text:
Talk:John Brown (servant)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

John Brown's body...
Author:

While you add the needed citations, please include information about the funeral and burial of Mr. Brown: where, how - simply or with more respect than that of the usual servant's, did the Queen attend, did she visit the gravesite in following years, etc. That information would be as telling to the nature of Victoria and Brown's relationship as the information you include about his portraits and busts being destroyed by her jealous son.

Thank you. Wordreader (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Their alleged daughter
This article contains two non-working links (currently References 2 and 3) to a Daily Mail article by Michael Thornton with the title 'Victoria's secret? New evidence shows Queen Victoria married her Scottish groom and bore him a secret daughter who was spirited to America'. Yet the text of the article makes no mention of such a daughter, which seems rather unsatisfactory, at least to me. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now managed to find and read a copy of the article at http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=4605. This makes it clear the headline is deeply misleading. Even the article's author, Michael Thornton, says the sources are unreliable and the stories (of up to 3 children) are virtually impossible, and probably began as republican propaganda almost 150 years ago, as quite likely did the story of the claimed secret marriage, and the claimed discovery of a marriage cert which was then promptly burned by the queen mother seems almost as far-fetched. But he does describe Victoria as 'almost a nymphomaniac', presumably implying that an affair was possible. It presumably would be possible even if she simply had a normal healthy sexual appetite (and a secret marriage would presumably also be possible to satisfy her Christian conscience, even if the alleged discovery of the marriage cert seems implausible). But I'm not entirely clear what should be done about any of this. Simply deleting the references isn't very helpful to those who have seen or heard about the headlines and want to learn more. But clarifying matters by adding what I've written here to the article probably violates several Wikipedia rules against unreferenced opinions, weasel words, etc. So I'd prefer to leave a fix to some more experienced editor. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"no such thing as Scottish nationality"
John Brown's nationality was changed from Scottish to British in the infobox (Edit summary: “He had British nationality, he may of been Scottish ethnically.” This was reverted with a specific request to initiate discussion here. The request to discuss on the talk page was ignored and the change reinstated (Edit summary: “The guy was ethnically Scottish, but held British nationality. There is no such thing as Scottish nationality.”).

Four points: 1. Please respect WP:BRD; 2. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS; 3. That “There is no such thing as Scottish nationality” is WP:POV and will cause offence to those who do not share that view. 4. Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. The article says John Bown is Scottish. Therefore, so should the infobox.

I will now reinstate Brown's nationality as Scottish in the infobox, which has been the stable version for several years. Please discuss here rather than edit war. Daicaregos (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * UK Nationals is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The fact that John Brown was, undoubtedly, Scottish is not the same thing as saying that his nationality is Scottish and it is simplistic to make that connection and then to insist on such a definition in the specific infobox parameter. Nationality, in common usage in the real world, outside of the usual tedious WP ethno-wars, usually refers to citizenship of a state. That would be British, for better or worse.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay does not mean it should be ignored. “The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice).” That Scotland is a nation is, I imagine, accepted by all but the terminally ignorant. Those belonging to that nation are of Scottish nationality. To argue otherwise would be to claim that that nation has no members. I also inhabit the real world. In that real world I have sometimes been asked my nationality. My answer is either Welsh or Cymro (depending on the language in which the question was posed) never British. This answer is accepted officially. Welsh is noted as my nationality on my marriage certificate, for example - evidence of common usage. Ask people round by here their nationality and you will receive the same reply. Nevertheless, this is OR and uncited ... as is the statement claiming “There is no such thing as Scottish nationality.”. I refer you to Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” My nationality is Welsh. John Brown's was Scottish. John Brown was defined by his Scottishness. Point #4 above appears to have been ignored. The point is pertinent: Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. Nowhere in the article does it say he was British. The article says John Brown is Scottish. That is how it should appear in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear that I definitely wasn't endorsing the claim, used as the title of this section, that there is no such thing as Scottish nationality (or Welsh). My point is simply, as stated, that for all the fuzziness on these topics and categories, in my experience, the primary use of the term "nationality" – ie the objective response to the question "what nationality is this person?" – in such contexts would be in respect of, in effect, citizenship and hence should be British. I also think it would be clearer and better for consistency if we stuck with that, for all British people, when it comes to this specific infobox parameter (I'm less fussed about the primary description in the opening sentence of leads, where I think we need more flexibility – nor do I see any problem or contradiction arising from saying "John Brown was a Scottish .." as the first words there while having "British" noted as nationality/citizenship in the infobox. That first sentence doesn't say his nationality was Scottish). Plus this isn't just me making it up as I go along - see here, for example, which deals with the semantics of nation vs nationality, or here.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 * ps: It seems to me as if you are reading the category as if it said "national identity", which is more subjective a concept, rather than "nationality". The problem with that is: a) it doesn't; and b) even if it did, we have no way of knowing or verifying whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British" anyway. Plus it would leave the field open for pretty much any description being put there for any British person; especially, say, for more recent immigrants. We could I guess lose any ambiguity by entering a "citizenship" section instead but then we can just have arcane discussions instead about the distinctions between being a citizen and a subject and between nationality and citizenship in the context of Britain.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken in your premise that the objective response to the question "what nationality is this person?" relates to citizenship and hence should be British. As I said above, the British Government accepts that my nationality is Welsh. Do you really think you know better? You may, but that would be WP:OR. Talking of semantics, thanks for the links. Stephen Tierney's book Accommodating National Identity: etc certainly states “... there is no Scottish nationality … ”, but one needs to read more than just one small phrase contained within a work (which may seem to confirm one's prejudice) to grasp its full meaning. The sentence actually begins, “A lawyer's first thought might be that, to judge from the criterion of citizenship laws, there is no Scottish nationality …”, and the rest of the paragraph goes on to explain why that first thought was wrong. Paul Weis' confirms his book Nationality and Statelessness in International Law relates only to the narrow concept of law (see the beginning of Chapter 1, p 3, which says “The term “nationality” in the sense in which it is used in this book is ...”. Wikipedia is not a law manual. It reflects real world usage, and Scottish nationality is used in the real world; witness the 9,450 Google Books links (both my emphasis). Re your ps: we neither have to know nor verify whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British". He is frequently described as Scottish. I found no descriptions of him as British. Some may exist, but even if they do, they will be completely overwhelmed by his descriptions as Scottish. Furthermore, as the vast majority of Scots are British citizens, describing their nationality as Scottish provides additional information to readers, than would describing their nationality as British. Daicaregos (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is the understanding of nationality on WP. See WP:OPENPARA, for example, and the notes for the actual infobox in question. As I say, there is a distinction between "nationality" in terms of the more subjective and moveable concept of "national identity" and "nationality" as the objective and objectively verifiable issue of what nation-state one is a member of. Unless we are clear about what we mean here, we're just opening everything up to arbitrary choices and inconsistent application across the site, on two levels. For example, some Scottish people will be set up as "British" nationals – whether because the editors who happen to be on the page are relying on the former definition, and we are talking about a pro-Union individual, or because, conversely, they are relying on the latter definition – and some as "Scottish". Are Indonesians, for example, going to be a random mish-mash of "Javanese", "Chinese" or "Indonesian", depending on the whims of individual editors and which sources randomly happen to be being cited at any one point in time on the page?

 * As for the books I cited, I was aware they deal with the complexity of the issue and the terminology; that was kind of my point. I have also been quite explicit that I am not denying the existence of the concept of Scottish nationality or the use of the term. Nor am I insisting on using strict legal terminology (and I'm not sure that's the issue here anyway). I am simply asking for clarity and consistency – and for us to follow current standard WP practice – when it comes to what we mean by the term when used as an infobox parameter. And doing a Google poll of how often particular adjectives are used to describe someone in order to determine what their nationality is surely not the way forward. Even if no Google-able sources ever describe him, however casually, as "British", that really doesn't mean that he wasn't, as a matter of simple definition. And finally, as for providing additional information to readers, it seems rather obvious to me that using Scottish in the lead sentence and British in this infobox slot conveys more information than using Scottish in both.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But what is the understanding of nationality on WP? Neither of your links prevent Scottish being used here. The WP:OPENPARA section on nationality says: “In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.” So Scotland is a perfectly acceptable use, unless you contend that Scotland is not a country. If you are unsure what nationality to use, read the essay WP:UKNATIONALS, the purpose of which is to “aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice).” Nationality is defined as the sense of belonging to a particular nation. As you agree that Scotland is a nation, and John Brown is verifiably Scottish (i.e. a member of the Scottish nation) what can be gained by describing his nationality otherwise? You say: “Even if no Google-able sources ever describe him, however casually, as "British", that really doesn't mean that he wasn't, as a matter of simple definition.” Of course it doesn't, but two points. Firstly, as no sources describe his as British, that implies it is not notable; and secondly, (and once again, as the point has yet to be addressed), MOS:INFOBOX states its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. Nowhere in the article does it say he was British. The article says John Brown is Scottish. That is how it should appear in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

John Brown's nationality was changed from Scottish to British in the infobox once again. Discounting the rudeness of the edit summary (“Nationality refers to citizenship. If you do not understand defintions [sic] like this you shouldn't be editing.” - please read WP:NPA and WP:WAR), its premise is misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of nationality is:

 * citizenship of particular nation: the status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization
 * people forming nation-state: a people with a common origin, tradition, and often language, who form or are capable of forming a nation-state
 * ethnic group within larger entity: an ethnic group that is part of a larger entity such as a state

Scotland would not be excluded by any of those definitions and, as it is the only nationality cited in the article, it should be noted as Brown's nationality in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Brown (servant). 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/20070312220228/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1655_283/ai_112095011/pg_3 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1655_283/ai_112095011/pg_3

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) 06:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Brown (servant)


text:
Talk:Jewish history

national homeland?
There are two references in this article to the national homeland of the Jewish people. I don't see either of them having a source. I suggest that the phrasing should be attributed to those who hold this view E.g., the wording could be something like 'the re-establishment of the Jewish Nation in Israel which Zionism regards as the national homeland of the Jewish people'. Not all Jews regard Israel as such. Alternatively the phrase national homeland could be replaced by simply homeland, e.g., 'the re-establishment of the Jewish Nation in its homeland'. There are controversies about whether there was ever a Jewish nation, as opposed to an Israelite one. The phrase homeland and homeland in the Levant and homeland in the Land of Israel are used in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews and are much to be preferred in my opinion. I have no doubt that this will need to be discussed, and there will be opposition. So I have added this here before any change is made. Regards. Pngeditor (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

English
Anti-Jewish laws 2405:201:C015:1055:D59F:3C7C:65CF:9190 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Update to UK Jewish statistics
The end of the section on the 21st century only covers the period up to the 2011 census. The results of the 2021 census are now public knowledge, the article should be changed to reflect this. Cigarettes and corvids (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Added this Col99100 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Jewish history


text:
Dulzaina

The dulzaina or dolçaina (/) is a Spanish double reed instrument in the oboe family. It has a conical shape and is the equivalent of the Breton bombarde. It is often replaced by an oboe or a double reeded clarinet as seen in Armenian and Ukrainian folk music.

Many varieties of the dulzaina exist in Spain. In the Valencian Community, it is known as a dolçaina or xirimita and is accompanied by a drum called the tabalet. The Catalan variety of the dulzaina is called a gralla, and the Basque variety is called a bolin-gozo. The term dolçaina was introduced into Catalan in the 14th century from France (the ancient word was "douçaine").

In the region of Aragon, especially in the town of Huesca, the dulzaina is played along with gaitas de boto, regional bagpipes, and sometimes drums. The instrument was first introduced in Spain through Arabic people. The dulzaina is also heard in a large portion of the region of Castilla y León, where it frequently has keys over the holes. The instrument is deeply rooted in the folklore of Burgos, Segovia, Soria, in some areas of Ávila, Madrid, Guadalajara, Toledo, Cuenca, León and Salamanca, less extended in the Basque Autonomous Community and widely used in Navarre and La Rioja.

Valencian G dolçaina
Valencian G dolçaina, otherwise known as dolçaina en sol, is the most typically used dolçaina in Valencia.

Range
The range in the concert pitch goes from A3 to E5. F#5 may be occasionally used, but it needs to be the next note progression of the scale and it has to be slurred to the previous note.

Music reading and writing
Music for the dolçaina is always written in treble clef. G-dolçaina (dolçaina en sol) is a transposing instrument and its music is written in treble clef. Scores written for dolçaina should ideally be transposed into treble clef. Therefore, the lowest note is D4 (the first one below the treble clef staff) and the highest one is A5 (on the first additional line above the treble clef staff). In order to find the actual concert note pitches (in C) in a score for dolçaina, one must transpose them up a perfect fifth, as for the cor anglais (English horn).

Unless specifically stated otherwise, in the following sections, when there is a reference to notes or keys, one must think on the ones that are used by dolçaina players (in G) and not to the actual pitch (in C).

Acoustics
The dolçaina has a penetrating, very powerful sound. Until some years ago, events involving dolçaina were restricted to the streets and squares of many towns and cities. Historically, the dolçaina has played a main role in big gatherings of people during Valencian festivities and traditions, so it is unsurprising that its powerful sound has been specially valued and developed.

Because of its double reed and conical shaped tube, the dolçaina has a sound characteristic of an oboe or a xeremia. However, there are some important differences.

Even though the dolçaina produces a high-pitched sound range, it has a great timbric identity thanks to its richness in harmonics. Under certain acoustic conditions, it can also sound like a soprano saxophone or a trumpet.

Mastering tuning is achieved by fingering and subtle changes in air pressure and in the embouchure. Fingering consists of eight finger holes (7 on the front part and one on the rear part for the thumb; like a recorder).

Registers
The dolçaina's effective range is divided into two registers, middle register and upper register. They can be distinguished by their timbre and by the way they are produced.

1. Middle register: The sound is natural. It is the most relaxed register. It comprises the first octave, from low D (concert A 3) to high D (concert A 4). Tuning in this register is relatively easy.

2. Upper register:  they are the first harmonics of the natural notes. They can be produced by increasing the air pressure - commonly known as "over blowing". Tuning in this register is very hard and playing the notes in it is tiring and difficult. Sustaining playing in this register is truly exhausting. It is situated in the second octave, from high E (concert B4) to high A (concert E5).

Accidentals
Even though the dolçaina was not originally intended to produce chromaticisms, they can be achieved through a very complex and difficult technique, with obvious timbre and volume differences.

Accidentals which can be easily executed and have a powerful and clear sound are first octave C# and D#.

The rest of them are harder to play and their sound is duller and less powerful. They are: first octave F natural, Bb / A#, G# / Ab and second octave F natural, D# / Eb and G# / Ab.

Tonalities
The easiest and most used tonalities are G major and D major, since F# and C# can be played naturally. E Minor is also usual, since first octave D# is relatively easy to play.

C major is the most difficult, since natural F cannot be produced naturally and it is considered an accidental in the dolçaina's natural scale. In addition, its lower tonic (lower C) does not exist for dolçaina.

Difficult tonalities: B minor, G minor, A major and A minor.

Very difficult tonalities: E major, D minor, F♯ minor, C♯ minor, F major, Mib major, C minor and B♭ major.

All other tonalities are considered most difficult ones.

Dynamics
As mentioned above, the dolçaina has a very powerful and penetrating sound – loud (f - forte) playing is common. Getting a louder sound than forte is impossible.

Thanks to modern interpretation techniques, effects of dynamics can be achieved by varying the air pressure and making subtle changes in the embouchure. The diaphragm technique and good breathing practices allow for effective volume control. However, using dynamics is still too hard, as they make tuning more difficult and timbre less powerful. Therefore, the following points must be taken into account in order to make the best of interpretation and expression:

1.Changes of dynamics must not be used in the second register (from high E to high A). These notes are always loud and only difficult techniques allow the player to darken and soften their sound.

2. As opposed to other instruments, decreasing volume level while playing dolçaina implies a huge physical effort in the embouchure and a very difficult and complex technique. This must be kept in mind.

3. Playing quieter than mezzo piano is very difficult, so success cannot be guaranteed below mp.

4. Sudden changes should not be excessive.

Articulation
Articulation on the dolçaina is really limited compared to other wind instruments. This and other technical issues such as the impossibility of executing double or triple staccato force the player to play slower.

In order to play in faster tempos, the musician has to resort to combinations of slurrings, keeping in mind the difficulty implied by the change of octave, where there is a big break in-between the register, and in many instances it is more or less impossible to maintain an even tone.

One of the dolçaina's special features is the fact that the easiest and most natural way of playing a sound happens when the player tongues both the start and the end of the note, while on other wind instruments it is much easier to play without articulation. Easy articulation for a dolçaina player consists of a firm, well-defined attack. The dolçaina has a strong sound power and other techniques have not been developed simply because they were not needed (need is the mother of all invention).

In spite of these circumstances, techniques for simple attacks and slurs are evolving at a great pace in order to achieve a wider range of nuances in phrasing. The reason for this evolution lies basically in its coexistence with other regularized instruments.

Fingering
Fingering features are almost the same as any other woodwind keyless instrument. However, at a certain pace, it is complicated to play F natural, Bb/A# and Ab/G# due to their fingering positions, like the recorder (a technique known as cross-fingering).

Register changes must also be taken into account, since dolçaina has neither keys nor finger locations to octave change, hence the player has to resort to air pressure and embouchure pressure (harmonics).

Endurance
The dolçaina is a musical instrument that quickly tires its players both physically and psychologically, much faster than brass instruments. The reason for this lies with some of its features:

Being a short-length instrument, it offers little resistance to air flow and therefore requires great pressure and a strong airflow.

The reed used on the dolçaina is among the biggest and most resistant in the oboe family, meaning that great pressure must be applied so as to manipulate the sound.

However, endurance may increase progressively if the piece features fewer high-pitched notes, more breaths, empty bars and less dynamics. Difficult accidentals should be avoided as much as possible.

title: Dulzaina


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fafblog (0th nomination)

Fafblog
Blog vanity. --fvw *  10:54, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

I guess technically it is more fandom than vanity, since the entry wasn't created by the blog owner...
 * Delete. Not notable, borderline advertising. --Gene s 11:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete most other red links in article were deleted as ad or patent nonsense. Looks like boosting search engine rankings. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gigglecruft. Quite creative, there's a place for this, but we sure ain't it. Andrewa 17:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep A funny article won't hurt you. I have to defend Giblets at all times anyway. Mandos 18:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above vote is the first contribution by a new user, who was possibly the article's creator as an anon. Welcome sent. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, digicruft, nn, ad. Wyss 23:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Comment Note that this article title was speedied before (Deletion log archive/November 2004 (3)):
 * 06:15, 23 Nov 2004 Geogre deleted Fafblog (spam: content was: ' A blog, primarily satirical and generally liberal. The main characters include fafnir, giblets and the medium lobster.Site:...')
 * - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ] ]] 01:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Guess how I'll vote? Delete: I thought it was spam then, and I think so now.  "= a site. Insider name.  Insider name. Go here."  To me, that's just spam.  Geogre 02:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * del Mikkalai 02:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless all blogs are considered nn, by some definition. This is a  well-known blog, with a lot of left-oriented A-list blogs, such as Brad DeLong 's, listing it on the blogroll.  Google gives 201,000 hits on "Fafblog".  Before we start deleting articles about blogs, we should either have a "No articles about blogs" policy, or we should agree on the criterion that will be applied, and then apply it uniformly. --BM 02:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasoning as BM, above.
 * Keep. Same reasoning.
 * Keep. Fafblog is fairly famous and high-quality satire. Otherwise, same reasoning as BM, above.Marcrios 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Higher Education Statistics Agency

The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) was the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about higher education in the United Kingdom. HESA became a directorate of Jisc after a merger in 2022.

HESA was set up by agreement between the relevant government departments, the higher education funding councils and the universities and colleges in 1993, following the White Paper "Higher Education: a new framework", which called for more coherence in HE statistics, and the 1992 Higher and Further Education Acts, which established an integrated higher education system throughout the United Kingdom. In 2018 HESA became the Designated Data Body for higher education in England under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, with designation passing to Jisc after the 2022 merger.

Data Collections
HESA collected data from all publicly funded higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK as well as a small number of private providers. The annual data collection streams were:
 * Student data collection – information about students, courses and qualifications at HEIs
 * AP Student data collection – information about students, courses and qualifications at Alternative Providers of higher education
 * Staff data collection – information about staff employed by HEIs
 * Finance record – income and expenditure of HEIs
 * Graduate Outcomes – survey of graduate activities 15 months after leaving higher education
 * Aggregate offshore record – count of students studying wholly overseas for UK HE qualifications
 * HE Business and Community Interaction survey – information about interactions between HEIs and business and the wider community
 * Estates management record – buildings, estates and environmental information about HEIs
 * Initial Teacher Training (ITT) record
 * Unistats collection
 * Provider Profile collection
 * Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education – survey of graduate activities six months after leaving HE (2002/03 to 2016/17)

Statistical Outputs
HESA published statistics and analyses based on the data it collects:
 * Statistical Bulletins – Official Statistics outputs summarising each data stream
 * Annual open data releases – detailed statistical tables
 * Performance Indicators – comparative data on the performance of HEIs in Widening participation, student retention, learning and teaching outcomes, research output and employment of graduates

Jisc processes HESA data to provide data extracts for research and publication by external users such as League tables of British universities.

title: Higher Education Statistics Agency


text:
HESA

HESA may refer to:
 * Hisyah, an alternative name for a town in Syria
 * Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company, an Iranian aircraft manufacturer
 * Higher Education South Africa, an association of universities in South Africa
 * Higher Education Statistics Agency, a statistics-collection agency in the United Kingdom
 * Higher Education Support Act 2003, an Australian Act of Parliament relating to the funding of higher education that came into effect on 1 January 2005
 * Harvard Extension Student Association, a student government organization for Harvard Extension School
 * Hybrid dry electrode array, sensors to record EEG signals

title: HESA


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young grad student

Young grad student 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

I don't think this could become encyclopaedic. --fvw *  10:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
 * I've warned user about posting nonsense. (They also created: Medium Lobster, God and the universe and those horrible screaming monkeys and Higher being which referred to the aforementioned lobster. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:09, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it might be encyclopedic if it can be incorporated elsewhere. This title should not be made a redirect. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:09, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing worth keeping. P Ingerson 11:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem like it can be expanded into anything useful. Maybe text can be incorporated into Education in the United States --Gene s 11:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Borders on patent nonsense. Cannot be made NPOV. Unencyclopedic topic. No potential to become encyclopedic. There could be an article on graduate-school life in the United States, but this isn't it (and this isn't the start of one). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-encyclopedic. Mdchachi|Talk 15:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Dpbsmith --Spangineer ∞ 15:40, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a useful title, no useful content, no useful history. Andrewa 17:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, someone venting, is all, PoV rant. Wyss 23:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you've got an axe to grind, please don't do it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 09:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete, although I am certainly curious about this deified lobster. Gsd97jks 15:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, 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:Newcastle, New South Wales

__NOGALLERY__

title: Category:Newcastle, New South Wales


text: User talk:69.170.3.238

title: User talk:69.170.3.238


text:
Karamzin

Karamzin (Карамзин) is a Russian masculine surname, its feminine counterpart is Karamzina. It originates from the Tatar surname Kara-Murza, meaning black lord,  and may refer to
 * Aurora Karamzin (1808–1902), Finnish-Swede philanthropist, wife of Andrei Karamzin, a son of Nikolay
 * Nikolay Karamzin (1766–1826), Russian writer, poet, historian and critic

title: Karamzin


text: Category:National Basketball League (Australia)


text:
People's Liberation Army Ground Force

The People's Liberation Army Ground Force (PLAGF), or the PLA Army, is the land-based service branch of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and also its largest and oldest branch. The PLAGF can trace its lineage from 1927 as the Chinese Red Army; however, it was not officially established until 1948.

History
In February 1949, the existing large number of armies and divisions were regularized into up to seventy armies of three divisions each. While some, such as the 1st Army, survived for over fifty years, a number were quickly amalgamated and disestablished in the early 1950s. It appears that twenty per cent or even more of the seventy new armies were disestablished up to 1953; in 1952 alone, the 3rd, 4th, 10th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Armies were disbanded.

The PLAGF consist of conventionally armed main and regional units, which in 1987 made up over 70 percent of the PLA. It provided a good conventional defense, but in 1987 had only limited offensive potential and was poorly equipped for nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare. Main forces included about 35 group armies, comprising 118 infantry divisions, 13 armored divisions, and 33 artillery and antiaircraft artillery divisions, plus 71 independent regiments and 21 independent battalions of mostly support troops. Regional forces consisted of 73 divisions of border defense and garrison troops plus 140 independent regiments.

Under the old system, a field army consisted of three partially motorized infantry divisions and two regiments of artillery and anti-aircraft artillery. Each field army division had over 12,000 personnel in three infantry regiments, one artillery regiment, one armored regiment, and one anti-aircraft artillery battalion. Organization was flexible, the higher echelons being free to tailor forces for combat around any number of infantry divisions. At least theoretically, each division had its own armor and artillery — actual equipment levels were not revealed and probably varied — and the assets at the army level and within the independent units could be apportioned as needed.

In 1987 the new, main-force group armies typically included 46,300 soldiers in up to four divisions, believed to include infantry, armor, artillery, air defense, airborne, and air support elements. Although the new group armies were supposed to reflect a move to combined-arms operations, because of a lack of mechanization they continued to consist of infantry supported by armor, artillery, and other units. The 13 armored divisions each had 3 regiments and 240 main battle tanks (MBT) but lacked adequate mechanized infantry support.

There was little evidence of the use of armored personnel carriers during the Sino-Vietnamese border conflict in 1979, and tanks were used as mobile artillery and as support for dismounted infantry. Artillery forces emphasized towed guns, howitzers, and truck-mounted multiple rocket launchers. In the 1980s some self-propelled artillery entered service, but the PLA also produced rocket launchers as a cheaper but not totally effective alternative to self-propelled guns. There was a variety of construction equipment, mobile bridging, trucks, and prime movers. A new multiple rocket launcher for scattering antitank mines appeared in 1979, but mine-laying and mine-clearing equipment remained scarce.

Regional forces consisted of full-time PLA troops organized as independent divisions for garrison missions. Garrison divisions were static, artillery-heavy units deployed along the coastline and borders in areas of likely attack. Regional forces were armed less heavily than their main-force counterparts, and they were involved in training the militia. They were the PLA units commonly used to restore order during the Cultural Revolution. When chairman Mao proclaimed the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949, the PLAGF was a 4.9 million-strong peasant army. After some time, the demobilization of ill-trained and politically unreliable troops began, resulting in the reduction of army strength.

In the 21st century, the PLAGF are continuing to undergo significant reform, experimentation, modernization, and restructuring to deal with potential threats and enhance their capabilities. Divisions are downsized into combined arms brigades, which reorganized into high-readiness army groups. The division echelon is phased out with only a limited number of division structures remaining existent. While the size of the PLA Ground Force has been reduced over the past few decades, technology-intensive elements such as special operations forces (SOF), army aviation (helicopters), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and electronic warfare units have all been rapidly expanded.

The latest operational doctrine of the PLAGF highlights the importance of information technology, electronic and information warfare, and long-range precision strikes in future warfare. The older generation telephone/radio-based command, control, and communications (C3) systems are being replaced by integrated battlefield information networks featuring local/wide-area networks (LAN/WAN), satellite communications, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems, and mobile command and control centers.

Organization
Command of the Chinese armed forces is exercised by the Central Military Commission (CMC) through the service headquarters, including PLAGF headquarters, and the theater commands (TC). The PLAGF component in each TC is the Theater Command Army. Both PLAGF and TC headquarters exercise control over operational units in peacetime, with the TC taking complete control wartime. The military-political dual-command structure is present throughout.

Units in sensitive areas, like Beijing, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, may be subordinated directly to PLAGF headquarters.

Branches of service
The PLAGF has a standing regular army and a reserve force. Although conscription is employed in China by law, mandatory military service has not been implemented since 1949 as the People's Liberation Army has been able to recruit sufficient numbers voluntarily. Chinese militia is not a component of the People's Liberation Army, however, they could provide a certain degree of reserve function, which was indicated by "Militia Military Training and Evaluation Outline" released by the People's Liberation Army General Staff Department in 2007.

PLAGF branches of service are composed of infantry (including mechanized infantry), armour, artillery, air defense, aviation, military engineering, anti-chemical, communications, special operations, logistics, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, etc. These branches of service have their respective military education institutions.

Operational structure
PLA operational structure reflects China's strategic missions, political environment, and geographical circumstances. There are 13 corps sized group armies (, also known as combined corps) since the end of April 2017, divided among five Theater commands — Eastern, Southern, Northern, Western and Central. Within the group armies, the old divisions are being downsized into brigades. Each group army includes six maneuver combined arms brigades, fire support/artillery brigades, air defense brigades, aviation brigades, special operations brigades, combat support brigades, and sustainment brigades.

The maneuver combat components of the group armies are combined arms brigades, including a mix of heavy combined arms brigades, medium combined arms brigades, light combined arms brigade, amphibious combined arms brigades, and mountain combined arms brigades. The practice is functionally similar to the US Army brigade combat team concept with unique modifications influenced by China's terrain diversity, strategic priority, political system, and military history.

The PLA heavy, medium, and light combined arms brigades share a modular construct, resembling its superior and subordinate units at the corps and battalion level. A typical PLAGF combined arms brigade has the brigade HQ, four maneuver combat battalions, and other support battalions. For instance, a heavy combined arms brigade includes four combined arms battalions, one artillery battalion, one air defense battalion, one reconnaissance battalion, one combat support battalion, and one sustainment battalion.

Combined arms battalions apply a structure drawn from the brigade echelon. For example, heavy combined arms battalions consist of battalions HQ company (including subordinate medic, reconnaissance, and air defense platoons), four maneuver combat companies including two tank companies (14 tanks per company), and two mechanized infantry companies (14 vehicles per company), one firepower company, and one combat support/sustainment company.

Before the 2015 reform, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) attributes the PLA Ground Force with nine active armored divisions consisting of a number of armored brigades, 25 infantry divisions (mechanized or motorized), organized into a number of infantry brigades, and 8 artillery divisions, also organized into field artillery brigades. Dennis Blasko wrote in 2000 that the traditional structure of PLA divisions (armored and mechanized) consisted roughly of three regiments – tuan – of the main service arm, each of three battalions  plus support units, a fourth regiment/brigade of infantry (in an armored division) or armor (in an infantry division), a field artillery regiment, an anti-aircraft defense regiment or battalion, and signals, engineer, reconnaissance, and chemical defense battalions or companies, plus combat service support units.

Special operations forces
The PLA first became interested in modern special warfare in the mid-1980s when it was shifting from the "People's War" to "active defense." After the reform, PLA special operations forces are organized under the combined corps level, as special operations brigades. Special operation brigades provide organic deep reconnaissance and commando operation capability to the combined arms maneuver operations of their respective group armies, and they are highly specialized to operate in their specific theater. Different from Western-style special operations forces, PLAGF special operations brigades focus on operating in conventional military environments with missions focusing on Special Reconnaissance, target acquisition, Direct Action, sabotage, raids, and search and rescue. The unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, civil affairs, and internal security capability in China are covered by People's Armed Police (PAP) special operations units, instead of the military.

Commissioned officers
The current system of officer ranks and insignia is established in 1988. There are several paths to becoming a commissioned officer, such as joining a military academy, attending reserve officer program, or cadre selection program.

Officers may use Comrade to formally address another member of the military ("comrade" plus rank or position, as in "comrade Colonel", "comrade battalion leader", or simply "comrade(s)" when lacking information about the person's rank, or talking to several service people.)

Enlisted personnel
The current system of other ranks and insignia dates from 2022. Sergeant and Corporal are referred to as non-commissioned officers. New recruits have no military ranks before the boot camp is completed, and they will be awarded the rank of private after they have graduated from the induction training. According to Article 16 of Chapter 3 of the "Regulations on the Service of Active Soldiers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army", "The lowest enlisted rank is Private".

Conscripts can be promoted to privates first class in their second year. At the end of two years, conscripts may retire or become NCOs if they volunteer, though the position requires at least high school diploma, specialized skills, or undertaking training courses. They can also attend a military academy to become officers after evaluations.

In 2014, the position of unit "master chief" or "sergeant major" is established to award experienced NCOs that can assist platoon, company, battalion, and higher commands in leadership and training responsibilities.

Soldiers may use Comrade to formally address another member of the military ("comrade" plus rank or position, as in "comrade Sergeant", "comrade squad leader", or simply "comrade(s)" when lacking information about the person's rank, or talking to several service people.)

Heavy equipment
The PLA Ground Force is heavily mechanized with armored platforms, advanced electronic warfare capability, concentrated firepower, and modern weapon systems that are competitive against Western counterparts. The PLA ground force is divided into highly mechanized heavy, medium, and light combined arms units. Heavy combined arms brigades are armored with main battle tanks and tracked infantry fighting vehicles, medium combined arms brigades are armed with tracked or wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, and light combined arms brigades are mobilized with armored personal carriers, MRAP trucks, or armored cars.

At combined corps level, the PLAGF employs combined arms brigades, heavy artillery systems, medium-range air defense systems, special forces, army aviation units, and various engineering, and electronic warfare support systems. Weapon systems at this level include PLZ-05 howitzer, PCL-181 howitzer, PHL-03/16 multiple rocket launcher, and HQ-16 air defense system. Air assets within the aviation brigade include Z-10 attack helicopter, Z-19 recon helicopter, and Z-20 utility helicopter, etc. Unmanned aerial systems are employed extensively in PLA formations of all types.

At combined arms brigade level, brigade HQ can deploy various combined arms battalions composited with tanks, assault guns, and infantry fight vehicles (IFV) such as the ZTZ-99A tank, the ZBD-04A IFV, the ZBL-08 IFV, the ZTL-11 assault gun, and the CSK-181 MRAP fast-attack vehicle. Fire support, reconnaissance, and air defense battalion are equipped with PLZ-07, PLL-09, PCL-161/171 self-propelled artilleries, PHL-11, PHZ-11 multiple rocket launchers, AFT-9/10 missile carriers, PGZ-09/95, PGL-12/625, HQ-17/A air defense systems, and such as large amount of unmanned aerial vehicles.

At battalion level, battalion HQ can direct tank company, assault gun company, mechanized infantry company, and firepower company to provide rapid close-combat maneuver, with support assets including the PCP-001 rapid-firing mortar, PLL-05/PLZ-10 self-propelled gun-mortars, AFT-8 missile carrier, MANPADS, and crew-served weapon systems such as QJG-85 heavy machine gun, PP-87 or newer PBP-172 mortar, QLZ-04 automatic grenade launcher, and HJ-8E wire-guided missile.

Under each mechanized infantry company are standard infantry platoons and a firepower platoon, which is equipped with lightweight mortar, anti-material rifle, 35 mm automatic grenade launcher, various rocket launcher, and heavy machine gun. At platoon level, a mechanized infantry squad consists of nine infantrymen, in which seven members are dismounted during combat. Infantry squads vary in composition based on the type of combined arms battalions. Medium and light infantry squads equip reusable rocket launchers to improve anti-armor and anti-fortification capability, whereas heavy infantry squads have no squad-level rockets, instead relying upon fire support from the firepower platoon, or their own ZBD-04A infantry fighting vehicle.

Individual and crew-served weapons
The standard-issue rifle of PLA infantrymen is QBZ-95/191 chambered in proprietary 5.8×42mm, and the sidearm is QSZ-92 chambered in 5.8×21mm DAP92. Vehicle crews are equipped with QBZ-95B short-barreled carbine. The QCW-05 is a 5.8 mm submachine gun used by special forces and non-combat personnel. Sharpshooting is provided by the QBU-88/191 marksman rifle and QBU-141/202 sniper rifle. Indirect fire is provided by the QLG-10 grenade launcher. QBS-09 combat shotgun is issued for door breaching and close-quarters battle. The QJB-95 serves as the squad automatic weapon with its 75-round drum magazine.

PF-89, PF-97, and DZJ-08 disposable rocket launchers could be distributed on an ad hoc basis to infantry squads for direct-fire applications. Specialized fire support weapons, often equipped with dedicated rocketeers, or members of the firepower platoons, include the HJ-12 anti-tank guided missile, PF-98 rocket launcher, the QLZ-87 and QLZ-04 35 mm automatic grenade launcher, the QBU-10 anti-material rifle, QLU-11 sniper grenade launcher, QJG-02 anti-air machine gun, QJZ-89 heavy machine gun, and the PP-89/93 60 mm mortar.

Infantry equipment and uniforms
In 2014, the cost to equip a single Chinese soldier is about 9,400 yuan (US$1,523). The standard kit includes Type 07 camouflage uniforms, helmet, tactical vest, gas mask, backpack, first-aid kit, infantry weapons, woven belt, rain cap, camouflaged uniform, kettle, and combat boots. However, regular infantrymen rarely use the issued body armor stored in the armory. Prior to 2015, only deployed special operation detachments were equipped with body armor.

The infantry equipment such as heavy body armor, personal radio, and knee pads has been seen in the standard kit in 2015 when PLA are deployed into high-risk areas, as observed for units participating in UN Peacekeeping and counter-piracy operations. The PLA has started to procure body armors for soldiers on large scale since March 2020, with 1.4 million body armor on order, which includes 930,000 units of plates for universal bulletproof vests and 467,000 units of plates for an enhanced bulletproof vest.

The Type 19 uniform with new xingkong digital camouflage patterns, tactical vest, backpack, protective gear, and eyewear started to replace Type 07 uniform series since 2019. Along with the uniform, a new communication system, personal computer, tactical interface, and assault rifle family QBZ-191, new variants of the QSZ-92 pistol family, along with whole new sets of weapon systems are also being adopted by the PLAGF since 2019. These new upgrades are components of the new Integrated Soldier Combat System, a program aiming to overhaul the PLA's infantry equipment.

Transformation
In 1987 the PLAGF, which relied upon obsolescent but serviceable equipment, were most anxious to improve defenses against armored vehicles and aircraft. Most equipments was produced from Soviet designs of the 1950s, but weapons were being incrementally upgraded, some with Western technology. One example of upgraded, Soviet-design equipment was the Type 69 MBT, an improved version of the Type 59 MBT, itself based on the Soviet T-54. The Type 69 had improved armor, a gun stabilizer, a fire control system including a laser rangefinder, infrared searchlights, and a 105 mm smooth-bore gun.

In 1987 the existence of a new, Type 80 MBT was revealed in the Western press. The tank had a new chassis, a 105 mm gun, and a fire control system. The PLA was believed to have atomic demolition munitions, and there were unconfirmed reports that it also had tactical nuclear weapons. In any case, nuclear bombs and missiles in the Chinese inventory could be used in a theater role.

The PLA had a scarcity of antitank guided missiles, tactical surface-to-air missiles, and electronics to improve communications, fire control, and sensors. China began production of the Soviet Sagger antitank missile in 1979 but lacked a more powerful, longer range, semiautomatic antitank guided missile. The PLA required a mobile surface-to-air missile and an infantry shoulder-fired missile for use against helicopters and certain other aircraft.

The PLAGF continue to undergo significant modernization and re-structuring to deal with potential threats and enhance their capabilities. Front line troops such as special forces, marines and paratroopers are given priority in receiving modern weapon systems and equipment. Other areas of improvement are its battlefield C4ISR capabilities, with the introduction of satellite communications, wireless networks, and digital radios, army commanders are now able to maintain constant communications with their front-line units while on the move. The bulk of the ground forces have been regularly asked to operate under severe electronic countermeasures conditions in exercises. Also a network-centric warfare capability connecting different combat, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance elements to form an integrated network is being developed.

Equipment summary
The PLAGF inventory maintains an array of military vehicles. All figures below are provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Auxiliary vehicles such as engineering vehicles, logistics vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles, as well as antiquated and reserved equipment are not included.

Relationship with other organizations

The People's Liberation Army Ground Force maintains close relationships with several paramilitary organizations within China, primarily the People's Armed Police (PAP) and the Militia (also known as the China Militia). Both of these paramilitary organisations act as a reserve force for the PLAGF during a time of national emergency such as war or natural disaster. The PAP consists of approximately 1.5 million personnel. Their primary mission during peacetime is internal security and counter-terrorism.

The Militia is a mass force engaged in daily production under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and forms part of the Chinese armed forces. Under the command of the military organs, it undertakes such jobs as war preparation services, security and defense operation tasks and assistance in maintaining social order and public security. The Militia numbers some 3 million service men and women.

title: People's Liberation Army Ground Force


text:
Talk:Astana

RFC - Requested revert to Astana
Since Astana is the more used name in English (sources: Google Scholar, Google Trends) - The article's name should be reverted to Astana. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC matter. Please see WP:RM. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

„The arguments in favor of the proposal aren't based in policy while the opposes are.“ This is how the discussion about the Requested move of the article Allahabad to Prayagraj was decided, meaning because there is mich evidence that the name Allahabad still is being more often used in English language, the article's name on Wikipedia in accordance to the Wikipedia naming conventions should stay the old one, other arguments being not of enough interest.

Therefore this has to applied here as well.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand what a name change is? It doesn't matter which language, the name Astana will probably linger for a while because the change is recent. Moreover, people usually don't think about this country a lot, so acknowledging the change will take a while.--2001:16B8:31B6:9800:7DF5:64D4:3584:FF57 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2021

 * 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. Pointy disruption; see this discussion. This closure is not intended to create prejudice against any properly justified RM, in future. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)  TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nur-Sultan → Astana – „The arguments in favor of the proposal aren't based in policy while the opposes are.“ This is how the discussion about the Requested move of the article Allahabad to Prayagraj was decided a few days ago, meaning because there is much evidence that the name Allahabad still is being more often used in English language, the article's name on Wikipedia in accordance to the Wikipedia naming conventions should stay the old one, other arguments being not of enough interest.

Therefore this has to applied here as well, since Astana is the more used term in English sources. On the basis Google Scholar and Google Trends among others Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2021 (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 "Nur-Sultan" is commonly used by news sources (Reuters, National Post, Chronicle Herald, just to name the first few that popped up on my Google search.) 162 etc. (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2021

 * 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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Speculation about possible future name-changes of the city is speculation, and is disregarded. Other comments demonstrate consensus against this move proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nur-Sultan → Astana – Astana is the more widely used Name in the English language Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Please provide evidence for this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You speedy closed an identical RM by User:Tecumseh*1301 yesterday, what is going on here? 162 etc. (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @162 etc. This is an aftermath of a failed RM at Talk:Allahabad, in which Tecumseh argued that, Astana is the common name and not Nur-Sultan and yet moved to Nur-Sultan. We advised Tecumseh that Allahabad's talk page is not the correct page for a discussion on whereabouts of Astana-Nur-Sultan, and asked to take the matter to respective pages. Thus these postings since yesterday. — DaxServer (talk to me) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Speedy close (again). This was just closed, and no additional evidence has been provided.  O.N.R.  (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Either this was speedy closed because of a formality because I compared the Allahabad discussion with this Nur-Sultan discussion, and this wouldnt be the "right reason".. or this was speedy closed wrongfully.

Here is your evidence:

In English in comparison almost nobody writes Nur-Sultan

You can use any Kind of source, Google Trends, Google Scholar, but Google Books Ngram Viewer is more reliable than other sources.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Comment: Ngrams currently goes up to 2019, and the name was changed in 2019 - Ngrams is not reliable in this case. Google trends suggests that Astana remains the more common search term, this appears to be tainted, primarily by the tennis open. Meanwhile, a (very brief) review of recent news reports suggests that when it comes to the city, the vast majority of reliable sources use Nur-Sultan, not Astana. However, I've held off !voting as Tecumseh seems to have evidence in the form of Google Scholar, as well as possibly Google trends - a speedy close would seem to be in order, with no barrier to a new RM if and only if Tecumseh can present strong evidence that Astana remains the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this was what dear User wrote on my talk page.

To be honest, this right now seems to be higher mathemtics to me, I wasnt able to check the numbers on Google Scholar back.

But as he writes, the numbers stem from searching Nur Sultan with and without the hyphen, but still, if taken together,the numbers for Nur-Sultan and Nur Sultan (hopefully not including the namegiving Kazakhian politician, this has to be checked as well) the results in 2021 for Nur-Sultan alone remain more than 10 percent or more than 700 entries lower than for Astana only, in 2020 it was over 2000 more entries / 20 % higher, so

that it is obvious, that the name Astana still is more common on Google Scholar.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". The name change took place in March 2019, but the evidence from Google Scholar shows that many reliable sources written in 2020 and 2021 use continue to Astana, and that this is more common than Nur-Sultan.  So surely WP:NAMECHANGES supports Tecumseh*1301's proposal to change the article name back to Astana? -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Central Asia has been notified of this discussion. VR talk 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose based on previous discussions -GorgonaJS (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I closed this as "not moved" but have reopened it to allow more editors to participate after the nom requested it. It would be good to have a stronger consensus to avoid future RMs. Vpab15 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Cities has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Central Asia has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Comment I will tend to oppose it, due to fact that vast majority of reliable source now using Nur-Sultan than Astana, even ATP Tour website referred the city as Nursultan here. I suspect the RM was conduct due Astana having long-term significance. 182.1.11.8 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Smiley.svg The source uses both Nur-Sultan and Astana: "for a place in the Nur-Sultan quarter-finals", "made to work hard during his Astana Open title defence", "reach the last eight in Nur-Sultan", "Watch highlights of Wednesday action at the Astana Open". -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would note that it uses "Astana" in reference to the tennis tournament (still called the "Astana Open"), and the location as "Nur-Sultan". BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The name Astana is still used preferrably in:

Astana Open (Tennis tournament) Astana Opera (building) FC Astana (Football Team) Astana Tigers (Basketball) Astana Presidential Forum Astana International Finance Centre

among many others (these are only the big ones)

Another question: Does anyone believe, this christened after a still alive president name, will endure much long after this presidents death?

Look at the recent history and you know that renamed cities after political Leaders will be renamed again.

It only needs political people in Power of the government, who don't accept the Status Quo and want to give it yet another Name, how it Has happened for a long time.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2021 (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.

Revert to Astana
As of January 6th, 2022 Nur-Sultan has reverted to Astana per the new government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delcorpo00 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I haven't found any sources saying it was renamed can you please provide one? Poketama (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A step as foreseeable as snow in the winter - renamings of cities after politicians is a very short-lived story, but English Wikipedia didn't know this yet..

Plus - as evidence was already shown, Astana is still the common name in English Media and other sources.

Pro move to Astana - Rename the article quickly. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The RM was closed as "Not moved", the move review was endorsed, and you were even nominated for a topic ban a couple months ago. I urge you to accept the consensus found by the community. 162 etc. (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The name of "Nur Sultan is erroneous. The city has officially reverted to "Astana". It matters what the Wikipedia community 'think' is more commonly used. Nicholas V.I. DelCorpo (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It matters not at all what the Wikipedia community 'thinks' is the more commonly used term. This is an encyclopedia based on fact, the fact is the official name using Latin script is "Astana". It does not matter how often a word is used or what people call something at a certain that decides what it is officially called. It is "Astana (also known in colloquial English as "Nur Sultan") or "Astana "(formerly Nur Sultan), either one of those is factually accurate and still caters to your club of journalist who I guess decide the English language now. ... Nicholas V.I. DelCorpo (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you start reading, maybe then you wouldn't write such a bucket of ****

1. Everyone can suggest a topic ban, I can suggest you for a topic ban.

if the topic ban wasn't carried out, it seems obvious, that this shouldn't even me mentioned to everyone who thinks clearly.

2. Astana always stayed the common name, the "community" of which you talk, were a couple of people, who don't always pull the right decisions, right? Other Wikipedianers like not only myself tried to correct the wrong, with evidence. The evidence wasn't accepted by some people, who are NOT THE SO-CALLED community.

3. Right now is a new situation. Even the official name was changed, the new leader, naming Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, is in strong opposition to Nursultan Nazarbayev, how long do you think the city will still be called "Nur sultan" well..in fact it is not called "Nursultan" anymore, as Delcorpo00 wrote.

So not even that. In English sources city has never been called Nursultan by the majority

And now it is not even the official name any longer.

If English Wikipedia now sticks to the name Nursultan, it is just being stupid..

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 * This is 100% correct. change the name to its official one, Astana" Nicholas V.I. DelCorpo (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Has the name of your capital been officially changed to Astana yet? Kurmanbek (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, is the citation in the article and it has been reported by dozens of other outlets as well. signed,Rosguill talk 21:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But Official website of Kazakhstan Presidency and Nur-Sultan's official website still using Nur-Sultan. Kurmanbek (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Soon to change. News sources of 13 September 2022 (Guardian and https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-capital-reverts-to-astana-ending-brief-stint-as-nur-sultan; Kazinform has not mentioned it [yet]) say it "will" revert to Astana.  They don't make clear when it is or will be officially in effect.  Hopefully, in the next few days, it will be cleared up.
 * This is all about official and announcement and changes in September; there was nothing official in January. When the change is in effect, Wikipedia should move the page, leaving a re-direct for the current title. Kdammers (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from 12 January 2022
News sources parrot one another, just because News sources use "Nur- Sultan" doesn't make it widely used in the English language. I don't know if an assessment of word usage based on submitted research papers, periodicals, and any other written, published work widely available and searchable on the internet. More importantly, the cities official name in Kazak documents and state functions has reverted to Astana. Name another city that was named by the person in power that outlived them, and still is in effect. Stalingrad anyone? Nicholas V.I. DelCorpo (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) (The above comment is moved from Special:Diff/1065174899 section titled "Requested move 9 October 2021" which is closed for further comments — DaxServer (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC))

 * Can you provide a source showing that the city's official name have reverted? Poketama (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm too waiting for updating. Kurmanbek (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved back to the current name. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

badly written
a lot of the article reads like an advertisement, complete with lack of sources and over-detailed descriptions of the cities services and facilties. this would need the attention of someone more versed in writing city articles. 46.15.169.229 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Page move
The article was already moved back to Astana, but on what basis? Tokayev approved a proposal for the name change but there is still a process for this name change to happen, so the city is still known as Nur-Sultan. Mellk (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 * The name change has been widely reported in international English-language press . Given the shortness of the period for which it was known as Nur-Sultan and its prior history as Astana, there is little reason to think that "Astana" will not be used as a common name moving forward, as persistence of old names tends to only happen when the prior name has a long history, or where the new name is controversial. signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not saying it would not become common name or possibly would not, I was saying it seemed a little premature (when it was moved on the 13th) because it was reported that the president agreed to a name change, but the name change did not happen yet. This was reflected in the reporting. Only today did this happen as he signed amendments. Regards. Mellk (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I recognize that now, having seen some reports of the Pope's visit a few days ago still referring to it as Nur Sultan. In my defense, most of the news reports available in English on the day it was announced used language that suggested that it had already gone into effect, and made no mention of the existence of a further process for finalizing the change. signed,Rosguill talk 21:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did notice that as well with a couple articles I saw, but at this point it doesn't matter. At least there was not a surprise 180 on the issue. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 * As always, Wikipedia was in too much of a hurry. The name was changed today (19 September), not on 17 September – the decree and the act on renaming the capital (and on changes in the constitution) have only been published today:, . Aotearoa (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bozok
, you seem to be in dispute with about whether to include Bozok as an alternative name for the current city of Astana--based on the current article text, it seems like it was a prior settlement in a similar location, but not literally the same city. What sources inform your understanding that it is in fact an alternative name for the same city? signed,Rosguill talk 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC) This has already been clarified on the Russian Wikipedia, but the user Kristianmusic still wants to promote his point of view in other parts of the wiki. Kazman322 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Bozok was located 11 km from Akmolinsk in 1861
 * 2. Bozok was completely abandoned in the XIV century, and Akmolinsk was founded in 1861, so this city cannot be called one settlement. (source) Kazman322 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

About coat of arms of Astana
Hi, As far as I can see from Astana Akimat's social media accounts, the Astana coat of arms is now used as ASTANA written in Latin letters. In fact, it is written as "ASTANA" in the law named "[https://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/V08A000537_#:~:text=%D0%95%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B0%D2%A3%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B%D2%A3%20%D1%82%D3%A9%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%96%20%D0%B6%D0%B0%D2%93%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BD%20%D1%82%D2%AF%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%20%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D2%9B%D1%8B%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BB%20%D1%82%D2%AF%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96%20%22ASTA%E2%84%96A%22%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%20%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%D1%8B%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80.%20%22ASTA%E2%84%96A%22%20%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8B%D2%A3%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BB%20%D0%B6%D3%99%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BE%D2%A3%20%D0%B6%D0%B0%D2%93%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BD%20%D1%82%D2%AF%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96%20%D2%AF%D1%88%20%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8B%20%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%B7%D1%8B%D2%9B%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%20%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D2%9B%D0%B0%D0%BD. On the definition and order of use of the symbols of Astana, the capital of the Republic of Kazakhstan]". However, the user named @216.94.43.6 is constantly undoing the change. Now I think it's an ulterior motive. Kurmanbek (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I see it now. that's okay. undo my undos. 216.94.43.6 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * no ulterior motive btw, you changed the logo with no reason or evidence and even the official website is not using what the law is stating. 216.94.43.6 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2023 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * KazMunayGaz in Astana Kazakhstan.jpg

Climate
An absolutely semi arid and not continental climate. From a person who have been to the city, and knows continental climate cities דולב חולב (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Everyone who knows Kazakhstan knows the big difference between the relatively wet Almaty with big trees, and nice parks to the dry Astana with barely any trees. For sure not trees that gan grow tall enough. דולב חולב (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate
Also, the city sits in the steppe region. another confirmation that it’s part of the cold semi arid and not continental climate

דולב חולב (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I don’t disagree with the semi-arid envoirment.
 * But it is not classified as BSk in Koppen scheme which consideres a threshold of 200mm for Astana to be semi-arid, I don’t know about other classification systems which may put Astana in their semi-arid category.PAper GOL (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe things has changed since koppen gave it its classification? Because I know Astana, trees aren’t growing there. you can talk to people who’s living there. Everyone consider it as cold semi arid.
 * Continental climates does featuring trees.
 * and as I’ve told you, that’s the known contrast between Almaty and Astana. דולב חולב (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it would be better to use a detailed work of classification which is specifically for Kazakhstan as an extra reference in this section for further clarification.
 * Still, It has Dfb Classification and Dfb is not called semi-arid in any published works for Koppen.PAper GOL (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We may call it semi-arid with continental influence because annual precipitation is quite close to the dry threshold.
 * I tried to classify its Climate in Trewartha climate classification as well, again not in Group B(Dry).PAper GOL (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then please, change it the climate section. I’ve remembered in a great example, of a city with a same amount of rainfall with even wetter environment, which still consider as cold semi arid - Denver Colorado! If Denver considered as semi arid, Astana must be too! דולב חולב (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Denver’s precipitation is more concentrated in summer than Astana. this would change its formulation and make it more likely to be semi-arid(even that changes to humid continental in some suburbs).
 * As I said before a detailed classification specific for Kazakhstan is the best reference we can find.
 * Koppen’s Dfb is already cited. Not much can be done for it.PAper GOL (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides, Denver is almost 20 degrees warmer than Astana in winter, this factor also increases its evaporation and the dry threshold.PAper GOL (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have to agree to disagree.
 * But i know, and the residents of Astana knows, it’s a cold semi arid city. דולב חולב (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The residents are not reliable sources.
 * And I said several times that there is no specific 400mm threshold in Köppen classification. It is calculated based on the formulas in Semi-arid climate and for Astana is less than 300mm, because the winters are extremely cold (20 degrees colder than Denver). So no, the classification for the given 30-year period is not in group B if we use the data in this table, even if the biome is steppe. PAper GOL (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Astana