text:
Talk:William IV

Main image
To my eyes image 2 is superior. It has a better contrast, color balance and resolution than image 1. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Agreed that image 2 is better. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Image 2 is better & I wish the fellow who attempted to change it, would stop & seek consensus first across several bio articles, before making such bold changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I reverted what he did because at the time nobody had responded to the article talk page post he had made. So since at the time there was no “consensus” I changed it back. When I saw he changed it back I checked to to see if anyone responded to him on the article talk page. I then saw that after I reverted his edit somebody responded agreeing with him so after that I didn’t change it back. Orson12345 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't use male pronouns for a person whose identity is a complete mystery to you. Your 'explanation' here is faulty in many ways, but that one really irritates. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since statistically, 85% to 90% of Wikipedia contributors are male, it seems completely reasonable to me to use male pronouns by default. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You may wish to educate yourself by reading Editors' pronouns instead of doubling down on insulting behavior. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely forget I’m so very sorry. In regards to my explanation I don't find it faulty but truthful. Again I’m very sorry if I upset or offended you that was not my intention. Orson12345 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

OK You can keep it and display. Usernogood (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless Shee intended green sky, 2 seems superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Eldest son
The Early reign section mentions he created his eldest son, George, Earl of Munster. The Later reign and death section includes "William and his eldest son, the Earl of Munster, were estranged at the time, but William hoped that a letter of condolence from Munster signalled a reconciliation. His hopes were not fulfilled and Munster ...". Apart from the later section referring to the son as if he hadn't been mentioned earlier does it need editing anyway? At 16:49 on 3 March 2023 "Royalty are usually known by their first names" appears in the edit summary. Mcljlm (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems OK to me. The second usage is with a shortened form "the Earl of Munster". He would not be referred to by first name as Munster was not royalty, but simply nobility due to his creation as an earl.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. With panversal argument opposing the proposition, advocating its speedy closure or both, it is clear that, per WP:SNOW, consensus will not form in favour of the move. Arguments in opposition were generally made with reference to a community-backed guideline or policy—WP:NCRAN, WP:BIAS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT for example—and also on the grounds of procedure, noting three RMs in as many years. There was less weight provided supporting the proposal. (non-admin closure) SN54129  11:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

– I agree that the bulk of UK monarchs from George III onwards are the primary topic, but I suggest that he is an exception. He was king for only seven years, the second shortest reign since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and unlike his brother he was not an important figure before becoming king. The sheer number of other people at the dab page should make us cautious about deciding that there is a primary topic. We also have William IV, Prince of Orange, an important ruler of the Netherlands, the first hereditary stadtholder, I suggest not much less important than the British William IV. PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material  Works  17:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * William IV → William IV of the United Kingdom
 * William IV (disambiguation) → William IV

 * Oppose and speedy procedural close First, a Requested Move that included this page, archived here, closed on August 4, less than six weeks ago. It is too soon to bring another. Addressing the matter on the merits: The British king, William IV, seems to be averaging 4,784 hits per day. The prince of Orange, less than two hundred. The dab page, five hits per day. King William is the primary topic and we do our readers no service by placing another click between them and the information they are looking for. Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. This move was just rejected in a RM discussion less than 2 months ago. This article should not be moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. The British monarch is the primary topics here. This is the English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of our readers who search for "William IV" will be looking for this article. That makes it the primary topic. The current title is also the most common name for this person as well as the most concise. It is also consistent with the title formatting of all the other modern British monarchs. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Opposers seem focused on readership figures, however more important IMO to the concept of primary topic is the persons long term significance to history and scholarship, Proposer makes I feel a reasonable case that we cannot assert the English king as being the PRIMARYTOPIC on that count. sovietblobfish (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Usage is more important than long-term significance when deciding on a primary topic. And in regards to long-term significance, the nominator does not even attempt to make a case that any of the other William IVs have as much long-term significance as the British monarch. So the British monarch wins on both usage and long-term significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * sovietblobfish, what can possibly be said in this RM that has not been said in the multiple RMs that have been brought regarding this article and the other British royals over the past 13 months? Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any other move requests concerning British royals, I do not follow these things that closely. I just happened to be on the move page because I have an active move request of my own.
 * Regardless I stand by my argument that the short reign of this king would suggest they may not be the most significant king of this name (though personally I would in an ideal world want to move the Dutch monarch to Willem IV but I recognise I am in a deep minority on that one.) Of course a more full exploration of the relative significance of the two monarchs might be useful. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any other move requests concerning British royals... That's understandable. You can take a look at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48, which covered William IV's page as well. Keivan.f  Talk 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, this seems quite an extensive and recent discussion. I therefore cannot see this move request advancing. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose and procedural close We had a discussion on this very same topic about a month ago, that not only covered William's page but those of the other British monarchs. I do not see a change in circumstances that would result in me supporting this move and singling out William IV's page. He is still the primary topic and consistency must be preserved. Keivan.f  Talk 21:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Support - not simply because I prefer returning to "Monarch # of Country", but because I'm unconvinced that William IV of the UK has more long-term significance. The WikiNav results also don't support a primary topic based on WP:PT1.
 * I would also say that a procedural close is completely unnecessary considering that the discussion a month ago very heavily focused on Charles III and Elizabeth II, not to mention that it was an inevitable WP:TRAINWRECK. Single-page RMs like this are much better to gauge support for more widespread changes like that. Thus I believe this RM should at least be allowed a typical RM length. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which William IV are you claiming has more long-term significance than the British monarch? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose and procedural close The title for William IV's article has been discussed at length before. There was a discussion earlier this year, so any further discussion should really wait some time. Векочел (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer returning to "Monarch # of Country". By the way, concerning William's long-term significance, his reign includes the Reform Act 1832, which granted voting rights to "small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers", and some groups of householders and lodgers. Britain acquired a much larger number of people with voting rights, and the political scene underwent major changes. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply I question the call for procedural close. The problem we had with some previous move requests was that people were proposing a whole pile of moves in one go, which raised a series of different issues which people might have different views about, leading to a confused discussion.  Specific move requests like this could lead to a more coherent discussion.  William's reign did see some significant changes, but the king himself did not have much to do with them. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your logic. This article was proposed for move in July, along with others. Had the discussion succeeded, this article would have been moved. The strategy of those who seek moves of the British monarch articles is irrelevant. The bottom line is, a RM was attempted with request to this page that failed six weeks ago and it is too soon to take another bite at that apple. This RM should be procedurally closed.
 * Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I've always & will support the re-implementation of "Monarch # of country" style, for all monarch bios. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That position has been soundly rejected by many RM discussions over the past 13+ years. We aren't going to force every monarch article to conform to that rigid format, because doing so would blatantly violates our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And supported by several others, including just a few days ago. Nowhere in the article titling policies does it blatantly say that we cannot force articles to conform to a certain format. As a matter of fact, it saysthe exact opposite. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Forcing all monarch article titles to use that formatting would be a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Even WP:NCROY reaffirms that by stating: "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's clearly different. A COMMONNAME in that context is William the Conqueror, for example. Just read through the examples provided. The implications there aren't to prefer the removal of a territorial designation, but to avoid unrecognizable titles like Eric III of Norway. As a matter of fact, NCROY formerly did say If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION (emphasis my own) was removed by community consensus in this RfC. Also of note, William IV is not unambiguous as many other rulers were known by that name.
 * Any attempts to interpret the line If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it. as supporting the usage of an unambiguous regnal name and number without a territorial designation is a violation of community consensus. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The community consensus is to drop the "of country" natural disambiguator from the title of primary topic monarchs. There have been numerous RM discussions on this point over the past 13+ years, including the two most recent discussions which were held less than 2 months ago here and here, and consensus is very clear on this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeated attempts to move Elizabeth II and Charles III have failed; if you were correct, they would have succeeded. Many voters in refusing the page moves on those pages have interpreted naming policy in the way you would have us believe is a violation of community consensus. In fact, the consensus is that if there are names, especially of British monarchs, that receive many more hits than any Charles III of Pfennig-Halfpfennig, then we keep Charles III for the monarch that the reader is looking for, usually a British or present-day monarch, and those few seeking the monarch of Pfennig-Halfphennig can muddle along with a disambiguating parenthetical. In the meantime, the overwhelming majority is getting to the article they are looking for one click faster than you would have them do. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" in this situation. Just the fact that the community consensus was to remove the language I mentioned. If anything, Elizabeth II and Charles III are understandable exceptions (the former far more so than the latter), but they are far from the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II and Charles III are far from the only "exceptions". See: George III, George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria,Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, James VI and I, Edmund I, Napoleon III, Louis Philippe I, Charles X, Louis XVIII, Napoleon II, Louis XVIII, Louis XVII, Louis XVI, Louis XV, Louis XIV, Louis XIII, Louis XII, Louis XI, Alfonso XIII, Alfonso XII. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard is set by similar articles, thus Edward VII, Edward VIII, Felipe VI, George VI, George V, all of which have been the subjects of attempted moves and all of which have failed. William may not quite display the same differential as compared to other rulers of the same name as those above, but he's still overwhelmingly ahead. Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I agree with the absence of a country in all these cases. However I would point out that almost all of them reigned for longer than William IV of the United Kingdom (I think the only exceptions are Napoleon II and Edward VIII) and that several of them are not just the primary topic, but the only monarch of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Charles III has not reigned longer than William IV, and there are multiple Charles IIIs. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Support as not primary topic and per WP:NCROY and consistency with the great majority of royal articles. Oppose procedural close per 's evaluation of the ineffectiveness of the prior mass discussion. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others and . ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems unnecessary, and I think there was a discussion about this earlier this year...? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support per supporters, WP:PRECISE and WP:NCRAN. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT, as supported by |William_IV,_Prince_of_Orange|William_IV,_Grand_Duke_of_Luxembourg|William_IV,_Landgrave_of_Hesse-Kassel|William_IV,_Duke_of_Bavaria|William_IV_(disambiguation) pageview stats. This William IV has orders of magnitude more hits than the other most common William IVs. The king of the UK has around 5,000 to 7,000 page views per day (excluding a spike around Charles III's coronation), whereas the other William IVs are generally under 200. Also, the disambiguation page is typically single-digit hits per day, suggesting the vast majority of people looking for a William IV are looking for this William IV. I do not support a procedural close since the prior recent discussions were bundled for many British monarchs, rather than focused on William IV.  Frank   Anchor  13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. William IV: 141,867 page views. The twenty-two other William IVs combined: 16,447 page views. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject British Royalty has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I have informed all the participants of the previous RM discussions about William IV about this current discussion in accordance with the rules for appropriate notifications at Canvassing. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose Its too soon after the previous rejection of this move and no new evidence has been offered in favour of moving.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 19:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:PRIMARY (I'm not convinced that he is) and WP:BIAS. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also per Egsan Bacon. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (invited on my talk page) . The UK king has 20 times more pageviews than the nearest rival, ten times more incoming links and almost a monopoly on search results.  He remains a clear primary topic by usage, significance and any other reasonable measure.  Certes (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy procedural close as stated so well by those above. BCorr | Брайен 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT, pageview stats and the previous move discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, you accept that this William IV is the primary topic, so there would need to be a powerful reason for your move, and you are not suggesting one. Also, as others have said, this ground has been well covered already. By the way, I see you make no claim about what name the reliable sources use, but my guess is that almost none use your chosen name. You might like to look at that. Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no other William IV is comparable in terms of notability as William IV was king of both the UK and Hanover. William IV, Prince of Orange is mentioned above but was not king of the Netherlands and looking at his article didn't do anything in his forty year reign. Sahaib (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again?!? (1) This was considered very recently, and the consensus was not to change. I see no reason to re-open the issue only 48 days after it was decided not to move it (August 4, 2023).  William IV was clearly considered in that proposal and the move was rejected. It's not appropriate to re-open a recent consensus just because a different editor brings it up. (2) even on the merits, the info about page hits given above demonstrates that William IV is the primary topic. (3) again on the merits of importance, as Dimadick mentions, the Reform Act passed during his reign, and he was not simply a passive observer.  His acceptance of the need to create new peerages in the House of Lords, if necessary to secure passage of the bill voted by the Commons, was crucial in getting it through the Lords. William's actions on this point were significant both for the development of electoral democracy in the UK, and for his acceptance that he had to take the advice of the elected majority government, drawing its strength from the Commons (although the PM, Earl Grey, was still in the Lords).  Both aspects of his support for the bill make him an important historical figure in the development of democratic, responsible government in the UK;  clear historical significance, supporting the argument that he is the primary topic. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per, , and pageview stats. Gawaon (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, For all the reasons stated above and that King William IV wasn't just King of the United Kingdom but of Hanover as well. May we bring this discussion to a swift close. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy procedural close per all the above . Multiple reasons why not, and multiple RfCs have shown the consensus on this. Why is this being relitigated yet again so soon after the last time? - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm against the endless time-wasting to-and-fro on royal renames. Frankly some editors should find more productive ways of spending their WP time. The British W IV has averaged over 9,000 views a day this year (ok, there was a Coronation boost), whereas the Dutch William IV averaged 185 - and only held the top positions for 4 years. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "(ok, there was a Coronation boost)" Plus the boost from all the editors who checked out the page in August on the last go-round. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - those arguing that this article is not the primary topic have provided no evidence that I've seen for their claims beyond their own perception. Someone noted above the reader nav tool as justification, but without further elaborating; I can only assume they're referring to the fact that readers who land on William IV account for 41% of traffic to the dab page. But when you look at the pageview stats, 41% of 6 hits per day is not exactly compelling. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose William IV has had 139,831 views in the past 30 days. William IV, Prince of Orange has only had 5,564. An English-speaking reader is also more likely to be searching for this king because they came across his name in a book or a film about the period: see Cultural depictions of William IV. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. We've been through this before, and we're likely to get the same result this time.  O.N.R.  (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close The consensus won't change in a month and a half, despite what you may wish. We already had this discussion recently and it didn't go in favor of change. The   Kip  20:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't believe any of the oppose votes citing the recentness of the previous move request should be taken into consideration. While technically true, if you look at that previous RM, it was mainly closed because the scope was far too large, and the opener of this RM is saying there's a reason why this article should be considered separately. "Oppose due to recent RM" is entirely missing the point.  WP scatter  t/c 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No one as far as I can see has simply stated, there was a previous move discussion, end of story. Each has cited arguments on the merits or, in one case, referred to the close of the previous RM, which found a consensus for not moving those articles, including this one, and stated that nothing new has been brought in support of this RM. That's a valid point of view. Keep in mind WP:CCC, "On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: none of the other Williams are kings, nor as famous as the British one or as likely to be the topic a reader is looking for. (I'm less persuaded by the procedural argument, because one article can always be an exception to the consensus that we shouldn't move a dozen articles.) Richard75 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy procedural close This same topic has already been debated ad nauseam. The idea to change the titles of the pages of British monarchs to "of the United Kingdom" has been discussed to end on other pages and shown that it is false. As well as mentioned by User:Ficaia, there are other pages referencing this, and the only other page has 25x less page views. For pages that have 25x the page views it should be kept as it is, since despite William IV's shorter reign, it isn't showing him to be less notable, especially as he was the last British monarch to be both the British monarch and the King of Hanover. His reign is highly important to the modern monarchy, and in my opinion, this page should not be changed and this move request should be closed CIN I&II (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for clarity and consistency. J I P  | Talk 21:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Consistency with what?  all have articles titled simply Name Number (except Queen Victoria who has no number); none have "of the United Kingdom" in their article title. Certes (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, no PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This William IV gets the most page views by far, and has the most long-term significance. Certainly looks like the primary topic to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strongly oppose: this is the clear and unambiguous primary topic; none of the other possible targets have more than a tiny fraction of the significance, something abundantly demonstrated by both article size and pageviews. The article about the other William IV urged as a contender for this title says very little about him or his accomplishments, being almost entirely concerned with his family and titles.  He was involved in some important events, but evidently not one of the chief drivers of them; he seems to have been a peripheral figure who had some symbolic importance at the time, but has faded into history.  The argument that this William IV is somehow not the primary topic seems to be irrational and based entirely on wishful thinking; it does not pass the snowball test.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are two questions here: (1) Is the British William IV the primary topic among all the people whose article could be located at the title "William IV", and (2) if not, is there a different William IV who is? The evidence presented by multiple people in the thread above, and in previous move requests, is that the answer to question 1 is "yes, overwhelmingly so". Question 2 is thus not relevant, but the answer seems to be "no" in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and procedural close seriously, how is there no guideline against repeatedly reopening these discussions after they get defeated? Anything less than a year old should be closed as a matter of principle. --jonas (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:William IV


text:
User:Vogon

A hollow voice says, "Foo."

Just another Wikipedia contributor. Currently sitting on a massive rewrite of the Paranoia (role-playing game) page.

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

title: User:Vogon


text:
David Herbert Donald

David Herbert Donald (October 1, 1920 – May 17, 2009) was an American historian, best known for his 1995 biography of Abraham Lincoln. He twice won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography for earlier works; he published more than 30 books on United States political and literary figures and the history of the American South.

Early life and education
David Herbert Donald was born in Goodman, Mississippi, a town in the center of Holmes County. The county's western border is formed by the Yazoo River and it is part of the Mississippi-Yazoo Delta.

Majoring in history and sociology, Donald earned his bachelor's degree from Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi. After earning a master's degree in history (1942) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, he earned his PhD in 1946 under eminent Lincoln scholar James G. Randall at the same institution. Randall as a mentor influenced Donald's life and career. He encouraged his protégé to write his dissertation on Abraham Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon. Donald adapted and published the dissertation as his first book, Lincoln's Herndon (1948).

Career
After completing his doctorate, Donald taught at Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University and, from 1973, Harvard University. He also taught at Smith College, the University of North Wales (on a Fulbright grant), Princeton University, University College London and served as Harmsworth Professor of American History at Oxford University. At Johns Hopkins, Columbia, and Harvard he trained dozens of graduate students, including Heather Cox Richardson, Jean H. Baker, William J. Cooper, Jr., Michael Holt, Irwin Unger, Ari Hoogenboom, and Richard R. John.

Donald served as president of the Southern Historical Association. Donald also served on the editorial board for the Papers of Abraham Lincoln.

Donald was the Charles Warren Professor of American History (emeritus from 1991) at Harvard University. He wrote more than thirty books, including well-received biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Wolfe and Charles Sumner. He specialized in the American Civil War and Reconstruction periods, and in the history of the American South.

Legacy and honors
Donald received the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography twice, in 1961 for Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War and in 1988 for Look Homeward: A Life of Thomas Wolfe. He also received several honorary degrees.

Donald received the American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award in 1997.

Donald was inducted as a Laureate of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois and awarded the Order of Lincoln (the State's highest honor) by the Governor of Illinois in 2008 in the area of Communications and Education.

In 2000, Donald received The Lincoln Forum's Richard Nelson Current Award of Achievement.

Works
In his introduction, Carl Sandburg, the poet and Lincoln biographer, hailed Donald's first book as the answer to scholars' prayers: "When is someone going to do the life of Bill Herndon. Isn't it about time? Now the question is out."

David M. Potter, a Civil War scholar, said that Donald's biography of Charles Sumner portrayed "Sumner as a man with acute psychological inadequacies" and exposed Sumner's "facade of pompous rectitude." Donald's evenhanded approach to Sumner, Potter concluded, was a model for biographers working with a difficult subject. "If it does not make Sumner attractive [the book] certainly makes him understandable."

Personal life and death
Donald lived in Lincoln, Massachusetts, with his wife Aida DiPace Donald, who was a historian and author. His wife also served as a senior editor and then as editor-in-chief at the Harvard University Press. He died of heart failure in Boston on May 17, 2009. Donald was survived by his wife, his son Bruce Donald and two granddaughters.

Books

 * Lincoln's Herndon (1948)
 * Divided We Fought: A Pictorial History of the War, 1861—1865 (1952)
 * Editor, Inside Lincoln's Cabinet: The Civil War Diaries of Salmon P. Chase. (1954)
 *  Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era (1956, 2nd edition 1961, 3rd edition 2001) (ISBN 978-0-679-72310-3).
 * Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War (1960). Pulitzer Prize-winning scholarly biography to 1860.
 * The Civil War and Reconstruction (1961; 2001) (ISBN 978-0-393-97427-0), 2001 edition with Jean H. Baker & Michael F. Holt; 1961 edition with James G. Randall.
 * Editor, Why the North Won the Civil War (1962) (ISBN 978-0-02-031660-2) (revised ed. 1996).
 * Editor with Aida DiPace Donald, Diary of Charles Francis Adams, Volumes 1 and 2, January 1820 - September 1829 (1964), Harvard University Press.
 * The Politics of Reconstruction, 1863-1867 (1965)
 * Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man  (1970). Biography after 1860.
 * Look Homeward: A Life of Thomas Wolfe (1987) (ISBN 978-0-316-18952-1).
 * Lincoln (1995) ISBN 978-0-684-80846-8
 * Lincoln at Home: Two Glimpses of Abraham Lincoln's Domestic Life  (1999) ISBN 978-0-912308-77-7.
 * We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends (2003) (ISBN 978-0-7432-5468-7).
 * The Divided Union (1961)

title: David Herbert Donald


text:
Mangle (machine)

A mangle (British) or wringer (American) is a mechanical laundry aid consisting of two rollers in a sturdy frame, connected by cogs and (in its home version) powered by a hand crank or by electricity. While the appliance was originally used to squeeze water from wet laundry, today mangles are used to press or flatten sheets, tablecloths, kitchen towels, or clothing and other laundry.

Clothes press

The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first use of the word mangle in English from 1598, quoting John Florio who, in his 1598 dictionary, A World of Words, described "a kind of press to press buckram, fustian, or dyed linen cloth, to make it have a luster or gloss". The word comes from the Dutch mangel, from mangelen "to mangle", which in turn derives from the medieval Latin mango or manga which ultimately comes from the Greek manganon, meaning "axis" or "engine". Some northern European countries used a table version for centuries, the device consisting of the rolling pin, a wood cylinder around which the damp cloth was wrapped, and the mangle board, a curved or flat length of wood which was used to roll and flatten the cloth. The oldest known model is a Norwegian mangle board, found near Bergen and dated 1444.

In the second half of the 19th century, commercial laundries began using steam-powered mangles or ironers. Gradually, the electric washing machine's spin cycle rendered this use of a mangle obsolete, and with it the need to wring out water from clothes mechanically. Box mangles were large and primarily intended for pressing laundry smooth; they were used by wealthy households, large commercial laundries, and self-employed "mangle women". Middle-class households and independent washerwomen used upright mangles for wringing water out of laundry, and in the later 19th century they were more widely used than early washing machines. The rollers were typically made of wood, or sometimes rubber.

The Steel Roll Mangle Co. of 108 Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois, offered a gas-heated home mangle for pressing linens in 1902. In the 1930s electric mangles were developed and are still a feature of many laundry rooms. They consist of a rotating padded drum which revolves against a heating element which can be stationary, or can also be a rotating drum. Laundry is fed into the turning mangle and emerges flat and pressed on the other side. This process takes much less time than ironing with the usual iron and ironing board.

There were many electric rotary ironers on the American market including Solent, Thor, Ironrite and Apex. By the 1940s the list had grown to include Bendix, General Electric, Kenmore and Maytag. By the 1950s, home ironers, or mangles, as they came to be called, were becoming popular time-savers for the homemaker.

Drying clothes
When home washing machines were first invented, they were just for washing: a tub on legs or wheels. A hand-cranked mangle appeared on top after 1843 when John E. Turnbull of Saint John, New Brunswick patented a "Clothes Washer With Wringer Rolls". The first geared wringer mangle in the UK is thought to date to about 1850, when one was invented by Robert Tasker of Lancashire. It was a smaller, upright version of the box mangle.

Current use
Small domestic pressing mangles may be more common in some countries than in others. They are typically not sold in North American stores. In contrast to their use in homes, mangles have become an essential feature of commercial or large-scale laundries. They are typically used to press flat items such as sheets or tablecloths, and also are far quicker and more energy-efficient for removing most of the water than a clothes dryer. Skilled operators can also press shirts and trousers on a mangle.

A significant benefit of mangling is reduced dust. When washing, the ends of the surface fibers tend to loosen and stick out when dried. The clothes are then much more sensitive to trap dust, dirt and grease, and to shed off fibers. Mangling presses the fiber ends back onto the fiber, so that the clothes remain clean longer. This could potentially reduce dust approximately 10 to 60 times; however, this is not confirmed. Mangles are most often used for bed sheets, tablecloths and towels, which would be time-consuming to iron by hand.

Artistic use
Artists, such as Barbara Brash have adapted mangles to serve as printing presses,  which they resemble in construction. By fixing a metal platen, on which printing plate and paper are placed, permanently between the rollers, which themselves may be replaced by, or sheathed in, turned metal cylinders; they thus make a serviceable and much less expensive alternative to a commercial cylinder etching press.

title: Mangle (machine)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Valiant

Bob Valiant was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Listed on VfD by User:Iamalegend.

 * I don't know if this is a real person or not, but the person who created this unwikified, messy page then made three votes on this VfD page, one to keep and two to delete. Looks like trolling to me.  RickK 04:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say "experimental tri-linear linguistic manipulation techniques" constitutes patent nonsense. _R_ 12:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The language certainly hints at nonsense, as does the poor spelling. Google doesn't know anything about a Bob Valiant associated with mountains, mountain climbing, or mountaineering. There is a Bob Valiant who has written about linguistics, but his CV only claims three degrees (two of them advanced), including none from MIT or "Trinity Coledge" (sic). Seems a nice enough guy, but not especially notable anyway. Delete. Securiger 13:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Perhaps he's the tutor of Lara Croft or something? Seems like fictional superhero stuff. Geogre 17:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and probably non-existant. Gamaliel 18:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence that he exists. I have a mild suspicion of anything involving User:Iamalegend, who appears to have been trolling assiduously of late (see Votes_for_deletion/Thomas Hatcher, Votes_for_deletion/Neville_Windsor, and, well, just about all the recent Hellyer / Burnie related silliness). Oh look, he's just sneaked Thomas Hatcher into the The Advocate article. Here we go again... Pnot 21:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wolfman 18:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Fatimid Caliphate

Capital cities in infobox
It seems like once again some editors have chosen to resort to edit-warring and obviously one form of sockpuppetry or another in order to force the inclusion of Ikjan in the infobox with no reliable sources cited, misleading (or simply lacking) context, and with the wrong dates. The page has been protected again as a result. There are already two talk page discussions about this above, but I'm deciding to start a third one for any editors who want to discuss this constructively.

Summary of existing information: The history of the incipient state and military campaign which overthrew the Aghlabids to replace them with the Fatimid Caliphate is already described in detail in the History section, with citations to one of the most reliable and frequently-cited scholarly books on the subject (Halm 1996, see pp. 101-147), among other scholarly sources. Per those sources, Abu Abdallah al-Shi'i (the da'i) arrived in Ikjan in 893 where he began recruiting, was forced to flee to Tazrut soon after (exact date not clear in cited sources but sounds like it was right away in 893; see Halm 1996 pp.55 and 103), where he created a state and remained until 902. He then moved to Ikjan in 902. His forces finally overthrew the Aghlabids in 909 and immediately installed themselves in Raqqada. They retrieved Abdallah al-Mahdi and installed him as the first caliph in 909-910 (officially enthroned on 27 August 909 while in Sijilmasa, arrived in Raqqada on 5 January 910; see Halm 1996 p. 142 and 147 or sources cited in article). The caliphate thus did not start until 909, and the first caliph was installed in Raqqada, not Ikjan. All of this is covered in the article already.

So with that in mind, if there is a consensus of editors to add anything before Raqqada in the infobox at all, it would only be accurate and informative if: Civil and constructive comments are welcome below. R Prazeres (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) These "capitals" are explicitly distinguished from the actual caliphate's capitals, e.g. by some kind of note alongside them, since no Fatimid caliph ruled from them and the dates precede the start date of the caliphate itself (909) indicated in reliable sources and in the infobox.
 * 2) Both Tazrut and Ikjan are included; including Ikjan alone makes no sense if you're going to include the pre-caliphate period at all.
 * 3) The actual correct dates are used, based on the information already in the article and supported by reliable sources; i.e. Tazrut 893(?)-902, Ikjan 902-909.
 * I wouldn't mind adding the pre-caliphate capitals (in line with what we have in the Almohad article), but as you said, we have to include both as they each took on the role of "dar al hijra" during the dates that you mentioned. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose adding anything prior to 909. The Fatimid dawla was established in 909, it cannot have had a capital before then. The da'wa, and the attendant proto-state, organized by Abdallah al-Shi'i, certainly had its own capitals, but it is not the subject of this article. If we were to extend the scope to before 909, then we should also include Abdallah al-Shi'i as the first leader, then we should also rename the page, because there was no caliph before 909, which leads to a whole host of problems of definition and nomenclature, not to mention WP:OR. So let's stay with scholarly consensus and practice, and stick to the established dates 909-1171. Constantine  ✍  10:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far. Personally, I'm still on the fence about it. If there's a way to include them in the infobox in a clear way, then I see no problem. The da'wa proto-state is within the scope of this article insofar as it then created the Fatimid state itself, but it's clearly not the focus. So if the addition merely complicates or confuses the content of the infobox, then it's not worth it. There's nothing essential about having those details there when any interested readers can just read the article's relevant sections. The infobox is just a summary of the article's most important points, after all (per MOS:INFOBOX). Constantine also makes a good point above about the leaders; if we include pre-909 capitals, then logically we should include Abdallah al-Shi'i as well, which would require another annotation to clarify his role/status. R Prazeres (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am for adding the two pre-caliphal capitals (both Tazrut and Ikjan) in the infobox which have a non-negligible place in the history of the Fatimids.
 * Regarding the leader section, we can always differentiate their titles as what is well done on the Almohads Caliphate page (dai/caliph). Regards Askelaadden (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not express myself correctly above: the dawa is in-scope, but is not the main topic. It is the main topic for an article on Abdallah al-Shi'i, but for an article on the 'Fatimid Caliphate', it is simply background material, which can be covered in greater or lesser depth, but is not necessary to cover exhaustively. Hence the capitals of the dawa are a non-issue; we could legitimately omit them from the article altogether, without impacting its coverage. They can be mentioned, but must not be mentioned, because the topic of the article is clearly defined as 'Fatimid Caliphate', and that has a date range of 909–1171. The pre-909 centres of the dawa are simply not part of that topic.
 * This principle applies even more so to infoboxes, which are by nature unsuited to nuance; whenever you need to explain something in an infobox (e.g. by adding parentheses, or footnotes), you likely have put in something that shouldn't be there. Nuance, details, background info, that's what the article body is for. The infobox should provide only a clear and crisp summary overview of the article topic.
 * The temptation to add more things that have a 'non-negligible place in the history of the Fatimids' but are pre-909 is understandable, but misplaced. First, it opens a can of worms: What about Salamiya? What about the schism of 899 as a predecessor event? Or should it be the Qarmatian uprisings of the 900s? Or the arrival of Abdallah al-Shi'i in Ifriqiya? And on it goes... Second, and more importantly, it skirts into WP:OR: Tazrut and Ikjan were not 'capitals of the Fatimid Caliphate' or 'of the Fatimids'. They were centres of the dawa, which is a different entity to the subsequent state (as Abdallah al-Shi'i would discover to his cost). Constantine   ✍  21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I did a quick check: none of the articles on the Fatimids in EI2, EI3, or Iranica mention Tazrut or Ikjan, nor does Brett's The Fatimid Empire. I think we ought to follow them. Constantine  ✍  21:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Abdallah al-Shi'i is already mentioned in the article. In the Almohad article, we cite Tinmel as the first capital, starting in 1021 (before the establishment of the Caliphate, which didn't happen until the death of Ibn Tumart and the conquest of Marrakesh). M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the situation has parallels but is not quite comparable: the first Almohad Caliph came to power in 1130, when Tinmal was still the capital, whereas the conquest of Marrakesh in 1147 is when they finalized their control over the Maghreb, but by that time they were already in control of a lot more (they began to intervene in al-Andalus as early as 1146, for example). I think there's a better argument for altering the start date at Almohad Caliphate to address some of this imprecision (as you've seen, I made that arugment here). R Prazeres (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure about that, because as far as I know (I could be mistaken), Abd al-Mu'min didn't proclaim himself caliph until 1147. M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To avoid repetition; see my reply at Talk:Almohad Caliphate (but feel free to continue here to discuss the Fatimid situation). R Prazeres (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fatimid origins
The fatimid caliphat was born in Algeria and not abbasid caliphate 86.69.237.239 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As you are clearly the user and are engaging in edit-warring, so please log in to your account when making further edits and comments to avoid looking like you are also engaging in sockpuppetry. You have also been warned about edit-warring. Your suggested wording, which reflects a modern nationalist tone, is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy to maintain a neutral point of view and stick to what reliable sources directly say (the policies can be read at these links: WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Vaguely citing a book about the history of Algeria simply because the Fatimids are mentioned in it does not justify changing the introduction to fit this point of view. The previous wording is amply clear and accurate in its historical context. R Prazeres (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fatimid caliphate origins = ikjan Hamza3110022 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have lot source of this point so how? I give it all to you Hamza3110022 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have cambridge source i have oxford source and i litteraly have texas university source ? Hamza3110022 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Algeria.svg

Asian polities map
The hyperlink on the map goes to the generic map without the added names. Perhaps you know how to fix it? TYVM Gebrelu (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Flags
Let's please stop adding hypothetical flags to the infobox. We do not know what Fatimid flags looked like. Simply citing sources that mention in passing that the dynastic colour was green or white does not allow us to reconstruct an actual flag or banner, even if we leave aside the disagreement between the cited references and the mention of red and yellow in one of them. There's no reason to think the Fatimids flew plain green or plain white banners. That's WP:OR, and not very informative to readers anyways (see also the recent discussion at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate). I've moved the text of the flag caption (from this addition and an apparently forgotten text from before that) provisionally to the "Dynasty" section (it could go elsewhere if preferred), and removed the flag image from the infobox. R Prazeres (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello again @R Prazeres, I sourced this Fatimid Flaghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White flag 3 to 2.svg, the Fatimids according to arab sources were literally called "Those who wear white" (المبيضة) just like the Abbassids were called "Those who wear black" (المسودة). Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be adding any flags to the infobox here. Like the issue discussed at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate, all we have are reports of a colour, but no direct representations of a standard flag. This is true for most pre-modern states in the region too. Some references refer to the Fatimid colour as being green instead, which makes the issue all the more confused. Since it's not straightforward and it's not essential information that needs to be at the top of the article, it's best to keep it out of the infobox, but it can certainly be mentioned in the body of the article, if it isn't already. R Prazeres (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a bit confusing I agree, the Umayyads, Fatimids, almohads and merinids were reported having or using white flags. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Rectangular national flags were anachronistic to the early Caliphates era, but dynasties definitely did have dynastic colors, and sometimes banners of that color (see Black Standard), though not necessarily rectangular. The Fatimids don't seem to have had a fully consistent and invariable color association (as the Abbasids did with black), which hinders attributing to them a flag of their dynastic color... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fatimid Caliphate


text:
Myelopathy

Myelopathy describes any neurologic deficit related to the spinal cord. The most common form of myelopathy in humans, cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), also called degenerative cervical myelopathy, results from narrowing of the spinal canal (spinal stenosis) ultimately causing compression of the spinal cord. When due to trauma, myelopathy is known as (acute) spinal cord injury. When inflammatory, it is known as myelitis. Disease that is vascular in nature is known as vascular myelopathy.

In Asian populations, spinal cord compression often occurs due to a different, inflammatory process affecting the posterior longitudinal ligament.

Presentation
Clinical signs and symptoms depend on which spinal cord level (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar) is affected and the extent (anterior, posterior, or lateral) of the pathology, and may include:
 * Upper motor neuron signs—weakness, spasticity, clumsiness, altered tonus, hyperreflexia and pathological reflexes, including Hoffmann's sign and inverted plantar reflex (positive Babinski sign)
 * Lower motor neuron signs—weakness, clumsiness in the muscle group innervated at the level of spinal cord compromise, muscle atrophy, hyporeflexia, muscle hypotonicity or flaccidity, fasciculations
 * Sensory deficits
 * Bowel/bladder symptoms and sexual dysfunction

Diagnosis of myelopathy
Myelopathy is primarily diagnosed by clinical exam findings. Because the term myelopathy describes a clinical syndrome that can be caused by many pathologies the differential diagnosis of myelopathy is extensive. In some cases the onset of myelopathy is rapid, in others, such as CSM, the course may be insidious with symptoms developing slowly over a period of months. As a consequence, the diagnosis of CSM is often delayed. As the disease is thought to be progressive, this may impact negatively on outcome.

Diagnosis of etiology
Once the clinical diagnosis myelopathy is established, the underlying cause must be investigated. Most commonly this involves medical imaging. The best way to visualize the spinal cord is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Apart from T1 and T2 MRI images, which are commonly used for routine diagnosis, more recently researchers are exploring quantitative MRI signals. Further imaging modalities used for evaluating myelopathy include plain X-rays for detecting arthritic changes of the bones, and Computer Tomography, which is often used for pre-operative planning of surgical interventions for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Angiography is used to examine blood vessels in suspected cases of vascular myelopathy.

The presence and severity of myelopathy can also be evaluated by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a neurophysiological method that allows the measurement of the time required for a neural impulse to cross the pyramidal tracts, starting from the cerebral cortex and ending at the anterior horn cells of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spinal cord. This measurement is called Central Conduction Time (CCT). TMS can aid physicians to:

 * Determine whether myelopathy exists
 * Identify the level of the spinal cord where myelopathy is located. This is especially useful in cases where more than two lesions may be responsible for the clinical symptoms and signs, such as in patients with two or more cervical disc hernias
 * Follow-up the progression of myelopathy in time, for example before and after cervical spine surgery

TMS can also help in the differential diagnosis of different causes of pyramidal tract damage.

Treatment
The treatment and prognosis of myelopathy depends on the underlying cause: myelopathy caused by infection requires medical treatment with pathogen specific antibiotics. Similarly, specific treatments exist for multiple sclerosis, which may also present with myelopathy. As outlined above, the most common form of myelopathy is secondary to degeneration of the cervical spine. Newer findings have challenged the existing controversy with respect to surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by demonstrating that patients benefit from surgery.

title: Myelopathy


text:
Operation Thunderbolt (video game)

Operation Thunderbolt is a light gun shooter video game developed by Taito and released for arcades in 1988. As the sequel to Operation Wolf, changes include two-player gameplay with two positional gun controllers mounted on the arcade cabinet, and a new forward-scrolling pseudo-3D perspective combined with side-scrolling sections.

The arcade game was a commercial success and was one of the top three highest-grossing dedicated arcade games of 1989 in both Japan and the United States. Versions were released for Amiga, Commodore 64, and Super Nintendo Entertainment System. The arcade exclusive sequel Operation Wolf 3 was released in 1994.

Gameplay
Green berets Roy Adams and Hardy Jones must save American hostages from a hijacked airliner which was forced to land in the fictional African province, Kalubya. They must capture six different bases, shoot enemies with machine guns or grenade launcher, and try to save the hostages. Enemies include soldiers, jeeps, tanks, and helicopters, attacking with bullets, grenades, or rockets.

In stages 4 and 6, killing one of the hostages will decrease the player's life. At least one hostage must be rescued in those stages, or the game is over. In Stage 8, the players must engage with the lead hijacker holding the pilot hostage. Continues are not permitted. If the pilot gets killed, a bad ending will be shown "The pilot is dead; escape is impossible". If the hijacker is killed, the good ending will be shown where the player and hostages flee the hostile nation, with the plane's takeoff.

Changes from Operation Wolf include the arcade cabinet using positional gun controllers instead of light gun, two-player simultaneous play with two mounted guns, and a new forward-scrolling pseudo-3D perspective combined with side-scrolling sections.

Ports
Ocean Software published conversions of Operation Thunderbolt for the Amiga, Amstrad CPC 464, Atari ST, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum in 1989. A cartridge version for the Amstrad GX4000 followed in 1993.

The Super NES version was released by Taito in 1994 and works with the SNES Mouse and the Super Scope. The player can choose from a variety of different characters. The storyline was altered so that the hijackers were members of the fictional Bintazi People's Republic, under lifelong dictator General Abul Bazarre, who demands that his comrades be freed or the hostages will be executed.

Influence
The story for the game is loosely based on the plot of the film by the same name, which in turn was based on the real-life Entebbe raid that occurred on July 4, 1976.

Reception
In Japan, Game Machine listed Operation Thunderbolt in its February 1, 1989 issue as the second most successful upright arcade unit of the month. It became Japan's second highest-grossing dedicated arcade game of 1989, below Chase H.Q. In the United States, Operation Thunderbolt was the third highest grossing dedicated arcade game of 1989. Operation Thunderbolt was also Japan's eighth highest-grossing dedicated arcade game of 1990.

Reviews
The arcade game received positive reviews from critics, upon release. Commodore User said it "takes all the best elements" of Operation Wolf, including "the brilliant graphics" and "action blasting", and added "a two-player option, a brand new perspective and some really clever scenario ideas".

Reviewing the Super NES version, GamePro praised the colorful and detailed graphics and strong sound effects, but criticized the repetitiveness of the gameplay and the slowness of the aiming reticule, and concluded that this Operation is a success. A reviewer for Next Generation dismissed it as another shooting-gallery game.

Accolades
The game won the 1989 award for best graphics of the year according to the readers of Crash magazine.

At a British game industry awards event held at the end of 1989, Operation Thunderbolt was awarded "Best 16-bit arcade license translation" for Ocean Software's home computer conversions.

Legacy
Operation Thunderbolt is in the Taito Legends compilation for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, and Xbox.

title: Operation Thunderbolt (video game)


text:
User:Nori~enwiki

My name is Norihiro Suzuki. I'm a first-year doctoral student in Tajima Laboratory, Division of New Materials Science, Institute for Solid State Physics, The University of Tokyo.

title: User:Nori~enwiki


text: Talk:USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)

title: Talk:USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)


text: User talk:12.202.248.243

title: User talk:12.202.248.243


text:
User talk:Solocommand

Hello, "Solocommand" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

. -- Infrogmation 04:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Orphaned non-free image File:DOSAmp.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:DOSAmp.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Solocommand


text:
User talk:Wxradiobuff

Hello, "Wxradiobuff" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

. -- Infrogmation 04:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Interstate 70 photo
That is a great photo you posted on Interstate 70! Any other road photos you would like to post would be much appreciated. I've been doing some work on Wikipedia's road articles. The topic can be very dry, and good images make it much more interesting. Rhobite 04:21, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wxradiobuff


text:
Johnny Callison

John Wesley Callison (March 12, 1939 – October 12, 2006) was an American professional baseball player. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for 16 seasons and is best known for the 10 years he spent with the Philadelphia Phillies as a right fielder, from 1960 through 1969. He was an All-Star for three seasons and four All-Star games. He led the National League (NL) in triples twice and doubles once, and gained his greatest prominence in the 1964 season in which he was named the MVP of the All-Star Game and he was the runner-up for the NL Most Valuable Player Award. He also led the NL in outfield assists four consecutive times and in double plays once, and ended his career among the top five Phillies in home runs (185) and triples (84).

Early years
Born in Qualls, Oklahoma, Callison batted left-handed and threw right-handed. He was signed by the Chicago White Sox out of East Bakersfield High School in 1957, being assigned to the Class-C Bakersfield Bears in the California League, where he had a .340 batting average with 17 home runs and 31 stolen bases. The next season, he was advanced to the Triple-A Indianapolis Indians, where he led the American Association in home runs. In September 1958, he was recalled by the White Sox, where he had a .297 batting average in 18 games.

In 1959, Callison split time between Chicago and Indianapolis. He was not on the World Series roster when the White Sox lost the series to the Los Angeles Dodgers, and in December he was traded to the Phillies for third baseman Gene Freese.

Baseball career
Callison became a fan favorite in Philadelphia; Supreme Court Justice and lifelong Phillies fan Samuel Alito recalls he "adopted Johnny Callison out there in right field" as a boy. Over the next decade, Callison would be named to the NL All-Star roster three times (1962, 64-65). In 1962, he batted an even .300, the only time he would reach that mark, and led the NL with 10 triples. On June 27, 1963, he hit for the cycle against the Pittsburgh Pirates.

The 1964 season became best remembered, however, for the Phillies' late-season collapse; despite a $6 1/2$-game lead with 12 games to play, the Phillies lost 10 in a row and finished one game behind the St. Louis Cardinals. Manager Gene Mauch was criticized for his handling of the pitching staff over the final two weeks, but players such as slugging rookie third baseman Richie Allen also drew harsh treatment. Callison was 12-for-48 during the last 12 games, including a 3-homer game on September 27 against the Milwaukee Braves which the Phillies still lost 14–8, dropping them out of first place for the first time since July. With the Phillies behind by two on September 29, Callison did not start because he had the flu with chills and fever. However, Callison pinch-hit late in the game and managed a single. He reached first base and would not come out, so the Cardinals and the umpires allowed him to wear his Phillies jacket on the base paths, against MLB rules; due to his high fever, Callison needed help from Bill White to button his jacket. Despite the disappointing second-place finish for Philadelphia, Callison ended the year third in the league in home runs (31) and fifth in runs batted in (104). He earned two first-place votes for the MVP Award, won by Ken Boyer of the World Series champion Cardinals. In the 1964 All-Star Game at Shea Stadium in New York on July 7, Callison hit a game-winning walk-off home run off Red Sox pitcher Dick Radatz with two out in the ninth inning, a three-run shot to right field to give the NL a 7–4 victory; it was only the third walk-off home run in All-Star history (and the last one as of 2022), with Callison joining legends Ted Williams and Stan Musial in baseball annals.

In 1965, Callison again led the NL with a career-high 16 triples, once more topping 30 home runs and 100 RBI; on June 6, he hit three home runs against the Cubs and the Phillies won 10-9. In 1966, he paced the league with 40 doubles. Callison also is remembered for being an excellent outfielder with a formidable throwing arm. He led the NL in fielding average as a right fielder in 1963 and 1964, and his throwing accuracy helped him lead the NL in outfield assists (24) and double plays (7) in 1962 and he topped the league in assists the next three years with totals of 26, 19, and 21. But his power production fell off sharply, and he failed to collect 20 homers or 65 RBI in any of his last four Phillies seasons. After the 1969 season, he was traded to the Cubs, and he posted 1970 totals of 19 home runs and 68 RBI before hitting only .210 in 1971 with just 8 home runs. In January 1972 he was traded to the New York Yankees, and he found limited playing time over two years, closing his career with a .176 average, one home run, and 10 RBI in 45 games in 1973.

Callison was a career .264 hitter with 226 home runs, 926 runs, 840 RBI, 1,757 hits, 321 doubles, 89 triples, and 74 stolen bases in 1,886 games. He recorded a .984 fielding percentage at all three outfield positions.

Life after baseball
Callison was a player-coach with the Philadelphia Athletics, a professional softball team that played at Veterans Stadium in the 1978 season of the American Professional Slo-Pitch League (APSPL).

Callison would remain in Philadelphia where he made frequent appearances and had several business ventures.

Death
A resident of Glenside, a northern suburb of Philadelphia, Callison died in 2006 in Abington, Pennsylvania.

MLB awards and achievements

 * MLB All-Star MVP (1964)
 * NL All-Star (1962, 1964–65)
 * NL Leader in Doubles (1966)
 * NL Leader in Triples (1962, 1965)
 * NL Leader in Fielding Average as Right Fielder (1963, 1964)

Other honors

 * In 1997, he was named to the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame.
 * In 2012, he was inducted posthumously into the Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame.

title: Johnny Callison


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leung Tse Sau

Leung Tse Sau was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Teacher at a school in Hong Kong. Non-notable. One of several non-notables by same editor. --jpgordon {gab} 04:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, nothing of interest making it worth keeing. MarkS 05:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: He is a teacher at a school. Geogre 17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Wow! --Improv 01:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above. -- Mithent 18:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Category talk:Jews and Judaism

Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism
Please join WikiProject Judaism, one of the largest forums for discussions between editors of Jewish articles. See WikiProject Judaism and join or commence discussions at the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks for considering this. IZAK 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why is this seperate from the Judaism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiah ap (talk • contribs)

 * It is not "seperate". This is the original "mother" category for both Jews and Judaism. (Also please follow normal Wiki procedure by signing your name after making a comment etc.) IZAK 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category: Shtetls in Eastern Europe
Perhaps there should be a Category: Shtetls in Eastern Europe--Redaktor 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Does WP support that Jewry is a nationality rather than a faith?
WP should replace "descent" with "faith" otherwise it appears that WP endorses the idea that it is not a faith but a genetic development. Hitler's approach to this isue was that it was genetic regradless of how many generations it had been wne the person's ancestors had been active practitioners. We do not quate the same connotation for any other religious practice. By this action WP is endorsing that the practice of Jewry is only legitimate by those who are Jewish. That is not the reason for faith.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 * If you wish to change Wikipedia's long-established practices in this regard, a change which will not simply affect the Category namespace, you can propose it at venues such as WP:VPR or WP:VPP. NebY (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Jews and Judaism


text: User talk:68.116.235.82

title: User talk:68.116.235.82


text:
Figure (music)

A musical figure or figuration is the shortest idea in music; a short succession of notes, often recurring. It may have melodic pitch, harmonic progression, and rhythmic meter. The 1964 Grove's Dictionary defines the figure as "the exact counterpart of the German 'motiv' and the French 'motif: it produces a "single complete and distinct impression". To the self-taught Roger Scruton, however, a figure is distinguished from a motif in that a figure is background while a motif is foreground: "A figure resembles a moulding in architecture: it is 'open at both ends', so as to be endlessly repeatable. In hearing a phrase as a figure, rather than a motif, we are at the same time placing it in the background, even if it is ... strong and melodious"

- Roger Scruton

Allen Forte describes the term figuration as being applied to two distinct things:

"If the term is used alone it usually refers to instrumental figurations such as [ Alberti bass and a measured trill]... The term figuration is also used to describe the general process of melodic embellishment. Thus, we often read of "figurated" melody or of chorale "figuration." ... Figuration has nothing to do with figured bass, except insofar as numerals often designate embellishing notes."

- Allen Forte

A phrase originally presented or heard as a motif may become a figure that accompanies another melody, such as in the second movement of Claude Debussy's String Quartet. It is perhaps best to view a figure as a motif when it has special importance in a piece. According to White, motives are, "significant in the structure of the work," while figures or figurations are not and, "may often occur in accompaniment passages or in transitional or connective material designed to link two sections together," with the former being more common.

Minimalist music may be constructed entirely from figures. Scruton describes music by Philip Glass such as Akhnaten as "nothing but figures...endless daisy-chains".

A basic figure is known as a riff in American popular music.

Importance of Figures
Figures play a most important part in instrumental music, in which it is necessary that a strong and definite impression should be produced to answer the purpose of words, and convey the sense of vitality to the otherwise incoherent succession of sounds. In pure vocal music this is not the case, as on the one hand the words assist the audience to follow and understand what they hear, and on the other the quality of voices in combination is such as to render strong characteristic features somewhat inappropriate. But without strongly marked figures the very reason of existence of instrumental movements can hardly be perceived, and the success of a movement of any dimensions must ultimately depend, to a very large extent, on the appropriate development of the figures which are contained in the chief subjects. The common expression that a subject is very 'workable,' merely means that it contains well-marked figures; though it must be observed on the other hand, that there are not a few instances in which masterly treatment has invested with powerful interest a figure which at first sight would seem altogether deficient in character.

Examples
As clear an instance as could be given of the breaking up of a subject into its constituent figures for the purpose of development, is the treatment of the first subject of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, which he breaks up into three figures corresponding to the first three bars. As an example of his treatment of (a) may be taken— (b) is twice repeated no less than thirty-six times successively in the development of the movement; and (c) appears at the close as follows: Examples of this kind of treatment of the figures contained in subjects are very numerous in classical instrumental music, in various degrees of refinement and ingenuity; as in the 1st movement of Mozart's G minor Symphony; in the same movement of Beethoven's 8th Symphony; and in a large number of Bach's fugues, as for instance Nos. 2, 7, 16, of the Wohltemperirte Klavier. The beautiful little musical poem, the 18th fugue of that series, contains as happy a specimen of this device as could be cited.

In music of an ideally high order, everything should be recognizable as having a meaning; or, in other words, every part of the music should be capable of being analyzed into figures, so that even the most insignificant instrument in the orchestra should not be merely making sounds to fill up the mass of the harmony, but should be playing something which is worth playing in itself. It is of course impossible for any but the highest genius to carry this out consistently, but in proportion as music approaches to this ideal, it is of a high order as a work of art, and in the measure in which it recedes from it, it approaches more nearly to the mass of base, slovenly, or false contrivances which lie at the other extreme, and are not works of art at all. This will be very well recognized by a comparison of Schubert a method of treating the accompaniment of his songs and the method adopted in the large proportion of the thousands of 'popular' songs which annually make their appearance in this country. For even when the figure is as simple as in Wohin, Mein, or Ave Maria, the figure is there, and is clearly recognized, and is as different from mere sound or stuffing to support the voice as a living creature is from dead and inert clay.

Bach and Beethoven
Bach and Beethoven were the great masters in the use of figures, and both were content at times to make a short figure of three or four notes the basis of a whole movement. As examples of this may be quoted the truly famous rhythmic figure of the C minor Symphony (d), the figure of the Scherzo of the 9th Symphony (e), and the figure of the first movement of the last Sonata, in C minor (f). As a beautiful example from Bach may be quoted the Adagio from the Toccata in D minor (g), but it must be said that examples in his works are almost innumerable, and will meet the student at every turn. A very peculiar use which Bach occasionally makes of figures, is to use one as the bond of connection running through a whole movement by constant repetition, as in Prelude No. 10 of the Wohltemperirte Klavier, and in the slow movement of the Italian Concerto, where it serves as accompaniment to an impassioned recitative. In this case the figure is not identical on each repetition, but is freely modified, in such a way however that it is always recognized as the same, partly by the rhythm and partly by the relative positions of the successive notes. This manner of modifying a given figure shows a tendency in the direction of a mode of treatment which has become a feature in modern music: namely, the practice of transforming figures in order to show different aspects of the same thought, or to establish a connection between one thought and another by bringing out the characteristics they possess in common. As a simple specimen of this kind of transformation, may be quoted a passage from the first movement of Brahms's P.F. Quintet in F minor. The figure stands at first as at (h), then by transposition as at (i). Its first stage of transformation is (j); further (k) (l) (m) are progressive modifications towards the stage (n),   which, having been repeated twice in different positions, appears finally as the figure immediately attached to the Cadence in D♭, thus— A similar very fine example—too familiar to need quotation here—is at the close of Beethoven's Overture to Coriolan.

The use which Wagner makes of strongly marked figures is very important, as he establishes a consistent connection between the characters and situations and the music by using appropriate figures (Leitmotive), which appear whenever the ideas or characters to which they belong come prominently forward.

That figures vary in intensity to an immense degree hardly requires to be pointed out; and it will also be obvious that figures of accompaniment do not require to be so marked as figures which occupy positions of individual importance. With regard to the latter it may be remarked that there is hardly any department in music in which true feeling and inspiration are more absolutely indispensable, since no amount of ingenuity or perseverance can produce such figures as that which opens the C-minor Symphony, or such soul-moving figures as those in the death march of Siegfried in Wagner's 'Götterdammerung.'

As the common notion that music chiefly consists of pleasant tunes grows weaker, the importance of figures becomes proportionately greater. A succession of isolated tunes is always more or less inconsequent, however deftly they may be connected together, but by the appropriate use of figures and groups of figures, such as real musicians only can invent, and the gradual unfolding of all their latent possibilities, continuous and logical works of art may be constructed; such as will not merely tickle the hearer's fancy, but arouse profound interest, and raise him mentally and morally to a higher standard.

title: Figure (music)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Win Sin Man

Wan Sin Man
Non-notable school student. --jpgordon {gab} 04:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)