text:
Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 3

Even though
Gilgamesh, I think the phrase "even though" in my first version (which you reverted) was important for the following reason: for the casual reader, these Mormon claims are strange. He might pause to reread to make sure he didn't miss anything. The words "even though" are a kind of marker "it's OK, it's supposed to sound strange for you" allowing much smoother reading of the text.

Anyway, if you revert my changes again, at least don't use the word believe twice in the same sentence, this is just not nice style. Gadykozma 08:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is non-Biblical LDS scripture being discussed in an article titled "Biblical canon" anyway? LDS doesn't believe the Book of Mormon, etc, is part of the Biblical canon. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, the LDS believe in the Standard Works, which is the LDS version of the biblical canon. And besides, Judaism doesn't believe the New Testament to be in their biblical canon either.  As I have read and understood this article, biblical canon is something that differs (often greatly) from religion to religion, but has the same central things in common.  It includes the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, and variably adds to it.  Judaism has the Talmud.  Mainstream Christianity has the New Testament.  LDS has the Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church in Salt Lake in particular has the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants.  Each religion considers these all to be canon that complement each other.  The Torah and the Book of Joshua are accepted by both Jews and Samaritans, making it pan-Mosaic canon.  Jews accept the rest of the Hebrew Bible, while Samaritans do not, making it pan-Jewish canon.  Rabbinical Jews accept the Talmud, while Karaite Jews do not, making it Rabbinical canon.  Acceptance of the Qabbalah varies across the whole Jewish and Christian world, as I have been told.  In addition, Christians have the New Testament, which they believe to be the fulfilment of the Old Testament and its equal, making it Christian canon.  LDS have the Book of Mormon, which they believe to be co-equal to the Old and New Testaments, making it LDS canon.  The Church in Salt Lake has the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, which they believe to be co-equal to the OT, NT and BoM, making it Temple Square canon.  I see these all as biblical canons of different faiths — if we meant only the OT and NT, then this article would be Bible, which is a separate article.  As for LDS, the "Holy Bible" is a conveniant traditional name for the combined OT and NT, and not considered a work alien from the BoM nor vice versa.  While some LDS may carry separate bound Holy Bible and BoM+PoGP+D&C triple combinations out of tradition of comparing them with each other to another person, there are others who carry all five books bound into one shelvable item.  And finally, "Bible" really only means "religious canon" (from older "religious book" and simply "book"), and in this context it means a religion's scriptural canon, does it not?  What sets this article apart from any scripture of any religion is that it centrally describes traditions that rally around the Hebrew Bible and additional books that different religions believe to be extensions of it.  What all these religions have in common is that they believe the Hebrew Bible to be a true word of God, either as perfect in form or with a small enough distortion that it is still a primary cornerstone of their theology.  Does any of that make sense? - Gilgamesh 09:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You are confusing "Bible" and "scripture". They're not the same thing. There are lots of canons other than that of the Bible: one wouldn't expect to find them discussed in an article entitled "Biblical canon". - Nunh-huh 09:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily. LDS believe OT, NT, BoM and PoGP actually reference each other.  Part of that is that OT and NT are believed to be full of references that mention BoM issues that other religions (in belief) don't recognize.  While it is true that LDS generally say "scripture" to refer to the Standard Works and "Bible" to refer to the OT and NT, this is acknowledged as Christendom tradition.  LDS view all five books as interlinking, just as the individual subbooks of each larger book interlink to one another.  It is the same with the Apocrypha — some people see it as part of the biblical canon, and others do not.  And don't forget that Judaism doesn't include NT as part of their biblical canon, so should then the NT not be mentioned in this article?  And Samaritans — they don't believe any book past the Book of Joshua is part of the biblical canon; should then all the other books not be mentioned in this article?  To me, there are only two real differences that separate this article from scripture:

 * 1) The Torah and Book of Joshua (first six books of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) are central works among these religions.
 * 2) Other books are (depending on the religion) added to the canon and believed to be mutual inseparable.
 * As I see it, all traditions where this is true should have their inseparable canons represented in full. If not, this article should redirect to scripture in full and all details here be mentioned there instead.  To place an artificial cap on definition of Bible at OT, NT and (maybe) Apocrypha represents the POV of religious views who believe in only them, and represents a double standard that betrays religions (Judaism and Samaritans) that don't believe in the Apocrypha, or the NT, or the latter books of the Hebrew Bible.  While religions are perfectly within their rights to believe whatever they please, Wikipedia articles should not favor any one Torah-based religion canon over another.  (The only reason Islam is not included here is because it regards the Hebrew Bible as inherently too flawed to include it as canon, with many of its tellings retold in the Qur'an and Hadith instead with widely differing details.) - Gilgamesh 00:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The Biblical canon was formed long before there was an LDS Church. The LDS don't consider any part of their additional scripture to be part of the Bible. That's fact, not POV. That needs to be clear in the article: there are other articles in which LDS non-Bible Scripture is discussed. - Nunh-huh 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're refering specifically to the canon as compiled by Christian scholars in Alexandria, then you are correct. And if this is truly what the article's about, then I'm prepared to conceed if everyone agrees. - Gilgamesh 03:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Nunh-huh, while I agree with you that discussing LDS scripts here is off-topic in the formal sense, I think that the page is nicely arranged in a descending order of acceptance and the section about the LDS scripts adds to this chain. As long as it is short and to the point, I think it adds to the article. Gadykozma 11:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * A discussion of what books are part of the Koran would also "add to the chain" but would be equally irrelevant to the topic. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * This example is irrelevant since this article is related to Judaism and Christianty. We are not talking about the formal relation to the title (which can be changed!) but about what would be interesting and useful for the typical reader. Gadykozma 03:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * This example is an exact parallel. Islam and LDS accept the Bible as Scripture, and additional books also as Scripture, but not part of the Bible. - Nunh-huh

 * No, it is not an exact parallel. You see, while LDS regard the Bible as slightly flawed, they do not regard it as flawed enough not to include as scripture.  However, Islam regards the Bible as a distortion, and many Biblical accounts are retold in the Qur’an, sometimes with widely differing details.  LDS do not replace the Bible with LDS-specific scripture, but Islam does replace the Bible with Qur’an and the Hadith.  So LDS believe their canon expands on what already exists, while the Islamic Qur’an is more like a fundamental theological re-form. - Gilgamesh 13:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Here, you're just wrong. Islam holds the Bible to be inspired scripture. - Nunh-huh

 * Both of you, please be reader oriented. Who will read this page? What do they want? What would be interesting for them? This far more important than a perfect match between the title and the contents! The title can be changed! Not that I advocate renaming it to "Judeo-Christian canon", I think it's good as it stands, but if that would make Nunh-huh pleased, maybe that's what we'll do. Gadykozma 14:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * My apologizes. I am autistic, and I tend to think analytically and algorithmically.  As such, I cannot typically get inside the mind of the "average" reader, so I compensate with egocentric-assuming detail and disambiguation.  ("If I am confused, then surely there must be someone else who is also confused, and I am being of kind service.")  Anyway, I do not oppose a renaming to "Judeo-Christian canon", as I see "Bible" as ambiguous anyway — something that on whose definition Judaism and Christianity can't agree. - Gilgamesh 21:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Discussion of the canon of the Bible is clearly an encyclopedic topic, and the article is correctly named as is. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue is that not everyone can agree over whether the New Testament or the Apocrypha are part of the Bible. But what all these books have in common is that their intent is to extend the Bible without replacing it.  How do we define the Bible?  When it was compiled by Ezra?  When it was compiled in Alexandria?  When King James I commissioned a translation?  Either we agree on one point that defines the Bible, or we don't.  And trying to force one point opens a POV pandora's box.  We must remain neutral, and neutrality inherently comes with a degree of flexibility — we must be able to bend, or a strike against us will cause us to break and shatter. - Gilgamesh 07:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Once again: the LDS do not posit that the Book of Mormon is part of the Bible, or part of the Biblical canon. You're just wrong here, and there's no issue of neutrality here - Nunh-huh 23:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You are just hairsplitting. They posit that it is ancient, they posit that it comes from the same society and time where the rest of the apocrypha comes from. They posit that it is divinly inspirated. I honestly can't any meaningful differences between this book and other marginal apocrypha this page covers, from the Mormon POV (not that I share it). Gadykozma 13:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Since this apparently cannot be resolved in a discussion of semantics, I propose a name change: Judeo-Christian and Biblical canon, or simply Judeo-Christian canon which implicitly includes all Biblical canons. - Gilgamesh 00:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * And I propose that we write about the Biblical canon at "Biblical canon" and "LDS Scripture" at "LDS Scripture", which is currently fragmented but covered by the Category:Latter Day Saint texts. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I kind of suggested it (or at least raised it...) but I don't really like it. How about keeping the title and making a comment at the top that it refers to "Bible and other Judeo-Christian canons", and make Judeo-Christian canon a redirect? Gadykozma 00:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, that sounds alright to me. Or Bible and Judeo-Christian canons. - Gilgamesh 03:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no "Judea-Christian" canon. There is a Jewish canon, and various Christian canons.  I am opposed to "Bible and other Judeo-Christian canons" as I think this article must focus on various canons of the Bible.  We have a separate article, for example, on the Talmud. Slrubenstein

 * The Judeo-Christian canon is the amalgamation of these canons. There. I defined it, therefore it exists. There are lots of pages on Wikipedia whose names begin with "Judeo-Christian". Do you suggest we should delete them all? Gadykozma 13:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * If the Wikipedia were a repository of "everything that Gadykozma can define", you might have a point. It would be better if Wikipedia were to rather include "terms which scholars use". - Nunh-huh 05:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I agree with Gadykozma. "Judeo-Christian canon" is a valid umbrella term, and I would use it easily.  I avoid the generic term "Bible", preferring specifics like "Hebrew Bible", "New Testament", "Book of Genesis", etc., as different religions have different ideas of what "Bible" means.  I, as a linguistic, use a more analytical approach, considering "Bible" to be any religious canon, a linguistic upgrade from "book" or "canon" of any kind.  While I understand that in most forms of colloquial English it has more locale-specific definitions (particularly in the Bible Belt), I think the ambiguity and disagreement of universal meaning (and this is a universal English-speaking encyclopedia) merits the mention of not only different associations of the Bible, but also topics of the same theological foundation on the Bible, at least to mention concisely and redirect to other articles for a more detailed explanation.  "Nunh-huh", with all due respect, I believe you are being just a bit unfair.  It is unkind to belittle Gadykozma's academic credibility.  I'm not saying you can't disagree, but perhaps you owe her (or him?) an apology.  Please, let us be humble and courteous here. - Gilgamesh 05:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I do not feel I have been discourteous. More important is that we be correct. [1] There is no "Judeo-Christian" canon. [2] The "Bible" is not synonymous with scripture, it's a particular collection of Scripture. [3] the term used for the selection of which books are in that collection is "canonization" [4] the article is about the history, in various religions, of that process of canonization. [5] The application of the word "Bible" is universally understood, and certainly not isolated to a "Bible Belt". [6] A serious encyclopedia will have an article on the Biblical canon. [7] That article will actually discuss the subject, not any other Scripture that is randomly added in. For your points, Gilgamesh: the use of the word "bible" to mean "any religious book" is a figurative use, not a scholarly one, and not one which is particularly relevant to the process of canonization. It would be unkind to belittle someone's academic credibility if I had done so. It is not unkind to point out that they're wrong. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, of your 7 points, I disagree with the following: Now let me raise my own "point plan" to why this page should basically stay the same. If you disagree (and I'm sure you won't), please refer to the numbers, e.g. "I think number 2 is total crap".
 * Point 1, for the reasons I explained to SIrubinstein above; but more importantly
 * Point 7. The fact that a topic is worthy of discussion does not in any way imply that it cannot be discussed in a section, a part of a page, or most of a page that also discusses related topics. This kind of decisions are editorial.

 * 1) We have to make note of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible since a certain group of people consider it to be the cannonical version of the Bible, and we'd be doing them an injustice if we fail to remind it at all. BTW: who exactly considers this version canonical? I wasn't able to get a precise answer from the text.
 * 2) This is best done in a section about LDS beliefs.
 * 3) If we have a section about LDS beliefs with no mention of the Book of Mormon we'll be doing our reader an injustice, since if he reads this section he is probably interested in LDS canon, and the Book of Mormon seems to be of similar standing to the Bible in it.
 * 4) For likewise reasons we should not just mention it, but also discuss how it differs/is similar to the rest of the books discussed.
 * 5) The page name should not be changed. The slight improvement in accuracy from renaming to "Judeo-Christian canon" is greatly offset by the convinience the title "Biblical canon" offers to the typical reader.

Lets hope we can get this indentation business in check! Gadykozma 14:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * 1. I don't think we have to make note of idiosyncratic, revisionist translations like the Joseph Smith Translation. There are many other controversial translations, including the Jehovah's Witness's ("New World Translation" perhaps?), but this isn't the place to address differences in translation. Incidentally, the article says that the Community of Christ uses Smith's translation, but the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.
 * 2. As far as I know, the Mormons call the Bible the Bible, meaning the Old and New Testaments, just as they call the Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon, etc. Since this article is about the Biblical canon and not about collections of scripture, I don't think the others need to be covered here. I'm pretty sure they're already described in the LDS articles.
 * 5. I agree with SLRubenstein that there is no "Judaeo-Christian canon". There's not even a "Christian canon", this article lists at least three. The best you could come up with is "Judaeo-Christian canons", but I'm not sure that would be much more meaningful than something like "Christian-Islamic canons", which would be the set of 3+ Christian canons plus the Koran. All in all, it sounds like we agree to stick with "Biblical canon", though perhaps for somewhat different reasons. Wesley 16:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * As to Gadykozma's points, the issue of canon is concerned only with what works are part of the Bible, not how to translate them. If the LDS had decided, for example, that the Book of Genesis didn't belong in the Bible, or that the Book of Abraham did belong in the Bible, it would be worth mentioning. But they didn't. They have no issues with the KJV canon. (and yes, we really should clear/archive the page and start the indentations anew)- Nunh-huh 21:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, why not? This page was already full of "ideosyncratic" works like the apocryphal books.  How is the New Testament any less "apocryphal"?  Under that reasoning, why should the New Testament be here at all?  Afterall, Judaism and Samaritans do not accept it.  All these books are published with the intent of tying them squarely to the Bible for which they are supposed to compliment.  With that in mind, naming conventions seem far less relevant.  Also, the LDS Church does publish portions of J.S. Translations of the Bible available before he died.  It is the Community of Christ alone that spliced them into their OT and NT texts and published them holistically.  So both religions recognize it to a degree, but have different ways of publishing and referencing it.  Whereas the Community of Christ has a complete book, the LDS OT and NT have footnotes and redirects.  Also, it is very suspicious to call someone else's canon "ideosyncratic", as it implies that one canon is necessarily "truer" or "more correct" than another — I would prefer "different" in NPOV articles. - Gilgamesh 18:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The apocryphal books are part of the Catholic canon. You would understand the issue of canon better if you took a historical raher than religious view. - Nunh-huh 21:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * So, basically, this covers the Samaritan canon, the Jewish canon, and the Catholic canon... ...but no others?  That seems rather exclusionist. - Gilgamesh 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Above, Gadykozma writes "You are just hairsplitting. They posit that it is ancient, they posit that it comes from the same society and time where the rest of the apocrypha comes from. They posit that it is divinly inspirated." But I think Gadykozma is hairsplitting. I agree with these points about Mormon claims, but these points do not add up to "Biblical Canon." There may be many canons, e.g. the so-called "Western Canon." And perhaps there is a Canon of Mormon Scripture or Sacred Literature. But "Biblical Canon" refers to something more specific than ancient divinely inspired texts. It refers to a set of overlapping sacred literatures that overlap because of historical connections between communities. I suspect this is why Gilgamesh likes "Judeo-Christian" -- perhaps s/he thinks it refers to the nexus of the overlap. If so, then s/he should agree with this point (which is really just supporting Nunh-huh's point). The reason I object to "Judeo-Christian" is that it traditionally emphasizes continuity where there is conflict, or a lowest common denominator. But if it refers to anything valid, then it refers to something that excludes the Book of Mormon. Slrubenstein

 * The problem is, LDS do believe the OT, the NT, the BoM and the PoGP to overlap. In particular, I can think of beliefs where the BoM references the OT, and a belief that the NT references the BoM itself.  And as these are books about belief where the central books (OT and NT) are themselves targets of skeptical criticism, I think we can easily make room for books tied to traditional beliefs of interlinking work.  In studies of comparing multiple canons, I have seen nothing but conflict, even between "traditional" or "mainstream" Christian sects and among sects of Samaritanism and Judaism.  This subject is my its very nature a cluttered one — associated with multiple religions that split hairs between each other all the time — and we need to calmly and rationally reflect on all these subjects and describe them in a way that reflects not only the books but also the traditions that surround them. - Gilgamesh 23:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, here is my question (not rhetorical or sarcastic, I genuinely do not know). Does the LDS use the word "Bible" to refer to a set of books that includes the Book of Mormon? Slrubenstein

Don't these quotes (from the lDS website) suggest that Mormons do not include the Book of Mormon in their Biblical Canon?:

2 Ne. 29: 10 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither need• ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

D&C 42: 12 12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach• the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness• of the gospel. Slrubenstein

 * SlRubinstein, there is no denial that the mormons do not consider the Book of Mormon part of the Bible. This is not the point. Just before the mormon section there is a section called "Non-Orthodox Apocrypha", which lists a number of books not considered Biblical by any currently existing religion. And yet it arises no controversy that I am aware of. Since from the Mormon POV the Book of Mormon is closer to the Bible than, say, the Maccabees 4, I don't see how a demand to keep the second and remove the first can be considered NPOV. Gadykozma 00:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah -- now I see your point. Well, if the non-Orthodox Apocrypha do not belong to any Biblical Canon, then we should move that section do a different article (I guess on Apocrypha) and just leave a link here. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that section doesn't belong in the article "Biblical Canon" which is a fine point. But I have no idea what it means to be "closer" to the Bible. If the Mormon's accept some more generally accepted canon of the Bible, and do not themselves consider the Book of Mormon to be Biblical, it all seems like a moot point. Let's just have links to the articles on Apocrypha and Scripture and other related articles where this material more properly belongs. Slrubenstein

 * You know, I am surprisingly comfortable with that. - Gilgamesh 00:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You know, when I first found this page, I really enjoyed reading it, seeing it go from the accepted to the more and more esoteric. It would sadden me if this effect would be lost. But if that's what everybody feels...

 * Though it still leaves the nagging issue of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Gadykozma 00:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am glad Gilgamesh is comfortable with this. I hope others are too. For Gadykozma -- the idea is not to leave out the "esoteric" but rather to limit the contents to issues involving the various Biblical canons and the canonization of the Bible. One of Wikipedia's strengths is links so let's just assume people will follow a page to where they want to go. Slrubenstein

 * Well, I don't really see why books that finally were not canonized shouldn't be discussed in a page dealing with canonization... I Like the comment saying that IV Maccabee is thought to have Greek pagan elements, for example. Gadykozma 19:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good point -- as long as it is reasonably framed. What I mean is, most books ever written were not canonized (in the Biblical canon) -- for example, War and Peace, Ulysses, the Iliad, Things Fall Apart, Moby Dick ... "Books that were not canonized" is too brad a category. It isn't crystal clear, but I'd like to think that by the word "finally" you mean books that had been considered for the canon but ultimately were rejected, at least by some community. I think this is a fine point and such books are worth discussing in terms of the process of canonization. But to get back to the topic we have been discussing, my understanding is that the Book of Mormon was never considered as a candidate for part of the Bible, so it doesn't meet the same criteria as perhaps Maccabee IV. Or have I missed something in the discussion -- has someone argued that we should not mention IV Maccabee in this article? I didn't realize this is what we were talking about. Slrubenstein

That seems quite to the point: if a work was seriously considered as a candidate for canonization, it makes sense to discuss it here, even if it was rejected (not just by some, but by all). It makes no sense to discuss a work, such as the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon, that was never considered as a candidate to be included as one of the books of the Bible. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, Gadykozma, in your edits, what do you mean that the languages "were never discovered". It seems vague to me. LDS have beliefs in what some of the languages were, but I said Semitic languages because listing them all would have made the paragraph too verbose in my opinion. They are believed to be Hebrew, with supplemental Arabic, and two other languages which in the 19th century were called "Syriac" and "Chaldean", which, considering the purported time period of the texts, would probably mean Aramaic and Akkadian. The Egyptian references are believed to be a source of loanwords and given names (such as "Nephi") and of the ideographic script adapted to Hebrew that Mormon and Moroni are believed to have used to compress a large chronicle into small tarnish-resistant gold plates, as well as in their belief that an ideographic writing system could be better deciphered over an indefinately long period of time than a written language based on phonemes specific to one language. With these beliefs in consideration, I simply think the edits should be less vague and confusing without being overly verbose. - Gilgamesh 09:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * First of all, what I meant in my edits is that the originals were never discovered. Is that correct? Actually I understand that I am missing a few pieces in the LDS claims (which would explain why I write in a vague way...) Do the LDS claim that the oridinals are lost? that they have them but won't let them show? What's the business with the plates? Gadykozma 00:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * There are more details. The chief concern is that someone would try to destroy the plates and their records, so LDS believe the plates were for a time released to God's possession until such time that they're needed again.  See Golden Plates. - Gilgamesh 03:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That link was exactly what I needed. Thanks. Tell me what you think of this version. Gadykozma 04:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks okay to me, I suppose. ^_^ Now there's the other discussion with Nunh-huh... - Gilgamesh 06:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 3


text:
Conventional landing gear

Conventional landing gear, or tailwheel-type landing gear, is an aircraft undercarriage consisting of two main wheels forward of the center of gravity and a small wheel or skid to support the tail. The term taildragger is also used.

The term "conventional" persists for historical reasons, but all modern jet aircraft and most modern propeller aircraft use tricycle gear.

History
In early aircraft, a tailskid made of metal or wood was used to support the tail on the ground. In most modern aircraft with conventional landing gear, a small articulated wheel assembly is attached to the rearmost part of the airframe in place of the skid. This wheel may be steered by the pilot through a connection to the rudder pedals, allowing the rudder and tailwheel to move together.

Before aircraft commonly used tailwheels, many aircraft (like a number of First World War Sopwith aircraft, such as the Camel fighter) were equipped with steerable tailskids, which operate similar to a tailwheel. When the pilot pressed the right rudder pedal — or the right footrest of a "rudder bar" in World War I — the skid pivoted to the right, creating more drag on that side of the plane and causing it to turn to the right. While less effective than a steerable wheel, it gave the pilot some control of the direction the craft was moving while taxiing or beginning the takeoff run, before there was enough airflow over the rudder for it to become effective.

Another form of control, which is less common now than it once was, is to steer using "differential braking", in which the tailwheel is a simple, freely castering mechanism, and the aircraft is steered by applying brakes to one of the mainwheels in order to turn in that direction. This is also used on some tricycle gear aircraft, with the nosewheel being the freely castering wheel instead. Like the steerable tailwheel/skid, it is usually integrated with the rudder pedals on the craft to allow an easy transition between wheeled and aerodynamic control.

Advantages

The tailwheel configuration offers several advantages over the tricycle landing gear arrangement, which make tailwheel aircraft less expensive to manufacture and maintain.
 * Due to its position much further from the center of gravity, a tailwheel supports a smaller part of the aircraft's weight allowing it to be made much smaller and lighter than a nosewheel. As a result, the smaller wheel weighs less and causes less parasitic drag.
 * Because of the way airframe loads are distributed while operating on rough ground, tailwheel aircraft are better able to sustain this type of use over a long period of time, without cumulative airframe damage occurring.
 * If a tailwheel fails on landing, the damage to the aircraft will be minimal. This is not the case in the event of a nosewheel failure, which usually results in a prop strike.
 * Due to the increased propeller clearance on tailwheel aircraft less stone chip damage will result from operating a conventional geared aircraft on rough or gravel airstrips, making them well suited to bush flying.
 * Tailwheel aircraft are more suitable for operation on skis.
 * Tailwheel aircraft are easier to fit into and maneuver inside some hangars.

Disadvantages
The conventional landing gear arrangement has disadvantages compared to nosewheel aircraft.

 * Tailwheel aircraft are more subject to "nose-over" accidents due to incorrect application of brakes by the pilot.
 * Conventional geared aircraft are much more susceptible to ground looping. A ground loop occurs when directional control is lost on the ground and the tail of the aircraft passes the nose, swapping ends, in some cases completing a full circle. This event can result in damage to the aircraft's undercarriage, tires, wingtips, propeller and engine. Ground-looping occurs because, whereas a nosewheel aircraft is steered from ahead of the center of gravity, a taildragger is steered from behind (much like driving a car backwards at high speed), so that on the ground a taildragger is inherently unstable, whereas a nosewheel aircraft will self-center if it swerves on landing. In addition, some tailwheel aircraft must transition from using the rudder to steer to using the tailwheel while passing through a speed range when neither is wholly effective due to the nose high angle of the aircraft and lack of airflow over the rudder. Avoiding ground loops requires more pilot training and skill.

 * Tailwheel aircraft generally suffer from poorer forward visibility on the ground, compared to nose wheel aircraft. Often this requires continuous "S" turns on the ground to allow the pilot to see where they are taxiing.
 * Tailwheel aircraft are more difficult to taxi during high wind conditions, due to the higher angle of attack on the wings which can then develop more lift on one side, making control difficult or impossible. They also suffer from lower crosswind capability and in some wind conditions may be unable to use crosswind runways or single-runway airports.
 * Due to the nose-high attitude on the ground, propeller-powered taildraggers are more adversely affected by P-factor – asymmetrical thrust caused by the propeller's disk being angled to the direction of travel, which causes the blades to produce more lift when going down than when going up due to the difference in angle the blade experiences when passing through the air. The aircraft will then pull to the side of the upward blade. Some aircraft lack sufficient rudder authority in some flight regimes (particularly at higher power settings on takeoff) and the pilot must compensate before the aircraft starts to yaw. Some aircraft, particularly older, higher powered aircraft such as the P-51 Mustang, cannot use full power on takeoff and still safely control their direction of travel. On landing this is less of a factor, however opening the throttle to abort a landing can induce severe uncontrollable yaw unless the pilot is prepared for it.

Jet-powered tailwheel aircraft

Jet aircraft generally cannot use conventional landing gear, as this orients the engines at a high angle, causing their jet blast to bounce off the ground and back into the air, preventing the elevators from functioning properly. This problem occurred with the third, or "V3" prototype of the German Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter. After the first four prototype Me 262 V-series airframes were built with retracting tailwheel gear, the fifth prototype was fitted with fixed tricycle landing gear for trials, with the sixth prototype onwards getting fully retracting tricycle gear. A number of other experimental and prototype jet aircraft had conventional landing gear, including the first successful jet, the Heinkel He 178, the Ball-Bartoe Jetwing research aircraft, and a single Vickers VC.1 Viking, which was modified with Rolls-Royce Nene engines to become the world's first jet airliner.

Rare examples of jet-powered tailwheel aircraft that went into production and saw service include the British Supermarine Attacker naval fighter and the Soviet Yakovlev Yak-15. Both first flew in 1946 and owed their configurations to being developments of earlier propeller powered aircraft. The Attacker's tailwheel configuration was a result of it using the Supermarine Spiteful's wing, avoiding expensive design modification or retooling. The engine exhaust was behind the elevator and tailwheel, reducing problems. The Yak-15 was based on the Yakovlev Yak-3 propeller fighter. Its engine was mounted under the forward fuselage. Despite its unusual configuration, the Yak-15 was easy to fly. Although a fighter, it was mainly used to prepare Soviet pilots for flying more advanced jet fighters.

Monowheel undercarriage
A variation of the taildragger layout is the monowheel landing gear.

To minimize drag, many modern gliders have a single wheel, retractable or fixed, centered under the fuselage, which is referred to as monowheel gear or monowheel landing gear. Monowheel gear is also used on some powered aircraft, where drag reduction is a priority, such as the Europa XS. Monowheel power aircraft use retractable wingtip legs (with small castor wheels attached) to prevent the wingtips from striking the ground. A monowheel aircraft may have a tailwheel (like the Europa) or a nosewheel (like the Schleicher ASK 23 glider).

Training
Taildragger aircraft require more training time for student pilots to master. This was a large factor in the 1950s switch by most manufacturers to nosewheel-equipped trainers, and for many years nosewheel aircraft have been more popular than taildraggers. As a result, most Private Pilot Licence (PPL) pilots now learn to fly in tricycle gear aircraft (e.g. Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee) and only later transition to taildraggers.

Techniques
Landing a conventional geared aircraft can be accomplished in two ways.

Normal landings are done by touching all three wheels down at the same time in a three-point landing. This method does allow the shortest landing distance but can be difficult to carry out in crosswinds, as rudder control may be reduced severely before the tailwheel can become effective.

The alternative is the wheel landing. This requires the pilot to land the aircraft on the mainwheels while maintaining the tailwheel in the air with elevator to keep the angle of attack low. Once the aircraft has slowed to a speed that can ensure control will not be lost, but above the speed at which rudder effectiveness is lost, then the tailwheel is lowered to the ground.

Examples
Examples of tailwheel aircraft include:

Airplanes

 * de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver
 * Douglas DC-3
 * Maule M-7
 * Messerschmitt Bf 109
 * Piper J-3 Cub
 * Supermarine Spitfire

Helicopters

 * Boeing AH-64 Apache - Attack helicopter
 * Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King - Anti-submarine helicopter

Modifications of tricycle gear aircraft
Several aftermarket modification companies offer kits to convert many popular nose-wheel equipped aircraft to conventional landing gear. Aircraft for which kits are available include:

 * Cessna 150
 * Cessna 152
 * Cessna 172
 * Cessna 175
 * Cessna 182
 * Piper PA-22 Tri-Pacer

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

title: Conventional landing gear


text:
MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

15% discount where?
Just to let you know that the Happy Bday banner pointing to the Shop does not display properly on my Firefox (completely missing the Wikimedia Shop. The Wikimedia Shop is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia and its sister projects. part), unless I minimize the size of the text in the page, and I am pretty sure it is not meant to work like this. --Elitre (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The 15% discount banner is originating from the Wikimedia Foundation's Central Site Notice page at meta:Special:CentralNotice, not here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Double edit request
There's no good reason to use reduced size text here; it only serves to make it more difficult to read. Could someone remove  from the style attribute of the div tag? Also, please remember to increment MediaWiki:Sitenotice id per mw:Manual:Interface/Sitenotice when updating the sitenotice. Thanks. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've the cookie counter, seeing as it hadn't been done today, but not sure about the font size - yes it is tiny, but it is being shown absolutely everywhere, and we already have complaints that it ought to be displayed on main page only. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The latest comments at WP:VPT are suggesting that this issue is present throughout the wiki, not just on the Main Page. Therefore, I would suggest pushing the change above through, and also change "the Main Page" to "some pages" or "many pages" and the "is" two words later to "are". jcgoble3 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I generalized the wording before seeing this request. The font size issue appears to require discussion.  —David Levy 23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * font size is good as is. NE Ent 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for sitenotice
Hello, I am requesting a sitenotice for POTY 2012 Round 2 (Final Round) to run instead of a CentralNotice on this wiki. Picture of the Year is a widely recognized event and we would like to encourage ENWP editors to participate in celebrating Wikimedia's best pictures. The banner would remain visible to logged in editors from Feb 7 2012 to Feb 14 2013. You can view the banner here - the banner would appear in English only. Mono for the POTY 2012 committee at 20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why is the CentralNotice insufficient? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki Wikidata mass deletition/migration sitenotice
Currently there are mass-migrations of interwiki data being moved to WP:Wikidata. These appear in Watchlists as large-scale bot deletions and look like this. Based on the feedback at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata and the the Talkpages of the bot operators, User talk:Addbot, it would appear that most editors on en.wikipedia are utterly unaware of this. Although others disagree, I think there is a case for a sitewide (logged-in) use of to give editors a heads up on a such a significant change to the way in which articles work. That said, there still isn't (yet) any decent documentation to point people to, despite the bots going forward at full-steam, and it's happening now. —Sladen (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Again, this is not a good use for the sitenotice, and is over a week after deployment. --Rschen7754 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is your opinion. Your are familiar with Wikidata, myself, and 95% of other editors weren't until it hit our Watchlists ~36 hours ago.  It's clear the documentation is lacking, and if it is indeed "a week", perhaps it would be good to work on this first, while other editors worry about how to get the message out. Respectfully, —Sladen (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I have to agree. Way too late, but better than nothing. Relatively few people read the Signpost. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is more we need to alter Wikidata.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 12:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's shoot for the achievable - letting editors know what the heck is happening. Why is this seen as an unsuitable use of the sitenotice? It seems to me alerting editors to the legitimacy of a migration affecting every article for inscrutable technical reasons is one of the best reasons to have a sitenotice. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This is a fundamental change to a well-known aspect of the site's functions. Editors should not have to be surprised one article at a time until they work it out after the fact. – Smyth\talk 14:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprised to find myself agreeing here. I resent the repeated attempts to blame Wikidata editors for Wikipedias failure to publicize a change that was announced weeks in advance, but, now that it's clear that Wikipedians weren't made adequately aware, I think a notice is not necessary. However, I'd differ on one point: This change doesn't affect normal Wikipedia readers, only editors. So MediaWiki:Watchlist-details seems more appropriate. — PinkAmpers  &  '( Je vous invite à me parler )  15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "~36 hours ago" - it's been over a week now, see Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the initial shock is all over now, I don't seem to be getting as many messages on my talk page now, people seem to be reading the pages that are linked to in the comments.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's important to provide an explanation, but why is this not achievable via links included in edit summaries? (To be clear, this is a sincere question, not an argument.)
 * If a notice is necessary, I strongly agree with PinkAmpersand that MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, not MediaWiki:Sitenotice, is the appropriate location. —David Levy 17:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right from the start I've been routinely linking the relevant Wikidata page in my edit summaries. After a few of these, I also linked WP:WDATA, . -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor
When doing a live beta, letting people back out is crucial to avoiding discontent, as well as providing a place to post bugs. Neither of these have been done. Indeed, the current attempt doesn't even explain what VisualEditor is. As such, I would suggest the following sitenotice be added immediately.

 Wikipedia is happy to announce the live Beta of VisualEditor, a tool that offers a way to edit pages without needing to learn wikimarkup. This has been automatically activated on all accounts. If you need to edit without VisualEditor, you can choose "Edit source" instead of "Edit". For bug reporting, go to VisualEditor/Feedback.

To opt out of VisualEditor, simply go to, scroll down to "Editing", tick the box labelled "", then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". You can reactivate it at any time by unticking the box.

I've used a little colour to make sure people see it. I suggest Sitenotice, as whatever hack is being used for the uninformative message literally takes 3 seconds before it appears on the otherwise completely-loaded page. This provides the necessary information, explains what's happening, and tells people where to report bugs, and how to opt out - things that should have been done 15 hours ago.

Thank you. (Crossposted to WP:ANI) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a 'hack', it's the CentralNotice extension, which we use for pretty much every big announcement. My feeling on this is clear; I feel it would totally undermine the software proper to fire everyone at an instant switch to permanently disable the VE, I think it is frankly unfair to push on to editors a sitenotice that contains no mechanism for disabling it, and I suspect that the Foundation will not appreciate attempts to do so. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how SiteNotice works if you think there's no way to disable it. That's part of sitenotice's core functionality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already had this conversation elsewhere, Adam; look at the timestamps. Can we try to focus on one venue, please? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 * "Oh not again". Yes, please, somebody either disable the crazy-never-loading-Javascript-thingy until a sitenotice has been properly applied with clear instructions on how to disable it.  There is nothing presently in Preferences→Editing that I can see that matches up.  —Sladen (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. After speaking with the team in #mediawiki-visualeditor, there's an issue with CentralNotice's cookie handling which they're actively working on a fix for. For the time being, having some users see two notices is just going to make it harder for coordination. Leaving it centrally in one place is going to be easier for now. If they aren't able to get a fix working in a reasonable amount of time, then we should definitely re-visit the idea of using a local sitenotice. Legoktm (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It took a bit of going in circles on, but the answer was much simpler; the intended notice had expired because of  , before deployment had occurred .  —Sladen (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Apologies, I can see it now, it relies on a double-negative. Ideally it should be changed to be [x] Use Visual Editor, so that unticking disables, rather than ticking disabling.  —Sladen (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more of a comment for MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition or WP:VPT. Legoktm (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove VisualEditor default state RFC notice
Hi. The notice about the RFC concerning default state of the VisualEditor should be removed until there's a consensus to include it in a site-wide notice for all users. (If such a consensus exists already, please provide a link to it. I checked this talk page and saw nothing.) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I've removed it. If there is a consensus to include it somewhere, though, just let me know and I will restore it. At any rate, we should have either the sitenotice or the watchlist notice; both is definitely too much. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And an extra thank you for remembering to clear MediaWiki:Anonnotice as well. Well done. For what it's worth, I agree with you that we should have a watchlist notice or a site-wide notice; having both is a bit much. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's rather have a site notice than a watchlist notice. Watchlist notices are easily overlooked (I always miss them). Having the site notice up for those four or five hours doubled participation in the RfC, leading to about 100 editors leaving an opinion: that was a good thing. Andreas JN 466 14:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Andreas, the site notice has been far more effective than the watchlist notice in bringing attention. MZM is just being silly, there's not a single site notice I've seen in the last five years that has had "consensus".  Risker (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What? You don't think, prior to enabling a site-wide notice on one of the most-visited sites on the Internet, there should first be at least a discussion (outside of your personal user talk page) about whether doing so is appropriate? Who's being silly, Risker? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't set the site notice up to display to logged-in editors only? Andreas  JN 466 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, using a horrible hack. I don't see how that's relevant to the principle that site-wide notices should first have some kind of consensus before being deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You said this was one of the most-visited sites. I believe Jayen was trying to point out that not every visitor sees the message. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been an admin for six years, MZM, and I have yet to see a single consensus discussion on a site-wide notice. This page has 62 discussions running back 7 years (to when this feature was first enabled, I believe). There's nothing on this page saying a consensus discussion is needed. You and I both know that most site notices are done without discussion at all by admins who happen to know how to do them. Risker (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that any admin who knows where MediaWiki:Sitenotice is should be able to set a site-wide notice on a whim? Without any prior discussion? I don't believe you agree with what you're writing here. Historically most site notices have been fundraising-related or outage-related. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no policy about this as far as I know. In my experience it usually boils down to using common sense, but if discussions like this start to get more common it would probably be a good idea to create some actual rules for how to deal with sitenotices and watchlist notices, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree. For something like this, its better to have the site notice. Given the number of commentors and the number of discussions wikiwide about VE I do not believe there was a consensus to remove the notification. Evidence seems to the contrary that the consensus is that the notice is needed and wanted. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can provide any links to such discussions where there's a forming consensus that a site-wide notice is appropriate, that would be very helpful. I'm only aware of this discussion and a small discussion at User talk:Risker. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. On the talk page of the RFC. My talk page. This is probably the biggest consensus for a site notice that there has been for the last five years. Risker (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm, both this discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Default State RFC were obviously started after the site notice had already been enabled. Perhaps there's now "retroactive consensus," but ideally there should be a consensus prior to enabling a site-wide notice. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. This is completely common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support site notice. That method will generate a much wider opinion than watchlists - especially for the inexperienced users the VE is supposed to be for. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the sitenotice and removed the watchlist notice. There have only been a few editors chiming in so far, but most of those editors have been in favour of a sitenotice. Let's keep it in place a bit longer and see what other editors have to say about it. If there's a consensus to remove it after all, then I will do so. Also, other administrators are free to revert my actions here without notifying me - I don't really mind either way. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. Stradivarius that both notices were probably too much. I should have started a discussion to remove the watchlist notice once I put the site notice in place. I apologize. I felt it would be reasonable in general to make this RFC more prominent due to the nature of the topic. This has been done in the past with pending changes / flagged revs iirc as well as other important site-wide changes. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that PC was advertised with watchlist notices. In 2010, there was a site notice for the Usability Intiative in May, a problem with thumbnails in August, a note about Wikileaks for maybe ten minutes in December, and a notice about a survey for less than 15 minutes in December.  In 2011 and 2012, there were no site notices posted for more than a couple of minutes.  (Fundraising and such uses CentralNotice.)  In 2013, there was a brief notice in January about a bug affecting the main page.  Now there's this.  That's it for the last few years.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support use of Sitenotice. For the avoidance of doubt, the use of Sitenotice for this VE RFC is completely appropriate.  VE is the most intrusive user-visible change to enwiki made in the last five years, and such large-impact changes should continue to be reported to the userbase proportionately.  I strongly suspect that had Sitenotice been deployed in the process—see requests that were made above—then this VE RFC today would be unnecessary.  —Sladen (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Announcements about VisualEditor during June and July used CentralNotice, which is essentially the same thing (puts a big box at the top of each user's screen), except that you can schedule them in advance, run multiple languages from a single page, and use a few other bells and whistles. So there were big notices on everyone's pages, even though this exact page wasn't the one used to deliver the message. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct name
It's "VisualEditor", not "the Visual Editor". Could someone correct this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Also, if you're correcting things anyway, there's a complaint about the non-anonymous nature of "anonymous" users over at the RFC's talk page. "Unregistered editors", "logged-out editors" or simply "all editors" might be appropriate.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The anonymous thing can probably be changed. I simply copied the text from the watchlist notice that was put in place. However, to your first point, VisualEditor has "the" and "Visual Editor" interspersed all over the page. Is the team's brand image that it be used without the definite article and as one word? Because that's not clear to readers of the original documentation page. Killiondude (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "brand image" is the best way of putting it, but I'm told that it's "the VisualEditor environment" (or portal/team/project/whatever)" or just "VisualEditor" (no article) when the product is itself the noun. The mw page is therefore mostly correct:  "The VisualEditor deployment...", etc.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've altered the name to VisualEditor and also switched "anonymous" to "logged-out". The question of whether "users" is redundant is another kettle of fish. — foxj 08:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disabling the Sitenotice when JavaScript is disabled
An editor at VisualEditor/Default_State RFC brought up that he's unable to disable the site notice for the Visual Editor RFC. This user surfs with JavaScript disabled.

I tested this with both Firefox (22) and IE (9). When you disable JavaScript the "[hide]" link that's normally to the upper-right of a site-notice is centered and positioned above the notice. However, clicking it has no affect. Under Firefox the HTML sent to me when JavScript is disabled was
[hide]
. That's not going to hide the notice.

I enabled JavaScript, disabled the site-notice (which removed the notice), and then disabled JavaScript. The site notice is visible again.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to turn the site notice back on so that I can view the HTML for a site notice's "hide" link when JavaScript is enabled. I assume there was an onclick or something similar that handled setting the "hide notice" flag using the MediaWiki:Sitenotice id.

Someone suggested the site notice could be disabled via Preferences / Gadgets / "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner." However, The site notice for this RFC is apparently not a "fundraiser banner" and so the preference did not remove the RFC site notice. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In Firefox 22, go to T ools → O ptions → Privacy → History → remove individual cookies.
 * In the scrolling list, find the entry for en.wikipedia.org, click the to the left of that, and find the dismissSiteNotice cookie; highlight that and click  -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fundraiser is a bit different. Anyhow, to rid yourself of the SiteNotice for all eternity, just add  to your .css file [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Killiondude/monobook.css&diff=567452281&oldid=432596755 like so]. Killiondude (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And then remember not to complain when you miss an announcement (including partial outages, emergency announcements etc). Hopefully the new Echo messages platform in the future will be able to take over most of these sitenotice functions, and then we could actually register the individual messages in a database to do a more targeted approach to delivery of messages. That's still months away though. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably remove the code after this RFC is over. So I'll be complaining about something else. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove VisualEditor sitenotice
I would suggest that seven days is probably enough time for having shown a site notice about an RFC to everyone. Perhaps it is about time to take this notice down? Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon so too. Let's ask for some  assistance.  —Sladen (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. If anyone decides to restore it, please also remember to undo my changes at MediaWiki:Anonnotice as well, otherwise the notice will be visible to anonymous readers as well as logged-in editors. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heartbleed sitenotice?
Should we add one, following the examples of [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=121127115&oldid=118446567 Commons], [//de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=129488991&oldid=125432385 de.wp], [//es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=73751083&oldid=62707228 es.wp], [//fr.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=532804&oldid=133987 fr.wn]?  It Is Me Here  t /  c  19:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitenotice
Where does one make a request for a notice on an RFC? Any specific procedure? There is a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:MOS that might need more eyes. Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Question re RFC on "Wiki Loves X" title
Should this request for comment re the use of the "Wiki Loves X" campaign title format be advertised here? It is going nowhere at the moment and I suspect very few editors know about it. Helen Online  08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki loves monuments
I cannot remove this site notice. I click on the X, and it goes, but when I go to a new page, or refresh, the notice returns. I use Opera.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Village pump (technical)/Archive 130. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'm now suppressing site notices using the CSS code mentioned above. I'm trying to recall if any site notice was so important that I would regret missing it, and I don't think so.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, good news! Thanks to FreedomFighterSparrow and Brion, unregistered users can now hide the sitenotice again. Previously, they were forced to see it continuously.

In all cases, please use the sitenotice with care, and keep in mind that occasional visitors see sitenotices on all their visits, if they visit less than once a month or they don't click "dismiss" and save a cookie. Nemo 15:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks, . Unfortunatly, the trick of replacing Mediakiwi:Anonnotice with  , as explained in the top box, does not avoid the [hide] button with nothing to hide. --Vriullop (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama 2015
Similar to how SOPA was voted on, I'd like to request this important discussion (Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015) be put on the sitenotice. This banner would only be shown in Europe. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I thought that sitenotices didn't support geolocation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Village pump (technical) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't mind the message, but the implementation leaves something to be desired. For whatever reason the banner appears scrunched up on my screen so that the text runs into a long vertical stripe covering an obnoxious fraction of every browser window.  I'm assuming that is not how it is intended to appear.  My laptop screen is on the small side, but not so small that it is unreasonable to expect things to be laid out in a sensible fashion.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at re-implementing it via CentralNotice and see how that looks on narrow screen before activating it. -- KTC (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by the font size on the webpage versus the font size of the buttons in your browser, you have adjusted the zoom level of the web page. This would cause similar visual irregularities across much of the web. Try Ctrl to restore the normal zoom level — MusikAnimal  talk  21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, what. You have a ton of custom CSS. I'm not surprised it looks weird. Please re-test as a logged out user with normal browser settings. Legoktm (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the page preview it covers the full width of the screen, but just barely fits in a way that looks acceptable. This doesn't change whether I am logged out or logged in.  However, when it was deployed there was extra margin to the left and right of the notice (the white space in the screenshot on either side of the banner).  Not sure what is causing the extra margin, but it was enough to take something that would just barely fit across the screen and make it untenable.  For the record, I don't believe I have any custom CSS that ought to affect this.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's custom CSS, rather the zoom level of the browser itself (so won't matter if you're logged out or not). This is an accessibility feature that sometimes people turn on accident. On Windows it should be Ctrl to restore the normal zoom level, or go to the browser settings menu thing. — MusikAnimal  talk  22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The zoom level is not an accident. The native 1920px width is bit much for me on the laptop screen without reading glasses so I keep Wikpedia zoomed, but the effective screen size after zooming isn't exactly crazy (compare for example the size of other Wikipedia elements on the screen).  I doubt I'm the only one in the world who zooms websites.  In addition, some computers and many tablets / mobile devices still use a smaller effective screen resolution.  As mentioned above, the extra white margin (whatever is causing it) was eating a rather large chunk of the available real estate.  If there is a consensus that it is just my problem, then I'll hide the damn thing and go away, but I don't actually think it is unreasonable to expect things to layout in a sensible way for small screens.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to imply it was accident! I tried zooming in Gmail and Amazon and saw that tabs and other content were cut off. The banner could probably use some tweaking, but all I'm saying is that in general the zooming is not easy to combat from a web development perspective. I don't think the banner should be showing at all on mobile devices. If we want we can use media queries to hide it? —  MusikAnimal  talk  22:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent thing to highlight to site visitors, but agree that the briefly shown version was the wrong implementation. I normally work with 2 portrait orientation browser windows side by side on a HD widescreen, and it was taking up going on for 50% of the vertical content space.  I strongly suggest having the pictures either above or below the text (so that the text is allowed to use the full width of the content space), or just having the text either on its own or with a single picture.  While many people have widescreen format displays these days, it's very wrong to draw the conclusion that they work with a full screen or landscape orientation window.  --Murph9000 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Also a complaint to wikitech-l that it breaks the mobile site:  Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The mobile site breaks on its own without our intervention. Also, why does the mobile version use MediaWiki:Sitenotice? When has a sitenotice ever been formatted to fit a mobile screen? Killiondude (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there hadn't been a Sitenotice for 2 years, so who knows. -- KTC (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we use media queries to hide it just on mobile? — MusikAnimal  talk  22:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Desktop/mobile targetting is a native feature of CentralNotice, so I'm doing it over there and this wouldn't be an issue. -- KTC (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As an FYI, I saw this banner in the United States. The discussion permits this banner to be used only in Europe. There is no discussion that authorizes this banner to be displayed to non-European users. --B (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect we need a Geonotice then. Those can only go to logged-in users, because they sit top of watchlist. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the spirit of the discussion is for it to be displayed in Europe (EU and EEA countries). If that requires it to be shown in the US as well, I do not think many would oppose. I think Central Notice is a fine destination if Sitenotice isn't sufficient for the task. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion was specifically held under the pretense that it would only be displayed to European users. You can't claim that as an authority to display it to everyone.  You have no idea what opinions might have been had it been revealed that everyone across the planet would be subjected to an irrelevant banner about somebody else's politics. --B (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library semi-regular concensus converstaion
Hi all, we made a request for a consensus for semi-regular site notices for the Wikipedia Library at Village_pump_(technical). Please comment, we would appreciate feedback/support. Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2015
A couple months ago, I proposed a WP:TWL Site notice for logged in users, which would communicate availability of Wikipedia Library resources ( see Tech Pump and Proposal pump). Both proposals were relatively supportive silences. As I mention in the pump proposals, their are way more accounts/accesses to partner sources available than we have distributed. Also, when we did a similar notice on French, it brought much greater attention to the program, helping French-language users recognize the program's support.

We believe their will be little concern about the notice: the program is only a benefit for editors, might encourage more constructive editing contributions by volunteers, and is highly supported in the community (as we have noticed with the recent coverage/conversation about our EBSCO partnership (see coverage in our recent newsletter). We would love to see this notice run for ~2 weeks to only signed in users, using the Annnotice exclusion of not-signed in readers (who wouldn't fully benefit from these resources), in part we are running it to create visibility to editors that don't regularly sign in and use other community communication venues (and see our semi-regular Watchlist notices).

Here is the proposed banner:

  Did you know that you can get access to over 40 paywalled research databases which you can use to improve Wikipedia through The Wikipedia Library?

If you are an active editor and have 500 edits and a 6-month-old account on any Wikimedia project you can sign up for resources like JSTOR, Project MUSE, EBSCO, Newspapers.com and Highbeam, among many other academic and popular publishers. If you don't qualify yet, The Wikipedia Library can connect you to other research tools as well: learn more.

Thanks much, The Wikipedia Library Team,

Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts? Could we get some help? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it, but I would want it to emphasise that getting those resources is to improve Wikipedia. So "through The Wikipedia Library to improve Wikipedia?" or such like. -- KTC (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, looking forward to it running :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

 * As as admin who also has this on the watchlist, I should advise that generally during the last few times something was posted on the en.wikipedia's Sitenotice, there also seemed to be, more or less, roughly prior "silent consensus". Then once they were posted, there were then subsequent discussions to take it down once a majority of logged in users saw it (see and the second half of  for example). Many regular logged-in editors usually either do not pay attention to such prior discussions, or they are not advertised that well. Then once something like this is posted, they want to take it down (and usually with the rationale that Sitenotice should only be used for critical system issues). Instead, many regular logged-in editors have stated that they prefer to post such messages on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details (which, as you stated, a similar message for the Wikipedia Library was posted between 17 September and 30 September). So we can still post this for now, but I would not be surprised if there may be subsequent calls to take this banner down. My sense of the English Wikipedia community as whole would be one that would not necessarily welcome Sitenotice to be regularly used as a community bulletin board to advertise various Wikipedia projects and programs. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do it via CentralNotice with limited traffic and max X number of views, and possibly some JS magic with editcount etc. That also comes with some impression recording (though I'll have to check exactly where and what). If no one objects in say oh ~24 hours, I'll put together something. -- KTC (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . Sounds a particularly productive solution.  A double-plus good from me.  —Sladen (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd prefer this on CentralNotice as well, as it is more equipped to handle those situations (plus it would also give a sense that is more official coming from a WMF representative like, and take it off of any en.wiki admin here. Even the regular WMF fundraising banners tend to get complaints on Talk:Main page and elsewhere, but at least nobody here has the ability to be bold and take them down). Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , if/when this is run, could I strongly encourage that some metrics could be collated and published about click-through rates (and "conversions") from running this sitenotice. This will provide hard data to inform future requests of this type.  —Sladen (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Gut reaction: "the text is huge" "oh not again" "so many links" (masking the important one).
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It looks like the emerging consensus is that this should run, but on CentralNotice, rather than SiteNotice here. If there are problems setting up the CentralNotice, feel free to reopen this request and we'll work something out. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have CN adminship rights on Meta and can do it. Like I said, I'll wait till tomorrow to see if there are any more comments on this. -- KTC (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the feedback: we had been opting for a Central Notice for the first run because of the model by which the French community ran their notice, and we are not geo-limited, so their is not advantage to doing it on CentralNotice. We have consulted with several people, and we have been told that the JavaScript modifications to the CentralNotices are less than ideal. I am fine with running it as a CentralNotice, if that is the consensus here, and per Zzyzx11's observations.
 * we are trying to engage more volunteers in the English context for taking care of the project, as we scale up the impact of the project to other languages, thats part of the reason we are running through a community process here. How would you recommend tracking the data? Also, on the data: what is the best way to collect that data? Can we take impression to click-through data using Central Notices's tools?
 * saw the campaign on the CentralNotice tool, limitations look good. I made two tweaks to the banner here: smaller text, and bolding the important link per Sladen. How do you create/load a banner to campaign? Is there anything else I need to do? Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it (slowly) over on Meta. -- KTC (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Your awesome! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Set to start appearing in about an hour. 50% traffic, maximum 5 appearances per user (technically per lang.proj), desktop only, to appear on en language interface users on Wikipedia. I've Javascript'd it to appear only to users with 500 edits or more, and account registration date before 2015-04-20 (both on that lang.proj), so I've modified the message a bit to make it shorter and also no duplicate links. Let me know if you want anything changed. -- KTC (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I am disappointed to see such a banner advertising closed-access resources (again). If we are to use such notices for community engagement (which I am not convinced is a good idea, as discussed by Zzyzx11 above), I think we should preferentially use them to highlight the value of open resources, as WP:OPENACCESS is trying to do. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2015
The 2016 WikiCup begins this week. We'd like to have a site-wide notice, running for the rest of December and all of January, with this text:

The 2016 WikiCup, our yearly site-wide competition dedicated to improving Wikipedia, starts January 1. Sign-ups remain open until February 5.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The sitenotice is for important messages of relevance to Wikipedia's users in general. On what do you base the assertion that this request to display an editor-centric advertisement throughout the encyclopedia for more than a month is "either uncontroversial or supported by consensus"?  Why shouldn't the message appear above watchlists instead?  —David Levy 07:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've used sitenotice before, for announcements for past WikiCups. The judges believe that all users should know about it because it displays an aspect of WP that encourages active editing, something we dearly need.  We also want to get the word out to as many people as possible, including editors that don't visit their watchpages often.  It's all in good fun, you know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When was that? Certainly it wasn't in either December 2014 or December 2013. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it was on watchlist last year, apparently I put it there. — xaosflux  Talk 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that watchlist notice would suffice, would also support additional mass message to prior participants and notice baord postings. — xaosflux  Talk 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I was given faulty information, since I didn't set it up myself in previous years. Will request a watchlist notice shortly.  Thank you for your time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

20160519 - notice notice
A site notice is getting ready to go live, barring any objections. This will be for logged in users only. Please comment at Village_pump_(technical). — xaosflux  Talk 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - discussion at VPT does not favor this at this time - on hold unless that develops. — xaosflux  Talk 01:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request regarding imminent read-only state, 18 July 2018
Please post the following notice (and remember to increment the MediaWiki:Sitenotice id):

The English Wikipedia will be read-only for up to 30 minutes beginning 06:00, 18 July, because of maintenance work. Everyone will be able to read the wiki, but you won't be able to edit. --Pipetricker (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think we need this, the discussion at VPT already references multiple other ways this will display, and it is a very short window. The only "action call" here would be to read our article about what UTC is as well.  If someone goes ahead with this, they should be immediately available to remove it when no longer needed. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania presentation videos?
Would it be worth this year or subsequent years putting up a banner linking to the videos of presentations at wikimania? It might be a way of making it more broadly known the sorts of things that are going on 'behind the scenes' for readers who otherwise don't know how extensive the wikimedia community activities are. Might even inspire people to think about getting involved. T.Shafee(Evo & Evo)talk 02:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * funny we keep running in to each other. (Somehow I'm the "notice guy") This page isn't watched much - and being reader-impacting this is going to need some affirmative support (much more so than editor-facing wishlist notices). Please bring this up at WP:VPPR as a new section. I wonder if this is something the foundation would want to sponsor with a CentralNotice campaign? (see meta:CentralNotice/Request). — xaosflux  Talk 02:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks for the tip - I wasn't really certain where a sensible place to post it was, so I'll copy the post over to there. T.Shafee(Evo & Evo)talk 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Banner for read-only - Thu 14th November from 05:00 to 05:30 AM UTC
Hello

There is a read only phase that will happen for your wiki, on Thu 14th November from 05:00 to 05:30 AM UTC. Please see T234800 for details; in short, it is because of a database decommission.

I suggest you to setup a banner (so as an Anon-notice banner) 30 minutes before the read-only.

It could just say "A maintenance will be performed soon - 14th November from 05:00 to 05:30 AM UTC" and "You may not be able to save any edits during this time."

In any case, the read-only message will be displayed when the read-only will happen, but have a warning message prior the intervention is needed to warn people.

Thank you, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaving this open for further input, but I generally agree with ' response to the 2018 occurrence — unlikely to be hugely necessary. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 17:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * agree, I don't think this is going to be necessary here - similar to how we have recurring other outage periods. — xaosflux  Talk 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ per the above and prior precedent.  If this was going to be an exceptionally lengthy activity I could see a need.  I suggest you include this in the Tech/News prior to the event.  Will add comments at T234801. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

COVID-19 information
Recently for the Main Page with the WP:ITN box we've added a banner for recent coverage and news related to the COVID-19 pandemic which many have found helpful.

From a separate angle, a discussion was raised on Jimbo Wales' page, and he offered his comment related to site-wide messages,, which while rejected the original comment, did offer the suggestion that with the current situation around COVID-19 this may be a point to use a Sitenotice to provide helpful links to our pages on it.

Exactly what those links are, I don't know but we could replicate something like the ITN box easily, or offer something differently. --M asem (t) 14:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SN should have a strong consensus of support to be used, especially as this one would really need to be for all readers as well. Once a specific proposal and mock up are ready, please widely advertise this so we can get good support.  For SN mock ups, please be sure to test on mobile web () as well, since we have a large number of readers that use the mobile web. Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 14:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC notice
We've given everyone a week to get used to it and given that both sides are claiming silent majorities I'm planning to add the following notice:

There is a request for comment on the new site skin

Assuming everything still works the way I think it does the notice should only display for logged in users.©Geni (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is overkill. If you want to increase awareness next step could be to process MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We're talking about something that will impact every user for the next decade. Not just those that use watchlists.©Geni (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And registered users can just opt out of it if they want, the real impact is to readers - that you are already not going to poll. — xaosflux  Talk 17:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you want to drop it into MediaWiki:Anonnotice you are free to make the case.©Geni (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think either one of these is appropriate. Skin links and Central Notices were also already deployed with links on them to solicit feedback from endusers. — xaosflux  Talk 17:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And it is on cent, and it is on top of the landing page (Vector 2022). — xaosflux  Talk 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something nothing at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNotice suggests there is a central notice pointing at the RFC.©Geni (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the banner  (now expired) pointed to Vector 2022, which has the RFC banner on top. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So it expired on the 20th but the RFC wasn't added to it until the 21st. So not on central notice.©Geni (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose Without WMF staff acknowledging this as a possibility this is clearly beyond what community consensus can determine WP:CONEXCEPT. (Point 4) This is a WMF decision that is solely in their hands and considering the "vibe" around the deployment it seems beyond unlikely for this to go anywhere. (Copied my response to the watchlist request) I had a search through WMF responses at the RFC page and there were not any which acknowledged this as a possibility (5 days later, they only respond to technical help and post progress updates). This shouldn't be advertised more since it is wasting everyones time. Terasail [✉] 18:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing we may also do is retarget MediaWiki:Vector-2022-prefs-talkpage to the local page (that is what people see when they click discuss about vector 2022 in preferences). — xaosflux  Talk 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to both? For example: Discussion | Global discussion. So that people can still find the mw page, it could be useful? Just an thought. Terasail [✉] 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thats for the WMF to make a statement on not for us to guess at.©Geni (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose - frankly the current rfc is already a bit of a mess, and I would say is more of a space to vent/argue, than come to any meaningful consensus. I don't think advertising it in the sitenotice is going to help, I think you're just adding more fuel to the fire. -- Chris 08:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ’’’Strong oppose’’’ Chris’s post hits the nail on the head. The RGC is a mess and isn’t going to help. Maybe if it had been raised a month after the deployment it would have been meaningful. Doug Weller  talk 08:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: As long as the RfC is running, it's only fair to give active users a chance to participate, so that there are less gripes later about not being involved in a major decision for the project. I'd recommend to only target logged-in users: this can be achieved by adding something like  to MediaWiki:Anonnotice at the same time (needs to be tested). Nemo 18:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice


text:
WVS

WVS may refer to:

 * Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS)
 * World Values Survey, a global research project that explores people’s values and beliefs
 * Worldwide Veterinary Service
 * Warwickshire Vision Support, a UK charity providing support for people with sight loss in Warwickshire
 * A virtual scripting language based on XML.
 * WebSphere Voice Server, a Speech Recognition product from IBM that provides automatic ASR and TTS functions for solutions supporting MRCP or Media Resource Control Protocol.

title: WVS


text:
Direct methanol fuel cell

Direct methanol fuel cells or DMFCs are a subcategory of proton-exchange fuel cells in which methanol is used as the fuel. Their main advantage is the ease of transport of methanol, an energy-dense yet reasonably stable liquid at all environmental conditions.

Whilst the thermodynamic theoretical energy conversion efficiency of a DMFC is 97%; the currently achievable energy conversion efficiency for operational cells attains 30% – 40%. There is intensive research on promising approaches to increase the operational efficiency.

A more efficient version of a direct fuel cell would play a key role in the theoretical use of methanol as a general energy transport medium, in the hypothesized methanol economy.

The cell
In contrast to indirect methanol fuel cells, where methanol is reacted to hydrogen by steam reforming, DMFCs use a methanol solution (usually around 1M, i.e. about 3% in mass) to carry the reactant into the cell; common operating temperatures are in the range 50 to 120 °C, where high temperatures are usually pressurized. DMFCs themselves are more efficient at high temperatures and pressures, but these conditions end up causing so many losses in the complete system that the advantage is lost; therefore, atmospheric-pressure configurations are currently preferred.

Because of the methanol cross-over, a phenomenon by which methanol diffuses through the membrane without reacting, methanol is fed as a weak solution: this decreases efficiency significantly, since crossed-over methanol, after reaching the air side (the cathode), immediately reacts with air; though the exact kinetics are debated, the result is a reduction of the cell voltage. Cross-over remains a major factor in inefficiencies, and often half of the methanol is lost to cross-over. Methanol cross-over and/or its effects can be alleviated by (a) developing alternative membranes (e.g. ), (b) improving the electro-oxidation process in the catalyst layer and improving the structure of the catalyst and gas diffusion layers (e.g. ), and (c) optimizing the design of the flow field and the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) which can be achieved by studying the current density distributions (e.g. ).

Other issues include the management of carbon dioxide created at the anode, the sluggish dynamic behavior, and the ability to maintain the solution water.

The only waste products with these types of fuel cells are carbon dioxide and water.

Application
Current DMFCs are limited in the power they can produce, but can still store a high energy content in a small space. This means they can produce a small amount of power over a long period of time. This makes them ill-suited for powering large vehicles (at least directly), but ideal for smaller vehicles such as forklifts and tuggers and consumer goods such as mobile phones, digital cameras or laptops. Military applications of DMFCs are an emerging application since they have low noise and thermal signatures and no toxic effluent. These applications include power for man-portable tactical equipment, battery chargers, and autonomous power for test and training instrumentation. Units are available with power outputs between 25 watts and 5 kilowatts with durations up to 100 hours between refuelings. Especially for power output up to 0.3 kW the DMFC is suitable. For a power output of more than 0.3 kW the indirect methanol fuel cell presents a higher efficiency and is more cost-efficient. Freezing of the liquid methanol-water mixture in the stack at low ambient temperature can be problematic for the membrane of DMFC (in contrast to indirect methanol fuel cell).

Methanol
Methanol is a liquid from −97.6 to 64.7 °C at atmospheric pressure. The volumetric energy density of methanol is an order of magnitude greater than even highly compressed hydrogen, about two times greater than liquid hydrogen and 2.6 times higher than lithium-ion batteries. The energy density per mass is a tenth of that of hydrogen, but 10 times higher than that of lithium-ion batteries.

Methanol is slightly toxic and highly flammable. However, the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) voted in November 2005 to allow passengers to carry and use micro fuel cells and methanol fuel cartridges when aboard airplanes to power laptop computers and other consumer electronic devices. On September 24, 2007, the US Department of Transportation issued a proposal to allow airline passengers to carry fuel cell cartridges on board. The Department of Transportation issued a final ruling on April 30, 2008, permitting passengers and crew to carry an approved fuel cell with an installed methanol cartridge and up to two additional spare cartridges. It is worth noting that 200 ml maximum methanol cartridge volume allowed in the final ruling is double the 100 ml limit on liquids allowed by the Transportation Security Administration in carry-on bags.

Reaction
The DMFC relies upon the oxidation of methanol on a catalyst layer to form carbon dioxide. Water is consumed at the anode and produced at the cathode. Protons (H+) are transported across the proton exchange membrane - often made from Nafion - to the cathode where they react with oxygen to produce water. Electrons are transported through an external circuit from anode to cathode, providing power to connected devices.

The half-reactions are:

Methanol and water are adsorbed on a catalyst usually made of platinum and ruthenium particles, and lose protons until carbon dioxide is formed. As water is consumed at the anode in the reaction, pure methanol cannot be used without provision of water via either passive transport such as back diffusion (osmosis), or active transport such as pumping. The need for water limits the energy density of the fuel.

Platinum is used as a catalyst for both half-reactions. This contributes to the loss of cell voltage potential, as any methanol that is present in the cathode chamber will oxidize. If another catalyst could be found for the reduction of oxygen, the problem of methanol crossover would likely be significantly lessened. Furthermore, platinum is very expensive and contributes to the high cost per kilowatt of these cells.

During the methanol oxidation reaction carbon monoxide (CO) is formed, which strongly adsorbs onto the platinum catalyst, reducing the number of available reaction sites and thus the performance of the cell. The addition of other metals, such as ruthenium or gold, to the platinum catalyst tends to ameliorate this problem. In the case of platinum-ruthenium catalysts, the oxophilic nature of ruthenium is believed to promote the formation of hydroxyl radicals on its surface, which can then react with carbon monoxide adsorbed on the platinum atoms. The water in the fuel cell is oxidized to a hydroxy radical via the following reaction: H2O → OH• + H+ + e−. The hydroxy radical then oxidizes carbon monoxide to produce carbon dioxide, which is released from the surface as a gas: CO + OH• → CO2 + H+ + e−.

Using these OH groups in the half reactions, they are also expressed as:

Cross-over current
Methanol on the anodic side is usually in a weak solution (from 1M to 3M), because methanol in high concentrations has the tendency to diffuse through the membrane to the cathode, where its concentration is about zero because it is rapidly consumed by oxygen. Low concentrations help in reducing the cross-over, but also limit the maximum attainable current.

The practical realization is usually that a solution loop enters the anode, exits, is refilled with methanol, and returns to the anode again. Alternatively, fuel cells with optimized structures can be directly fed with high concentration methanol solutions or even pure methanol.

Water drag
The water in the anodic loop is lost because of the anodic reaction, but mostly because of the associated water drag: every proton formed at the anode drags a number of water molecules to the cathode. Depending on temperature and membrane type, this number can be between 2 and 6.

Ancillary units
A direct methanol fuel cell is usually part of a larger system including all the ancillary units that permit its operation. Compared to most other types of fuel cells, the ancillary system of DMFCs is relatively complex. The main reasons for its complexity are:

 * providing water along with methanol would make the fuel supply more cumbersome, so water has to be recycled in a loop;
 * CO2 has to be removed from the solution flow exiting the fuel cell;
 * water in the anodic loop is slowly consumed by reaction and drag; it is necessary to recover water from the cathodic side to maintain steady operation.

title: Direct methanol fuel cell