text:
User talk:Freon~enwiki

ClockworkTroll 19:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You recent changes list stalker ;)
 * BesigedB 19:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duh, you giving links in #bu was enough for me to find your page ;)
 * Freon

I spent a while trying to remember where I remembered your name from. *duh moment*
 * BesigedB 20:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Freon. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Freon~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Freon~enwiki


text:
Cividate Camuno

Cividate Camuno (Camunian: Hiidà) is an Italian comune of 2,774 inhabitants (2011), in Val Camonica, province of Brescia, in Lombardy.

Geography
The territory of Cividate Camuno is bordered by several municipalities: to the east Bienno, on the north Breno and Malegno, to the west Piancogno, and south Esine and Berzo Inferiore.

History
Originally a Roman town, the Civitas Camunnorum, Cividate Camuno was known as Civethate in the medieval period.

Between 1863 and 1887 Cividate assumed the name "Cividate Alpino", but because of bureaucratic confusion, in 1887 the village re-took the name "Cividate Camuno".

Main sights
The main tourist sights of Cividate Camuno are:
 * Parish Church of Santa Maria Assunta, standing on the site of the baptismal chapel dedicated to St. John the Baptist, which was replaced after the 11th century by the Romanesque church.
 * Church of Santo Stefano. Commanding the countryside, it is accessed by a ladder with four flights with no other possibility of approach (the ladder is dated 1770). Archaeological excavations have reported pre-Christian elements.
 * Medieval tower of the 12th-13th century
 * Renaissance gates
 * Museo nazionale della Valcamonica
 * The Roman park of the theatre and amphitheatre

Culture
The scütüm are in camunian dialect nicknames, sometimes personal, elsewhere showing the characteristic features of a community. The one which characterize the people of Cividate Camuno is Pàtate, Bö or Maia Hüche.

People

 * Blessed Giuseppe Tovini
 * Blessed Mosè Tovini

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

title: Cividate Camuno


text:
Dansby

Dansby is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Karlos Dansby (born 1981), American football player
 * Michael Dansby (born 1983), American football player

title: Dansby


text: User talk:63.191.240.179

title: User talk:63.191.240.179


text:
Talk:Chernivtsi

POV-ish
This is a good article, although it is obviously written from 'Romanian perspective'. In Ukraine it is generally believed that the northern Bukovyna (Chernivtsi region) is a part of Ukrainian historical territory, which in the interwar period was occupied by Romania. Another remark: there was no province named "Ruthenia" in the Austria-Hungary, the province was actually called Bukowina.

Andriyc 19:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure who and why corrected this article claiming that Chernivtsi is historical Territory of Moldova. It's have been, ever! Before WWII, -if I recall correctly March 28th 1939 -, it used to be part of Romania. Before WWI, it used to belong to Austro-Hungarian Empire. At some point before that, it used to be part of Poland. And at some point before that it belonged to Otoman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.234.26 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Get lost Romanian nationalist. Chernivtsi is UKRAINE! --24.0.240.16 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Theatre similarities
Have a look at this two pictures:

Does somebody know if this buildings were constructed by the same architect? Or maybe if the timing of the construction is about the time Cernăuţi was part of Romania (or maybe at the the time it was part of Austria-Hungary?). If you know something about that post it here. --Danutz

 * Teatrul National Cluj este cea mai importanta institutie teatrala din Transilvania si printre cele mai prestigioase din România. A fost inaugurat la 1 Decembrie 1919. Cladirea construita în 1907 este opera renumitilor arhitecti austrieci Helmer si Fellner (from http://www.primariaclujnapoca.ro)
 * The building of the theatre is one of the most beautiful architectural monuments in the city. It was built in 1905 by Austrian architects F. Fellner and G. Gellmer who also built Vienna (Austria) and Odessa (Ukraine) opera houses. (from http://www.city.cv.ua/English/Culture/Theatre.shtml)
 * bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 19:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of all the theatres in Europe built by architects Fellner & Helmer: http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/list_fellner_helmer.html The closest architecturally to Chernovtsy theater was the one in a German town of Fürth: http://www.stadttheater.de/das_haus/geschichte/index.shtml -Sasha

 * They look almost like but not the same.-- Bonaparte  talk  19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

King Yaroslav and real property
The first fortress at the city terrains (preserved at the left shore of Prut river until 13 c. when it was destroyed by Tatars) was established by Galician king Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153-1187). After Tatar invasion the city was transfered to highr right side of the river.

These sentences said something about an ancient unnamed fortress at the left shore of Prut river. If you like to speak of "city terrains" on time of a King, there should be some titles of property, naming the city, or the "transfered" city, and the property. There is no mention that the King awarded or cares somehow the "city terrains". --Vasile 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A link was provided but this not good enough.

1) The first military stronghold, a city-fortress at the place of today's Chernivtsi (at the left shore of Prut river) was established by Galician king Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153-1187) to strengthen the south border of Principality of Halych.

 * 1) A King should declare every piece of his possesion. There is no mention of that "military stronghold". It is unclear the established link between the fortress and that King.
 * Kings (at least our) at that time were declaring some property their own in a very simple way - they were building stroghodls. How it was linked to that king - ask archaeologists. They found coins of that king, typical slavic pottery, armour, records in Cronicles that king went to fortify his frontiers, etc. Finally, the types of fortified constructions (and they are preserved till these days) are wery specific for hystorical period and state. Or you will provide us with proves that it was Romanian king that built that fortress and gave it Slavic name?--Bryndza 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

2) After the stronghold was destroyed by Tatar-Mongol hordes of Burundai in the first half of 13th century, the city was transfered (in 1259) to higher right side of the Prut river.
 * 1) Wihthout any document it is impossible to prove any action made in 1259.
 * Why not? From Chronicles we know, that in 1259, Burundai demanded that all the fortifications in Rus to be destrojed. So the people moved to right river bank--Bryndza 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

3) From 1359 Chernivtsi became a part of the Principality of Moldavia.

You can't say that precisely. There is no mention of Chernivitsi since 1408. --Vasile 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not? It was like this. In 1340 the Polish king Casimir the Great had seized Galicia, which included the fortification of Chotin on the Dniester River and Cecina in the vicinity of what would later be Czernowitz. War again erupted in 1359 between the Poles under Casimir and the Moldavians in which the Poles were defeated.--Bryndza 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, I've got you. Any non-Romanian foundation of Chernivci is not acceptable for you. What can we do about it? Nothing. Only to study facts. It is not up to you or me to change history--Bryndza 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Even the city web-site use for this version the expression "it's said". You have to have more solid proves to credit a legend. You aproximate the facts. While is sure that Chernovitsi existed prior the mention of 1408, no sovereign (Polish or not) pretended or exercited the property of the city. You can say that the location was inhabited, but only a sovereign could actually declared that location as fortress or city. The Prince Alexandru cel Bun did it in 1408. --Vasile 02:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The Prince Alexandru cel Bun did not declare any property of the city in 1408. He did trade with merchants from Lviv and it is recorded in recorded in business papers that were found (in Lviv, if I'm not mistaken). I repeat again. Putting a fortress, or building city walls at those times equals to declaring the city part of state of which the builder-king is. I want to remind you that when Ştefan cel Mare built Cetatea Albă (Akkerman), he did not declare this on TV or radio, he just built it and even if it fell into hands of Turks the very next year, destroyed and rebuilt later by them, you can claim that Ştefan cel Mare is the founder of the fortress.Or shall Icorrect the "legend"?--Bryndza 15:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * ::: The act of 1408 was a sign of administration, comparable with modern governments. The city was in business. There is unknown the person who build those walls, against what threat and the moment of the building. It will be intersting to know the relation between that King and that "stronghold" eventual he builded. It is unknown the sort of activities the inhabitants have had at that time. --Vasile 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I see this legend of unnamed (until now) fortress, develeping in a interesting manner. Please, don't stop. --Vasile 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I would not be so ironical, Vasile. This "legend" is supported by archeological and historical facts. The legend is what I just wrote in History of Moldova on origin of the name.--Bryndza 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There is a problem with irony in our country? --Vasile 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Let's see the theory in more details then. --Vasile 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Our education is in hands of each of us. The most important not to be open to it. Teach me your "legend"--Bryndza 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * While you refuse my version, I let this childish story, having no support of historians, as it is on the city web-site. --Vasile 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * What was your story BTW? Did I miss it?--Bryndza 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * City Council established that the fort was "called" before it was mentioned. The process seems natural. First, the child learn to speak, then, after a numebr of years, to write. --Vasile 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I quote from the article: "From 1775, Czernowitz was a part of the Duchy of Bukovina crownland of the Austrian Empire." How did it become a province of the Austrian empire? Was it a natural process or merely an arbitrary annexation like many others in history when the strongest party prevailed? Whoever wrote this article certainly doesn't endorse a Romanian perspective. Northernmost Moldavia didn't become the Duchy of Bukovina out of thin air. The Habsburgs annexed the territory in the wake of some diplomatic manoeuvres, among which declaring a would-be epidemic of the plague in Galicia, which required a sanitary cordon (natives of the region have preserved the name of Cordon or Cordun for the region whence the family name Corduneanu, for example), folllowed by military occupation. The name Bukovina itself is a bit of Austrian propaganda engineering; it simply means beech tree forest, and the Moldavian natives hadn't previously named their territory like this. Moldavian voivode Grigore III Ghica was assassinated on October 1 1777, by the sultan's order and with Habsburg complicity, as he had protested against the Austrian takeover and threatened to respond militarily. Official statistics of the Austrian empire record that in 1779 the population of the newly acquired duchy was as follows: 116,926, out of which 87,811 Romanians, 21,114 Ruthenians (and Hutsuls), 8,000 Germans, Jews, Poles, Armenians etc. I suggest the author do something about explaining the circumstances that led to the transfer Moldavia-Austria-Romania-USSR-Ukraine.Gyula19 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * City article is too narrow to give this plot. Bukovina may be a more approptiate place. --Irpen 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Bryndza you're Romanian too, why are you taking the Rus' side, have you nothing better to do? Or you're not realizing that you're Romanian, and if that's true, the fact that you wrote an article about romanization is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard.danstn

Clean-up
After multiple edits, I decided to clean the language up. No real fact-checking. I'll add some additional geography and history when I can.--tufkaa 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish community
Since the article talks about the disappearing Romanian population, I decided to add a few words about the city's once vibrant but now almost non-existant Jewish community. (unsigned)
 * Of course! Go right ahead but please consider creating an account and using it. It takes 10 seconds, does not even require an email and would make interaction between yourself and others much more comfortable. --Irpen 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is contradictory mention of Popovici, suggesting to Antonescu to raise the number of Jews to be deported, from 20000 to 200 - the contrary must be true! I recently read an article by the president of the Filderman society, published in Cluj, where he expresses enthusisastical thanks to Popovici for having saved (if I remember well, about) 20000 Jewish lived. One must mention, the author was clearly up to date with the most recent researchs on the subject... I believe this point must be reviewed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PredaMi (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

History
Chernivtsi was once one of the great cities of Europe. As presently written the article does not cover that history adequately, merely noting a few factoids. Fred Bauder 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you help expanding it? --Irpen 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find. Fred Bauder 23:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Native personalities
BS"D

What happened here, it looks like someone copied from the Deutsch or Dutch Wiki. --Shaul avrom 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Three comments
1. To say "Ukrainian sovereignty did not 'flourish'" sounds odd and is impenetrably vague. In English, "sovereignty" isn't normally said to be "flourishing" or "not flourishing" — in contrast to, for example, commerce flourishing. In context it sounds like a smokescreen for rival national claims on the ethnically mixed city.

2. The article notes that before WWII the city was about one-fifth German. It should be explained that these Czernowitzers were primarily the residue of the former Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) upper classes and officialdom. These German-speakers (during the Nazi period classified as Volksdeutsch) were resettled under terms of the Nazi-Soviet pact like those of the Baltic states — some to the so-called Wartheland in occupied Poland — under the slogan Heim ins Reich, whether they wanted to leave or not.

3. If a famous personalities section is added, it should include Gregor von Rezzori, a novelist who wrote in German. His autobiographical Snows of Yesteryear (original title: Blumen in Schnee) provides a vivid picture of this region. Sca 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A Fourth:

It is questionable that the Ukrainians saw the Romanians as unambiguous liberators. Sure, Soviet rule and its horrors would be ended, but clearly Romania did not have the liberation of Ukraine as an objective. Paul from Michigan (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable demographic data
The table below was brought by user:Olahus. Data sources are not provided. Numbers look questionable. There is already a more general table with historical population data in the article. --Greggerr (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No industry?
I'd like to know what the people of the city do for a living - are there no important industries in Chernivtsi? Railway shops, chemicals plants, etc.? Tourism? Would be interesting! Maelli (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanian / German communities
OK, Biruitorul, Livepuissa, can you two provide an reasonable explanation why you included this article into category named "Romanian communities in Ukraine"? Article states that 79.8% of population of this city are ethnic Ukrainians, so how exactly it could be described as "Romanian community"? Perhaps you do not speak English well, but term "Romanian community" in English could refer either to localities with Romanian ethnic majority either to "ethnic communities of Romanians" in certain localities. In the second case, category "Romanian communities" could be used for some article named "Romanians in Chernivtsi", but Chernivtsi city itself is an ethnic Ukrainian community, not Romanian one, and readers of this article would be misguided by such wrong categorization. As for revert made by Biruitorul with explanation "see the 1930 census", I do not see how you can categorize an geographical article in accordance with an historical data. This is the year 2012 and we have to classify geographical articles in accordance with current political and demographical situation. Following the logic which ignoring current situation and which glorify certain time periods, we could categorize this article under category "Cities in Romania" (if we like 1930 situation) or perhaps under category "Cities in Austria-Hungary" (if we like 1910 situation). But, this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not an alternate history forum and we are obligated to have accurate categorization and not to misguide readers. And one additional important thing: 1930 census shows that city in that time was ethnically mixed, i.e. populated by multiple ethnicities, so we cannot say that this city was an "ethnic community" of any ethnic group in that year. PANONIAN 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * If article X is included in category Y, it does not mean X is (can be described as) a Y. For instance Banat of Temeswar is not (can not be described as) a Habsburg Serbia. The tag must be interpreted like this "Chernivtsi has a Romanian community" 79.117.168.230 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about Habsburg Serbia - it was only an (bad) attempt of diffusion of category "History of Serbia", but I now renamed category "Habsburg Serbia" to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Serbia_during_Habsburg_administration (thank you for notifying me about problematic meaning of that category). Regarding Chernivtsi article, it is one thing how you say that category must be interpreted, but reality is something else and most readers would think that this whole city is an Romanian community if they find that article within that category. So, let move this to the ground of Wikipedia policies. So far, claim that this city is an Romanian community is example of original research (see this, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ) and we did not saw a presentation of an reliable source that says that city of Chernivtsi is an "Romanian community". Can you please present an reliable source that says that? Also, criteria by which this category was included into some articles is completely unclear to me: for example, there are 500,000 Romanians in USA and 200,000 in Germany, so why these countries were not tagged as "Romanian communities" as well? By which criteria was this city selected for such tagging? PANONIAN  10:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your point, and I agree. However it is a quite common practice on wp. See for example Category:Russian_communities in the United States 79.117.209.62 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I noticed that this categorization was wrongly used in various articles and that is why I started to recategorize them (problem is that my edits were reverted in several places by other users). Regarding the issue of Romanian communities, I believe that best way of elaborating where Romanians in Ukraine are living is to expand article Romanians in Ukraine with an list of administrative units and cities and number of Romanians in each of them. Something similar was implemented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_slovakia#Towns_with_large_Hungarian_populations I think that it is the best way of presentation of such info - filling various categories with various articles will certainly not help the readers to know more about ethnic groups that live in these places. Expansion of articles with relevant data is certainly better solution. PANONIAN  11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to go and have a look at Cluj. Or should I? Or even the name of Temeshwar, which should make no sense on the Wiki for the same reasons mentioned by PANONIAN - because Temeshburg is the correct german word, but the English having had no relations what so ever to the region, have no reason to adopt an old Hungarian name rather than the Romanian Timisoara - and they do so. Coming to Cernăuţi, it happens to have been a Romanian city it mots of its history, since 1400 to 1800, so there is a good reason to see there. It is correct to use the present Ucrainian name, but mention the romanian one too, since it appears any how in the history. This is more sensible than referring to the large table of names of cities, where Cernăuţi is not. Can we have some polite common sensic people around?PredaMi (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Names in the infobox and introduction
Please can we call a halt to edits to this for the time being. If anyone objects to the present version, please can they discuss their proposed changes here so we can arrive at a consensus.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why the Romanian name was deleted from the introduction. I believe that it's unfair due to its Romanian history and community still living there. Porcina (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chernivtsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081116122634/http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/press_room/press_releases/07.08.07.html to http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/press_room/press_releases/07.08.07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Chernivtsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/estimate/Chernivtsi/
 * Added tag to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=04.06.2007&rf7571=42056
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812011944/http://www.fim-live.com/en/sport/sidecarcross/events/ to http://www.fim-live.com/en/sport/sidecarcross/events/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103162745/http://www.biblediscovered.com/tag/chernivtsi/ to http://www.biblediscovered.com/tag/chernivtsi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chernivtsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728064618/http://www.ukrcognita.com.ua/eng/western/170/?ch=595e8574c to http://www.ukrcognita.com.ua/eng/western/170/?ch=595e8574c
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927041104/http://www.komkon.org/~sher/chern/hist.html to http://www.komkon.org/~sher/chern/hist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernivtsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219031742/http://cv.zyvafarba.com/ to http://cv.zyvafarba.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ukranian wiki
some of the materials in education and architecture were taken from ukrainian wiki --Sorrow3 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chernivtsi
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chernivtsi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encyclopedia": From Ukrainian embroidery: Catherine Amoroso Leslie. Needlework Through History: An Encyclopedia . Greenwood Press, 2007. From Bukovina:  From Siret:  From Ivan Mazepa:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Antean state map.jpg

Any Citable Sources on Air Attacks on Chernivsti during the current Invasion?
I don’t know if the city has been struck or not. Trying to get a translate tool to check local online news outlets.

Does Wikipedia allow foreign language citations? The two most common languages in Ukraine are Ukrainian followed by Russian.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Was able to use Google Translate on Google Search (translate does not work on Safari for Ukrainian) and read Chernivsti-based newspapers.

 * No air attacks reported to date in Chernivsti— but there is a program underway to remove all street signs in the area, in order to confuse / hamper the invading army when it arrives.

 * This might be better added to the Chernivsti Oblast(county) article as this removal of all street signs is an Oblast-wide effort, including the city of Chernivsti.

 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I checked and Wikipedia DOES allow foreign language citations for it's articles. However the specific language of the source must be noted in the citation in order to aid translation.

 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Two (briefly paraphrased) notable city defense announcements by Mayor of Chernivsti, pertaining to current Russian invasion
As is customary for a major current event affecting a city-- I added a small section at the very bottom of the article. Should the details expand significantly, a second article will be created-- entitled "Attack on Chernitsvi during the 2022 Russian Invasion" (or something similar) and will be linked from this article, according to Wikipedia policy.

Two notable announcements made by the Mayor of Chernivsti today, about the preparation of city defenses against the Russian invasion, were added and cited.

I checked and Wikipedia DOES allow foreign language citations for it's articles. However the specific language of the source must be noted in the citation, in order to aid translation. Which was done.

A Chernivsti city newspaper (online) was cited, dated today.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chernivtsi


text:
User talk:Andriyc

ClockworkTroll 19:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andriyc


text:
Coccaglio

Coccaglio (Brescian: Cocài) is a town and comune in the province of Brescia, in Lombardy, Italy. It is approximately 32 km west of Brescia and 35 km southeast of Bergamo. The town is situated under the Monte Orfano, a lone hill in the midst of the Pianura Padana.

It was the birthplace, in 1553, of Luca Marenzio, one of the most influential composers of madrigals of the late 16th century.

History
The train station of Coccaglio is a historic building.

Businesses
Coccaglio is home to the Hotel Touring, a four star hotel.

title: Coccaglio


text: Category:Lieutenant Governors of Alberta


text:
Thomas R. Berger

Thomas Rodney Berger (March 23, 1933 –April 28, 2021) was a Canadian politician and jurist. He was briefly a member of the House of Commons of Canada in the early 1960s, entering provincial politics thereafter. He led the British Columbia New Democratic Party for most of 1969, prior to Dave Barrett. Berger was a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia from 1971 to 1983. In 1974, Berger became the royal commissioner of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, which released its findings in 1977. After retiring from the bench, Berger continued to practise law and served in various public capacities. He was a member of the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia.

Early life and education
Thomas Rodney Berger was born on March 23, 1933, in Victoria, British Columbia. He was the son of Royal Canadian Mounted Police sergeant Theodor Berger and Nettie Elsie Perle, née McDonald. Berger received a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws from the University of British Columbia in 1955 and 1956, respectively.

Politics
Thomas R. Berger was elected at the age of 29 to the House of Commons in the 1962 election, representing the riding of Vancouver—Burrard for the New Democratic Party. However, in the 1963 election, he was defeated by Liberal opponent Ron Basford.

He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the 1966 BC election. Described as a "young man in a hurry", Berger challenged long-time BC CCF/NDP leader Robert Strachan for the party leadership in 1967. Strachan defeated Berger but, sensing the winds of change, resigned in 1969. Berger defeated another young MLA, Dave Barrett, to win the leadership convention and was widely expected to lead the NDP to its first general election victory. Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett called an early snap election and, instead of victory, Berger's NDP lost four seats. He quickly resigned and was succeeded by Dave Barrett. Berger's last year as an MLA was 1969.

Law
Berger was counsel to the Nisga'a in Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General), a case that inaugurated the concept of Aboriginal title in Canadian law.

Appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1971, he served on the bench until 1983. Berger focused extensively on ensuring that industrial development on Aboriginal people's land resulted in benefits to those indigenous people. He may be best known for his work as the Royal Commissioner of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry which released its findings on May 9, 1977.

In 1981 when Canada was debating the merits of a diversity of provisions in the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Berger wrote an open letter to The Globe and Mail, asserting that the rights of Aboriginal Canadians and women needed to be included in any proposed charter. In 1983 he was reprimanded by the Canadian Judicial Council for this activism. Shortly thereafter he chose to resign as a judge and returned to practice as a lawyer. Berger's expertise and reputation for thorough and independent assessment were immediately seen as an asset for indigenous communities. He was invited by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to lead the Alaska Native Review Commission (1983–1985) which culminated in the publication of Village Journey (1985).

In 1995, Thomas Berger was appointed Special Counsel to the Attorney General of British Columbia to inquire into allegations of sexual abuse at the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. Berger was asked to investigate these allegations and produce a report. His recommendation for relief and compensation for those who were abused was accepted.

Berger was appointed chair of the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission in 2003. The Commission recommended changing Vancouver's at-large system to a system of ward-level representation. However, this recommendation was defeated in a referendum held on October 16, 2004.

Appointed in 2005 as a conciliator to resolve the impasse between Canada, Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Berger completed "The Nunavut Project" in 2006. His report addresses the fundamental changes needed to implement Article 23 (Inuit Employment within Government) of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, including the need for a strong indigenous education system.

In 2017, Berger was counsel to British Columbia in its challenge to Canada's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Royal commissions
Berger chaired a royal commission on Family and Children's Law from 1973 to 1975. He was commissioner of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry from 1974 to 1977. From 1979 to 1980, he chaired his third royal commission, on Indian and Inuit healthcare. In 1978, Indian bands and organizations such as the Union of B.C. Chiefs, the Native Brotherhood and United Native Nations, engaged in intense lobbying for Indians to control delivery of health services in their own communities and for the repeal of restrictive service "guidelines introduced in September 1978, to correct abuses in health delivery, and to deal with the environmental health hazards of mercury and fluoride pollution affecting particular communities." In September 1979, David Crombie, a liberal-minded reformer, as Minister of Health and Welfare under the Conservative government Prime Minister Joe Clark, issued a statement representing "current Federal Government practice and policy in the field of Indian health." Crombie declared that the "Federal Government is committed to joining with Indian representatives in a fundamental review of issues involved in Indian health when Indian representatives have developed their position, and the policy emerging from that review could supersede this policy". Crombie appointed Doctor Gary Goldthorpe, as commissioner of the federal inquiry (known as the Goldthorpe Inquiry) into "alleged abuses in medical care delivery at Alert Bay, British Columbia". In 1980 Justice Berger, who headed his third royal commission dealing with Indian and Inuit healthcare, recommended to Crombie "that there be greater consultation with Indians and Inuit regarding the delivery of healthcare programs and that an annual sum of $950,000 was allocated for distribution by the National Indian Brotherhood to develop health consultation structures within the national Indian community." Crombie's successor as Liberal Minister of Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, adopted Berger's recommendations, ushering in the beginning of a change in healthcare delivery.

Honours
In 1989, he was made an officer of the Order of Canada. In 2004, he received the Order of British Columbia. As of 2006 he sat on the advisory council of the Order of Canada, which researches the merits of future members of the Order and advises the Governor General of Canada on new appointments. He was an honorary member of the Royal Military College of Canada, student #S153. In 2012, he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Death and legacy
Berger died of cancer on April 28, 2021, in Vancouver.

Edgar Z. Friedenberg, writing in The New York Review of Books in 1982, called Berger "perhaps the most effective and certainly the most respectable champion of the aboriginal peoples of Canada". Berger argued that the reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples could be facilitated by the Canadian judicial system. In her discussion of Berger's life, Swayze asserts that Berger "believes, and believes passionately, in the integrity of Canada’s system of equitable justice and its attendant jurisprudence". Throughout his career, Berger dedicated his life to law and to politics. He is recognized for his work on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry and the subsequent publication of The Berger Report. As Commissioner, Berger recommended that, "on environmental grounds, no pipeline be built and no energy corridor be established across the Northern Yukon" and that any pipeline construction be postponed until native claims could be settled. Despite his belief in the judicial system, Berger acknowledged that there were certain issues that could be dealt with outside of the courts. Swayze argues that "[t]he philosophy inherent in all thirteen" of the reports of British Columbia's Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, on which Berger served as a commissioner, "is that legal sanctions should, in many cases, be a last resort, and to this end recommendations focused on the effective use of human rather than legislated solutions."

title: Thomas R. Berger


text:
Collebeato

Collebeato (Brescian: Cobiàt) is a town and comune in the province of Brescia, in Lombardy, Italy. It is located on the right bank of the river Mella, 5 km north of Brescia.

Geography
Collebeato, in the northern hinterland of Brescia, is enclosed between the Picastello, Campiani, Peso, Dosso Boscone and Sasso mountains. It is located where the lower Val Trompia meets the Po Valley, on the easternmost border of Franciacorta. The Mella river flows through the municipality.

History
In Roman times, the Collebeato area was a hilly area that was not very inhabited close to the marshes created by the river Mella. Very few finds have been found: four sepulchral stones of the imperial age and the remains of the ancient Roman route that from Brixia across the Crotte Bridge led to the Trompia Valley climbing up the hills. In 958, in the diploma of Berengario II and Adalberto, a church dedicated to San Paolo appears as the property of the Abbey of Leno, this is probably the first reference to the community of Collebeato.

In 1014 the name Cubiadum (Cubiado) appears explicitly for the first time among the properties of the Abbey of Leno in the imperial diploma of Henry II. The etymology of the name derives from the Latin "copulatum" and means "coupled". The name also recurs in the diploma of Henry II of 1019 and then in those of Corrado II of 1026 and 1036 and is present in papal bulls and imperial diplomas up to 1434. The Benedictine monks of Leno provided for extensive reclamation of the Mella marshes. Next to the territories managed by the abbots there is a municipal neighborhood in the lands from which the bishop of Brescia tithes. From 1186 to 1194 the notary Gerardus de Cubiado was active, appointed by the emperor Frederick Barbarossa. We have received eight documents signed by him. In 1194 (November 15) a trial was held to determine whether the Cubiado landholdings were under the Abbot of Leno or under the Bishop of Brescia. The two elderly heads of families of Cubiado Villano di Fra Le Corti and Alberto da Pozzo testify. In 1274, Father Giovanni da Cobiado was director of the hospital complex of the Church of San Giacomo al Mella, on the road from Brescia to Milan.

In 1280 Cobiato is counted among the municipalities that must keep the Ponte delle Crotte on the road to Brescia. On 1 December 1336 Jacopo da Cobiado, a physician in Brescia, is counted as a witness in a feudal investiture in the city with the bishop Giacomo de Actis. In 1483 the Venetian nobleman Marco Sanuto described in his itinerary in the Venetian mainland the "beautiful garden" of the noble Count Antonio Martinengo. In the 15th century Collebeato became a holiday resort for nobles and religious of the city of Brescia for the summer season, important villas and two monasteries (Santa Croce and Santo Stefano) were built. In 1512 Collebeato suffered a military siege by French soldiers who attacked the Venetian Brescia. Mariotto Martinengo, inspired by the destruction of the battles, wrote the poem in the Italian vernacular "The Weeping of the god Pan for the ruin of Colle beato", using for the first time the poetic name "Colle-beato" instead of the more medieval "Cobiato". In the Renaissance and humanistic climate brought by the nobles who vacationed in Collebeato, in addition to the development of villas and palaces, local artistic workers were also born, among these a painter and decorator native of the village Jacobino da Cobiato was active in the sixteenth century, of which however no works are known. In 1554 Galeazzo dai Orzi, Mariotto Martinengo's secretary, published in Brescia a first edition of the poem in the vernacular of Brescia "La massera da bé" (the good housewife), the first book that ennobles the Brescia language as a literary language. The protagonist of the book is the housewife Flor da Coblat. In 1565 the Venetian version of the book came out. In 1609 the Venetian Giovanni Da Lezze described the territory of Cobiato, the villas and religious buildings in the Bresciano Catastic. In 1640 the Municipality of Cobiato endowed itself with precise statutes for the administration of the waters and to regulate common life. In 1640 the Municipality of Cobiato endowed itself with precise statutes for the administration of the waters and to regulate common life. In 1701 the official use of the name Collebeato began on French maps and from 1779 on the Lombard-Venetian maps the name will officially remain this. From 1770 to 1794 the notary Bartolomeo Mattanza was active in Collebeato. From 1737 to 1800 the notary Gaetano Bonera was active. In 1833 the patrimony of the Martinengo Counts, on the death of Girolamo Silvio Martinengo, a Venetian noble (translator of Milton's Paradise Lost in 1801), passed to his cousin Alessandro Molin and through his daughter, Maria, to the Friulian counts Panciera di Zoppola still owners of the gardens and the splendid villa. In 1850, Count Giuseppe Torre at the gardens of his villa (the current Parco 1º Maggio) selected a new type of flower, the Camelia Japonica "Vergine di Collebeato", a very particular type of white camellia with concentric spirals, described and admired in the 1857 by the statesman Giuseppe Zanardelli in one of his letters. From 1851 to 1856 Collebeato was the center of the Risorgimento riots in Brescia, where Mazzinians, who were housed and hidden in the villas and courtyards of the town, took refuge; an underground printing house was installed there. The patriot Tito Speri gathered and trained the anti-Austrian revolutionary troops in the country's fields. In 1889 the priest, writer and intellectual Pietro Rigosa was born in Collebeato. He had as a pupil and friend Giovan Battista Montini (future Pope Paul VI), he wrote many short stories, including The Lion of Brescia (Gatti, Brescia 1932), a novel set in Collebeato and dedicated to the life of Tito Speri. In 1910 the industrialist and benefactor Filippo Rovetta imported American peach seedlings from Louisiana and in 1919 he started a large-scale production of peaches, tilling large plots of land in the north of the country, still existing orchards today. The example was soon followed by all the landowners in the country transforming local agriculture in a radical way. Collebeato was the main producer of peaches in the Brescia area until the 1940s and among the main nationally producing over ninety different species of peaches. In 1936 the "Dopolavoro" organized the first Peach Festival, a festival for which the town is still renowned in the province of Brescia. From 1956 to 1965 the quarry and factory of the CEMBRE cement factory were active, an activity that led to the decline of fish farming due to the environmental incompatibility between the two production activities that insisted on the same territory. After the war the building expansion of the town began, first with the villages of the white cooperatives of Father Ottorino Marcolini in the fifties and sixties and in the following years with red cooperatives. Today the flat territory is almost completely built of villas and condominiums with a large garden. The prestigious residential area is part of the "Parco delle Colline" area. In September 2012, the new sports center was completed, a work that completely redeveloped the area of the former Cembre cement factory. In 2018 Collebeato won the "La Città per il Verde 2018" award. The award was unanimously awarded by the jury of the XIX edition in recognition of the environmental validity of the "Ecological Corridor of the Mella River".

Twinnings

 * 🇮🇹 Bivona, Italy, since 2004

title: Collebeato


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1

Who is in charge cleaning up all the resulting redirected links?
Cleaning up after a page move can be a laborious task. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas: Thoughts? • Benc • 19:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It's always the responsibility of the admin who does the delete/move
 * 2) It's the responsibility of the requestor, though the admin is free to help out
 * 3) Make a second section on this page for listing redirect cleanups, which anyone (not just folks with delete privileges) is free to help out

My suggestion is:

4. It's everyone's and nobody's responsibility. That's what a wiki is like. Departing from this principle will just cause more problems than it is worth. The requestor should be prepared to do it (guideline) and should do it if nobody else does first. If we say the sysop must do it, that means that sometimes a sysop will not do a move because they haven't the time to do the cleaning up which anyone can do. But most sysops will do the cleaning up when they can, because that way it stays messy for the least time, and will only do moves when they can't clean up afterwards if the list is getting too long and old for comfort. Why? Because we're all here as volunteers who spend our time building the very best encyclopedia we can. Make a section for cleanup help if you like, I suspect the KISS principle is better. Andrewa 20:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Somewhere between 2 and 4 (which is not too far from 2 anyway - it is a Wiki, there's nothing to stop somsone from helping, even with 2), but closer to 2. I'm worried that if we don't have a strong guidance, they will fall through the cracks. And yes, I know, they will get caught eventually - but for grins, try going to any disambig page and see how many content pages link to it... Noel 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why cannot it be automated? — Monedula 15:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do we handle controversial page moves?
Not all page moves are good. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas: Personally, I strongly favor options 1 and 2. I really don't want to see this page to become a "Votes for moves" if we can avoid it; the purpose of this page is closer to Cleanup than *fD. If it ever becomes a problem the community will evolve stricter guidelines to keep things running smoothly. • Benc • 19:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Handle everything on a case-by-case basis
 * 2) Have a loose set of guidelines in place, e.g.:
 * 3) *"Avoid requesting a controversial page move. If you are uncertain whether a page move will be controversial, please discuss it on the article's talk page before requesting the move."
 * 4) Have a strict set of guidelines in place; e.g.:
 * 5) *"If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be announced on the article talk page at least three days prior to the actual move, without any objections."
 * 6) *"If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be seconded by a majority of editors either here or on the article talk page."

 * Concur with trying to avoid formal rules. Formal rules always seem to be Procrustean anyway; there's always some case it fits poorly. And you can waste an immense amount of time arguing about them, trying to handle every conceivable contingency up front. This page is going to be little enough used that I don't see a problem in setting out some guidelines, and going from there. Noel 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other small things
• Benc • 19:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Justify your existence. Add a brief, one or two sentence-long explanation of why this page is distinct from WP:RFD.
 * Inevitable question: we have dozens of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, do we really need another?
 * Be sure to refer admins to the proper policies:
 * Deletion guidelines for admins
 * History-only undeletion

 * If this page takes off, we need to add it to MediaWiki:Articleexists in place of WP:VP which is already really overloaded. Noel 21:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance?
Since page moves are not the only thing that people need assistance from perhaps a new Requests for assistance page could be made. This could be used for: What do you think? violet/riga (t) 10:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Page moves
 * Image manipulation
 * Table/template/infobox help
 * Others?

 * What's wrong with the village pump for general requests? If you want to do that, you probably ought to discuss it there. As it is the VP has been split into sections. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought about that - perhaps a new section of the VP could be created: Village pump (assistance). The original idea of this, I believe, is that things get lost in the VP. violet/riga (t) 17:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, the post-split VP hasn't a good place for these requests. I think Requests for assisatnce is a really good idea, but maybe Requests for help since we already have a WP:RFA and WP:RFAr. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why?
Why do you want to wait four days before moving a page? What is this additional policy supposed to solve? I suggest you add in an exception for clearing up vandal page moves. Having Vandalism in progress at Willys in progress for four days, which is where it was moved last month, does not seem a good idea. Angela. 19:06, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree. Uncontroversial moves and reverting of vandalism sometimes need speedy deletes in preparation for moves. These should remain speedy deletes. Andrewa 21:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Concur. Vandalism repairs should all be "shoot on sight". Noel 17:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not clear whether admins would have to list pages here before moving a page. If not then that would be introducing an unnecessary distinction between admins (able to move pages immediately) and other users (only able to move pages after four days wait). If so, then this is still introducing an unnecessary complication to a system that works just fine. I would say that if a move is controversial it should be discussed on the talk page before a request is made. Moves can be reversed and are visible to all so are not a problem area. Let's not make moving a page as policy laden as deletion has become. -- sannse (talk) 22:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I oppose treating admins any differently when it comes to the procedure they have to go through. Admins have access to tools which can do damage, which is why we restrict them to people who are deemed more responsible. However, in all other ways they ought to be equal to other Wikipedians - so e.g. they don't get to win edit wars.

 * I do have a suggested change in the procedure, which is to "require" moves to be discussed on the article's Talk: page. Also, rather than archive any move discussions on Requested moves/archive, they should be put on the article's Talk: page. The reason is simple - when new people come along in the future, they should be able to easily find out why the Foo page is at Foo, and not at Bar. Requiring them to knowing that they have to check on some obscure system page to see if it was ever debated is not the way to go. I say "require" in quotes because I don't want it to be a hard and fast rule - rather, I would encourage it, e.g. by saying that request moves which have been discussed on the Talk: page don't have to wait the N days, they can be done instantly. And we could make the delay for pages that come straight here fairly long, to really encourage people to go that way. Noel 17:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long should we wait before doing a move?
So how long do we wait before making the move?)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest a week, same as for most other such things. If this is OK with all, we can add text to that effect to the top of the page. Noel 13:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ooops, it already says 4 days (above). I need to read more carefully! Well, I still prefer a week, but if all think 4 days is better I can live with that. Noel 13:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 4 days is more than sufficient. Moves do not (generally) destroy anything - the exception being when done in conjunction with a delete to accomplish a history merge. Since data isn't destroyed and a redirect is left behind, the results are easy to follow and discuss after the fact. - UtherSRG 18:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * So maybe moves which are going to merge should have a longer time? Noel 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If simple uncontested moves like this one don't happen reasonably quickly then what is this page for? If I had asked on the Village Pump it would have been done in an hour... Gdr 12:33, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

 * Indeed, perhaps it might be better to go ahead and move articles immediately, if they seem uncontroversial, and leave the request on this page (or somewhere) for a week or so, so that people can review and only if necessary, make corrections. Bkonrad 08:40, 25 Oct 2004

 * No, because it's a fair amount of work to do moves (especially if you can't simply delete the redirect because it has history too, as in this case) - and you have to fix all the redirects, yadda-yadda. The world won't come to an end if it takes a couple of days to do the swap - refences to either one still work, people can add content, etc, etc. Wheres the harm in a little delay? If it saves having to unto one move, it'll be worth it in my book. Noel 18:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but if a person can get it done more quickly using other avenues, then why should they bother with this page? Is the point to facilitate uncontroversial moves that non-admins cannot accomplish or is it to become a bureaucratic bottleneck? older ≠ wiser 18:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * You still haven't pointed out any harm entailed by a short wait. Noel 20:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no harm. But if given a choice of waiting for four days as with this page vs. getting more immediate satisfaction through other means (i.e., VP or contacting an admin directly), I suspect most people would opt for the quicker route. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time recalling what I was working on four days ago. I mean if the point of this page is to provide a forum to discuss possibly controversial page moves, that's fine, but it doesn't really strike me as being a very convenient service for non-admin users to request page moves they are unable to complete on their own. Perhaps the page should be renamed something like Submit a page move request to be mulled over for a few days before it gets moved older ≠ wiser 20:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hey, it's a Wiki! If they can find someone to do it for them, go for it. (We'll send them your way! :-) Me, I've almost lost count of the number of page moves I did that I thought were non-controversial, only to find out later that other people thought I was off my rocker. So you'll excuse me if I'm a little cautious - especially since there's no harm in a short delay. And, no, we don't forget the request - that's what this page is here for. Noel 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How ironic. Check this out. This is exactly the kind of thing I was just saying I wanted to avoid - and here it is. Now, imagine that this was the kind of page that have about 15 redirects to it, and they'd all been changed (to prevent double redirs), and the eventual consensus was to leave it where it was - someone would have to go change them all back. Plus all the griping back and forth (and occasional ill feeling). Noel 23:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Not to mention this, which went through the procedure here, although IMO people were a bit to quick to do it the instant the deadline was theoretically up. I personally would have left it a few more days, just to be safe, especially as it's such a major page. Noel (talk) 19:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, whatever. I would expect admins to exercise some discretion in fulfilling move requests. I know that may be expecting too much from some firebrands, but most have a pretty level head and aren't too likely to do things lightly that will have great impact. After once (or twice) doing a move that had to be undone, an admin will hopefully be a little cautious about recklessly moving things around--it's part of learning the ropes. I mean, I really don't care if people post requests here to leave them ripen awhile, it just seems a bit overly cautious to me. older ≠ wiser 23:52, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's precisely because I've been involved in several controversial moves (well, I thought they made sense - and seen some of them undone), and seen a number of others, and seen the trouble and bad feeling that result, that I am quite cautious about doing moves. Noel (talk) 19:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keeping it tidy
I am in strong favour of the system of keeping sub-sections of pages like this in sub-pages (see VFD): should we start as we mean to go on and get this up and running here? --Phil | Talk 15:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think we need it; the page (so far) doesn't really get enough traffic (nothing like as much as WP:VP or WP:VfD) to need it. WP:RfD isn't using sub-pages, and we have no problems at all, with roughly the same amount of traffic. Noel 15:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. However, in the same interst of tidiness, I'd like to add date headers. If I hear no complaints by late tongiht I'll add them. - UtherSRG 17:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd endorse adding page headers. Some of those requests have been on there for upwards of three weeks. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Queries
1. As an admin, can I just go ahead and do the deletions/moves/etc without waiting for the requisite four-day period? Obviously, I would be expected to sort out redirects, delete the template, etc., and put everything back the way I found it if I moved something inappropriately... 2. What do we do with moves that are completed? Just delete them? Or are we keeping an archive of the discussion? 3. I have experimentally reformatted WP:RM - my preference would be for a heading for each article, as per WP:COTW and WP:FAC, rather than date headings, as per WP:RFD, (or, as at present, both date and article headings). I expect (as seems to be the case) that there will rather more discussion than in WP:RFD. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, as for #1, it is a Wiki, and there's no rule that says you can't! (See length discussion about this immediately above. :-) However, I generally prefer to be slow (as pointed out above, again, there is no harm in delay), but there are exceptions (even for me :-) e.g. I went ahead and did Schismatic Temperament early because a cut-n-paste bogo-move had happened, the longer it was left the harder cleaning it up might be, and all active editors seemed to agree that a move was the right thing.

 * True enough - I didn't think that Montreal would turn out to be particularly contentious (although Talk:Montreal shows that this issue has come up repeatedly). I'm leaving the difficult ones (be bold for example ;) ) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * For #2, the original theory was that completed discussion would be put in an archive here. I suggested (above) that they go in the article's Talk: page, where they would be easily accessible to future Wikipedians who weren't around for prior debates. Hearing no disagreement, I added this to the Instructions for Admin section (but have yet to delete the option of archiving here) - probably we should definitively pick one.

 * I agree, moving to the talk page sounds like the best idea. What about the "requested moves" that have already been actioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I already put them all on the appropriate pages when I removed them from this page. Noel 20:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * On #3, the new look really bugs me for some reason. Maybe it's because I'm so used to the WP:RfD format, maybe it's the large amount of screen space it uses (I do a lot of my wikipediaing from a small laptop), but I'm not big on it. Actually, WP:RfD does generate really long discussions on some points - if you look at the /Precedents page for "George Washingtin" (or whatever it was) you'll see one, and there are more recent ones in the log. Noel 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * OK - how about headings by articles rather than by dates? I've done another experimental heading change to gauge reaction.  Revert if you hate this too :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A new theory of dismabig pages?
(Generic discussion retrieved from an individual requested move.)

I am coming to the conclusion that all pages of the form {foo} (disambig) should be redirected to from the main foo location, with no article actually at foo, not even the main meaning, because it enables us to quickly check for articles which have linked to foo, without the writer checking to make sure they got the right meaning of "foo". I see so many instances of this to disambig pages I created that it's not true, and when you have a popular page like tree, it's impossibly painstaking to go click on every entry in "What links here", and look through the page to find the reference, to make sure it's to the right one. And before you ask, the reason for not putting the disambig page at foo is that only people who really want the disambig meaning will link to foo (disambig), and all links to foo will probably be wrong. Noel 16:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That's going to be a lot of pages to correct 132.205.15.4 19:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, my primary concern at the moment is to not make any more of them. As to what to do with the existing ones, yeah, that's a big question. Still pondering what to recommend there. Noel 18:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Is there a policy discussion somewhere on this that you've started? 132.205.64.218 04:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * No, been too snowed-under with other stuff. I was thinking of taking it to WP:VP, but it's so full of stuff at the moment. Is there are a better place, anyone? Noel 12:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. You might have to check the archives. If I understand what you're suggesting -- essentially doing away with primary topic disambiguation -- I suspect that you will encounter considerable opposition. older ≠ wiser 15:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Saving page move discussion for future reference?
When moving a page is proposed, after the request is granted or denied, is the discussion erased or does it get saved for future reference? Nathanlarson32767 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I transfer any material discussion to the article's talk page (whether I move it or not); if the discussion is just a series of "support"s or "oppose"s, it is not really worth saving specifically somewhere else: it is in the edit history here in any event. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving categories?
How does one go about getting a category moved? Recently, a request I made to move rhythm video game to music video game took effect, leaving an unfortunate inconsistency with Category:Rhythm computer games. This page should be moved to Category:Music video games. Should this request be made at WP:RM? --LostLeviathan 02:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You would need to edit all of the pages in that category to change the category: ultimately, that should make the category disappear (I didn't have time). If not, WP:CFD may be able to help. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, that makes sense... thankfully, there are few articles in the category. Thank you!  --LostLeviathan 22:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small style change for the move template
In the interest of consistency I offer the following style change to template:move. This is used on many other "message boxes" and I reckon it's a good step forwards. Do please note the use of the image - it's only temporary until a better one is found/created. I was thinking of an image something like O→O. (17:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC): Used new image)

Would this be better? violet/riga (t) 16:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I reckon it is! I'll do this in the next few days unless there are some objections. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, by all means do, nice job. --fvw *  19:10, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice. Rd232 19:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done - it messes up when viewed at template:move (because of inside a template inclusion) but is fine in articles. violet/riga (t) 11:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common names
There seem to be dozens of people on this page voting to move pages to their "official names". Wikipedia policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (see Naming conventions (common names)), and it seems nonsensical and absurd to be allowing such moves when they are so clearly in violation of policy, especially a policy that is one of the most central tenets of the entire naming conventions. If people disagree with the common names policy, they should attempt to change it (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) would seem to be the obvious place to start), rather than attempting to subvert community consensus on this relatively low-traffic page. Proteus (Talk) 12:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree - except that Requested Moves clearly has higher traffic than the relevant talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)). People who are aware of this talk page should mention it on RM whenever the issue arises, to help direct people's attention to it and reduce duplication of discussion. Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a case that that page is misnamed (or perhaps prejudiciously named)? Shouldn't it be "Naming conventions (proper names)" instead? (Compare dictionary.com definition of "proper name" v "common name", especially the proper name (grammar) meaning.) Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move consensus - the scope of wp:rm
This page seems to be growing into a "consensus to move" system rather than just an "administrator required to move this" request. I reckon this is a positive move as some move decisions are best discussed but an article may not have enough talk participants. I suggest one of the following changes:
 * 1) It is changed to a "Votes for Move" (VfM) page that operates something similar to VfD
 * 2) An extra section is added that links to pages with active move discussions

Personally I'd worry about the page bloating if it becomes like VfD, but it would give a handy archive system. My choice would be option 2.

 * Disagree here. I think too often this page is becoming the first line. Somebody has an idea to move page, and comes here first. I would like us to emphasis first of all, that each request must be made only after discussion about the move has happened elsewhere, like the articles talk page. Next, I think we need to rewrite the intro to point people toward Naming conventions and state which one they think applies to the move they are requesting. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
 * But that's the point of option 2 - too often these discussions are not seen by enough people and need advertising somewhere. By adding a section that simply lists talk pages where there is a move discussion we could get more input on the debate while not overly cluttering this page. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think a section for listing active discussion could work. What do you think of my suggestion about putting more emphasis on referencing Naming conventions? -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * I think it certainly has merit and reckon it would be better if people would quote that. I'd like to avoid people being lynched if they don't do so though, so perhaps it could be worded that it's advisory for people to consult the article first. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * As an illustration, I suggested on the 4th of November that computer display was moved to visual display unit. There haven't been any responses in two months.  Do I just go ahead and do it or should I continue waiting until someone finally comes along and discusses it? violet/riga (t) 11:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be more cautious about moving heavily linked pages
When considering moving a page, we need to remember that we can only currently see the first 500 'what links here' entries. I just happened to stumble onto a broken/double redir that was created by the recent move of Washington, DC to Washington, D.C. (why it got moved is a separate question--8 to 5 hardly seems like sufficient consensus to move such a heavily linked page), that (hopefully) wasn't fixed because it doesn't show up on 'what links here'. Niteowlneils 04:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act
Perhaps someone here can explain exactly what happened with the proposal to move this page? I nominated this page to be moved on Jan 3. Two people supported the move, but then on Jan 4 VioletRiga also nominated the page to be moved (presumably not noticing my own nomination). As more people had voted on her proposal, I decided to incorporate my proposal into her one. A few days later, I noticed that someone had refactored the proposal and in the process had removed my comment and support of VioletRiga's proposal. So I decided to restate my support. Then with this edit  Netoholic removed the proposal with the following comment in the edit summary - "rmv. no clear consensus after 12 days listing. Continue discussion on article's talk page". I have to admit to being somewhat suprised by this. By my reckoning including VioletRiga's nomination there were 10 voices supporting the move and 4 votes against it. This looks like a more than a 2:1 majority to me (2.5:1 actually). When I asked aNetoholic about the removal of this nomination, he said that that - the "Freedom of Information Act discussion was not active and not clear on any direction". Firstly, the most recent comment was less than 24 hours before Netoholic removed the entry and secondly, since when does a 2:1 majority not indicate clarity in a particular direction? I again took this up with Netoholic on his talk page. I have just checked his contributions and can see that he was active for about 2 hours today, but he has not responded to my query. So I am bringing the subject up here. Can anyone please explain what exactly is going on here? Jooler 12:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Correction! - I missed User:Raul654's vote which was not in bold. The vote was 10:5 including the nomination which is still a 2:1 majority. Jooler 13:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The articles haven't been cleaned up yet either, linking to redirects and seeming to have a very poor structure. I strongly object to the main article being the US one when there are clearly numerous other similar (and same-named) acts.  I'd support redirecting Freedom of Information Act to Freedom of information legislation. violet/riga (t) 13:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As Violetriga pointed out earlier on this talk page, the main page has strayed substantially from what it was apparently designed to do. Many of these moves do not require administrator support. But it is not a Votes for Move page, and there is no fixed procedure for determining the result. If we are looking for consensus before a move, we seldom find it, and we certainly did not find it here. (I do not, in my own mind, believe that consensus must be absolutely unanimous, but also do not feel that 10:5 is consensus.) Do we just follow the will of the majority? If so, after how long or how many votes? If consensus, what is consensus, and how long do we give for it to form? I preemptively argued that my own vote was not US-centric, for fear that it would be taken that way. I am a cosmopolitan. But the arguments for moving centered on two facts: (1) there are several other things of exactly the same name (since the article is a proper noun, I discount other “freedom of information acts”, if there is such a class), and (2) some of these have been much talked about in the news recently. I argued, and would still argue, that these two points do not in themselves constitute enough reason to uproot an established page for what has been the primary use of the expression. The present arrangement will work until it becomes clear that, after the media interest dies down, the newer FOIAs have taken on the same importance that the US FOIA has. I will concede the point in a few years; or turn WP:RM into a Votes for Move page, and I will concede immediately. It was my understanding that, in all cases, the default position was to leave the page as is unless a consensus emerged to move it. (I am therefore resigned to GW staying as is, even though virtually everyone links to George Washington University and not The George Washington University.) But we are all basically making this up as we go along. And that isn’t just true on this page. The whole encyclopedia works that way. — Ford 01:20, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

 * Ford - The issue of the UK Act being in the news is the reason why the anomaly of the US Act being at this page first came to the attention of both Violet and I. Presumably, like myself, she was as suprised as I was to find that the US legislation occupied this page. Your attempt to discount argument 1 is invalid - There are at least four English speaking nations that have enacted legislation specifically titled - Freedom of Information Act - those four nations are Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States - if someone outside of the USA hears the words Freedom of Information Act, how many are thinking of the United States Act? Nobody in the UK is thinking of that, nobody in Australia is thinking of it either, and nor is anyone in Ireland. Using your rule of chronological precedence, we should move British House of Commons to House of Commons because it is centuries older than the Canadian House of Commons and we should move Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston. Chronological precedence comes way down the list when it comes to things like this. Our primary concern is usefulness and I'm afraid hosting the USA page where we should have a disambiguation page is reducing usefulness because the rest of the world are not thinking of the USA act. You speak of once "the newer FOIAs have take on the same importance that the US FOIA has" - The US FOIA has no importance for me whatsoever because I do not live in the United States and nor do a very large number of Wikipedia's contributors or readers. Jooler 10:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ford's description is very accurate with regards to this page. Obviously, the disposition of FOIA and related pages needs more discussion, but this is not the place to do it.  If were to try to solve every naming problem of this sort, this page would grow tremendously in size (moreso than it has already).  I suggested to Jooler to follow this up with a mention on Requests for comment.  As it stands right now, if there is no consensus for a name change, the listing on this page should be removed with no immediate action after fives days.  The FOIA item was kept a bit longer, but can't be kept here forever.  That's why the discussion was archived to it's talk page - so that more discussion can take place.  As a matter of fact, discussion should have taken place there first, rather than brought to this page. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

 * Netoholic - This issue should be dealt with here and it should be dealt with now, please do not try to sideline it. The issue was initially raised on talk:Freedom of Information Act just before Christmas. I suspect both Violet and myself thought this would be an uncontroversial issue which is why we both independently nominated it for moving. What is your definiton of consensus? There was a 2:1 majority in favour of moving the page and the last comment was by User:NeilTarrant less than 24 hours before you removed the debate. Your claim that "discussion was not active and not clear on any direction" is plainly false. You removed this discussion, which was dated 4 Jan, and yet you left discussions dated as far back as December 31. I am curious as to why tyou did this. I specifically asked you on your talk page "Would you object if I re-instated the debate?" - as you have not replied directly to this question I am asking it again here. If you do not object I will restore it. Jooler 10:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Jooler, this is the last message I'll post on the subject, until you tone down this attitude. There is only one reason that items were left dating back to Dec 31 – those items have clear consensus to support the move, and they remain listed until such time as an admin comes to this page to perform the necessary actions.  If you can convince an admin to do the work for the FOIA, that is your business. Personally, I don't think there is solid enough justification, right now.  The disposition of all the related pages needs to be mapped out first.  If you can gather clear direction, then do it.  Do not expect this request to site here on this page idle.  -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

""Do not expect this request to site here on this page idle" - eh? Jooler 14:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not know why, Jooler, you are so eager to paint me as a xenophobe. And the precedence issue was never my only argument. I merely think that the argument about the news is event-driven and distorts the prominence of the UK FOIA. I furthermore believe (but do not know) that, even if you don’t know anything about the US FOIA, the authors of the bills in the English-speaking states that you reference very much did know about it, which is why they gave their legislation the exact same title. I admit that Boston, Massachusetts, was named after Boston, Lincolnshire. If I were making a dictionary, I would list the original first. On the other hand, Boston, Massachusetts, is ten times bigger if you only count its governmental area, and a hundred times bigger if you compare its metropolitan area to the borough of Boston, so Boston, Massachusetts, would get a much-longer entry. The UK act is in the news now because it just came into force. The US act has been making the news for thirty years. It is a matter of enduring public awareness, rather than the unproven awareness of the UK FOIA, which, I repeat, is event-driven. And there are more people in the United States than any of the other states that have legislation with the exact name. After coverage by the BBC dies down, I think it far more likely that anyone in the “rest of the world” (that is, not living in the US, UK, Ireland, or Australia) will be looking for information about the US FOIA. It would not hurt my feelings if the US FOIA ended up at U.S. Freedom of Information Act. I was just offering my opinion based on available evidence, and a reasoning process that has not persuaded you. Very well; but your reasoning has not persuaded me, either. Nor am I persuaded that 10:5 is a consensus. I think you are right to seek rules. But the rules around here change all the time, so good luck. — Ford 12:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

 * Let me make this abundantly clear - The fact that the UK act is particularly in the news at the moment has never been an argument for moving any page and never has been, it is merely a point of fact. It is in the news because it came into force on Jan 1, 2005. However that act was part a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election and the issues surrounding it had been debated for many years. The act was passed five years ago in 2000. The UK Act resides at Freedom of Information Act 2000, because the current format for UK Acts of Parliament is to place the year following the name of the act. There was never going to be any possibility of the UK act occupying the spot Freedom of Information Act. The issue is - why should a page about something which is completely irrelevant (in law) to all of the people outside of the United States stay at a page which could easily refer to at least three other objects of legislation from other English speaking nations? - your arguments are as follows -
 * "US FOIA has chronological precedence" - I've already demolished this argument.
 * "It is a matter of enduring public awareness" - it is not a matter of enduring awareness to me and anybody else unaffected by it outside of the USA.
 * "there are more people in the United States than any of the other states that have legislation with the exact name." - And you think "I paint you" as a xenophobe? This is a feeble argument which belittles every nation outside of the US.
 * "I think it far more likely that anyone in the rest of the world will be looking for information about the US FOIA" - why should anyone in the rest of the world care two hoots about the US FOIA any more than any other piece of legislation that doesn't apply to them. Jooler

 * Can I suggest moving this discussion to the relevant article talk page? This one is for discussion of the WP:RM process. -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Please don't try to sideline this issue. Jooler 14:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On review of the situation I have decided that requested moves is not the right place for this, as dictated by the introduction on the page. I have suggested an change to the system above but to little attention. I have reworked the relevant articles as anybody would had this page not existed - no admin privileges were needed. If anybody wishes to argue the change, or suggest alternatives, then perhaps they should be taken to the primary article (Freedom of information legislation).

PS, one correction - it would all be done if I wasn't getting a server error every time I've submitted for the last 30 minutes. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - - After you have learned to debate more skillfully, Jooler, perhaps you will have the ability to “demolish” one of my arguments. But when you do, it will not be necessary to say that you have done it; observers will be able to discern this for themselves. Of course, you could not demolish the argument that the US FOIA has precedence. We both believe it does. You might argue that precedence has less importance than you think I have given it. But I have said that I believe precedence to be only one factor to consider, and I cannot imagine how you have “demolished” the idea that it should be considered at all. Perhaps if you had been listening to my argument, you would have done better at refuting it.

You state, colorfully, that no one outside of the US would care about the US FOIA or any other piece of US legislation. To be charitable, I will assume that you also believe that to be true about UK, Irish, and Australian legislation, namely, it is only of concern to those who live under its jurisdiction. If that is the case, then my point about the respective populations of the states in question is perfectly relevant: the more persons in each state, the more persons who will care two hoots about the corresponding act. So the fact that 80% of all those who live under a “Freedom of Information Act” would only, by your standard, care about the US FOIA means that it must be the primary meaning. Your standard is not mine, though: I credit some people in the world with being interested in what happens outside of their own countries, and thus consider population to be just one more factor to consider; but you seem to have missed that point entirely. Again, perhaps if you had been listening, you could have refuted the argument I was actually making.

Since you are not really paying attention to what I am saying, I will say for anyone else’s benefit that I really am a cosmopolitan, as I have said. I just honestly believe that, for the near future, the US FOIA will remain the primary meaning of the precise term ‘Freedom of Information Act’, given the act’s longevity, the scope of its jurisdiction, and the proven role it plays in US society. But primary meaning is subjective anyway, so even if we conducted a survey of all anglophones we would not have agreed on how to define the question beforehand.

For the record, Netoholic, I was originally trying not to debate the move any further on this page, but rather, to discuss the implications of this case for the nature of WP:RM. But it is hardly effective to respond elsewhere to what is said here.— Ford 01:05, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

 * Well Violet has made the move now anyway so this discussion is irrelevant. So so this is the last I have to say about it, and it is a general point. All of Ford's points regarding the precedance or primacy and supposed international awareness of the US FOIA could be used as arguments for making the following pages exclusively about US subjects - Declaration of Independence- Civil War - Secretary of State - Postmaster General - Supreme Court - Bill of Rights - Georgia - Surgeon General dollar etc.. etc.. - but they arn't. I agree the use of the word "demolished" was inappropriate. "dealt with" would have been better. Jooler

 * Regarding the issues surrounding this particular argument as they affect this page - As I stated earlier moving the disambiguation page seemed like an uncontroversial move to me I had no intention of starting an argument. It could have all been avoided if only Netoholic hadn't decided to remove the debate when it was on the cusp of obtaining a consensus (it was one short - judging by the articles that Netoholic didn't remove). With no specific procedures laid down, he had no more right to remove it than I did to re-instate it. After it was initially removed I politely asked Netoholic for clarification of what procedure he was following. The inadequate and dismissive reply telling me to refer it to Rfc did not help matters and nor did the lack of reply to a request for further clarification. We obviously need to clarify the procedures to be followed for removing debates and deciding what constitutes a consensus. Jooler 10:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No longer supporting RM

 * "Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request action by a admin to perform such moves".

That is the lead of Requested moves, not "Should this article be moved". I've noted in earlier discussions (above) that I believe the focus of RM should change, or at least the wording should be altered. This system is supposed to be about moves that cannot be done because of existing article history but now it's become a voting ground. While voting is important and should be encouraged I think that RM should either change focus or move requests to the talk page if somebody opposes it. That therefore leads me to believe that there is no need for support votes. violet/riga (t) 20:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * In a way I have to agree. Not so long ago, a page move wasn't a big deal - except occaisionally you wouldn't be able to move a page because of a history conflict and you would have to ask an admin for help. The problem was, there was no easy way to locate an admin who was around to help - hence WP:RM was created. Now, in a short pace of time, it has blossomed into a whole set of policies, procedures and argument to and fro. You have to stop and think 'what happened?'. Perhaps it really indicates that moving is page is more of a deal than it is made out to be. Certainly quite a lot of people seem to care what the proper page title should be, and the argument often looses sight of the original guiding principle, that a page should be at its most 'natural' name so that if someone guesses a link in another article they will probably get it right. -- Solipsist 21:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's always a guide. If you can find an admin (like myself) willing to do a move, you don't have to list it here. However, once you list something to be moved, some folks will chime in with other suggestions, while others will pre-emptively support your request. Given that this is a concensus-based project, this only makes sense. I think it is best to see if you can find a willing, online admin to do the move before listing a request here, since that will get the most direct results. Failing that, the reasons could be (a) no admins are online, (b) none are willing to do the move because they are busy with other things or (c) the move is not a good idea. It is unlikely that (a) will be true.... there's how many admins now? Although figuring out which ones are online can be problematic. Once you've found an online admin (b) is also not so likely. I don't know an admin who won't be willing to take a moment to do a move or a history merge when asked. That leaves (c) and that should bring the community in to decide if the move is a good idea or not. That all said, I do agree that RM has become a little bit boggy - but that has come from the grassroots being dissatisfied with requests being handled too quickly. So perhaps we need to adjust the wait time again, maybe drop it down to 5 days instead of 7, and rewrite the guidelines so than admins can feel free to make obvious moves even sooner than that. - UtherSRG 22:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Miniaturization

Article creation
I created this and disputed it in one fell swoop.

Eight articles link to here. My thought is that the topic is worth expanding especially from a historic perspective. I just seeded the stub with items that need much research which i am willing to do as time allows. (BTW do we have a timeline template for technological development in general?)

I think the Race toward Tinyness theme is an interesting one and there is a lot of contextual framework in which to build. This article was spawned by the peer-review of the Sound localization article to which I added the Ormia_ochracea section - another perhaps worthy substub. Quinobi 19:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you created it and the links are along lines of what I was expecting. I agree that this article probably deserves expansion, and some generalization as well. First it may be good to consider that miniaturization is not just a technological phenomenon. Artistic intrigue probably predated technological intrigue. It may also be of some value to discuss the benefits and motivation of miniaturization, namely transportation and energy efficiency. I believe the Japanese probably have a signficant contribution on the artistic side as well such as rice painting. I will think about this for awhile and assist if anything good comes of my thinking. ThreePD 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I just took out the military use thing that was pretty clearly something somebody just made up, I kind of want to remove the "Tininess race" part too- Take out the pointless part about an apocryphal story, and it's a single sentence with no citations. I've personally never heard of a tininess race between nations.  Technology companies all obviously want to make stuff smaller, but that's independent of what nation they're in.  If someone else comes along and agrees with me, and no one has given a good argument or citation to the contrary, just take it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.181.74 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

'The Tinyness Race'?
I tagged on that section because the 'story' seems too ridiculously peculiar. It may be untrue, and is subject to removal if no source or reference is given to it in a short span of time. WinterSpw (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * At least in Germany there's a well known joke about it. I've taken the liberty to do a rough translation:

Using new technology, a German company managed to create a very thin wire. They come to the conclusion that it's the thinnest wire ever made. Full with pride, the boss sends a sample of the wire to a competing company in Japan with a request for analysis. A few weeks later they get a package from Japan. Inside is the same wire and a latter: "Thanks for your package. Not knowing what to do with the wire you sent us, we took the liberty to drill an internal screw thread into it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.113.59 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * That this joke exists means that perhaps it should be kept. But in this case it should be moved to another article, and probably reformatted. I agree that this joke should not be kept, at any rate, not on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbagel (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs work, this is a mega-worthy topic
This topic is a really important one for technology in general, it deserves more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.247.249 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miniaturization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218224945/http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf to ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029060050/http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Video-Transcripts/Excepts_A_Conversation_with_Gordon_Moore.pdf to ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Video-Transcripts/Excepts_A_Conversation_with_Gordon_Moore.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miniaturization


text:
User talk:Confusedmiked

ClockworkTroll 19:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Celebrity Rehab
Hi. Please see WP:Citing Sources for how to use ref tags to properly format sources as so that they appear in an article's References section. It also shows you how to use the ref name tag in order to cite a source multiple times, so that you don't have to write it out four separate times.

In addition, it's not appropriate to add that material to the middle of the section on Reaction to the program, since the source does not make any mention of criticism or praise of the show, as this would violate WP:SYNTH. Conaway and Starr's deaths are already mentioned further down in the article, though I added the Guardian story to the passage about Conaway's passing, in order to mention the point about him being the second castmate to die this year. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BP spill - your request
Hi, I'm a bit confused about your request re Marshall Islands and this ref. At this point, can you add it yourself? If not, tell me where you wanted the ref to go and I can add it.  petrarchan 47 T c 02:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes Theory
asked if this was ready to go live, over the locked page; I looked over it and concurred, and I've just put it into place at Yes Theory.

I cut a pile of stuff that read more like a press release than a Wikipedia article - but it's still in the history, so the references and so on can be retrieved - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks David, much appreciated.

I was trying to ensure that it met the Wikipedia criteria for notability, as it has fallen foul if that criteria in the past.

Your help is much appreciated. I’m sure the Wikipedia community will help build it up in an appopriate manner.

title: User talk:Confusedmiked


text: Category:Lieutenant Governors of British Columbia


text:
Collio, Lombardy

Collio (Brescian: Còi) is a town and comune in the province of Brescia, in Lombardy, Italy. Neighbouring communes are Bagolino, Bienno, Bovegno, Lavenone, Marmentino, Pertica Alta and Pertica Bassa.

Twin towns
Collio is twinned with:

 * 🇮🇹 Castroreale, Italy
 * 🇮🇹 Gonnesa, Italy

title: Collio, Lombardy