text:
Talk:Geography of the United Kingdom

Where to start
See Geography of Ireland for ideas on where to start! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I pinched the structure :) Good luck on WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From 'todo'
Does that first sentence 'located in a nation' make any sense at all? The idea that the UK is inside a nation is a bit to deep for me to grasp. If so, I'd be grateful if someone could clarify what it means. If not it should be changed but I didn't want to do so without checking first. ('Located in North West of the European continent' I could understand.) Jerry 02:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Fixed - the UK is the nation. It comprises one main island, part of another island, and many smaller islands. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

' (although, being a fractal, the length of the coastline will increase as the unit with which is it measured decreases).' Is this correct? Sounds like Zeno's paradox. Is the coastline theoretically of infinite length? Jerry 03:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes and no (you can't have an infinitely small ruler - there is a whole section in fractal on this). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Parliament of the United Kingdom, and is divided into four main political regions, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each of these has its own brand of regional government:' Another ungrammatical and vague sentence, but I'm afraid that I don't have time to fix it! As of now, the whole article could do with a good copy edit. Jerry 03:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry for being ungrammatical and vague. At the moment, I am concentrating on gathering the material together.  Please copyedit at will! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Aloan - and apologies from me for suggesting that you were - I appreciate that it's best to get the material in place first! I'm afraid I'm suffering from Larium (an anti-malarial) induced insomnia and was feeling a bit ratty when I posted that comment.  Jerry 14:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks - no offence taken. I've just been doing quick 'dumps' of information already on Wikipedia without too much of a quality check.  Copyediting and fact-checking are definitely required! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geology - caves link
Do we really need a link to the list of caves page so prominently in the main geography page? Caves are just one of hundreds of types of landforms that we could potentially list, it doesn't make sense linking just one of them at the top of the geology section. --Joe D 13:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Moved to 'See also'. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Political and human geography
The pie chart seems to be taken from the CIA world book figures, but according to the Office of National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=764), they are wrong and under-represent the number of non-white residents. On the other hand, the ONS figures don't break it down by English/Scottish/Irish etc so I'm not sure what to do. Redlentil 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think to divide the figures by English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh is a bit daft anyway because most people are a mixture of two or more of the above. It is important to properly represent the figures of ethnic minorities in the UK though and because of the numbers involved, perhaps a separate pye chart illustrating the breakdown of ethnic minorities in the country? -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 17:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Not to denigrate the helpfulness of a pie chart, it loses a bit of definition at the (roughly) 5% level. The statistics speak for themseleves (whether CIA or census) - perhaps just a table setting out both sets of numbers? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. here's the census data in table form. I'm unsure about (ie I DON'T KNOW sob sob) how to insert it so that it floats on the left, so if someone else would like to help out ... (Still can't believe only 2% are Black or Black British, but that's to do with where I live).

 * Redlentil 19:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (I edited this into wikimarkup and added style="float:left") --Joe D 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * C o o l. I've replaced the pie chart with the table but now we need someone with a more stylish eye to tidy it up. To change the subject - back at the top of the page, the word Chunnel: does anyone actually use this? Redlentil 20:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Chunnel: now I haven't heard that word for a number of years! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Small point, but Slough is not and never has been a New Town.Icundell 20:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geology map
I've uploaded this old, but generally accurate, map of GB and don't know whether to add it to this page because I'm not sure if it would add anything to the page, and I'm not sure if this page should have any maps of the UK missing NI. Any comments? --Joe D 18:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth it, until something better comes along. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up a bit.Naturenet 12:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last minute amendments
Are there any last minute amendments that anyone would like to make before this is nominated for FAC? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I applaud your enthusiasm, but it is really not good enough yet! In particular, geology is quite good because I cribbed it from the excellent Geology of the United Kingdom, but there are lots of gaps in the rest of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions
One of the factors that really seemed to make the Irish article work was the fact that the geological development was set in a contect of continental drift, so that the climate factors that went ointo the formation of the landscape really made sense. I was fortunate in having on a shelf at home Reading the Irish Landscape, which was a great source for this information, and I'm sure that similar data is available for the UK (should be almost identical, in fact).

Also, the idea of the climate table which came up during the FAC process was a great improvement and might be worth replicating in a UK context. I would also suggest that some of the sections that are currently mainly lists need to become prose in as much as they can.

Hope this makes sense; it's always easier to suggest improvements than it is to make them. The core of a really good article is already there, but I feel it does still need some work. Filiocht 12:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 08:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Observation and a proposition
The heading Political and Human Geography is tautological. Political geography is a subset of human geography (if it is not physical goegraphy, it is human geography). That is my observation. I came to this because I was unable to find a sensible place to fit in an Economic Geography section, which I would quite like to draft. Thus my proposition: Change the heading Political and Human Geography to Human Geography, Local government to Political Geography and add Economic Geography once the aritcle is written (Demographics is fine). Climate should probably by under Physical Geography by the way.Icundell 15:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So will anybody take mortal offence if I go ahead and do this? Icundell 18:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Be bold, I don't have a problem there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Population Centres
Why are some of the population centres listed cities, and others conurbations? For example, Greater Manchester is counted as one item, but Leeds and Bradford are separate. Birmingham is listed in its own right, separated from the West Midlands conurbation. What do contributors feel shoud be here? Or should it simply link to other articles? Steven J 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lowest point of the Fens
Can anyone provide a citation for a point in the Fens as much as 4m below sea level? As far as I know, the lowest point is at the Holme Fen in Cambridgeshire, widely quoted as 2.75m bsl. The Ordnance Survey Benchmarks listing ( http://benchmarks.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=111:3:10931302934820100014::NO::P3_HIDDEN:true, enter TL2089 as km square ) gives the height of the flush bracket on the Holme Fen post as 1.62m below Newlyn datum, and gives the height as 0.6m above ground level (as at 1962). That makes about 2.22m below sea level, plus whatever shrinkage has occurred since then. 143.252.80.100 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Islands - England
Does anyone understand the logic of this list? It does not seem to bear any relation to the largest either by size or population in List of islands of England. Pterre (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this 'top-importance' article died?
With no edits to the talk page for 4 years, have others just looked at this article and thought 'what's the point?/where do I start? It's perhaps one of a number of significant articles of inferior quality which could really do with an effort to improve it in a systematic way. But will any of us be bothered I wonder? Part of the problem may be the redundancy when it comes to describing the constituent countries of the UK then almost duplicating the material with 'GB' articles then again with UK articles. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting and pertinent question. As it stands, this article begins reasonably well, but then diminishes into a series of lists; maybe to contributors it does appear to be too big a task to expand the information in some of those (e.g. the list of headlands), or maybe it seems pointless, seeing as they've all got their own articles. I would argue however that as a 'mother' article for smaller and more specific nested articles, some sort of overarching overview is required at this level, and the list format should be aborted. Another issue is the GB/UK/Wales/England/NI/Scotland one. I personally feel a decision should be reached about this issue, not just here but for other related articles such as geology; there was the beginnings of such a discussion on the 'Geology of Breat Britain' talk page recently, though it fizzled out for seemingly no reason. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In attempting a resuscitation, I'm being bold and removing or deleting some of the lists to other locations - the information is still accessible with the links added and makes for a more readable article on the UK's geography. A good article does not consist of a bunch of lists; prose is more appropriate, with the reader directed towards dedicated lists where this is appropriate. There are extensive lists on various aspects of the UK's geography at numerous other pages - their incorporation, or partial incorporation, into this article would, it seem to me, serve no useful purpose. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just took a longer look at the geology section. Big sigh . . . There's a lot of work required there before much of its makes sense. I'll get around to it at some point though I'm hoping someone beats me to it. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I've had a bash at it, in a cheating kind of way - I did a cut-and-paste from the intro of the Geology of Great Britain article, as that strikes me as being more systematic (well it was a sort of cut-and-paste, as I rearranged and condensed it a bit). Now I'm not a geologist, and I haven't studied physical geography since school really (over 25 years ago...), but I'm thinking it could probably do with a bit of fleshing-out in terms of the history, without going into as much detail as it does in the "Geology of Great Britain" article? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Area stat. should be used?
The second sentence of this article states:

With a total area of approximately 243610 km2, the UK occupies the major part of the British Isles archipelago and includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern one-sixth of the island of Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands.

with Oxford English Dictionary: "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."< / ref >

However https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Area contains a total of areas of regions of the UK that seem to have with many of the stats having references to the Office of National Statistics. Which stat should be used?? Gregkaye (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Border with Republic of Ireland
has changed the length of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from 360 km to 499 km, with a source from the Ordnance Survey replacing the previous source from the CIA. However this new length seems questionable; it is roughly the same as the distance between London and Keswick. I am wondering if the new length and source figure is in error? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:PaleCloudedWhite - I welcome the discussion. My change was based on the OSNI source I included and the secondary source I also provided. However, there are other sources for 448km and for 485km too, e.g.:
 * "The only land boundary that the UK has with another country is the 488-km (302 mile) border with Ireland." - Contemporary Britain By John McCormick; Palmgrave MacMillan 2012.
 * Same lengths cited in "British Civilization: An Introduction By John Oakland"
 * 448km is supported by another source too - Anderson & Bort "The Irish Border - - p.g 96.
 * I also accept that the CIA gives 360km as its length but the CIA are not, in my view, as reliable as the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.
 * Doubtless there are loads of other sources citing these figures too. Again, I welcome discussion. There seems to be little authoritave support for the 360km length that was referenced before, that much seems sure. All in all, I think OSNI are pretty much THE most authorative source...Well, Ordnance Survey Ireland would be equally authoritive in my view too but I don't have their figure. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing I would add in for PaleWhite (although not on topic): Agreed the border is suprisingly long! The background to this is that when it was devised, it was only to be a border between two parts of the UK. They never thought then that it would be an international border...so they simply followed extremely irregular "County" boundaries. The Boundary Commission established in the 1920s ultimately ended in a bit of a fiasco and all sides decided to just live with the very long, extremely irregular border. The Boundary Commission in its (aborted) remcommendations had intended to cut back the length of the border by I think around 20% but that never happened... Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your detailed reply. You have obviously scrutinised this topic and I am satisfied that 499km must be the correct figure - however strangely long it may seem to the casual observer such as myself! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Map of the UK
I wonder if someone who knows about maps could produce one which showed the whole of the area covered by this article ie the United Kingdom - the present one omits the northernmost part of the UK ie Shetland. thanks Geopersona (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Geography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070322044739/http://www.gosw.gov.uk:80/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts to http://www.gosw.gov.uk/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140419171751/http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en to http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Geography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gosw.gov.uk/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/ourRegion/aboutTheSE/factsAndFigs/?a=42496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gonw/OurRegion/?a=42496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gowm.gov.uk/gowm/OurReg/?a=42496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gone/ourregion/regional_profile/?a=42496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gol.gov.uk/gol/OurRegion/?a=42496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/mcz-factsheet-why.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041011015401/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/freefun/geofacts/ to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/freefun/geofacts/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Area?
The areas in the intro and the info box are different. Don't know which is right... Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

British Isles end some 30 miles off the southernmost tip of Jersey island. (British Minkies)
The selfsame herein article endlists under References...

"Oxford English Dictionary: "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."

...therefore the article needs to bear better maps that also clearly show the Channel Islands as coming under the meaning of the British Isles/ United Kingdom. Furthermore, be aware that the British Isles further downstretch 30 whole miles south of southernmost Jersey island. The Islands and reefs being known as the British Minkies and bigger than Jersey at low tide. British Minkies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.168.203 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2022

 * 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 to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Retargeting the redirect or creating a new article at the redirect is an editorial decision, and discussion of those possibilities can continue as necessary independently of this close. Dekimasu よ! 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Geography of the United Kingdom → Geography of Great Britain – Geographically it makes sense to have an article about the geography of the island of Great Britain. As well as we already have an article Geology of Great Britain and a similar all-Ireland article Geography of Ireland. What are your opinions? 'Geography of the United Kingdom' should then redirect to the United Kingdom. Privybst (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Comment: If this is true then it makes littles sense to have any 'Geography of ' articles, and yet they all exist. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: In terms of physical geography (as with geology) it makes quite a bit of sense to talk about about the whole of Great Britain i.e the British mainland and its associated islands, just as it does to talk about the whole of the island of Ireland with its islands. In terms of human geography (a broad subject if ever there was one), it is much less obviously advantageous to do so. As noted above, it would be an odd situation in which a nation (the UK here of course) did not have a geography article associated with it, in its entirety. The political/administrative situation in 'these islands' is complex and dare I say messy; we should not expect there to be neat WP answers to how their component parts are described. Geopersona (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. Political and physical geography are different things. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (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.
 * Oppose based on comments above. Should Geography of Great Britain be an article anyway though? YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Geography of Great Britain can be redirected to Great Britain. cookie monster   755  06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geography of the United Kingdom


text:
Lucélia

Lucélia is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 21,886 (2020 est.) in an area of 315 km². The elevation is 438 m.

History
The municipality was created by state law in 1944.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

Religion
Christianity is present in the city as follows:

Catholic Church
The Catholic church in the municipality is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Marília.

Protestant Church
The most diverse evangelical beliefs are present in the city, mainly Pentecostal, including the Assemblies of God in Brazil (the largest evangelical church in the country), Christian Congregation in Brazil, among others. These denominations are growing more and more throughout Brazil.

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

title: Lucélia


text:
Talk:British Virgin Islands

population?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=VG

world bank puts the population at only 30,000 (2021) 2804:431:C7D8:FE70:94D3:AE9E:4502:E7B6 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Exports
What is going on with the Product Exports chart? The BVI certainly doesn't export recreational boats, nor helicopters nor diamonds. Do the methodologies and assumptions underpinning that data result in charter services counting as an 'export' of recreational boats? At best this chart is misleading, should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JW-Vers (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * God Save The King - Official Version.ogg

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * British Virgin Islands Product Exports (2019).svg

title: Talk:British Virgin Islands


text:
Lucianópolis

Lucianópolis is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 2,403 (2020 est.) in an area of 190 km2. The elevation is 561 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1973, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Lucianópolis


text:
Luís Antônio

Luís Antônio is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 15,292 (2020 est.) in an area of 598 km2. The elevation is 675 m.

The municipality contains the 22420 ha Jataí Ecological Station, created in 1982.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Luís Antônio


text:
USS Thornback

USS Thornback (SS-418), a Tench-class submarine, was the only ship of the United States Navy to be named for the thornback, a slender member of the shark family with a long pointed snout and a sharp spine at the end of each dorsal fin, native to northern Atlantic waters ranging from the temperate to the Arctic.

Her keel was laid down on 5 April 1944 by the Portsmouth Navy Yard. She was launched on 7 July 1944 sponsored by Mrs. Peter K. Fischler, and commissioned on 13 October 1944 with Commander Ernest P. Abrahamson in command.

World War II
On 10 November 1944 Thornback collided with USS CG-74327 (sank); one seaman was killed. Thornback stood out of New London, Connecticut, on 20 March 1945 bound, via the Panama Canal, for the Hawaiian Islands. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 25 May and conducted training in Hawaiian waters prior to getting underway on 11 June for the western Pacific. As she stood down the Pearl Harbor channel, a formation of Landing Craft Infantry (LCIs), running down the wrong side of the channel, forced Thornback to crowd dangerously near the extreme edge of the channel. In the process, the submarine damaged her sound dome, necessitating repairs and a two-day delay in departing.

She set sail for Saipan on 13 June, but she was rerouted to Guam. En route to the Mariana Islands, Thornback conducted an average of four training dives daily, in conjunction with battle problems, drills, and emergency surfacing exercises, before she arrived at Guam on 25 June.

As lead ship of a wolf pack nicknamed "Abe's Abolishers", Thornback stood out to sea on 30 June, bound for the Japanese home islands. By this point in the war, American and British task forces steamed within easy gun range of Japanese coastal targets with near impunity. Japan's merchant marine and Navy had dwindled in size. Allied submarines and aircraft had taken an ever-increasing toll. In the air, Japan's once vaunted air forces had been struck from the skies. Sweeping ahead of Third Fleet Task Forces, the "Abolishers" made antipicket boat sweeps in the Tokyo-Yokohama area before proceeding to hunting grounds off the east coast of Honshū and south of Hokkaidō.

Rough seas, strong winds, and generally poor visibility prevailed during Thornback’s patrol. She sighted a hospital ship on 5 July and let it pass. Six days later, a minor fire in the pump room caused a temporary shutdown in the number one air conditioning plant before swift repairs enabled the ship to continue as before.

On 15 July, Thornback sighted submarine USS Sea Poacher (SS-406), and the two boats exchanged information on their hunting areas. They also swapped movies, precious commodities for boosting morale on board the crowded boats. Six days later, Thornback proceeded north to patrol off Erimo Seki, an area which had recently seen a series of devastating carrier raids by Admiral William F. Halsey's Fast Carrier Task Force 38. The submarine's commanding officer noted somewhat humorously, "This area should be about as heavily traveled as the Sahara Desert after the working over it just had...."

His assessment was correct—only straggling merchantmen and small patrol craft hugged the barren coasts. On 26 July, at 0320, Thornback submerged 8000 yd off Hei Saki. At 0400, the submarine's sound gear picked up the "pinging" projected by a snooping Japanese escort ship, and she came to periscope depth to have a look.

Carefully maneuvering into position, Thornback fired one shot from her stern tubes at 04:29 and soon heard a small explosion which stopped the enemy's screws. Almost immediately the submariners picked up new sounds—two more escorts, "pinging" and coming aggressively closer. After sizing up the new attackers, Thornback felt that they were too small to use a torpedo on—besides, a Japanese floatplane had begun circling the area. A rowboat with a few Japanese sailors amidst a pile of flotsam testified to the fact that the first ship was no longer there. Satisfied that their quarry had been sunk, the submarine cleared the area. One of the other escorts gave up the chase and picked up survivors of her sunken sister. "All antisubmarine vessels have closed the beach," Thornback’s commander later recorded, "and seem to be pinging away at the rocks."

Three days later, by periscope, the submarine spotted a 950-ton "sea truck", similar to Sanko Maru, at 2000 yd, close inshore. Unescorted, the Japanese presented a tempting target for a gun attack, but, no sooner had Thornback’s periscope shears and bow broken the surface, than the target slipped into the misty weather. Not to be daunted, Thornback followed, playing a cat and mouse game, and fired five torpedoes. All missed. She later sighted the enemy again, missed with three more torpedoes, and took the "sea truck" under fire. Despite poor visibility, Thornback closed to 300 yd and scored numerous hits with the 40 millimeter guns. The target, however, was able to move closer inshore and escaped in the fog which closed around her like a shroud.

The submarine lurked on the surface off Hokkaidō on 31 July and again tangled with some of the numerous Japanese patrol craft. She sighted a 100 ft patrol boat at 500 yd and closing. Thornback’s five-inch (127 mm) deck gun was trained out, but her crew could not keep their sights on the attacker through the telescopes and switched to open sights. Meanwhile, the 40 millimeter gun opened a devastating barrage at the enemy craft as it came steadily on a collision course. These shells continually hit the escort ship along the waterline and in the pilot house, probably killing the occupants on the bridge.

Thornback had passed her target once at 300 yd and came about for a second pass when the forward torpedo room reported sharp noises forward. Further amplification showed that the noise was caused by enemy machine gun bullets striking the submarine's hull. Resuming the attack, Thornback swung back into action, with visibility only 300 yd and lessening. Her 40 millimeter fire continued to maul the Japanese vessel, shooting away one of her masts and leaving her limping shoreward at only 3 kn. After securing from battle stations, Thornback passed through an oil slick and noted a mast from the heavily hit patrol craft.

Later on 31 July, Thornback rendezvoused with Sea Poacher off Kesennuma and proceeded north to pick up submarine USS Angler (SS-240) en route to a projected shore bombardment mission against Hokkaidō. The sight of the three submarines cruising on the surface moved Thornback’s commander to write: "On this clear and sunny day, the three ships in perfect column on a flat sea made a beautiful picture tearing along at 18 knots."

At 14:02 on 1 August, this part of "Abe's Abolishers"—Thornback, Angler, and Sea Poacher—made landfall off their target of Urakawa, Hokkaidō. They swung parallel to the beach with guns manned and ready. Twelve minutes later, slowing to 10 knots (19 km/h), Thornback and her consorts opened fire with 5 in and 40 millimeter batteries at a range of 4200 yd. The first few rounds from Thornback’s five-incher went wild, but the crew soon locked onto the range. Firing by hand after the foot firing plunger broke off, Thornback’s gunners eventually sent 100 rounds of five-inch (127 mm) shells shoreward, heavily damaging a factory and a power plant. "The firing took 22 minutes and was of inestimable value to the entire crew," wrote the submarine's commanding officer. "The training was excellent and the boost to morale tremendous."

Thornback set sail for Midway Island after the shelling of Urakawa, and arrived at the atoll on 8 August. Seven days later, Japan—hemmed in by veritable armadas of Allied ships and planes which were able to roam almost at will and unchallenged off her coast and in her skies—surrendered.

Post-war service
Thornback soon returned to the United States, where she was decommissioned at New London on 6 April 1946 and was placed in the Atlantic Reserve Fleet. Subsequently, brought to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, she was converted and reactivated under the Greater Underwater Propulsive Power Program (GUPPY). On 2 October 1953, the submarine was recommissioned, Lieutenant Commander Thomas C. Jones, Jr., in command, and assigned to Submarine Squadron (SubRon) 4.

Shaking down in her new configuration, the submarine performed a "first" for submarines on 6 November 1954, when she snorkeled in the Mississippi River at New Orleans, Louisiana, from the Industrial Canal to the foot of Canal Street. With SubRon 4, the ship was based at Key West, Florida, and visited ports in the Caribbean Sea before entering the Charleston Naval Shipyard in February 1956 for overhaul. Upon completion of this work, the submarine was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea for a tour with the Sixth Fleet before returning to Key West in March 1957. While with SubRon 4, Thornback participated in operations supporting the Operational Development Force, the Fleet Sonar School, and the Fleet Training Unit at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On 2 June 1958, Thornback departed the Caribbean, bound for Londonderry Port, Northern Ireland, and operations with the joint Royal Navy-Royal Air Force antisubmarine school. While thus engaged, the submarine damaged her port propeller at Londonderry Port and became the first American submarine to be docked at Faslane by the Royal Navy. Thornback returned to the Sixth Fleet and her second Mediterranean deployment which lasted from 2 July to 24 September 1958.

For the remainder of the ship's active career, she was based out of Charleston, South Carolina, conducting deployments to the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and to the Caribbean Sea and operating in a support capacity as newer submarine types joined the Fleet.

Thornback received one battle star for her World War II service.

TCG Uluçalireis (S 338)
Placed in a reduced manning status on 14 April 1971, the ship was turned over to the Turkish Navy on 1 July 1971 and renamed TCG Uluçalireis (S 338) for the Ottoman admiral Uluç Ali Reis. Decommissioned from the United States Navy on that same date, she was later struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 August 1973. In 2000, she was decommissioned after 28 years of service in the Turkish Navy. Handed over to the Rahmi M. Koç Museum, she can be visited at her moorings in Golden Horn in Istanbul.

As of January 2024, she has been moved to the Gölcük Naval Shipyard and is undergoing renovations and maintanace. On February 7, she was seen in Kocaeli Province alongside TCG Piri Reis the first vessel of Reis-class submarine.

title: USS Thornback


text:
Category:Radio and television announcers

Radio and television announcers talk on radio or television. They may interview guests, act as master of ceremonies, read news flashes, identify station by giving call letters, or announce song title and artist. They include radio disc jockeys. For film announcers, see Category:Voice actors.


text:
Luiziânia

Luiziânia is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 5,855 (2020 est.) in an area of 167 km2. The elevation is 426 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1975, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Luiziânia


text:
Randolph Spencer Churchill

Randolph Spencer Churchill may refer to:
 * Lord Randolph Churchill (1849–1895), British statesman and father of Winston Churchill
 * Lady Randolph Churchill (1854–1921), American-born British socialite and wife of the above
 * Randolph Churchill (1911–1968), British Army officer and son of Winston Churchill

title: Randolph Spencer Churchill


text:
Lupércio

Lupércio is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 4,596 (2020 est.) in an area of 155 km2. The elevation is 661 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1973, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Lupércio


text:
User:Hulleye

Ali Ahsan Halai

Unemployed and looking for work!!

title: User:Hulleye


text:
Nashville International Auto Show

The Nashville International Auto Show occurs each year at the Music City Center in Nashville, Tennessee. It is part of the regular circuit of auto shows in the United States, and most major manufacturers exhibit there. Firms with assembly facilities in the Middle Tennessee area, such as Nissan and Saturn are particularly well represented.

Groups of historic and special-interest cars sometimes appear on the premises to coincide with the main show; an exhibit of classic Mustangs was on display in 2004. In 2003, the date of the show was shifted from December to January, from the end to the beginning of the show year, in order to secure more favorable consideration from exhibitors for the introduction of new production and concept vehicles. The date has since changed several times. Currently, as of 2024, the show is held in the fall.

The Music City Center site is located downtown, with ready access to transportation and lodging, and is connected to the neighboring Bridgestone Arena. Prior to the organization of the current show in 1999, other similar events, usually sponsored by dealer organizations, had been held for a number of years at the Nashville Municipal Auditorium. A feature of all auto shows in Tennessee, mandated by state law, is that no sales may take place on the premises, and signs to that effect must be posted.

The auto show was previously known as the Nashville International Auto and Truck Show. It was not held in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

title: Nashville International Auto Show


text:
Lutécia

Lutécia is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 2,636 (2020 est.) in an area of 475 km2. The elevation is 581 m.

History
The municipality was created by state law in 1944.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1973, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Lutécia


text:
Talk:German expressionist cinema

Parsing problem
I haven't been able to parse "The German Expressionist movement was largely expanded down to the isolation Germany was in during World War I." The "was largely expanded down to" seems to be the problem. Can the author rephrase this sentence? Thanks. Knowthhill (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Westfront 1918
Would this count as a German expressionist film? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.224.133 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It would appear not, although it is clearly related. 1) It was produced in 1930. 2) It deals with World War I. 3) The article identifies the author's perspective as "New Objectivity". I'm going to add a "Related" link at the bottom, but if there is objection from those more expert on the topic than I, just remove it.

Ralohmann (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I notice
I notice that this page is virtually a copy of Expressionism (film), other than the photo that was added later. I believe that one of these needs to go and be turned into a redirect... though I'm not sure of the procedure for merging them. RcktScientistX 23:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Merging is done with and  - UtherSRG 19:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

do not merge the articles, i teach a film class, they are two seperate ideas. One was developed in America and the other in Germany. They should be kept seperate eventhough the ideas are seperate.

 * I disagree with the above poster. Unless they are modified, they should be merged. They are virtually identical. I see very little difference in the other article. If you wish to make is seperate, please as to edit the other article to actually make it different. Claude.Xanadu 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I oppose merging the articles. German Expressionism is a distinct and important period in German film. It's logical that the subject receives its own article. I believe the American and German sections in Expressionism (film) should be separated, but the German Expressionist article should remain in place. --metzerly 07:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not believe they should be considered one in the same. Though German Expressionism is the most notable and important aspect of impressionist film, "expressionist film" is a slightly broader term.

 * I agree with the majority. This page should never be merged.  Expressionism in general is completely different from German Expressionism.  I mean, the majority of the expressionist art schools were founded in Germany, so I see German Expressionism as a more refined and 'professional' version of general expressionist film.  I too was a Film Studies teacher in Britain and one of the often studied modules is on German Expressionism, not expressionism in general.  This page is extremely useful to that vast quantity of students.  Please don't merge! - Shaft121 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In regard to whether the entries should be merged, I feel that German Expressionism is a genre of its own and should stand apart from the larger category of expressionism in film. It's misleading to say that the two are identical. However, since the content of these two were (before edits I just made) virtually identical, it may make sense to attempt a merge. German Expressionism could easily form its own subsection of a larger description on expressionism in film. - Jmodel 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would propose a re-direct to "German Expressionist Film" as there is also a school of painting often called "German Expressionism"Smiloid

I recently made a few edits to this entry and created two new sections (German Expressionist Film Today and Ties to Other Media). I made a point not to erase any existing content since I feel it is all informative and accurate. - Jmodel 10:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Title
This page should be retitled either "German Expressionism (film)" or "German Expressionist Cinema". German Expressionism was a much wider artistic movement, covering painting (Grosz, Dix and so on), poetry (Georg Heym, Trakl, Gottfried Benn), theatre (Toller, early Brecht) and music (Schoenberg, Berg) as well as other art forms. The main page "German Expressionism" should reflect that.--Folantin 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - Expressionist film really came at the tail end of the overall German Expressionist movement. The Expressionist poets, painters, playwrights and directors, had an unfortunate tendency to get killed in the first world war; those that came back alive had a much more cynical style more like Dada.-- Mark, 12 October 2006

This is a good and important point. The term "German Expressionism" is used in respect of a number of loosely connected movements in literary and visual arts - even architecture - and not just in film. Not only does the name of this article need to be changed; there is a real need for an article documenting the broader movement. Ian, 15 Nov 2006.

What is German Expressionism?
The introduction notes when it started and who contributed to it, but it never mentions what German expressionism is.

Sure it says filmmakers "developed their own style by using symbolism and mise en scène to add mood and deeper meaning to a movie," but I doubt these aspects are unique to German expressionism. The first section after the introduction contains some aspects of 1920s-1930s German Expressionism, but are these qualities shared by all films in this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.115.185 (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I have tried to develop the article to include the forms other than film to which the term applies. The geographic spread of the artists included in Expressionism, and the large number of German (and American) artists included suggests a need for a nationally based series of articles. Philip Cross (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Phil. I think i like the direction you're going, tho i was initially quite shocked that your removal of the HatNote Dab with the summary
 * (moved wikilink)
 * since that was the more momentous of the two moved "lks", each of which you left in the "See also". But i see now that if  you'd just worded it "move lk from Dab role... as scope is now GE in all media" i'd have had no reason to be shocked. Your reasoning sounds good, and you clearly know more abt it than i; my residual concern is that for good or ill, it's a major change of direction for an article that got its incipient Dab notice late in 2005, and many who worked on it since then may react strongly to your sudden change of direction. Perhaps you've already sorted thru the history of this and the articles that cover other areas of Expressionist activity in Germany, and brought past active contributors into the process, but that doesn't seem to be reflected here. Is there a relevant WikiProject? I just stumbled peripherally onto the article,  but i'd hate to see it blow up into a restructuring war.
 * In any cases, happy editing. --Jerzy•t 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't rewrite this article to move it away from German Expressionist Film, I think the problem with the article is that it is miss-titled. A quick glance at the catalogue for my local libraries suggests that film is not the medium that most writers associate with "German Expressionism". However I and other contributors have added to the article attempting to show that the movement has been and continues to be, directly and indirectly, very influential- it deserves an article of it's own. While an article on "Expressionism in Film" may be needed I think that the narrower "German Expressionist Film" is a subject that comes up more often. When I first came across this article I had come across quite a few references to German Expressionist film and wanted to find out more, I would have been disappointed if there was no article dealing soley with this topic. I think the best solution to this would be to re-title the article "German Expressionist Film" and create a new page called "German Expressionism" at first consisting of a couple of sentances and a number of links to articles on the various areas of "Expressionism". Sorry for bringing up an editing idea without offering to act on it. My thanks, if this idea is thought to be good by the community, to whoever if anyone acts on it.

--Pete the pitiless (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the first section to reflect that this is an article about film. I hope I've not offended anyone in doing this. As I've said above I think this article is miss titled. However that doesn't change the fact that it is an article about film. Also I thought the short sections about the different areas of expressionism did very little to expand knowledge on those areas and links could do the job better. The article is tidier without them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree (hope I am inserting this comment correctly). This is an article about film, not "German Expressionism", which is described in the article titled "Expressionism" - this is an interesting article but when I think of German Expressionism I think of a school of painting. Thomas144 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Logical mistake:

In the heading summary, in the very first sentence, it says: "German Expressionism refers to a number of related creative movements in Germany before the First World War that reached a peak in Berlin, during the 1920s." This is obviously false and contradictory, as the First World War ended in 1918 and the Expressionist movement began soon after. Tancrisism (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the word "beginning" in order to correct the logical error. The wiki artical "Expressionism" gives the beginning of expressionism as before the first world war if you want to dispute this as a date for the start of the wider german expressionist movement please do so but you will need to provide sources. Pete the pitiless (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"German cinema was arguably far ahead of cinema in Hollywood"
I know the qualifying word is "arguably", but on a site like Wikipedia it's usually a way of saying "it is better" without stirring the pot. This is a ridiculous statement for one big reason: "German Expressionism" doesn't remotely encapsulate everything about cinema in the 1920s. The Soviets were doing things the Germans weren't doing just as the Americans were doing things the Soviets were not. F.W. Murnau dropped the more obvious trappings of German Expressionism for a subtler cinematic expressionism/modernism and embraced montage and classical Hollywood form in his last films, the superb City Girl and the final masterpiece Tabu (even in his German period he wasn't nearly as ubiquitous with German Expressionism as he's always made out to be - this is true of German cinema in general.) His American students, particularly King Vidor and John Ford, and other contemporary filmmakers from around the world such as Jean Renoir, would continue on in this manner.

The impact of the German cinema of the 1920s if far greater than what's described in "Influence and legacy." Indeed, if Tim Burton and sci-fi movies were the fruit of Murnau's labor, German Expressionism would be absolutely nothing at all. JonasEB (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup
It appears that a variety of very good suggestions have been made here over the last 10 years, but there has been little followup. It appears that most of these can be accommodated fairly easily, so I'm going to try to deal with at least some of them, and I hope that others will keep an eye on these changes and comment or re-revise as necessary. Ralohmann (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I look forward to your proposed changes. The title MUST be changed to something like "German Expressionism (film)," "German Expressionist film" or "German Expressionism in film" -- whatever accords best to the Wiki directives on titling. I was stunned this morning hoping to find a Wiki on the history of German Expressionism in the arts -- painting, printmaking and sculpture -- and instead found this. German Expressionism was a major art movement that emerged around 1905 and continued until the National Socialists condemned much of it as 'degenerate' around 1936-38. By that time, it had passed its peak, with many figureheads lost in the Great War or having, like Kandinsky, moved into other areas of artistic endeavor. A great resource for German Expressionism as an art movement may be found in "Das Blaue Reiter," a periodical that appeared around 1912 which has been widely reprinted.

 * Another aspect of this article as a film-relevant article that should be addressed by somebody is the fact that we cite Kracauer's "From Hitler to Caligari" as a source. This book was published in 1947 and large parts of its assertions have since been discredited. As I sit here, I'm not sure exactly what the complaint has been against it, but we should review such matters to see if it is of relevance to this article. I'm sure that they are relevant; at the moment I'm not positive I remember why it is so. We should look into it. Pinikadia 13:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I too expected to find something on German Expressionist paintings or painters and found zilch. This is currently entirely on cinematography.

 * I agree with the previous post that it makes sense to move this article to German Expressionism (film). However, perhaps that needs to be done at the same time as some editor being motivated enough to create at least a sub-level article German Expressionism that covers the different arts evenly. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I came hoping to learn about German Expressionism in literature.. and found an article dedicated to film. -- Green  C  20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

On the German Wiki, they just have "Expressionism (film)", "Expressionism (art)" etc.. each medium has its own article, and then a general article about Expressionism. This is entirely reasonable. They don't even say "German" expressionism which seems like an Anglo-Saxon thing to make it somehow exotic or other. -- Green  C  20:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Expressionist directors who went to Hollywood?
The article says "a number" of expressionist directors went to Hollywood but no names are mentioned. Could someone expand on this point? Ralohmann (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Expressionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229032301/http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/expressionism1.jsp to http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/expressionism1.jsp
 * Added tag to http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council--services/lc/leicester-city-museums/exhibitions/german-expressionist

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Useful sources
I came across some useful sources while editing Faust (1926 film). You may be interested in the 7 "canonical" expressionist films. Anonymous-232 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Change to Expressionist Cinema?
There was extensive discussion going back several years regarding possible refocus of this article, but there seems to have been none recently.

There are now separate articles on Expressionism in its broad sense (covering many different artistic and cultural forms). There are also stand-alone articles on Expressionist dance and Expressionist theater. This article would seem to fit best into this broader group of articles as covering specifically Expressionist cinema without a geographic limit just to Germany.

It seems to me that this is the role this article is actually doing. That is, I don't think the problem is the content, but rather the title. The lead would need a bit of reworking.

Does anyone have views on this? Karl Bildungshunger1965 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 * @Karl Bildungshunger1965 Yes, I agree with you. I just stumbled on this page looking for German Expressionism in the visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) and was very surprised this didn't mention anything outside of film, though earlier commentators are certainly right: It was an important, and influential, movement in film. My only question is naming terminology, and a brief spin around Wikipedia didn't help: Should it be German Expressionism (film) or should it be ... (cinema)? By the same token, should the Expressionism page include an identifier like (arts)? I find it odd that it describes multiple arts too, and that German Expressionism (fine arts) isn't a stand-alone article, but then painting, etc. aren't that well represented on Wikipedia. Anyway, all of this is to say, I agree with you, and think the terms should follow Wikipedia convention, whatever that is. :) EditGirl99 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mary Wigman Photo

 * The image of an expressionist dancer Mary Wigman is included in the "Expressionism" article. It is very relevant there, but seems off-topic here, so I am removing it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to explain why. Thank you.EditGirl99 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

German Expressionism → German expressionist cinema – To avoid confusion with German Expressionism (the larger movement), which includes more forms of art such as painting, sculpture, printmaking etc, and includes many artists, including some associated with groups such as Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter, which have nothing to do with cinema. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the evidence provided so far. It is true that there were many Expressionist painters who were German (and that much of the creative force behind Expressionism originated in Germany), but that does not necessarily indicate there is a conflict with the title of this article. For example, we have Category:Finnish Expressionist painters too, but that does not mean there was a particular Finnish Expressionism distinct from Expressionism; it is just a category convention to list them by nationality+school. As far as I know, when the phrase "German Expressionism" is used to refer to something in particular, and distinct from general "Expressionism", it primarily refers to the cinematic version. Dekimasu よ! 06:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A further note: in the case of agreement that there is something called "German Expressionism" of which the cinematic movement is one part, it seems like the article should be expanded rather than moved. Dekimasu よ! 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several sources (including Tate, MoMA, University of Maryland, and Britannica) that use the phrase "German Expressionism" to refer to a movement that isn't limited to cinema. It's clearly its own movement, not just the German regional form of Expressionism. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure expanding an article on cinema making it the tail of a different dog is helpful. Best to leave the article as is and title it recognizably. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Support - the current title is misleading ; use of the term in GBooks relates to German expressionist art (large section on Expressionism main article) and Der Blaue Reiter group etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Is there a "German Expressionism" page for the movement? Or is this it as well?  If there is no parent article, maybe leave it here for now, and let it serve as it, until it fills out. Walrasiad (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because the article states, "This article deals primarily with developments in German Expressionist cinema …" The inadequacy of the current title has been discussed above for years; it's time to act on it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:26, 14 June 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.
 * Support Expressionism covers multiple artistic fields (of which cinema is one) and is primarily a German movement. This article is solely about German expressionist cinema. While WP:CONCISION applies, we must also consider the principle of least astonishment. In this case, the latter carries more weight - it is astonishing to see this is just about cinema when the subject (per others and the main article) is clearly much more. Regardless, use lowercase expressionism per MOS:MOVEMENT, this evidence and the general guidance at MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:German expressionist cinema


text:
Talk:The Book of Abramelin

Criticism section removed
I've removed the Criticism section because it is original research and speculation cobbled together by. A criticism section may only report the explicit criticism of published authors. It may not synthesize a criticism based on materials which weren't intended by their original authors as criticism, nor may it engage in historical speculation and arrive at the conclusions of a Wikipedia editor. All conclusions must be cited to an author whose works have been published by a reliable publisher. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Several sections are completely unreferenced
Not going to do this right away, but if these sections don't get citations, they will have to be deleted. Skyerise (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * @Skyerise (talk) It's worse most of what exists as sources in the article is simply wrong, like on very easily checkable stuff. First off, most of this article comes from Dehn's book directly, which I own in German, which is not an academic work at all. Just as an example this page – like Dehn's book – speaks of a "Codex Guelfibus" in Wolfenbüttel, no such codex exists, what does exist is the very famous Codex Guelferbytanus, which is shortened to "cod. guelf." but Dehn does not cite any part of this existing manuscript in his bibliography, he cites a fictional one. To the reliability of this work in his introduction to the second edition Dehn states that his lack of a critical apparatus was critiqued, so he added footnotes despite those offending his aesthetic sensibilities, these footnotes consist mostly of etymologies and references for "spells" which he believes to be bible verses, while those mostly concerned with manuscript variations are in English for Mather's edition and sometimes Hebrew for the Oxford one, for the text from this quoted non-existent codex they're all in modern high German as is the rest of the text, obviously the main problem here is that Dehn may suggest he translated all of this freely, but just in terms of acceptable academical standards unsourced quotes in a completely anachronistic language just don't inspire much confidence in this whole thing. I could go on but I hope you understand the problem with essentially just quoting from this work on Wikipedia. In addition to this, one file from the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_von_Worms which was added to this article, and according to the German Wikipedia edit summaries uploaded on behalf of another user, by Hopsee from the supposed original 1725 manuscript and not either the 1853 or 1920 reprint, which is also referenced by Scholem in Bibliographia Kabbalistica, has some anachronistic features like the spelling "Köln" as Olaf Simons already pointed out in the file's Wikimedia description. Pari Sarcinator (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * @Pari Sarcinator. So fix it! Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Book of Abramelin