, we don't need to follow their style. 2: The hull number is not part of the ship's name. 3: Have you actually read anything I've written? I find it hard to believe you have, if you think I don't have justification beyond "consistency doesn't matter". Go back to my second paragraph above and give that a second look. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You're entire second paragraph simply states the DANF texts are the basis for most warship articles on Wikipedia. That's not a reason why this change shouldn't happen. All that does is say this article came from a DANF text.

And no, we're not the USN, but that doesn't mean we can just change ship titles because we can. It doesn't work that way.

Yes the hull number is part of the ships name. Cutting off the hull number to put in a page link is the exact same as cutting off the USS to elaborate what USS stands for. You're splitting apart the official name of the ship to put in a page link. Point to another article on Wikipedia where the namesake of the article gets its name torn in half so part of it can get elaborated on.

You don't have a reason why my change isn't right. You're just stating that you don't want it to change just for the sake of it. I was even ready to compromise and say we could just put in another section in the info box and put the hull number in there and link it there instead. But you haven't even shown you want to compromise or even consider my change. Why even bother going to the talk page if your mind has been made up the whole time?

Find an objective reason as to why this specific article has the right to be different. GansMans (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Let me repost my second paragraph, as you seem to be having trouble finding it:
 * "Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it."
 * No, hull numbers decidedly are not part of the ship's name. You might want to do a bit more research on this particular topic, as you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the passive aggressive tone you are taking with me. Do not insinuate that I don't know what I'm a talking about and do not insult my knowledge on the subject. If there's a way to end this dispute, insulting the other editor is not going to help your case.

Here's what we know

1-The US Navy says when referencing a ship for the first time (ie the first words of the article), use the ship prefix, the ship name, followed by the hull number. This is the way all other Wikipedia articles like this are written in the lead sentece and is clearly written in this guide (which has been referenced before in cases similar to this on Wikipedia) here. https://web.archive.org/web/20150606165827/http://www.navy.mil/submit/view_styleguide.asp?sort=S

2-Like you said, most of these articles are just regurgitated DANF texts. That's why all of these articles lead paragraphs have the same styling. However, that does not mean that we're free to change the styling wherever/whenever we choose. So your point questioning whether it was copied like that for correctness or convenience is irrelevant.

3-The reason you want the page link there is to point out to new/non-specialized readers what a hull number is. That's fine, but it doesn't need to be done right in the middle of the ships title, literally splitting it in two. We can find elsewhere to put it, see my info box suggestion.

4-No, we're not the USN. No we don't have to follow their styling word-for-word (and sometimes we dont, see the hyphen that the Navy inconsistently places in the hull identification. But nowhere else, be it Wikipedia or not, is it right to split the ships title in half to elaborate on what the identification numbers are. It just not something that happens because it looks awkward. This is no different.

All I want is to have the ships title written put properly. There's a way to do that and simultaneously elaborate on what the hull numbers are without having that ugly split in the title.

We either find some sort of compromise or we'll have to get a third party to mediate or act as an arbitrator. Because so far this isn't working. And it's not due to my lack of trying.

GansMans (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seemingly can't identify the second of three paragraphs (and are still ignoring it despite me having quoted it and highlighted it). You are either incompetent or arguing in bad faith. The fact that you've dropped your obviously false assertion that hull numbers are part of the ship's name and are now merely part of the title (i.e., moving the goalposts) is further evidence of your bad faith. Stop wasting my time. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious you're just being condescending just for the sake of it. So I take it you're not willing to even try and resolve this and come to a compromise? GansMans (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * No, I just have no patience for those who are incapable of discussing something in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So that's a no then.

I've done nothing but try to find a compromise or a solution. I'm sad and sorry you don't see it that way. GansMans (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have refused to engage with anything to me I’ve said, have actively misconstrued what I have said, and you engage in goalpost shifting instead of simply admitting you’re wrong. How exactly have you participated in this discussion that would give me the foggiest idea that you are trying to find a solution in good faith? Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering I've offered a solution, given my objective reasons as to why I think my edit should stay, asked you for objective reasons why yours should stay, made a list summarizing all of the things we've established so far, and asked if you'd be willing to compromise, admitted that if you just gave me a valid reason as to why you think your version is correct then I'd concede and leave it alone...I think I've done nothing but act in good faith.

You are the one who started insulting me. You are the one who made this turn a bit ugly with your attitude towards me. You are the one accusing me of not acting in good faith. You are the one accusing me of shifting goalposts (?).It was YOUR idea we come to the talk page to find a solution, but you've done nothing to point to you actually wanting a proper discussion. All you've done is escalate and escalate. That's not what this is for. This is a clear cut example of WP:STONEWALLING.GansMans (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * 1: No, you haven't given any objective reasons. You've asserted consistency is good because consistency is good. You've offered logically fallacious statements.
 * 2: No, you have (and continue to) ignored what I've said and deliberately misrepresented what I've said.
 * 3: Demanding that I provide you with answers after I've already provided them is a tactic called Sealioning.
 * 4: You did shift the goalposts. Want to prove me wrong? Admit you're wrong about the hull number being a part of the name, and move on with your life.
 * 5: How's this for a compromise: the hull number isn't in the title of this article, so it doesn't need to be in the lead at all, let alone in bold text. Let's just remove it altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting find. The Torsk page originally had the hull number with the name just like all the other pages. But you were the one who made the unnecessary edit in May 2020 with the insubstantial reasoning of "tweak." GansMans (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you change it to begin with? It was fine the way it was until you "tweaked" it unnecessarily 2 years ago. All I'm doing is reverting it hack to the way it was/should be. You've edited on this page repeatedly for years, and one day all of the sudden the hull number needs separated. Why? Why haven't you done that to any other pages? GansMans (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I told you why I changed it. Stop sealioning. Parsecboy (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No you haven't. If you have, it hasn't even been remotely clear.

I also just don't understand the hostility. Why are you bring so aggressive and demeaning? At this point it borderline breaks the rules.

Another thing you've done is change my edit with "go to talk page" as the reason, which also isn't allowed. So there's that. GansMans (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I guess I'll post it again; maybe you'll read it this time:
 * "Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it."
 * Do you see the green text between the first line in my response and the words you are currently reading? That's the reason. We explain bits of information when they will be unclear to general readers. We are an encyclopedia, intended for a general audience, not a specialist source intended for experts. Why I have to explain this concept is flabbergasting. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So why haven't you been changing all of the other pages to follow this concept? GansMans (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Setting aside the fact that this is a complete non-argument, because I have no obligation to. Last I checked, this is a volunteer project. I get to choose how I spend the time I choose to spend here. If you are so intent on consistency for consistency's sake, why don't you spend your time doing it? Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am. I'm trying to get this page to match the others but can't because you won't let me. GansMans (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Indeed, because what you are trying to change is a retrograde step. What I suggested is that you go change all of the other articles, as that would constitute an improvement.
 * As an aside, do you see how you've moved the goalposts to avoid actually dealing with my argument, yet again? And do you see how it can be frustrating to be on the receiving end of this behavior? Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not moving goalposts. I'm simply ignoring irrelevant questions and statements unrelated to the problem at hand. GansMans (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes you are. You asked why I prefer the format in this article. I asserted this formatting is better for reader comprehension, but rather than make an argument in favor of your preferred formatting, you deflect by asking why I haven't changed every other article. You asked for A, and when I provided A, you ignored it and asked for B. That's a textbook example of moving the goalposts. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll just leave it. It's clear from the initial hostility and the lack of any willingness for cooperation that this wasn't ever going to get anywhere, just as you intended.

I now know why this page is the only one you've changed and why this isn't the standard, and it's because you're seemingly the only one who wants it this way.

And you know what? This edit isn't worth getting in trouble over to me. But apparently to you it's worth insulting other editors over Wikipedia.

If a third opinion comes, we'll talk again. If not, sometime in the future another editor will come along and try the same thing I did and, unfortunately, be met with the same hostility I had to deal with.

Goodbye.

GansMans (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, storm off rather than admit you were wrong, that you engaged in logical fallacies, and deliberately misrepresented what I said. And what gall I had to point any of this out! While you're off soothing your bruised ego, you might want to consider what I've told you here, or you will likely run into similar problems with the next dispute you cause. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's called taking the high road. At least one of us has the courage to walk away. GansMans (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * If that's what you have to tell yourself... Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion, from a complete landlubber: I have little preference either way, with a slight preference toward a parenthesized hull number as GansMans recommends. The benefit of consistency is that people will be less confused why the hull number is emphasized (or de-emphasized, depending on how you look at it). Are there two USS Torsks? (IIRC we disambiguate by year in those cases, but that's not obvious.) And I don't see how the presence of a hull number in parentheses is harder to parse; readers gloss over parentheses easily. If you want to clarify that it's a hull number, somewhere in the article body is perfectly fine. In any case, it's perplexing to me how much acrimony can result from a ship name, and I hope it can be settled now. Ovinus (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should uncritically follow bad practice because someone originally decided to slavishly follow DANFS formatting is not a good one.
 * There is but one USS Torsk (which is why this article is at the primary location). Ships that have hull or pennant numbers are disambiguated with those, by year if not. The problem is, do you, as a self-described landlubber, know what "SS-423" means if you haven't already been told? And even if you do, do you think most readers will? We write articles with the principle of least astonishment in mind; we should not be adding material without adequately introducing it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Voting isn't a thing. But at least an outsider's neutral POV might get us closer to a consensus.

Maybe having the hull number emphasized like that causes more confusion than clarification? It's only one person's opinion but still. Having the hull number clarified somewhere in the body or info box seems to be our best bet. GansMans (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I see no reason to include the hull number in the text—and certainly not in the lede—unless actually required for disambiguation. It is essentially meaningless to our readers. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably, it shouldn't be in the lead section even if it's required for disambiguation; no other disambiguator is treated that way (HMS Neptune (1909) doesn't begin "HMS Neptune (1909)...", nor does D-class cruiser (Germany) start as "The D-class cruisers (Germany)..."). Treating hull/pennant numbers the way we historically have is how we end up in situations where people believe them to be part of the name of the ship. There's an argument to be made that we ought not continue practices that obfuscate things. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
Maybe no other disambiguator is treated that way because the 2 examples you used are not in any way the same as a hull number...are you serious right now? Of course HMS Neptune doesn't have (1909) after the name. It wasn't part of the ship's identification. It was made up for the sole purpose of easing navigation on Wikipedia. You're seriously saying that a ship's hull number (an identification officially given to ships by the Navy) is the same thing as a made up disambiguator on Wikipedia...

The fact that you're trying to pass off (1909) and (SS-423) as being on the same level is absolutely mind-boggling and infuriating.

And with that logic, ship prefixes aren't *technically* part of the name either, so we should stop using those too. GansMans (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the purpose of a hull/pennant number is… Parsecboy (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're implying a ship's hull number is simply a disambiguator for Wikipedia...and that a made up one carries the same weight and holds the same amount of water. Now that's laughable. GansMans (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what I’m pointing out is the fact that hull numbers are the USN’s method of disambiguation. Asserting that they are somehow different than any other type of disambiguation is a logical fallacy called special pleading. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of a hull number is to help identify the ship, just like the name. That's why, in the case of US Navy ships for example, the hull number is almost always included with the name in the various sources we use. And for them it makes no difference if it's the first time the given has been used for a ship or not. There is no great mystery behind these numbers. We are not confusing the masses, nor shocking or surprising them, nor causing them to struggle. Hull numbers are simple identifiers, they help with organization, and I'm sure the majority of people understand that. For the few that somehow don't, we can spoon-feed the info to them with a link, later in the lead, by noting the hull number was assigned along with the name, which we almost always note the announcement of, along with the namesake. This is a mole hill that you keep trying to depict as a mountain... - w o lf  15:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that your specialist knowledge is far more widespread than it is, or that if something doesn’t bother you because you know what it is, it doesn’t bother anyone else. Is it also “spoon feeding” to link technical terms, or should we just assume that readers understand, for example, when we use “caliber” to describe the length or diameter of a gun without any signposting on our part?
 * And if the inclusion of hull numbers is not confusing to readers who don't know what they are, I assume your implication is that readers will simply ignore it until they're explained further down. If that is in fact the case, why are we bothering to include information we know readers will ignore? Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At both the wt:ships thread and here I've suggested a simple and obvious way to address the conserns you have, yet you continue to ignore and push for further argument. Why is that? - w o lf  15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious: your solution is not a good one. Moving the hull number link down a line or two in the lead accomplishes, what, exactly?q And putting it elsewhere in the article, where many readers will never see it, makes no sense. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing obvious is that you won't even conisder a compromise. Collaboration is an essential aspect of this project. Sometimes you need to consider the opinions of others. (And do it without threatening to stomp off and quit). Both and I have offerred suggestions, to work toward a solution, how about being a little more open to finding a middle ground? -  w o lf  21:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about stomping off and quitting (besides GansMans, that is)? As for compromise, do you have any good ideas? Or just solutions that obscure information that the vast majority of readers won't understand? You like hull numbers, we get it. But that doesn’t mean they need to be placed front and center (and without context or explanation). Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually recieved advice (from an unlikely friend might I add) that this battle simply wasn't worth trying to win. I was trying to back off before you (with your temper and inconsiderate remarks on full display) decided to try reporting me for whatever reason you could find just so you could get rid of me. I even stated that if we got a third opinion (which we did), that I would come back to continue talks (which I did). No I didn't "stomp off and quit." I took the good advice I was given before bad things happened. GansMans (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships/Guidelines says the hull number should be attached in the lead sentence. Doesn't that mean that is the current precedence? If it is, why is this still an issue? Shouldn't the precedent overrule the opinion of a single editor unless a different widespread consensus warrants change? GansMans (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering it was discussed [|once] eleven years ago by a handful of editors, and it directly contradicts MOS:FIRST, which represents a much broader consensus, no, it shouldn’t. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

But aren't you the only one here with that opinion? Surely if the number of editors who disagree with you grows as time progresses maybe it's time to admit whatever position you're taking isn't the right one?

Also, whether or not it contradicts MOS:FIRST is an opinion, not a fact. Its up for interpretation, so that part is irrelevant. GansMans (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno how you think "Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text." is open to interpretation. Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about your opinion that hull numbers were specialized info...you need to stop filling in the blanks on your own because if you don't know what I'm referring to, don't try and come up with it on your own. GansMans (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You said my read of MOS:FIRST was just my opinion. What exactly did I falsely assume by that comment? Your deliberate misrepresentations are growing rather tiresome. At what point are you going to start discussing things in good faith? Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You falsely assumed I was talking about the eggs...

Before you (repeatedly) continue accusing me of not discussing in good faith, I'd go back a take a look at previous comments. Because that is three users now (including me) that have told you that you need to back off a bit and start trying to work towards a compromise instead of dying on the hill you're standing on. We are not getting anywhere because you aren't giving up a single millimeter of ground. How are you in any position to accuse others of not discussing in good faith, when you yourself are by far our biggest obstruction to a solution? GansMans (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I can assume you are discussing things in bad faith or you are so incompetent that you can’t understand what a policy plainly states. The choice is yours. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * More insults, more ridiculing, no real answers. Par for the course with you it seems.

 * I don't know how you've not been punished for speaking to other editors this way. GansMans (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly lied and misrepresented my comments, made ridiculous assertions (and then claimed you haven’t) and behaved in generally bad faith (repeatedly moving goalposts and other logical fallacies). If you feel ridiculed by my characterization of your behavior, you might want to re-examine your comments here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Nothing to re-examine. You've treated me with nothing but disrespect since the beginning. Because that's just the way you treat people.

 * The fact that others have had to tell you to back off (and learning you have a reputation for behavior like this) tells me all I need to know. GansMans (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t, regardless of whatever Bilcat wants to say in his childish little snipes. Since you apparently are unwilling to entertain the possibility that your bad behavior is what started this issue, I repeatedly tried to explain why you were wrong, and even pointed out how you were moving goalposts. You, on the other hand, have deliberately misrepresented my comments several times (and repeatedly demand I provide you an answer I already gave, at the same time). Do you see why I have lost patience with you? If you attempt to explain something to someone new, they refuse to listen to you, say plainly factually incorrect things, and then start lying about what you’ve said, repeatedly demand you answer a question you already have, and move the goalposts when they feel they’ve lost the debate, do you think you might also lose patience with that person? I have no problem with anyone else here. Because no one else here is engaging in the behavior I’ve described. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * You've now insulted an editor that's not even in this discussion. Keep diggin that hole for yourself. GansMans (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, ignore any criticism of your bad behavior and make no attempt to justify it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild Should it be pointed out that he's now going around the various pages on Wikipedia changing the hull number format in all of the lead sentences? GansMans (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should it be pointed out that you got blocked once for hounding other editors?
 * And weren’t you complaining earlier that I should go and change every other article to match this one? And you’re mad that I started doing it? Make up your mind. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WT:SHIPS
Just curious why you two are carrying on this discussion now that it has been brought up at wt:ships? Why not close this here and continue on with anymore comments there so that there isn't a pair of duplicate discussions being held in parallel, and so that there is a wider audience? (jmho) - w o lf  18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:USS Torsk


text:
Tour of Britain

The Tour of Britain is a multi-stage cycling race, conducted on British roads, in which participants race across Great Britain to complete the race in the fastest time.

The event dates back to the first British stage races held just after the Second World War. Since then, various different events have been described as the Tour of Britain, including the Milk Race, the Kellogg's Tour of Britain and the PruTour.

The most recent version of the Tour of Britain began in 2004 as part of the UCI Europe Tour. From 2014, the race was rated 2.HC by the UCI. The race became part of the new UCI ProSeries in 2020.

Origins
The Tour of Britain has its origins in a dispute between cyclists during the Second World War. The British administrative body, the National Cyclists' Union (NCU), had feared since the 19th century that massed racing on the roads would endanger all racing, including early-morning time trials and, originally, the very place of cyclists on the road.

A race organised from Llangollen to Wolverhampton on 7 June 1942, in defiance of the NCU, led to its organisers and riders being banned. They formed a new body, the British League of Racing Cyclists (BLRC), which wanted not only massed racing but a British version of the Tour de France.

The first multi-day stage race in Britain was the Southern Grand Prix in Kent in August 1944. It was won by Les Plume of Manchester. The first stage was won by Percy Stallard, the organiser of the Llangollen-Wolverhampton race in 1942.

The experience encouraged the BLRC to run a bigger race, the Victory Cycling Marathon, to celebrate the end of the war in 1945. It ran from Brighton to Glasgow in five stages and was won by Robert Batot of France, with Frenchmen taking six of the top 10 places, the mountains competition and best team.

Chas Messenger, a BLRC official and historian, said: "No one had ever put on a stage race in this country, other than the Southern Grand Prix, and even fewer people had even seen one. So raw were they that Jimmy Kain (the organiser) even wrote to the Auto-Cycle Union – the body for motorcycle racing – and the flags used by them were taken as a guide to what was needed. Kain recalled the precarious budget: "£44 entry fees and £130 of my own money and £16 when I went round with the hat after the Bradford stage."

The writer Roger St Pierre said:
 * "It was reported that 20,000 watched the start but I've seen a picture which would indicate it was probably three or four times that number. What outsiders didn't see though was just what a ramshackle affair it all was, with riders finishing stages often miles longer than billed then having to find a bed for the night – with the poorer riders ending up spending the night huddled in barns, haylofts or even under the hedgerows."

The BLRC was not recognised by the world governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale and so it recruited its French riders from another rebel organisation, the communist Fédération Sportive et Gymnastique du Travail, using French café-owners in Soho, London, as their link.

Sponsors and politics
The Victory Cycling Marathon was run on what little money the BLRC could raise. Riders stayed in cheap boarding houses and officials used their own cars. In 1947, the News of the World gave £500 to the race, by then called Brighton-Glasgow. Within a year it pulled out again, concerned by the internal arguments that had bedevilled the BLRC from the start. The 1950 race was sponsored by Sporting Record, another newspaper, followed by the Daily Express in 1951.

The cycling official John Dennis said in 2002:
 * "The most effective sponsor of the Tour of Britain (the Daily Express) was lost as a result of the constant bickering between rival officials and organisations. I was the press officer to the Express publicity director, Albert Asher, and saw it all happen. He was upset by the petty disagreements and decided to support the new Formula 1 motor-racing instead."

Sponsorship was taken up by the makers of Quaker Oats in 1954, and then in 1958 by the Milk Marketing Board.

The Milk Race
The Milk Marketing Board (MMB) was a sales monopoly for dairy farmers in England and Wales. A semi-professional cyclist from Derby, Dave Orford, asked the MMB to pay for "Drink more milk" to be embroidered on the jersey of every semi-professional, or independent, rider in the country. The MMB could then advertise that races had been won because of the properties of milk and the winner would receive a £10 bonus as a result.

Orford met the MMB's publicity officer, Reg Pugh, at the board's headquarters in Thames Ditton, west of London. Orford said: "At the end of the discussion he stated that the MMB would prefer to sponsor a major international marathon. So the Milk Race, the Tour of Britain, was born, starting in 1958 and lasting for 35 years, the longest cycle sponsorship in the UK ever." A tie-in video game, Milk Race, was released in 1987.

The first two races were open to semi-professionals but from 1960 until 1984 it was open only to amateurs. From 1985 until 1993 it was open to both amateurs and professionals. The Milk Race ended in 1993 because the MMB was wound up with the passing of the UK's Agriculture Act 1993.

In May 2013 the Milk Race name was revived for an annual one-day criterium in Nottingham, with elite men's and women's races. The event is organised by Race Director Tony Doyle and sponsored by the Dairy Council and the Milk Marketing Forum.

Kellogg's Tour and PruTour
The professional Kellogg's Tour of Britain ran for eight editions from 1987 to 1994. This tour, particularly in its early years, was characterised by very long hilly stages, a typical example being the Newcastle upon Tyne to Manchester stage via the Yorkshire Dales in the 1987 event. The Prudential plc-sponsored PruTour (1998–1999) ran twice. Concerns about safety during the races contributed to both events' demise through the withdrawal of sponsorship; in the case of the Kellogg's Tour this followed a member of the public driving head-on into the peloton in the Lake District, and in the case of the PruTour a police motorcyclist being killed in a collision with a motorist near Worcester.

Tour of Britain (from 2004)
After a five-year hiatus, the Tour of Britain returned in 2004. It began as a five-stage race before increasing to six days in 2005, seven in 2007 and eventually an eight-stage race in 2008. It is a professional men's race, typically attracting between 10 and 12 UCI WorldTeams, as well as a handful of UCI ProTeams, four British-registered UCI Continental Teams and a Great Britain national squad which often comprises riders from British Cycling's Senior Academy programme.

2004
The 2004 Tour of Britain was the first edition of the modern incarnation of the race. It took place over five days between Wednesday 1 – Sunday 5 September, organised by Surrey-based SweetSpot Group in collaboration with the BCF (British Cycling Federation). It was the first Tour of Britain to be held since 1999. SweetSpot MD Hugh Roberts and race director Mick Bennett, who were behind the event's return, are still involved with the race in 2020.

Sponsored by the Regional Development Agencies, it attracted teams such as T-Mobile and U.S. Postal Service. It was designated a 2.3 category race on the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) calendar. Highlights of the event were shown as part of BBC'S Grandstand programme a week after the final stage.

The tour climaxed with a 45 mi criterium in London, where an estimated 100,000 spectators saw a long break by Bradley Wiggins last until the penultimate lap, before Enrico Degano of Team Barloworld took the sprint on the line. The Colombian Mauricio Ardila, of Chocolade Jacques, won the General Classification.

2005
The 2005 race was run as a UCI 2.1 category in six stages starting in Glasgow on Tuesday 30 August and finishing in London on Sunday 4 September. British rider Roger Hammond took victory in Blackpool on stage two, becoming the first home rider to win a stage of the modern race. However, the overall title was won by Belgian rider Nick Nuyens, who is only one of two riders to have led the modern race from start to finish.

Future Tour de France champion Geraint Thomas and Mark Cavendish both made their first appearances in the race during the 2005 Tour; Thomas placed 42nd overall, Cavendish (who finished third in Blackpool on stage two and sixth in Nottingham two days later) 84th.

2006
The 2006 Tour of Britain took place from Tuesday 29 August to Sunday 3 September as a UCI category 2.1 event. Martin Pedersen and Andy Schleck of Team CSC won the overall and King of the Mountains classification, respectively. Mark Cavendish (T-Mobile Team) won the points classification and Johan van Summeren (Davitamon–Lotto) the sprints classification. Like Nuyens in 2005, Pedersen topped the overall standings from start to finish. The race's final stage, held between Greenwich Park and The Mall, was televised live on BBC's Grandstand, making it the first and only stage to enjoy such coverage between 2004 and 2011.

2007
The 2007 Tour of Britain was extended to seven days, with the extra day being used to run a stage in Somerset for the first time. Instead of finishing in London, the 2007 race started in London and finished in Glasgow, which used the event to boost its bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games. French rider Romain Feillu won overall by just 0.49 seconds over Spaniard (and stage four winner in Bradford) Adrián Palomares. His victory margin remains the smallest in modern race history. Mark Cavendish won the race's opening two stages (a 2.5 km prologue at Crystal Palace Park and in Southampton) as well as the points competition, while Yorkshire's Ben Swift won the mountains competition.

2008
The tour increased by yet another day for 2008, with eight stages scheduled, from Sunday 7 to Sunday 14 September. The race began in London and finished in Liverpool. ITV4 broadcast the race for the first time, with each stage enjoyed hour-long highlight shows presented by Ned Boulting. As per compatriot Romain Feillu in 2007, overall champion Geoffroy Lequatre claimed the victory despite not winning a single stage of the Tour. Italian rider Alessandro Petacchi and future champion Edvald Boasson Hagen both won three stages apiece; Petacchi triumphed in London (stage one), Gateshead (six) and Liverpool (eight), while Boasson Hagen was first across the line in Stoke-on-Trent (stage four), Dalby Forest (five) and Drumlanrig Castle (seven).

2009
The sixth edition, the 2009 Tour of Britain, was also raced over eight days, Saturday 12 to Saturday 19 September. The race started in Scunthorpe and finished in London. Boasson Hagen was the dominant overall winner, claiming a record four-consecutive stage victories (in Peebles, Blackpool, Stoke-on-Trent and Bideford) en route to the title. In his first season as a pro, Katusha–Alpecin rider Ben Swift memorably took his maiden career victory ahead of team-mate Filippo Pozzato in Yeovil.

2010
The 2010 edition of the Tour of Britain was held from Saturday 11 to Saturday 18 September and was won by Michael Albasini. His winning margin of 65 seconds over Slovenian rider Borut Božič is the largest in modern race history. Albasini laid the foundations of his victory by winning in Swansea on stage three; that day's route included two ascents of the city's famed Constitution Hill, a 300-metre cobbled climb that averages a gradient of 19.3%. Team Sky made their race debut in the 2010 Tour, winning stage two in Stoke-on-Trent with New Zealander Greg Henderson. While the race finished in London for the fifth time in seven editions, the 2010 Tour finale took place around ExCeL London owing to a clash with the Pope's visit to London, which meant that the centre of the city was out of bounds to the race on the orders of the police and security services.

2011
The 2011 Tour of Britain was held from Sunday 11 to Sunday 18 September. Stage two, scheduled to take place between Kendal and Carlisle, was cancelled due to bad weather. It remains the only stage of the modern race not to run as planned. The general classification was won by Dutch rider Lars Boom. This edition of the race outlined the event's growing stature on the international cycling calendar, as Thor Hushovd became only the second reigning UCI road world champion to win a stage of the race wearing the iconic Rainbow Jersey when he triumphed in Caerphilly on stage four. Furthermore, Mark Cavendish returned to the race for the first time since the 2007 Tour of Britain less than two months after he won the Points classification in the Tour de France. The Manxman won the opening stage in Dumfries and London circuit race finale; he also set up HTC–Highroad team-mate Mark Renshaw to win in Exmouth on day five.

2012
The 2012 Tour of Britain was held from Sunday 9 to Sunday 16 September. With the British public's interest in cycling high off the back of Bradley Wiggins' victory in that summer's Tour de France and the London 2012 Olympic Games, the final two hours of each stage during the 2012 race were shown live on ITV4 and Eurosport.

Jonathan Tiernan-Locke originally won the event, the first British rider to do so since its relaunch. In 2014, following investigation for biological passport irregularities, Tiernan-Locke was banned for two years and stripped of his 2012 title. The race was retrospectively awarded to Australia's Nathan Haas, riding for the Garmin–Sharp team. Mark Cavendish, in his last race as World Champion, won three stages including the final stage in an uphill sprint up Guildford's cobbled high street. Tour de France 2012 winner, Bradley Wiggins was forced to pull out of the Tour after stage 5, as a result of a stomach bug.

2013
The tenth edition, the 2013 Tour of Britain, took place from Sunday 15 to Sunday 22 September comprising eight stages. Wiggins won in what proved to be Team Sky's only general classification victory in the race, beating IAM Cycling's Martin Elmiger by 26 seconds, having put 54 seconds into the Swiss rider during the stage three individual time trial around Knowsley, Merseyside. The race notably featured its first hill-top finish, which took place upon Haytor, Devon, on stage six. Riding for the Great Britain national team, future Vuelta a España winner Simon Yates – then aged just 21 – took a famous victory.

2014
The eleventh edition, the 2014 Tour of Britain, consisted of eight stages between Sunday 7 and Sunday 14 September. For the first time, it was categorised as a UCI 2.HC race and featured a title sponsor: Friends Life Group. It began in Liverpool and finished in London, with two stage finishes in Wales, three in the west of England, and two in the south-east. The race was won by Dylan van Baarle. German sprinter Marcel Kittel won the stages in Liverpool and London just weeks after he triumphed in two of the three British stages that featured in the 2014 Tour de France; his London victory in the Tour of Britain came on Whitehall, whereas stage three of the 2014 Tour de France finished on The Mall, London. Another British victory looked likely when Essex's Alex Dowsett, riding for the Movistar Team (men's team), moved into the race lead after forming part of a three-man breakaway on stage six between Bath and Hemel Hempstead. However, he lost the lead after the following day's stage between Camberley and Brighton, and went on to finish eighth overall.

2015
Edvald Boasson Hagen made more history at the 2015 Tour of Britain when he became the first rider to win the modern edition for a second time. The 12th edition of the modern race, held between Sunday 6 and Sunday 13 September, was sponsored by Aviva following their acquisition of Friends Life in April 2015. In another first, Anglesey hosted the Grand Départ, becoming the first of Britain's small islands to welcome the Tour. The race visited the cities of Edinburgh (stage four start), Stoke-on-Trent (stage six start) and Nottingham (stage six finish), as well as smaller towns such as Prudhoe (population of 11,675 in the 2011 United Kingdom census) and Fakenham (population: 7,357). London again hosted the final stage, however the Tour used a new circuit centred around Regent Street and Piccadilly as opposed to its traditional Whitehall loop, versions of which featured in seven editions of the race between 2004 and 2014. German rider André Greipel, riding for Lotto–Soudal was first across the line but was subsequently disqualified for a dangerous sprint. In doing so, he became the first rider to be stripped of a stage win in modern race history; Elia Viviani was awarded the victory to go alongside successes in Wrexham on stage one and Floors Castle on stage three.

2016
The 2016 Tour of Britain, held between Sunday 4 and Sunday 11 September, was won by home rider Steve Cummings, who had previously finished second in 2008 and 2011. The race ran without a title sponsor for the first time since 2013 following the conclusion of a sponsorship agreement with Aviva in June of that year.

Glasgow hosted the race's Grand Départ for the first time in 10 years; as per the 2006 Tour, Castle Douglas also welcomed the first finish of the race, won by André Greipel. Cummings formed the basis of his overall victory by placing second on Kendal's steep Beast Banks climb on stage two, before moving into the race lead after the individual time trial in Bristol on stage 7a (the 2016 race was the third and, at present, last edition to feature a split stage). enjoyed a productive week, with Ian Stannard soloing to a memorable victory at Tatton Park and Wout Poels taking victory atop a wind-swept Haytor on stage six. Poels' success followed his win on Hartside Pass in the 2015 race's hill-top finish stage. The 2016 Tour also proved to be the last professional race of Bradley Wiggins' cycling career before he retired from the sport. He placed 105th overall, riding for the eponymous squad.

2017
The 2017 Tour of Britain, which took place between Sunday 3 and Sunday 10 September, was won by Dutch rider Lars Boom. The rider's victory saw him become the second rider to win the modern race overall for a second time following Edvald Boasson Hagen's wins in 2009 and 2015.

This edition of the race was sponsored by OVO Energy, the first of three editions that the Bristol-based energy supply company were the title partner of. In another move that emphasised the race's status on the international cycling calendar, ITV4 broadcast each stage live in full for the first time.

2018
Julian Alaphilippe became the first Frenchman to win the Tour of Britain since 2008 when he triumphed in the 2018 edition. Held between Sunday 2 and Sunday 9 September, the 2018 Tour of Britain was watched by over 1.5 million roadside spectators and featured the likes of Chris Froome – his first participation in the event since 2009 – and that year's Tour de France champion Geraint Thomas. Fittingly for Thomas, the race started in Wales, with the other seven stages taking place in England.

Outlining the event's innovative nature, the race's first-ever team time trial stage took place on day five of the Tour. Starting in Cockermouth, the 14 km uphill stage finished at Whinlatter having climbed the western side of the fell. The following day's stage also finished atop Whinlatter, albeit after two ascents of its eastern side.

2019
The 2019 Tour of Britain, the first edition of the race to be run from Saturday to Saturday since 2010 (7 to 14 September), was won by Mathieu van der Poel after a race-long battle with Italian rider Matteo Trentin (Mitchelton–Scott).

Together with compatriot Dylan Groenewegen, van der Poel won three stages of the race, including the Greater Manchester finale on day eight – one that started in Altrincham and visited all 10 boroughs of the metropolitan county before finishing along Deansgate. While the 2019 Tour was the first edition of the race since 2012 that did not visit London, Glasgow and Newcastle both featured along the route.

2020
Scheduled to take place between Sunday 6 and Sunday 13 September, the 2020 Tour of Britain was due to start with its first Cornwall Grand Départ. Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen were to host the final stage, marking the furthest point north the race would have visited. The race would have formed part of the UCI ProSeries, comprising the second tier of the men's elite road cycling events, launched by the sport's governing body for 2020. In May 2020, the 2020 edition was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 Tour of Britain followed the route scheduled for the 2020 edition.

2022
The race returned to Yorkshire for the first time since 2009 and was scheduled to pass through Dorset for the first time. The final three stages were cancelled, and the race declared completed, due to the death of Elizabeth II.

2023
The 2023 race began in Manchester on 3 September and finished in Wales on Sunday 10 September. Full details of the route were announced in summer 2023.

2024
In January 2024, organiser and promoter SweetSpot entered liquidation and the race was removed from the 2024 calendar.

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

title: Tour of Britain


text:
User:KeyStroke/Personal Sandbox

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and the means by which man(kind) relates to God in the Dispensation of Grace (John 16:7-15).

The word translated into "Spirit" in the Bible has its root meaning as "breath" or "wind". It was taken that the breath of an individual was the essence of their life, as Shakespeare aptly summarized "words be made of breath, and breath of life" Hamlet Act 3, Scene 4.

It was by the Holy Spirit that God, initially, acted during the six days of creation, and how God caused the lifeless form of man to become a living soul (Genesis 2:7). Therefore, man(kind) was brought to life, by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, so we are created to have a relationship to God via the Spirit.

As the Spirit of God is the life of God (a.k.a. the Spirit of Life) it is reasonable to suppose that Adam was meant to live eternally. However, this did not occur due to original sin.

Man(kind) was separated from the Holy Spirit (given at creation) and fell from grace due to the sin of Adam and Eve. We lost the "connection" with God that we had (through our spirit to His Spirit), because Gods promise to Adam, that Adam would die the very day that he ate of the fruit (Genesis 2:17) did come true that very day. The day Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit their human spirit was separated from Gods Spirit, causing spiritual death.

As the Spirit of God is eternal, we receive Eternal Life by the receipt of the Holy Spirit (2nd Corinthians 3:6), this being the life-breath of God, himself. The receipt of the Holy Spirit is, then, the event that causes the second birth (John 3:5-7).

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on Matthew Chapter 7 Verse 6

Our zeal against sin must be guided by discretion, and we must not go about to give instructions, counsels, and rebukes, much less comforts, to hardened scorners, to whom it will certainly do no good, but who will be exasperated and enraged at us.

Throw a pearl to a swine, and he will resent it, as if you threw a stone at him; reproofs will be called reproaches, as they were (Lu. 11:45; Jer. 6:10), therefore give not to dogs and swine (unclean creatures) holy things.

Note, Good counsel and reproof are a holy thing, and a pearl: they are ordinances of God, they are precious; as an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is the wise reprover (Prov. 25:12), and a wise reproof is like an excellent oil (Ps. 141:5); it is a tree of life (Prov. 3:18).

Among the generation of the wicked, there are some that have arrived at such a pitch of wickedness, that they are looked upon as dogs and swine; they are impudently and notoriously vile; they have so long walked in the way of sinners, that they have sat down in the seat of the scornful; they professedly hate and despise instructionProverbs 1:7, and set it at defiance, so that they are irrecoverably and irreclaimably wicked; they return with the dog to his vomitProv 26:11, and with the sow to her wallowing in the mire2nd Peter 2:22.

Reproofs of instruction are ill bestowed upon such, and expose the reprover to all the contempt and mischief that may be expected from dogs and swine. One can expect no other than that they will trample the reproofs under their feet, in scorn of them, and rage against them; for they are impatient of control and contradiction; and they will turn again and rend the reprovers; rend their good names with their revilings, return them wounding words for their healing ones; rend them with persecution; Herod rent John Baptist for his faithfulness. See here what is the evidence of men’s being dogs and swine. Those are to be reckoned such, who hate reproofs and reprovers, and fly in the face of those who, in kindness to their souls, show them their sin and danger. These sin against the remedy; who shall heal and help those that will not be healed and helped? It is plain that God has determined to destroy such. [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Bible%2C_English%2C_King_James%2C_2_Chronicles#Chapter_25 2 Chr. 25:16].

The rule here given is applicable to the distinguishing, sealing ordinances of the gospel; which must not be prostituted to those who are openly wicked and profane, lest holy things be thereby rendered contemptible, and unholy persons be thereby hardened.

title: User:KeyStroke/Personal Sandbox


text:
User talk:PBS/Archive 2

Archives
User talk:PBS/Archive 1

English Civil War
See Talk:English Civil War. Gdr 12:16, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

History of rugby league
I have nominated this article for featured status, and I feel your comments on this would be of value. Grinner 09:14, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Cheers for your comments.Grinner 14:44, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Philip, please take a look at the John Lilburne Talk page.
Thank you. MPLX/MH 04:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Waterloo campaign map.png
Hi Philip, User:Gdr has pointed out a number of deficiencies and errors in my map of the Waterloo campaign. I have some of questions I need answered at Image talk:Waterloo campaign map.png and was hoping you might be able to help. Thanks. Geoff/Gsl 07:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Gdr has been able to answer my main questions, notably that the move I have shown as French from Wavre to Waterloo should actually be Prussian! I'm glad the map is getting some use so I am keen to make sure it's correct. Geoff/Gsl 23:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is a disposition listed on the web for the 14th. I hope it is of interest. One query what is the movement marked 5? The date seems wrong as the battle was lost on the 16th, and all four Prussian cops retreated in the same direction on the night of the 16th. The centre disorganised and the two wings in some sort of order with Thielmann's the least damaged making up the rear guard.

I far as I can tell from the order of battle. The battle of Quatre-Bras was fought by the marjority left wing of the Army of the North under Ney while the Right wing under Grouchy fought the battle of Ligny. But Napoleon had very large reserves ([the Guards xx] [VI corps] and 4 cavalry corps I-IV) which were grouped into the "reserve army". The majority of this reserve army fought at Ligny and then followed Napoleon via QB to link up with Ney left wing to follow Wellington to Waterloo, while the right wing under Grouchy (and [I cavalry corps] reserves) went in persuit of the Prussians.

If you were to turn 5 around and paint it blue, then that could represent the movement of this reserve army moving to the linkup with Ney. Like you have done for the 3 4 arrow you have from Soignies to QB. I hope that this is of some use to you PBS 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback. It's a great help.  The Prussian retreat #5 from Ligny always bugged me.  It's clearly shown on the source map (and not as a retreat) but I've never been able to associate with a movement, so I shall drop it.  There used to be an un-dated French move from Ligny to QB which I dropped because I wasn't sure what it was and I ran out of room trying to represent d'Erlon's wandering (#3).  I shall reinstate it.

 * I've got hold of a decent map of the actual Waterloo battle so shall have a go at that when I get the chance. Geoff/Gsl 21:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A little more for you map. As pointed out by someone on the Battle of Waterloo page. the Prussian IV corps did not fight at Ligny. Only II, I, and III corps (in that battle order) did. So there needs to be an arrow from Prussian II corps to Ligny and a bit like the d'Erlon line the one from the IV corps needs to bend towards Ligny and then point to around, Wavre where the IV met the rest of the Prussian army and headed for Waterloo. PBS 01:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've uploaded another revision, restoring the French move from Ligny to Quatre-Bras and bending the path of the Prussian IV Corps away from Ligny. I don't know Bulow's actual course but at least it indicates he didn't go to Ligny.  Geoff/Gsl 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II
Could you take a look at Get back world respect's changes to this article and give an opinion? Rmhermen 13:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Total War
Can you chcek out the total war page? I've a question for you. Stargoat 19:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Laws of War & International Humanitarian Law
I left a note on User talk:GuloGuloGulo as to the inappropriateness of trying to redirect Laws of War to IHT. Perhaps you would be interested in commenting as well. -- Cheers! Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RE:Dresden
See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are right. The identification of the population in Dresden with their city is untypically strong, even for Germany where people usually like their home towns rather much, I don´t know if really more than in other European countries. I can say nearly every citizen, no matter of what age, is absolutely convinced of Dresden to be the perl of at least Germany, even it has some wounds still. ;-) NetguruDD 16:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Go to Requests for page protection to make protection requests. AndyL 21:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin
Your proposed changes to the battle box seem fine but I'm a bit vague on Berlin (which is sad because my mother was born there in 1941 and lived through the battle though she has little memory of it). The casualty figures I contributed were from Keegan's "Second World War" but they haven't survived subsequent edits. I've got Read & Fisher's "The Fall of Berlin" which I shall re-read to see if there's anything I can add. Geoff/Gsl 22:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington
Hello. Why did you move Duke of Wellington? Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. Mintguy (T) 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What they said. To explain further, the format and location that you changed it to is the standard format and location for articles on peerage titles. Don't move pages around like that without any effort at discussion beforehand. john k 13:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Battleboxes
I wrote up four proposals for improvements to the battlebox that would address Jeronimo's concerns about "battle before" and "battle after" in battleboxes. Please take a look at WikiProject Battles/Battleboxes and comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles. Gdr 17:40, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Why did you place this on my talk page?

 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,707835,00.html 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' Antony Beevor.
 * "A Woman in Berlin: Six Weeks in the Conquered City" Translated by Anthes Bell ISBN 0805075402. First published in 1954 in English. Recently there was a fuss in Germany when the book was republished and the authoress was named .Jens Bisky, identified the author as Marta Hillers - a German journalist

Because I was going to place an argument about something else at the bottom of your talk page, which I thought was clutter on the Dresden page. But in the end I decided that I would not do so. But then I read the last thing you wrote above "I have heard ..." and thought you might be interested in those two sources. BTW The Bever book and the Marta Hillers book are both referenced on the "Battle of Berlin". PBS 22:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * ok. Get-back-world-respect 22:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no commonwealth in 1918
I'm not sure what to say. I meant there was no Commonwealth in 1918, as far as I know. The Hundred Days should probably refer to the Allies, I guess, as I am sure the Belgians, French and Americans were involved as well as the BEF. Geoff/Gsl 21:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Whatever the case, I think that's a discussion for an article on the Hundred Days (which, at the rate I am going, I will get to in the next decade sometime). The main point is I don't think Commonwealth is the historically accurate term to use here, even though it now encompasses all or most of the participants.  "British & Dominion" or "British Empire" perhaps, but I think there were Portuguese divisions involved too.  You could call it the BEF, which was effectively an army group of the five British armies.  Personally, speaking as an Australian, I'm not offended by just using "British" if it's a one-sentence summary, but then I'm rather lazy. Geoff/Gsl 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rugby football
Phillip, you said on my talk page:

"If you read the talk page you will see that it was agreed some time ago that we would try to keep the history on the Rughy Football page to the minimum so that information is not duplicated all over the place." Not agreed by me :-) While there is no point in having absolutely identical pages, clearly rugby football and rugby union are never going to be anything like identical. Rugby football is about both codes and events before 1895 are part of the shared heritage of both union and league

"As you will appreciate there are strong feelings about the 1895 schism and anything seem to increase the importance of RU (like adding informaiton about clubs which stayed with the RU) on the RF page..." Errrm...who said rugby football is about rugby union?!! Like football, it's about more than one code. Real life subjects are not divided neatly — they overlap, and I don't see why we should rigidly restrict good material to one page. I don't really know why you are so concerned about this.

"...will lead to additional information on RL which takes us away from the original agreement to keep it brief." As I said there is no agreement and I don't see what's wrong with increasing the size of any of the pages, as long as they are accurate and linked properly.

"Also for brevity, I think that the paragraph on Canadian and American football should stay on the Football page which is clearly referenced in the first line of the section... the casual reader ... might think that the rugby played in North America is not the same as the Rugby played in the rest of the world." I think the rugby origins of the North American codes is an important point and one which may well be missed if it is just on the football page. Perhaps that passage could be worded slightly differently, but I think it belongs there. Grant65 (Talk) 09:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Zurich
The problem I have is that there shouldn't really be a vote at all. There's a very clear policy to use the most common name of something in English for article title and in text (in fact, it's probably the most central policy in the whole of Wikipedia naming convention), which was recently challenged (in very similar circumstances) and received overwhelming support, so it's legitimacy and applicability are not really able to be challenged. Under this policy, Zurich belongs at Zurich, and six-month-old polls involving a couple of dozen people on an article talk page don't really have the authority to overrule a policy with broad community support. If someone started a poll at Talk:Rome to move it to Roma they'd be told to stop being silly, and that's exactly what the people on Talk:Zurich should be told. Proteus (Talk) 22:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message, and sorry for getting back to you so late (I'm on "Wikiholiday"). I responded on the article Talk page. - pir 20:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Helmuth Weidling
The german version of the wikipedia was my main source (and a book I read about four years ago). The german wikipedia uses the Helmut spelling but I don't know how that shifts over to english. The only reason I wrote that substub was that the comander of the berlin forces was wrong in an article so I corrected it. If I get time I'll dig through my uni libiarly for more info but I can't promise anythingGeni 13:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Google lists both with the version with the h being more popular. I suspose we could try asking Pluriscient who orginaly created the article on the german version but that would for me involve spending some time with a german dictionary. As I said I'll cheak this in my uni libiary when I get the time.Geni 13:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

spellings
hi Philip — please try to stay on topic. Inquire about my native tongue on my Talk page, if you must (I dare you to show from my contributions, rather than from personal information I choose to put on my User page, that my command of the English language is short of the standard that may be expected of native speakers; and I am speaking of written English, not the chatroom slang some natives find appropriate to leave behind for others to correct). As for "squiggles scare off the uneducated". Well, if I should go to, maybe you should go to ? Because you will also need to argue against the use of English words that are unlikely to be understood by highschool kids (assuming they are unwilling to look them up in a dictionary). Having vented that, I do think we can reach a consensus, c.f. my reply on the discussion page. dab 15:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) — btw, yes, I am of the Schwyzertütsch persuasion, and should, in a nativist WP doctrine, go to. dab 15:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * as I say, I am confident we can reach a consensus. I can well imagine people who have never seen a foreign squiggle (they are called diacritics). In fact, I used to teach the alphabet to a Somali woman who had been a nomad during most of her life and had never spent a day in school. Believe me, I can imagin life without encyclopedias, without computers and without alphabets. However, your hypothetical squiggle-agnostics have now found an encyclopedia, where, thank God, they can read all about squiggles, if they so choose, and where they can also ignore the squiggles, if they so choose. Editors of any given article are a different question; I think we should expect knowledge of the squiggly version of the spelling of the term on which they feel competent enough to share their knowledge. dab

Operation Matterhorn
Good contribution. You might want be interested in my recent revamping of British Pacific Fleet and the new British Commonwealth Occupation Force and British Commonwealth Forces Korea, both of which still need work.Grant65 (Talk) 22:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Style guide: "period" and "full stop"
Hi, Philip.
 * I appreciate your offer to compromise at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I think you and I agree at least to the spirit of cooperation.
 * Until your comments of 15:49, 4 Dec, I hadn't realized that all the discussion particpants didn't see "period" and "full stop" as roughly analogous in mutual intelligibility or lack thereof, between speakers of American and British English.
 * Maurreen 16:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Offensive or Battle
I've seen offensive used more often than battle though. It really was a larger operation.

By the way, I really think its about time somebody makes Monty into a featured article, similar to what I’ve done over at Erich von Manstein. I think it would be crucial that an Englishman is involved, to avoid unfair shoots and give perspective.

GeneralPatton 08:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pursuit of Nazi colaborators
As you have removed all mentions of actual Nazis from the article, the background and means of pursuit sections are now mainly wrong, in that those means were used against Nazis, not collaborators. Also do we have an article on the pursuit of Nazis after the war that that information could go in (or is already in)? Rmhermen 21:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

US/UK slang clash
Ah, a warning flare: in the US "fag" is not slang for a cigarette (and I reckon most people wouldn't know it); instead, it's a very derogatory term for male homosexuals, simply not used by polite people. Noel (talk) 01:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Naive" is not an incorrect spelling
On the Total war page you changed the word "naive" in a quote. Unless you have evidence that it is spelt "naïve" in the original, please do not change the spellings of such words in quotes. PBS 17:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh? What is the "original" of a spoken statement? Sam Hocevar 20:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar
Philip - for all the great work you do on the world war II articles, I hearby award you this barnstar. Thank you for all the great work you do. →Raul654 14:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Page moves
Please do not forget to always fix double redirects after page moves. After you move a page, you have a "click here" prompt to fix redirects. I could have done this myself for 3rd Belarussian Front, but I am afraid I have a problem with my computer, and I will not be able to edit today. Thank you. Mikkalai 18:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * nevermind. I did it (abusing my workplace :-). Mikkalai 22:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

byyyelorussssian
moved to Talk:3rd Belorussian Front

High moral ground
Wow! Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_1 contains this link, added by someone who's clearly anti-bombing. What is it with anti-bombing people (Dresden, too, clearly) and neo-Nazis? They just can't seem to stay out of intellectual bed together. Noel (talk) 03:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa
Hi there! We've had some problems with the article on Armia Ludowa recently. Could you please drop in to the Talk:Armia Ludowa and explain the problems we have with your version? Thanks in advance. Halibutt 10:47, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sir John Orde, 1st Baronet
The date you gave in this article (1783-93 Govener of Dominica) doesn't match the external link you also gave or the current one both of which say 1784 - 1789. Any idea about the discrepancy? Are your dates from some outside source?

Eastern Front WWII
See Talk:Army Group Centre. Also, please take an expert's look at my recent edits at Operation Mars, Operation Uranus, Battle of Passchendaele (category only), Third Battle of Kharkov, Second Battle of Kharkov. Mikkalai 19:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing of warcrime claims
You might like to comment on this unsourced claim make on "Human shield action to Iraq" "All these sites were targeted and bombed by U.S. bombers in the 1991 Gulf War as part of the U.N. coalition, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions."

Operation Biting
Phil, I cannot make head nor toe out of your recent addition to the Operation Biting article. You addition seems to be a separate essay, not related to what was already there. Before I get all excited, are you going to do some more editing, given time? Warm Regards, PaulinSaudi 17:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

Phil, Thank you for your note. I am afraid I disagree. We had a nice little article on Biting, but now we have two. Is this an encyclopedia or a scrapbook? Perhaps we could put an external link to the second article? I would appreciate your efforts in looking at this. Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot think of any other article that has such a large cut and paste tacked on the end. All the best, PaulinSaudi 05:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

Phil, I have this day deleted your open source text from the article (but moved it to talk so you can find it again easily). I gave it much thought but the idea of having two articles just freaked me out. All the Best, Paul, in Saudi 08:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

Soviet Fronts
I am afraid you started renaming too early. The proper names would be, e.g., The idea is that the "true name" is "Western Front", not Soviet Western Front, since the last term may well disambig to front to the west of Soviet Union. Also, usage of "" allows you to simplify pipelining: Western Front (Soviet Army, WWII). Mikkalai 10:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Western Front (Russia, WWI).
 * Western Front (Red Army, Civil War).
 * Western Front (Soviet Army, WWII).

title: User talk:PBS/Archive 2


text:
Automatkarbin 5

The Ak 5 (Automatkarbin 5, English: Automatic Carbine 5) is a license-built Swedish version of the Belgian FN FNC assault rifle, with certain modifications, mostly to adapt the weapon to the partially subarctic Swedish climate. The Ak 5 is the current service rifle of the Swedish Armed Forces, adopted in 1986, partially replacing the Ak 4, a license-built version of the Heckler & Koch G3.

In 2021, Sweden announced that they were looking to develop a new rifle in collaboration with Finland, which would replace the Ak5. In 2023 this rifle took shape as the new Automatkarbin 24.

History
In the mid-1970s, despite the failure of the Nytt infanterivapen (New Infantry Weapon) program, the Swedish Armed Forces decided to continue to follow the general transition towards smaller calibre ammunition and directed the Försvarets MaterielVerk (FMV) (Defence Materiel Administration) to procure a suitable replacement for the Ak 4 capable of using 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition, which under STANAG4172 is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries. The weapon was required to be highly reliable in the subarctic climate of northernmost Sweden, as well as being easy to handle and maintain, while meeting a certain minimum level of accuracy.

From 1975 the FMV evaluated and tested the Colt M16A1, Stoner 63A1, ArmaLite AR-18, Steyr AUG, Beretta M70, IMI Galil, FN FNC, FN CAL, SIG 540, HK33 and FFV 890C (a Swedish Galil variant) 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles. The FN FNC and FFV 890C were tested in 1979-1980 at infantry regiment I11 in Växjö.

After further testing from 1981 to 1985 the FMV eventually chose the Belgian FN FNC, which received several modifications. These included a larger trigger guard and cocking handle (to allow for operation while wearing winter gloves, a necessity for temperatures reaching down to -30 °C), a larger handguard, a different collapsible shoulder stock, different iron sights and gas block, a modified bolt, deletion of the 3-round burst capability, and a corrosion-resistant green (instead of black) finish. Further the detachable box magazines were modified to be interchangeable with the M16 rifle STANAG magazines. This rifle was finally accepted by the Swedish military as the Ak5 in 1986.

Swedish blank ammunition uses a wooden plug in place of a bullet, so the flash suppressor was fitted with grooves to accept the Swedish blank-firing adaptor, which besides choking the barrel to ensure enough gas pressure for reliable operation also prevents potentially dangerous pieces of wood from leaving the weapon by smashing the plug into a fine sawdust. The flash suppressor was also designed to accept rifle grenades, although none have been accepted into service.

During the troop trials there were an alarming number of complaints by soldiers about damaged teeth from being struck in the mouth by the muzzle end. This was revealed to be caused by the practice of having the weapon slung across the chest rather than the back. Rather than changing this practice (which would reduce the ability of the soldier to rapidly bring the rifle into action), a special plastic cap (later changed to a hard rubber version) was issued to cover the muzzle.

Variants
The Ak 5 is the Swedish licensed produced version of the FN FNC. Along with its other variants (Ak5B, Ak5C and Ak5D), all respectively have a cyclic rate of fire of around 650–700 rounds per minute(RPM).

CGA5C2
The CGA5C2 (Carl Gustav Automatic Carbine 5 C2) was a prototype model during the evaluation and development of the Ak5 in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Ak 5

The first versions of the Ak 5 family were made by the Swedish company FFV Ordnance AB (later part of Saab Bofors Dynamics) under license from FN, with deliveries starting in 1986. This version of the Ak5 is still in the inventory of the Swedish Armed Forces, but is no longer issued to soldiers, having been replaced by the Ak5C and Ak5D. This version uses fixed iron sights, and the Swedish Armed Forces have estimated that the maximum practical distance is 400 meters, but it can be used at longer ranges. This brings it in line with the M16, using the Swedish Armed Forces definition of maximum practical distance.

As issued, the Ak 5 did not have a bayonet lug. A bayonet lug adaptor (using the Ak4 bayonet) is fitted to some rifles for ceremonial duties, such as the Royal Guards at the Stockholm Palace.

Ak 5B

The Ak 5B is the designated marksman version of the Ak 5. Modifications include fittings for a 4×25.5 SUSAT L9A1 tritium sight, a cheek pad on the buttstock, and removal of the iron sights. This weapon was typically carried by squad leaders. This version weighs 4.8 kg (without magazine) and 5.4 kg (with full magazine). Approximately 5200 of this version were made. It is no longer in service.

Ak 5C

At the beginning of the 21st century the Swedish military wanted a more modern assault rifle for integration in a future Swedish soldier program. The rifle had to have a Rail Integration System, better ergonomics and improved reliability. Instead of purchasing a new assault rifle, Sweden opted to modify the existing Ak5B rifle family already in use reducing program risks and costs.

Before the Ak 5C went into mass production, it was thoroughly evaluated. This was done by having certain units use an experimental model designated Ak5CF where "F" stands for the Swedish word försök (in this context, experiment or trial). During the trial over one million rounds were fired and the rifles exhibited a Mean Rounds Between Stoppage value of 3,500. The test users found the test weapon too heavy and long so the barrel length was reduced to 350 mm to reduce overall weight and move the center of gravity closer to the user. These tests were completed in June 2005 and four months later, the FMV signed a contract with Saab Bofors Dynamics covering the modification of nearly 40,000 Ak5 assault rifles, which took the company approximately four years to implement. Serial deliveries were scheduled to begin in June 2006 and the Ak5C was first issued to priority units serving in Afghanistan (ISAF), Chad (EUFOR Chad/CAR), and Kosovo (KFOR).

The Ak 5C is the modernized version of the original Ak5, following the trend of modular weapons. One of the most significant improvements is the MIL-STD-1913 rail system to which a variety of different optics, lights and sights can be mounted, such as telescopic sights and image intensifiers. The double gas position, iron sights and bolt catch of the original Ak5 rifle family were discarded.

New features of the Ak 5C compared to the original Ak 5:
 * Increased reliability Mean Rounds Between Stoppage > 2,000
 * Barrel shortened to 350 mm
 * Weight reduced to 3.8 kg
 * MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail system at the top and bottom of the hand guard
 * Adjustable buttstock
 * Foldable emergency iron sights (for ranges up to 300 m)
 * Automatic bolt catch
 * Ambidextrous selector levers
 * Translucent 30-round plastic box magazines
 * New slimmer pistol grip at a different angle (similar to the one on Ksp 90)
 * Modified hand guard with cut outs for pressure switches and cables on the right and left side
 * Forward vertical grip at 6 o'clock position (detachable)
 * New prong-type flash suppressor
 * Tactical sling (nylon)
 * Fire selector on both sides of the rifle.

The Aimpoint CS red dot sight with a 4 MOA red dot reticle was chosen as the standard optical sight for the Ak5C. Other day or night aiming optics can also be mounted on the MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail system.

There has been some confusion about the M203 grenade launcher. While the Ak5C is prepared to accept the launcher, the correct designation (translated from Swedish) would be "Ak 5[version] with grenade attachment" for the combination. The bayonet-lug adapter for the Ak4 bayonet is not used with the Ak5C. Instead a new bayonet for ceremonial use only was issued to the troops. This bayonet is attached to the 6 o'clock rail on the hand guard.

The Ak 5C is now the standard-issue rifle of the Swedish armed forces, and production of the A and B versions are currently discontinued and existing stock put in storage.

Ak 5D

The Ak 5D has a shortened barrel and handguard. It also features the MIL-STD-1913 rail system for easy mounting of a variety of sights.

Due to the smaller dimensions of the carbine, the Ak 5D is especially suited for ranger/urban warfare units and vehicle crews who often benefit from a more lightweight and compact weapon when taking into account the nature of their assignments and the environments in which they often operate. The Swedish Police have used a version of the Ak5D; see below.

The newest Ak 5D Mk2 version has the same upgrades as the "C" model but retains the shorter barrel.

CGA5P
Some units of the Swedish Police have used a special version of the Ak 5D called CGA5P or sometimes (incorrectly) Ak5DP. Essentially it is a black (instead of the regular military green) Ak5D with automatic fire capability disabled by a hex screw, which can be removed if automatic fire is needed. Unlike the Ak5D, the police version has fixed sights but is still equipped with the MIL-STD-1913 rail system to allow the use of telescopic sights or red dot sights. Unlike its military counterparts (except for the Ak5C/D versions), the police version has safety catches on both sides of the weapon.

Users

 * 🇳🇴 Norway: Norwegian Police
 * 🇸🇪 Sweden: Service rifle of the Swedish Armed Forces since 1987.

title: Automatkarbin 5


text:
The Rank Group

The Rank Group plc is a gambling company based in the United Kingdom. Rank was involved in the cinema and motion picture industry until 2006, and continues to use the Gongman logo originally used by the Rank Organisation's film distribution subsidiary General Film Distributors. Its brands now include Mecca Bingo, and Grosvenor Casinos, the UK's largest casino operator.

Rank's principal market and headquarters are in the United Kingdom, where it operates Grosvenor Casinos (56 casinos), Mecca Bingo (96 bingo clubs) and Rank Interactive (online gaming and betting). It also operates additional Grosvenor Casinos clubs in Belgium (two casinos), and Rank España in Spain (10 bingo clubs).

Rank is listed on the London Stock Exchange.

History
The company was formed to acquire the business interests of the Rank Organisation, which itself was formed out of the business interests of its founder, J. Arthur Rank. Until the start of the 21st century, the group still had a tremendous amount of leisure holdings; however, as the decade progressed it divested these interests, beginning with Pinewood Studios and the Odeon cinema chain. It also shed its engineering interests, such as its share in Rank Xerox, selling Rank Leisure Machine Services to Gamestec. It sold its holiday and recreation facilities: Oasis Forest Holiday Villages was sold to Center Parcs UK, and all its Butlins, Warner and Haven Holidays facilities were all sold to Bourne Leisure.

The company then sold off its nightclub division, Rank Entertainment, as well as its interest in Universal Studios Florida, and disposed of the Rank film library to Carlton Communications, to which it had recently also sold the Rank Screen Advertising Film Division, which was latterly known as Cinema Media (now Digital Cinema Media).

In December 2005, Rank sold Deluxe Film (formerly Rank Film Laboratories) for £430 million, effectively ending its 60-year association with the film and cinema business. This meant Rank Leisure had become focused on gambling operations, with its remaining business interests concentrating on Grosvenor and G Casinos, Top Rank and Mecca Bingo, and online gambling through Rank Interactive, after the company acquired the Blue Square betting business in 2003. Finally leaving all non-gambling leisure behind, in December 2006, Rank sold the Hard Rock business, excluding the London casino venue which was rebranded to G Casinos, to the Seminole Tribe of Florida for US$965 million.

In May 2012, Rank agreed to purchase 23 casinos from Gala Coral for £205 million. After the Competition Commission ruled that the deal would only go ahead if four venues were excluded, in March 2013 Rank agreed to purchase 19 casinos from Gala Coral for £179 million, making Rank the UK's largest casino operator. In April 2013, the group sold its Blue Square interactive gaming business, launched in 1999, to Betfair. In January 2017, Rank Group and Mecca Bingo announced the renewal of their contract, which guarantees the use of Playtech's Virtue Fusion platform at the bingo site for another 10 years.

Grosvenor Casinos
Established in 1970, Grosvenor Casinos (formerly County Clubs) is a UK-based chain of over 50 casinos located in major towns and cities across the UK with two sister casinos located in Belgium. In 2010, the group had an active membership of 1 million customers across its 35 UK clubs under the Grosvenor brand. In March 2013, Rank announced that it had conditionally agreed to purchase 19 Gala Casinos from the Gala Coral Group in a £179 million deal. With the addition of these casinos and a further three non-operating licences, Rank has become the largest casino operator in the UK, with 56 casinos.

Mecca Bingo
Mecca Bingo (formerly called Top Rank) is a UK-based social and bingo club leisure company, with sites located in several major towns and cities across the UK. The company operates meccabingo.com and meccagames.com as extensions of the Mecca Bingo brand. Mecca Bingo now offers players the ability to interact with a live dealer in the desktop and mobile app (iOS and Android) platforms instead of relying on a random number generator.

Controversy
On 25 December 1997, many Muslims were angered that the name of their holiest city, Mecca, was also the name of a gambling company, as gambling is strictly forbidden in Islam. Bricks were thrown through windows at a Mecca Bingo hall in Luton, causing £3000 of damage. In a meeting held between community leaders and Mecca Bingo executives on 6 January 1998, Hazel Simmons, chairwoman of equal opportunities at Luton Borough Council, said, "We are aware of a groundswell of public opinion and I personally believe this to be insensitive in what is now a truly multicultural society." However, Mecca Bingo said that the name change from Top Rank was not insensitive and was part of a policy of bringing their nationwide chain of bingo halls under one name. Sergeant Peter Shepherd said, "It was unrealistic to expect that anything definite could be resolved at the meeting, but at least it was constructive to have the dialogue."

enracha
enracha is Rank's interactive Spanish gaming site launched in 2011. enracha offers a wide range of online slots, videobingo, blackjack, roulette, live roulette, skill games and other casino games.

Technology
In January 2015, Rank announced that it would move to a new technology platform supplied by Bede Gaming. The public announcement said the rationale for the new platform is to give greater control, flexibility and speed in integrating third-party and retail content and functionality. The platform will integrate Rank's digital and land-based businesses to allow for a single view for the customer.

title: The Rank Group


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Gordon

Ian Gordon
Ian Gordon 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 to delete the article.

Vanity page without any interesting information. MarkS 20:58, 9 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.
 * Delete. Young person vanity spam. --Ianb 21:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wouldn't make a terrible user page though. --Improv 22:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, belongs on his user page if he wants to stay. Antandrus 23:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)