text:
Ilex verticillata

Ilex verticillata, the winterberry, is a species of holly native to eastern North America in the United States and southeast Canada, from Newfoundland west to Ontario and Minnesota, and south to Alabama.

Other names that have been used include black alder, Canada holly, coralberry, fever bush, Michigan holly, or winterberry holly.

The species occurs particularly in wetland habitats, but also on dry sand dunes and grassland. The berries are an important food resource for some species of bird, among them the American robin.

Description
Ilex verticillata is a shrub growing to 1 - 5 m tall. It is one of a number of hollies which are deciduous, losing their leaves in the fall. In wet sites, it will spread to form a dense thicket, while in dry soil it remains a tight shrub. The leaves are glossy green, 3.5–9 cm long, 1.5–3.5 cm broad, with a serrated margin and an acute apex. The flowers are small, 5 mm in diameter, with five to eight white petals.

The fruit is a globose red drupe 6–8 mm in diameter, which often persists on the branches long into the winter, giving the plant its English name. Like most hollies, it is dioecious, with separate male and female plants; the proximity of at least one male plant is required to pollenize the females in order to bear fruit.

Medicinal
The berries were used by Native Americans for medicinal purposes, the origin of the name "fever bush".

The seeds, leaves, bark and berries of the plant can cause nausea and low blood pressure if ingested.

Ornamental plant
Ilex verticillata – the American winterberry – is prized as an ornamental plant in gardens for the midwinter splash of bright color from densely packed berries, whose visibility is heightened by the loss of foliage; therefore it is popular even where other, evergreen, hollies are also grown. The bare branches covered in berries are also popular for cutting and use in floral arrangements. In autumn/fall the leaves turn yellow sometimes with tinges of red and orange.

It is easy to grow, with very few diseases or pests. Although wet acidic soils are optimal, the winterberry will grow well in the average garden. Numerous cultivars are available, differing in size and shape of the plant and color of the berry. At least one male plant must be planted in proximity to one or more females for them to bear fruit. Because both females and males come in early- and late-flowering varieties, males must be selected to have same timing as the females they are intended to pollinate.

Female

 * Ilex verticillata 'Winter Red' Fruit is orange-red
 * Ilex verticillata 'Afterglow' Fruit is orange-red
 * Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Large, red fruit
 * Ilex verticillata 'Spravy' "Berry Heavy" Fruit is orange-red
 * Ilex verticillata 'Spriber' "Berry Nice" Bright red fruit
 * Ilex verticillata 'Winter Gold' Fruit is orange.

Male (pollinator; no fruit)

 * Ilex verticillata 'Southern Gentleman'
 * Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'

title: Ilex verticillata


text: Category:Invariant theory

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

title: Category:Invariant theory


text: User talk:66.155.196.15

title: User talk:66.155.196.15


text:
Talk:Cycle path

--Sf 16:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Moved cycle path page to cycle path debate have put up a more global Segregated cycle facilities page

title: Talk:Cycle path


text:
Talk:Christopher Buckley (novelist)

Little green men
The book is not about an agency "investigating" UFOs it's about an agency that actually creats sightings of UFOs and actually kidnaps people to make them believe in UFOs.

DOB
Buckley's DOB per entry in Library of Congress catalog. PedanticallySpeaking 16:19, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Why the recent link?
What was the purpose of adding the recent link? It's to an advertisement for a book written by Christopher Buckley's uncle. There's no mention of Christopher Buckley and, for that matter, very little information about his uncle. MK2 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Logical Inconsistency?
I don't know if this is could possibly be correct in the article.

"Buckley offered his resignation so the Review could appear to distance themselves from him, not genuinely expecting them to agree. However, that was not the case and it was promptly accepted."

Why would Buckley's offering his resignation to National Review, while not expecting them to accept it, give the appearance that NR was distancing themselves from Buckley? If he did offer his resignation and they did not accept it, how would it appear that NR was distancing itself from Buckley? Wouldn't it actually do the reverse? Lborchardt (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Offering his resignation was the honorable thing to do and allowed him to control his future with them. It saved NR from having to deal with the idea of letting Buckley go. It's all about appearances and saving face. Since Buckley is still on the board of directors of NR, it no doubt surprised him a little bit. On his recent segment on Book TV (CSPAN2, "In Depth"), he mused about the strangeness of being "fired" by an organization of which he is, essentially, a part owner of. CrashRiley (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Long
The description of Buckley's Obama endorsement and subsequent resignation from National Review was far too long and not written from a NPOV. One incident (likely minor in the long run) in a man's career should not take up half his entry, and there are too many quotations or close paraphrases of Buckley's own acccount of the affair. I have reduced it to a reasonable length and will do so again if it is changed back to the longer version.

DOB The DOB stated in the article is incorrect. Perhaps Christopher supported Obama as a result of unclear thinking during what must have been a very difficult period for Christopher. Both his mother and father passed away not all that long ago and he may still be in a period of mourning and great emotional pain. As an only child the passing of his parents must have been especially difficult. Had Christopher thought things through he probably would have realized that not supporting any candidate would have been the sensible decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdtqdtqdt123 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that picture really Buckley??
According to the article, Christopher Buckley is 56 years old. The man in that picture not only does NOT look like any other picture I've ever seen of Buckley, but looks like a man much, much older than 56! (His father right before his death looked a lot better than the man in the picture.)

Can someone check the provenance of the picture?

Simplemines (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * That looks like Buckley. It's just harsh lighting. --TMC1221 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the image at the 2008 book festival. I have never seen the man before, but he was seated by a name placard that said Christopher Buckley and if you look at the image full size, the book he is preparing to sign says Christopher Buckley on the spine. I believe it is Buckley. Hopefully, a better image will come along soon. If the editors agree that the image is not representative and should be removed, that's OK with me. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace
Here and there it's written that he was born in New York City. Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA/Ashkenazi ancestry
He announced this week that his mitochondrial dna were analyzed, and i believe he said he was of 75% ashkenazi jewish ancestry. This was on NPR. To my knowledge, there is no guideline within judaism on whether this has any bearing on actually being jewish, the gold standard still being born of a jewish woman or converting. Of course, his mother was by necessity also 75% ashkenazi, but her maternal ancestor converted to christianity some time ago, and thus mom doesnt by the normal standard qualify as jewish. such a question!.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.3.242 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Buckley (novelist). 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://archive.is/20120712150257/http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6706 to http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6706

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) 17:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Buckley (novelist). 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/20100525092444/http://www.elle.com/Pop-Culture/Celebrity-Spotlight/Mr.-Right to http://www.elle.com/Pop-Culture/Celebrity-Spotlight/Mr.-Right
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014214844/http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/books/entries/2008/10/14/a_little_scoop_on_christopher.html to http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/books/entries/2008/10/14/a_little_scoop_on_christopher.html

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) 11:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christopher Buckley (novelist)


text:
Talk:Segregated cycle facilities

Kenneth D. Cross Study
This is my first attempt at using the talk page...please forgive any errors in formatting as I muddle my way through....

The current section titled Evidence Against states the following, "In the 1970s the California Statewide Bicycle Committee arranged with Kenneth D. Cross for a study of car-bike collisions, expecting that this study would support their arguments on collision prevention. When presented to the Committee in Sacramento on 19 June 1974, Cross's study showed the opposite: only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists.[37] Cross later had a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to produce an improved study (on a pseudo-random national sample), and the results were much the same.[38]"

In the Kenneth Cross Study, various collisions were categorized. Type 13 is listed as follows (paper here: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25400/25439/DOT-HS-803-315.pdf):

"Problem Type 13 (24.6% Fatal; 4.0% Non-Fatal) Problem Type 13 must be considered one of the most important problem types revealed by this study, because it accounted for nearly one-fourth of all fatalities in the sample--three times as many as any other problem type.The distinguishing characteristics of this problem type are (a) the motor vehicle overtook and collided with a bicycle traveling in the same direction as the motor vehicle, and (b) the collisions occurred because the motorist failed to observe the bicyclist until the accident was imminent.The distinguishing characteristic of Problem Type 13 is that the operator of the overtaking motor vehicle failed to observe the bicyclist until the vehicles were in such close proximity that successful evasive action was impossible."

... This is the second paper by Cross which purportedly had the same results as the first paper (per the original wikipedia entry). The excerpt above is from the second paper. Upon reading the results of Type 13, the most dangerous type of car-bike collision resulting in fatality was a result of same direction overtaking.

...

So the section stating that the Cross study proved that same-direction traffic was responsible for "only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists" is incorrect.

The section linking here: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm was also deleted because the data presented did not match what was summarized on wikipedia nor was it part of the second Cross study. I was unable to find exactly how the numbers here: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm were derived from the Cross study.

Additionally, the percentages on Forester's page do not match the percentages on the Cross study. The problem types on the Forester page do not match the Cross study. ...

Hope this clarifies the reason for deleting the section.

What is the next step?

Edit: Should a page be made for the Kenneth Cross Study, so that it can be linked to?

(Mightybeancounter (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, the 0.5% assertion does not appear to be supported by the cited source.  But instead of deleting the section entirely, let's try to rewrite it in a way that is supported by the sources.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(Born2cycle](talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
 * So the assertion that there is evidence against separated bicycle infrastructure was initially put forth by John Forester, per the original article. I'm unclear on how the section would be rewritten without acknowledging Forester's deletion of the Cross results. Would that need to be explained? I've proposed edits.

 * The original stated this:
 * "In the 1970s the California Statewide Bicycle Committee arranged with Kenneth D. Cross for a study of car-bike collisions, expecting that this study would support their arguments on collision prevention. "

 * "Cross later had a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to produce an improved study (on a pseudo-random national sample), and the results were much the same.[38]"

 * How do we know that the reason for the study was to support the Committee's arguments? From the Cross paper on the reason for the study, I've found the quote "to determine the causes of bicycle/motor-vehicle accidents and to use data on accident causation to identify potential counter-measure approaches."  I propose the following change:

 * In the 1970s the California Statewide Bicycle Committee arranged with Kenneth D. Cross to determine the various types of bicycle/motor-vehicle accidents and to use the results of the study to determine potential countermeasures.

 * The original stated this:
 * When presented to the Committee in Sacramento on 19 June 1974, Cross's study showed that the opposite: only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists.[37]

 * My proposed edit will be:

 * When presented to the Committee in Sacramento on 19 June 1974, Cross's study showed that the most dangerous type of collision was what was categorized as Problem Type 13 consisting of 24.6% fatalities and 4.0% injuries. Cross identified this as one of the most dangerous types of collisions as it accounted for nearly "one-fourth of all fatalities in the sample--three times as many as any other problem type". The defining characteristic of this type of collision "(a) the motor vehicle overtook and collided with a bicycle traveling in the same direction as the motor vehicle, and (b) the collisions occurred because the motorist failed to observe the bicyclist until the accident was imminent."
 * '''Although the Cross Study has been used by Forester to argue against separated infrastructure, the Cross study proved that the public fear of rear-end collisions caused by same direction traffic was substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightybeancounter (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've taken a closer look. The article references the first Cross Study.  Table A of that study shows ten "Accident Types", labeled A-J.  Accident Type F is "Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist" and is shown to have a relative contribution of 4.17% (of all the car-bike collisions studied, a motorist collided with the rear of the cyclist in 4.17% of them). This Accident Type is discussed in more detail in a section labeled, "Motorist Collided with Rear of Cyclist".  In that section it illustrates the five sub-types of this Accident Type in Figure 10, and notes, "The five sub-types shown in Figure 10 constitute only 4.1 percent of the total accident sample."  Each of the five sub-types shown in Figure 10 is accompanied by a percentage indicating the relative contribution of that sub-type to the total 4.1% relative contribution of this Accident Type (the percents in this Figure are 43, 25, 6, 13 and 13, adding up to 100%... 100% of 4.1%). Of the five sub-types of this Accident Type, one represents those crashes away from intersections in which the cyclist and motorist are both going straight, and the relative contribution of this sub-type is labeled as being 13% of this type.  13% of 4.1 is 0.533% of all car-bike collisions in this study, which seems to substantiate the statement in the article: "Cross's study showed the opposite: only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists". The study also refers to the frequency of this type of accident as "occurred extremely infrequently":

 * The second Cross Study classifies crash types differently, so I don't know if we can glean a comparable figure out of it. It seems that a large proportion of those Type 13 crashes (motorist overtaking; bicyclist not observed) occurred at night with the cyclist having inadequate lighting.  In particular, Table 36 shows that while 25.2% of all fatals were of Type 13, 17.4% (or 69% of all of Type 13) occurred at nighttime (9.0% rural nighttime + 8.4% urban nighttime).  Daytime Type 13s account for only 7.1% of all fatals.  Considering that the total number of fatals is only a fraction of all bike-car crashes, I think that indicates the 0.5% is in the right ballpark per this study too. In any case, I see nothing here that supports our saying, "the Cross study proved that the public fear of rear-end collisions caused by same direction traffic was substantiated". By the way, bicyclinginfo.org says that in 2009 there were 630 bicyclist fatalities in the U.S., and 51,000 bicyclist injuries.  Even if we include the nighttime crashes involving inadequately lighted cyclists, that means about 25% of those 630 fatalities, or about 158, were Type 13.  In other words, if you're an average cyclist and you're in a bike crash, the odds that you'll be killed in a from-behind crash while both you and the motorist are going straight is about 158 out of 51000 or... 0.3%.   I think this suggests, especially if poor lighting at night is eliminated as a factor, that concern about other types of crashes, those involving turning and crossing movements, should be given much higher priority.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion confounds the two Cross studies, the first done for California, the second for the NHTSA. The first study has collision types designated by letters, the second has collision types designated by numbers. It is inappropriate to compare the data from one study with the conclusions of the other study, which appears to have been done. The entirely incorrect statement is that the first Cross study showed that 38% of car-bike collisions occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and straight-ahead motorists. The correct value, for the first Cross study, is 0.5%, as the commenter immediately before, or the one before that, had concluded. This major error requires correction as rapidly as possible, as the erroneous value has been circulated (which is how it came to my attention). The statement that California government expected that this first Cross study would support their bikeway program being imposed on cyclists is correct. That is why they had Cross make his presentation in a room at the Sacramento airport, where many officials would be present. They were utterly confounded when that study strongly disproved their hopes and all their program, which is why they then hid the study. I was there, and I saved my copy, which is why I could publish it on my website, johnforester.com, where the Wikipedia author found it. How that author concluded 38% for the correct proportion is outside my knowledge. John Forester (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC) John Forester

Inline galleries
In it's current version the article has two inline galleries. One in the Segregating cyclists controversy section (five items) and one in the Bikeways that use independent rights-of-way section (12 photos). WP:IG states that One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. From my point of view the two current galleries does very little more than that. The latter gallery basically shows the same, but simply at different locations. The first shows a number of signs and one (relevant) photo of an "ill" parked truck. I don't think that the galleries contribute a lot to neither those sections, which isn't illustrated with one image and therefore I suggest that they are deleted and one image is left in each section. --Heb (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've started putting them into proper galleries at least, instead of lists of images some of which don't illustrate the sections. A next step would be to trim down the number of images. WP:IG suggests putting the images into Talk so I'll do that if I remove any. Nubeli (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This image would be better in Cycling infrastructure or Bicycle Boulevard rather than here since it doesn't match any of the types:

Nubeli (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Segregated motorcycle facilities
Can the idea of converting segregated cycle facilities to segregated motorcycle facilities be mentioned ? Should be useful if the motorway is converted to a bicycle boulevard as both then complement each other perfectly. 109.130.233.118 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"On road: cycle track" ?
In this official presentation on road it is a cycle lane, next to roadway a "cycle track".--Ulamm (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole point of a cycle track is to separate it from the roadway. The terminology is jumbled here. A sidepath is not a multi use path - a sidepath is a cycle track - it's a path next to but separated from the roadway, like a sidewalk but for bikes.  --В²C ☎ 00:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected bike lanes/cycle tracks are considered "on-road facilities" as per the previous cite. However, given the terminology jumble, I have tagged them as "on-road/off-road facilites" Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

SolaRoad, world's first PV bike path
Calling PV enthusiasts and interested eds, please expand SolaRoad! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing Cycling infrastructure and segregated cycle facilities
This article has gotten so large and seems to have taken on a life of its own in relation to Cycling Infrastructure. It would be better for reading and organization if the sections were broken up into separate pages where it makes sense and add links to the Bikeways section of Cycling Infrastructure which already includes bike paths, bike boulevards, etc.

I have created pages for the controversy, legislation, safety and for bike lanes, cycle tracks and bike paths. I have also merged shared use path page into the bike path page.

There is now more consistency and no one article is sprawling. Since all the main sections exist on their own there is little point to this page. It'll be better to just redirect it to Cycle Infrastructure #Bikeway and add some of the important leftover info there. Nubeli (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the effort you've put in. Can you please use Copied on the talk page of each new article to ensure correct attribution for the text. —  Scott  •  talk  10:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. Thanks, I didn't know about the copied attribution. Nubeli (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle reverted this page to the status quo but failed to improve the organization of cycling infrastructure. None of the information on this page was lost; it was all reorganized so it was more consistent with the main Cycling infrastructure. This page has been controversial for awhile and has grown so that it is largely illegible and tries to do too many things. Meanwhile duplicate information was being added elsewhere and in the Cycling infrastructure page which is where things should be categorized.

I still don't think that this page should exist on its own--many other people on this talk page have said similar things. I think it should be redirected to some section under Cycling infrastructure. But in the meanwhile I will attempt to at least prevent duplicate information in Wikipedia and make sure people are clear that lots of the sections on this page now have their own pages. Nubeli (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Segregated cycle facilities" is a distinct subtopic of "cycling infrastructure" and is certainly big enough to warrant an article. For example, bicycle parking facilities are "cycling infrastructure", but are not "segregated cycle facilities".  Travel lanes, especially when marked with sharrows, are "cycling infrastructure" but are not "segregated cycle facilities".  Segregated facilities are mostly comprised of bike paths, cycle tracks, protected bike lanes, and, to some extent, traditional bike lanes. There is plenty of material on these topics. It makes no sense to move specific details about segregated infrastructure from this more specialized article to the more general Cycling infrastructure.  That's not to say that there is no room for improvement here! --В²C ☎ 16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I argue that the very categorization "segregated cycle facility" was mostly an ideological choice by some people on Wikipedia that no longer makes sense given the variety and subtly of cycling infrastructure. This binary division is not being used in the majority of jurisdictions who divide it up into 3 or 4 different categories according to my research.
 * This article creates awkward choices which make a mess of the organization of the larger category of cycling infrastructure and make little sense to the average person visiting these pages. According to this artificial division a bike lane with a solid white line is considered "segregated" whereas an "advisory bike lane" with a dotted white line is considered "integrated". What a pointless division.
 * So, again I argue that this article is just a shell to prop up a particular point of view and there is little point in it existing on its own. Nubeli (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Terminology is indeed confusing in this field. I think it's fair to say that there isn't a universally agreed set of terms and the same facilities would often be described differently in different jurisdictions. But "segregated cycle facilities" or "protected cycle facilities" are certainly terms that we find in the literature, and they describe spaces legally used by people on bikes, but not by people in cars. They have also been the subject of debate. None of this implies that we must have an article with this title, but it certainly makes it reasonable. I look forward to improvements to the article from both of you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback Richard. I think it's best then for us to follow as closely to how the major agencies and jurisdictions categorize cycling infrastructure. None of them make such a clean break between "segregated" and "integrated" such as suggested by this article. Rather they talk about degrees of separation, about the context, and the combination of features to consider that will make streets more cycling-friendly. Cities are using a combination of all the tools in the toolbox to make streets safer, even within a single bike route which might incorporate bike lanes, cycle tracks, dotted lines which motor vehicles can cross and so on. By dividing bikeways into a separate article along an arbitrary dividing line, the ability to reference such things is largely lost. No categorization will be perfect, but it's better to present it all upfront to the reader in one article and be open about the blurry lines.
 * Here's a result of my investigation into the major guides available in English:
 * Sustrans Handbook for Cycle-friendly Design http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_content_type/sustrans_handbook_for_cycle-friendly_design_11_04_14.pdf - References to "segregated" fall into two uses: segregated in the sense of cycle tracks that are physically separated from motorized traffic; and on paths where cyclists are separated from pedestrians. To focus on the word "segregated" would mean having to divide some bike paths into those that are "segregated" and lump them with segregated roadways. This division is mostly useless and confusing to the average person. Bike lanes with painted lines are not referenced in Sustrans as being segregated.
 * NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ - Describes bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boulevards but doesn't categorize into separated or unseparated. In regards to bike lanes it describes them as being for "preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists" which would mean they are both "segregated" and "integrated" depending on the context. Cycle tracks are "physically separated from motor traffic" according to NACTO. According to NACTO we could lump cycle tracks into "segregated" but we couldn't make a decision about bike lanes.
 * California DOT http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf - Talks about on-street and off-street bikeways. Bike paths are in a separate right of way. Bike lanes are simply described as striped lanes. And bike routes are described as shared routes.
 * City of Portland Bike plan for 2030 http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/City-of-Portland-2010-2030-Plan.pdf - Divides their bike facility type into five: trails; separated in-roadways - bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks; bicycle boulevards / advisory bike lanes; enhanced shared roadways; and signed connections. Portland lumps cycle tracks with bike lanes but differentiates them from trails because they are on the roadway. Where the facility is—in-roadway or not—and the volume of traffic of the street is given as primary importance as whether it is separated in some way.
 * NYC Street Design Manual http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-streetdesignmanual-interior-lores.pdf - Bike lanes are a "portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signs, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Also known as a Class 2 bike lane. Physical separation of bike lanes is desirable..." This language is similar to NACTO; the same issue with trying to categorize bike lanes. NYC doesn't reference cycle tracks, instead describes them as bike paths: "A path intended for the use of bicycles that is physically separated from motorized vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the roadway or within an independent right-of-way. Also known as a Class 1 bike lane." And the third category is "bike route" which includes "shared lane" and "signed route".
 * The argument for a separate article just on segregation is weak and mostly unsupported in the references. If this article remained, we'd need to start splitting bike lanes into solid and dotted lines (even though there are many examples of bike lanes that use both over their length). And we'd need to split bike paths into those that share the path with pedestrians and those that are exclusive. Such as approach would add little to the knowledge of those who are visiting Wikipedia and would mostly only serve to buttress the opinions of those who like hold to a binary approach to cycling infrastructure. Opinions that are mostly unsupported by the references. Nubeli (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to respond to User:Born2cycle who said "Context determines whether it also means no peds. Peds are allowed in many of the facilities covered in this article, and that's the context that matters here, not one particular source." in his edit summary. This is why I find this whole article problematic. You need to back up your assertions. In the manuals and guidelines I've looked through, the term "segregated cycle facility" doesn't come up at all. So the next best guide for us is to look at how the references are using the term "segregated". And from what I can find, the term segregated (and separated) is used in both senses: segregating cyclists from motorized traffic and segregating cyclists from pedestrians. The bikeways which do allow sharing with pedestrians or sharing with motorized traffic are already covered in Cycling infrastructure. Thus I'm going to edit this to make it clearer. Nubeli (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick google search shows countless sources using the term "segregated" in the context of cycling facilities without meaning pedestrians are prohibited on those facilities. It would be, , . It would be incorrect and confusing to say otherwise. It's just an umbrella term for facilities that are segregated from motor traffic. That includes cycle paths and cycle lanes upon which pedestrians are often not prohibited. Not sure why you're so adamant about saying it means no pedestrians when it that's only true for certain cycle tracks that have an adjacent sidewalk, and even then pedestrians freely walk across the cycle track. Cycling facilities from which pedestrians are prohibited are quite rare in practice and the term is certainly not exclusive to just those. --В²C ☎ 00:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Invited here by a post at WikiProject Cycling. Is the reorganization finished? This article is now really short and seems to cover the same topics as
 * 1) Cycling_infrastructure and
 * 2) Cycling_infrastructure
 * Also Segregated cycle facility redirects there instead of here. Have you considered merging _all_ the material from Segregated cycle facilities to Cycling infrastructure, leaving the first as a redirect?
 * Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Segregated cycle facilities are a subset/subtopic of Cycling infrastructure. There was no discussion about this reorganization on this talk page.  I think it introduced at least as many problems as it addressed.  The topic needs to be covered separately as it always has been, for good reason. When bikeways are segregated from motor traffic, they have unique qualities and issues that does not apply to integrated infrastructure. --В²C ☎ 17:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hroðulf that we redirect this page to Cycling infrastructure. The very small amount of remaining material can easily be covered under Cycling infrastructure. There is no evident agreement on what segregated actually means; a cycle route could end up being a combination of different features. And one organization calls painted lines as "segregated" while others don't. It's more coherent to include that in the broader category. Nubeli (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As Hroðulf mentioned, this article is really short. There is now nothing in it that isn't already covered in cycling infrastructure where all the different types of bikeways and facilities are listed, including a reference to the different categorization used in terms of segregation. I think it is fairly reasonable then to make this page redirect to Cycling_infrastructure. Nubeli (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Segregated cycle facilities


text:
Talk:Gougane Barra

Untitled
Gougane Barra isn't a town: it's not even a village. It's a lake, a church, and about four houses that are not even close to each other - whereas Ballingeary, 2 miles for it, is a village proper. Can I suugest that it be removed from category towns, for possible inclusion in 'historic places in Ireland' at some point? rroddy 16:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a problem with not just this article, but a relatively small bunch of places in Ireland that have stubs on Wikipedia. There were a few overzealous additions to town lists (on the county pages, and the master list), and hence stubs were created for completeness. I'll raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Irish wikipedians' notice board, as this affects a few other places too which aren't really towns (or even notable as villages). So lets hold off on Gougane Barra until we get a coherent suggestion to apply across the board. We may need to evaluate whether such places merit articles (they may of course, because despite the small size, some have hundreds of years of history).

 * Anyone else interested should see how the discussion pans out at the aforementioned page. zoney ♣ talk 16:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gougane Barra


text:
Talk:Franco Harris

Request for help
'''I need to type a report on Franco Harris! I'm not good at football or anything about football! I can't find anything! HELP ME

PLEASE HELP NOWW

 * Sorry about your ankle. I'm adding a link to Harris's page at the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which will give you some statistics, an interview with Harris, etc. Beyond that, I suggest you follow our link to Immaculate Reception -- it was Harris's most famous play and you might want to include it in your report.

 * In general, if you want to find out something online, Wikipedia is one good starting point. Another is the search engines. For example, here's the one at the Yahoo! site: http://search.yahoo.com/web/advanced

 * Good luck! JamesMLane 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
Can someone from Pittsburg with a digital camera take a picture of one of those "Franco's Italian Army" helmuts if they or a friend have one? That would make for an awesome addition to this article. Youngamerican 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

publicly held black-owned business
"publicly held black-owned business" is near the end of the article.

Does this make sense? If a publicly held business is black owned, does that mean that most of the share holders are black? Or all of them? Maybe what the author meant was "publicly held black-run business". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.46.208 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Donut
There appears to be an ad (POV at least) for Super Donut in the article with no citation to the fact that it is famous and widely served to students in Eastern U.S. If none forthcoming I will edit the sentence.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franco Harris. 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/20150106091601/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/players/franco-harris-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/franco-harris-1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franco Harris. 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://archive.is/20090810105805/http://www.playerfilter.com/rushing-leaders to http://www.playerfilter.com/rushing-leaders
 * Added tag to http://ir.forestcity.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=88464&p=IROL-NRText&t=Regular&id=807149&
 * Added tag to http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/08/28/D92RC7700_cvn_walking_the_floor/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024525/http://kdka.com/steelerstrainingcamp/local_story_227081313.html to http://kdka.com/steelerstrainingcamp/local_story_227081313.html

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) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anybody good with tables mark up should clean up he stats in History section
If anybody who is good with tables mark up is reading this, there is stats of Harris' final 3 seasons in the History section that could probably use the organization. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Immaculate Reception "En route to...
...their first Super Bowl win," implies that they went on to win the Super Bowl that season (1972-73). In fact, they lost the next game to the undefeated Miami Dolphins, who went on to win the Super Bowl, and finish the only perfect season.  Neither did Pittsburgh win the Super Bowl the following season (1973-74). Pittsburgh did not win its first Super Bowl until 1975;  The Immaculate Reception Wikipedia page describes this well. 2607:FEA8:4557:6EE0:8A6E:BE98:E4B1:94B (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Franco Harris