text:
Talk:Iodised salt

Spelling of iodized on the wiki page
Clearly both 'iodized' and 'iodised' are correct ways to spell the word, but the wiki page should use the common spelling, which is 'iodized'. As a simple test, if you Google the word iodised, you get the message "Did you mean: iodized?". I am a chemical engineer with a patent in the iodination of halgenated resins and I am well read on the subject of iodination. I have never seen the term spelled with an S in any source that I would consider to be worthy of reference.

 * I went ahead and made your bold header into a level 2 header. I was looking at the archives to see why this article was spelled with an "s" instead of a "z" and it looks like no major contributor took any initiative to change it, and the article creator started it with an "s". But since readers continue to bring it up, then a consensus can be reached. I !vote for the article to be moved to Iodized salt and the article updated to reflect this. But if no one seems to mind, then it's not a biggie. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I did find this in the archive:

Since the subject matter of this article primarily deals with U.S. adoption of iodized salt the title of this article should reflect that. Can anyone explain why this should be the British spelling? 89.159.154.178 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Further, "iodised" is not actually British. The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recommend its use because its both etymologically and phonetically incorrect. Since -ize is both British and American, and phonetically correct, it should be used instead. II | (t - c) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 * So any other thoughts on a possible move? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  00:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * One other thought. It's been something like seven weeks without any opposition.  Why not be bold and do it, already? --Eliyahu S Talk 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose name change . To quote from above: "the wiki page should use the common spelling" Says who??? "Common" where???  By those with internet connections???   There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely.  The practice of iodisation/iodization is widely used, more prevalently outside of the US, where the default English is English-English, not US-English.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Favor name change. to Iodized salt. As the boxed comment from the Oxford English Dictionary notes, "iodised" is not actually the recommended British spelling, either! So the knee-jerk opposition to "iodized" as being some Americanization (Americanisation??), mystifies me. It's not as though we're discussing aluminium vs. aluminum. S  B Harris 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "knee-jerk"? No, we are in fact not discussing aluminium/aluminum, what is that comment about? Are we trading spelling conventions?--Smokefoot (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you had to ask. You wrote: "There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely." In fact, "iodized" is favored by the O.E.D. which is the premier arbiter of British English spelling, and that fact is mentioned above. So who is it who "isn't reading widely"? I think you just had a reflexive moment when you saw an "ize" vs. "ise" spelling, and didn't realize that this isn't a very good place to make a stand. S  B Harris 22:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in any case, taking a stand or not, I changed my vote on the move. My goal here is really not about English, and not really about following rules of OED, but an attempt to try to propagate iodiniz/sation because the technology is so impactful that rules and duels are less important.  And my guess is that spelling with an "s" leads to marginally greater influence on those needing this info than spelling it with a "z". Extremely convoluted thinking, I know, so I give in.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is iodised the spelling commonly used in the Commonwealth countries (in spite of the QED)? If so, then WP:ENGVAR needs to be followed. It is clear, per the MOS, that iodised is the correct spelling for this article if it is the common British spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the full OED, there is no entry for Iodise, only for Iodize: under the Iodize entry there are examples of use which include both spellings. The Encyclopædia Britannica also lists the ~ize variant only and not ~ise.  I suspect that because BE avoids the use of ~ize in favour of ~ise, British writers assume that ~ise is correct, when I don't think it is in this instance, IMHO.  Either way, it doesn't matter if the title is ~ise or~ize, the rest of the page is already in BE and so should remain as such as per WP:ENGVAR at the moment, although if the page moves to a “correct” spelling of Iodize then either BE or AE spelling variants could be selected for the rest of the article.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Iodised salt → Iodized salt – As the spelling Iodised Salt is not recognised in either American or British English this should be moved to the existing page Iodized Salt. Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yep. Be bold and just do it. (I would, but the process is complicated and I got chastized last time I moved an article). We have the redirect Iodised salt --> Iodized salt, and I'll make another one for Iodized --> Iodized salt.  S  B Harris 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Because the Iodized salt exists and has a history, only an admin can perform the move. Powers T 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yep - have to wait for a bit as well, as there is a backlog on the moves too.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Why don't you just list it under WP:RM? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is. Look under the entry for May 9--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No I mean under the uncontroversial requests. You can just ask an admin to move it if you don't expect anybody to object. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Partly cos I screwed up! lol. I was also playing it safe, as there had been some discussions going back a long way on this.  I'm fairly sure that the ~ize spelling is correct in all forms of English, but if someone from Aus, or Singapore uses ~ise then it should remain as it stands with the ~ise (as it is I can't find any one who uses ~ise, but thought I'd better go down the safer route!).  That's my half-arsed excuse for not going straight to the uncontroversial list.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image of iodized salt is deceptive
I dont think that I have ever seen yellowed iodized salt. The image of iodized salt shown in this article is not representative of the stuff that I eat or have ever seen. The sample looks to me like an old sample NaI, which can appear yellowish. Maybe the image was selected to make some point, but to me it seems misleading.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Iodised salt is used in Australia in the Macquarie Dictionary, in the Journal Salt Matters, and for iodised table salt - move should be reverted
The Macquarie Dictionary has iodised as the first alternative not iodized. See Salt Matters (Menzies Research Intitute/University of Tasmania, I also have a container of Saxa Iodised Table Salt. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No sweat mate, we'll just note it as an alternate Australian spelling. S  B Harris 06:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Iodine lost through oxidation?
The statement, Iodide-treated table salt slowly loses its iodine content through the process of oxidation seems dubious to me. Iodine is an element, it isn't lost or changed through oxidation. You might get it incorporated into different salts through oxidation, but the Iodine itself hasn't been altered. The statement needs further explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is true. Iodide is oxidized to elemental iodine, which has a high enough vapor pressure that it simply evaporates into the air and is effectively gone from the salt. Nobody is suggesting that the element disappears. But it is effectively removed from all consideration, and it might AS WELL have disappeared. S  B Harris 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. That being said, I'm going to remove the statement, but only because it turns out (upon more careful reading) that this is already explained in the next section (Iodized_salt), with an appropriate reference.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please memeber that the stuff you're removing is in the article LEDE/LEAD, where it's perfectly okay to repeat information. One of most important things about iodized salt (if iodides are used) is that it doesn't STAY iodized. Yes, information in leads should be summarized, but then we have the problem that people who don't read any farther than leads are confused because the qualifier statements and full explanations are left out. You're making this very difficult!  S  B Harris 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

iodised
I'm reasonably certain wikipedia's policy on the spelling is unless the article refers to country specific topic then the spelling should used should be consistently that of the original author. Therefore if the article was first written as iodised that is how it should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.175 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 * "Original author" only applies where a word is spelled differently in different countries. Per the above discussions, it appears that the "official" spelling is the same in both the US and the Commonwealth. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. Article is now restored to previous long-standing title, and per ENGVAR, there it shall stay. If we want to override ENGVAR, that will take a pretty strong showing of consensus to do so. - GTBacchus(talk) 05:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Iodized salt → Iodised salt – Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Request to revert move made in May, per WP:ENGVAR. The assumptions made to justify moving this article were incorrect: iodise is a valid spelling in British English, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary does recognize iodise, and iodise/iodize is not an exception to the -ise spellings that are, on balance, preferred in British English. Additionally, -ise is even more strongly preferred in a number of other Commonwealth countries (for example, see the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language: "New Zealanders like Australians use -ise as in centralise, not -ize"). Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * To elaborate on the above:
 * British usage: While most British dictionaries prefer -ize (although note that they do recognize -ise in -ise/-ize words including iodise; this reflects its treatment under the entry for iodine in Concise Oxford ["iodize ( or iodise )"] and under iodize in Oxford Dictionary of English ["iodize ... (also iodise)"]) and British publishers are divided (for example, refer to Pocket Fowler's), UK-published dictionaries and English usage guides make it clear that not only is -ise a valid spelling in British English, but it is typically preferred in general use. The Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition) acknowledges that, in British English, "-ise ... is in common use"; Cambridge Guide to English Usage describes -ize as "the alternative spelling ... in Britain" and shows that -ise is more prevalent than -ize in British corpus data. The British media is behind -ise (see BBC, The Daily Telegraph , The Guardian , The Times , etc.), as are organizations where the UK is the dominant English-speaking member (notably the European Union ).
 * Other Commonwealth usage: While Canada typically follows the US with its preference for -ize (for example, Canadian Oxford gives "( also esp. (Brit.) -ise )" under its entry for iodize), most other Commowealth countries—at least those in the southern hemisphere—are strongly behind -ise. Australia's Macquarie Dictionary prioritizes -ise spellings and states that "Australian practice favours consistent use of –ise", contrasting it to American (-ize) and British (variable) usage. Cambridge Guide to English Usage shows that -ise is dominant in the Australian corpus. The New Zealand Oxford similarly prefers -ise; that "New Zealanders ... use -ise ..., not -ize" is noted above. The South African Oxford also prefers -ise, as does the style guide published by the Government of South Africa (it calls for "-ise not -ize").
 * Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Support: If that's the case then fine, revert, although the OED (the full version, not the concise version) does not list iodise at all. If it is a valid spelling in other territories with their variants of English, then the change should not have been made, although there was no defence of the spelling at the time, although some came in afterwards. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The (full) Oxford English Dictionary does not list any -ise forms of -ise/-ize words under their entries individually, instead expecting readers to refer to the entries for -ise and -ize. (That aside, if we were to strictly adhere to the "latest" edition of OED, being published in 1989, it would have us move Haemophilia to Hæmophilia!) Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how the dictionary works, thanks and the titles (or rather the sub-titles) in the OED tend to show all variants of a word. This is not the case with Iodize, which is the correct form in British English. If you are arguing on the basis of use of other  forms of English (be that Australian, Singapore etc) that the word "IODISE" appears in their dictionaries, then you will have my continued support.  If, however, you are simply arguing that the preference in British English is for ~ise over ~ize then I'll have to re-consider.  Do you have any dictionary evidence of Aus / NZ / Singapore English that would support the use of the word "IODISE"? -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant to emphasize is that the full OED does not treat other -ise/-ize words any differently. The divide between -ise and -ize in British English means that both iodise and iodize are correct in British English, as with all other -ise/-ize words, but it is apparent that -ise is typically preferred in contemporary use. There is no such ambivalence among the standard reference dictionaries for Australia (Macquarie), New Zealand (New Zealand Oxford), and South Africa (South African Oxford), all of which prioritize -ise (including iodise individually). Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and the Macquarie Dictionary make it clear that the preference for -ise in Australia and New Zealand is comparable to that for -ize in Canada and the United States (see the quotations above). I cannot find reliable references regarding the usage of -ise/-ize in other English-speaking countries such as Singapore. Regardless, this RM is not based on what the preferred usage is in any country or by any dictionary: it is based on the fact that the article was established in British or Commonwealth usage using -ise and that the move made in May contradicts WP:ENGVAR, given that -ise is acceptable in British English and very strongly preferred in several other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand. Some standardized rigour (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. If you have to get into this kind of minutia to detect a barely-perceptible preference one way or the other, it's not worth the trouble.  Powers T 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have gone into this detail, using reliable sources, to show that the British preference for -ise is evidently far more than "barely perceptible". This requested move is simply based on WP:ENGVAR, not on whether one of two equally valid spellings is considered "more correct" by a given individual: the justification for the move made in May was flawed (a statement such as "Iodised Salt is not recognised in ... British English" is simply not true; indeed, it should have been ringing alarm bells given that the British preference for -ise is well established and well known). I could have just pointed to here, here, here, and here, but I would rather provide a proper analysis to show that the complaints the iodised→iodized move has attracted are well founded (the description of the spelling used on the salt shaker in one's possession did elicit a smile!) before requesting such a move. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that since both spellings are recognized in Britain that ENGVAR becomes less important than WP:COMMONALITY -- and both are less important than "this is not something worth arguing over". Powers T 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONALITY cannot apply given usage in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa; even using WP:COMMONALITY to justify moving an article to -ize considering British English alone would be problematic, given there are numerous other articles written in British English using -ise such as Fertilisation. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I will add that the Canadian Oxford, which navigates between American and British spellings (and describes -ise as an "esp. (Brit.) var. of -ize", in line with US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate which describes -ise as "chiefly British"), states that "the British now prefer the -ise variant" and describes the use of -ize as "former British practice". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 * To summarize the use of -ise/-ize in English-speaking countries where usage can reliably be determined:
 * -ise: Australian, New Zealand, and South African English.
 * -ise or -ize, with -ise typically preferred: British English.
 * -ize: American and Canadian English.
 * Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment - While I'm a strong supporter of WP:ENGVAR, I can go either way here. Perhaps I was wrong earlier about not leaving the spelling as the original author had it, if iodised is in fact the correct Commonwealth spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: English is spoken outside of the Commonwealth, by about 250 million people. I don't put iodised salt on my eggs  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is beside the point whether an American has a shaker of "iodized salt" or an Australian has a shaker of "iodised salt". This is a request to revert a move per WP:ENGVAR. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:ENGVAR. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move back to iodised.... Hard to know why we have WP:ENGVAR if we don't apply it to such an obvious case. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the case isn't as obvious as you think? Powers T 11:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the choice of whether to use -ise or -ize in British English can certainly be confusing: the preference for -ise in British English is not as strong as some would appear to believe, falsely polarizing -ise as "British" and -ize as "American" when in fact both are acceptable in the UK. What is clear, however, is that the move made in May should not have been made: iodise is a recognized spelling in the UK and, more conclusively, iodise is the standard in many other Commonwealth countries which were completely disregarded in that page move. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Support. -ize is the predominant form in the U.S. and Canada, and, apparently, the preferred form in the UK.  However, the previous unilateral move was clearly a violation of ENGVAR as -ise is preferred in some Commonwealth varieties of English.  If we want editors to abide by the rules, then we need to consistently (and swiftly when possible) revert behavior that is in violation of our rules (whether it was intentional or not).  Leaving this article at Iodized salt is an open invitation for others to make controversial moves unilaterally.  I urge the closing admin to use the only effective redress we have: revert the inappropriate unilateral move of a potentially controversial title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see now that the previous move did go through the RM process and was moved properly by a closing admin, so no redress is required.  That means our task here is to determine whether there is a good reason to move it back.  Regardless of how sound the reasoning was (or not) at the last move discussion, they did go through the correct process, so moving it now would be a violation of ENGVAR.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM decision questioned
See Does WP:RETAIN go too far? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * ENVAR also mentions "Opportunities for commonality", and -ize is the international form. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving beyond just questioning the RM decision to actually challenging it
The closing admin states, incorrectly: "The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. " This statement is incorrect because the change in May was not a "change between regional variants of English." The established English variant of this article is British English, and both of the spellings being discussed here are widely used in that variant. Therefore, this is not an ENGVAR issue at all. Whether the article is at Iodized salt or Iodised salt, the established variant remains the same: British English. What is applicable here is WP:COMMONALITY which states: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." and "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". There is no question about whether the -ised for is "less widely distributed" -- clearly it is. The -ized form clearly meets WP:COMMONALITY much better, and the change does not violate ENGVAR. This is essentially the argument made by Powers, and, apparently, ignored (at least not addressed), by the closing admin. Above, I questioned the closing decision. Now I challenge it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Your argument appealing to WP:COMMONALITY is flawed, B2C (and so is Kwami's brief note earlier). Two reasons:
 * 1. American English does recognise -ise forms, and apparently no major American dictionary considers them exclusively British (or Commonwealth). The matter is amply covered earlier on this page; but some evidence right here will be handy. Random House Webster's, Merriam-Webster's, and Webster's New World all in their current editions have an entry for -ise, and classify it as " chiefly British". The very comprehensive American Heritage Dictionary (current edition) has two relevant entries, with no mention of Britishness:
 * -ise / variant of -ize
 * -ize or -ise / ...

 * 2. WP:COMMONALITY makes only this mention of spelling:
 * "If one variant spelling appears in an article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking."
 * The rest of the guideline concerns choice among various "terms" or "words". Iodised and iodized are not different words; they are variant spellings of one word. In other words, they differ in no other way at all: including pronunciation, register, shades of meaning. (Artefact and artifact in fact can theoretically differ in pronunciation, but both forms are normally pronounced either with a schwa, or some sort of /i/, not with any sort of /e/. Wikipedia titles appear to be consistent in using artifact, not artefact. That's healthy, despite artifact being almost exclusively American.)
 * I was not involved in this RM at all; but I support the decision – a difficult call, obviously made with great care after scrutiny of the evidence and arguments.
 * B2C, I advise you to put your abundant energy to better use. A pattern is emerging. Your refusal to accept duly taken decisions is wasting people's time, including your own.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Noetica, your first argument fails out of the gate.  In practice there is no such thing as any particular spelling being exclusive to a particular variant.  For example, aeroplane is recognized in American English as a chiefly British spelling, but in WP we still consider it a British variant.  Your own example artifact is no more "exclusive" to the American variant than is the -ise form "exclusive" to the British/Commonwealth variant. As to whether iodized and iodised are different words or different spellings of the same word is a matter of semantics and varies by context (in contexts where the emphasis is on spelling, like in Scrabble, for example, they are typically treated as distinct words).  Technically, you're correct, but whether that technically correct interpretation applies to the wording in the MOS is not so clear. Hanging on to that distinction is pretty weak. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether trying to reverse consensus-ignoring decisions is a waste of time. You have not been involved in this particular RM, but you have crossed paths with me before, and you have seemed to develop a predilection, perhaps subconsciously, for rationalizing positions like this just to disagree with me.  No?  Well, then, show us where have you agreed with me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, you introduced the notion of meeting WP:COMMONALITY as a matter of degree. I, though, have taken it as a mere hurdle requirement. In this case, both spellings plainly meet that requirement, so it is reasonable to move on to other considerations. Here there are two: consistency within the article, and consistency between similar articles (a desideratum according to policy at WP:TITLE). The article is written in British English (for example with goitre, not goiter); so a spelling that tends the British way gives internal consistency. Do you find that other titles include semantically related forms beginning with "iodiz-", or "iodis-"? I don't. I therefore think there is no problem with consistency between articles, either.
 * As for the definition and individuation of words being a "semantic" matter, I agree. Of course! Much that is important in RMs, and in the proper reading of guidelines and policies, is inevitably "semantic". That is simply to say that we have to attend to meanings. Surprised by that? Alarmed? Now, WP:COMMONALITY refers to "variant spellings". It does not refer to "distinct words that are exactly similar except in that they differ in spelling, along with differences that are minimally and necessarily consequent on that primary difference". So the guideline is naturally to be interpreted in the way I show above.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The main point of my argument is that ENGVAR does not apply since both spellings in question are acceptable in the established variant of the article, which alone completely undermines the stated justification for GTB's closing decision to move. A secondary point is that COMMONALITY suggests the -ized form be preferred.  COMMONALITY states, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms".  And for examples of "less widely distributed terms" it uses two different spellings of the same word: "aeroplane" and "airplane", saying that "universally used terms" are preferred to these. Well, like "aeroplane" and "airplane", "iodised salt" is a "less widely distributed term" (language that suggests a matter of degree, by the way), while "iodized salt" is a "universally used term".  Even if you want to seriously pick the nit that it's not actually universally used (because it's apparently practically unused in some Commonwealth countries), let's recognize that the meaning of "universally", like all words, depends on context, and does not necessarily mean "without exception" (e.g., "People universally agree rape is wrong" doesn't mean without exception - our jails are full of exceptions).  Further,  the language in COMMONALITY itself suggests making these decisions based on degree of compliance with the "less widely distributed" wording. ENGVAR does not apply here, so GTB's basis for reversing the May move to the -ized form is without foundation.  That alone justifies putting the article back to the title where the consensus in May unanimously decided it should be. Further, the -ized spelling complies better with COMMONALITY than does the -ised form.  Even if you think that's weak, against the complete absence of argument for having the article at the -ised form, it's still plenty strong, especially in addition to the first point. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Born2cycle, we can talk about this for ten thousand words, if you want. Do you think that's a good use of your time? Do you think this is "another horrible closing that flies in the face of consensus"? It's that bad - not just something you disagree with, but "horrible"? Do you think the encyclopedia is being harmed? I see this as a difficult call, where a good case could be made for either side. I considered the arguments, and I made a call. It's defensible, and the other call would be defensible, too. We could go ten thousand words over either call, if someone just decides they're unhappy enough. Is that a good use of those ten thousand words? You know - and you do know this from experience - all you have to do is ask me once, and I'll post to AN requesting review of any and every close of mine that's challenged. I'm off to do that now. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Community review requested here. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my comment: rather than personalize this and go after the closing admin with pitchforks and torches (criminialize vs. criminalise this?), can we not just all get along? And move it back to iodize? The reasons have been stated: "iodized salt" gets 4 times the google hits as "iodised salt" and the ratio of hits for "iodized" vs. "iodised" is even more staggering. Both forms are correct. Both are synonymous. Only "iodized" is phonetic, which makes it better. Thus, I much prefer it. Why would anybody fight for the other? S B Harris 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the whole talk page (which should answer your question), and, if you're so inclined (and I hope you are), make a formal proposal via WP:RM, taking all of the above discussion into account. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it. My eyes glaze over. Cargill, Compass Minerals, and Morton Salt dominate U.S. salt production, which dominate world production in the English-speaking world (the possibly largest salt producer is China, but these two are very close so it's hard to tell which is largest-- neither dominate). These North American companies all use the spelling "iodize". As does the U.S. Salt Institute they belong to. See the Salt Institute FAQ . Morton in 2009 was bought out by European giant K+S: . This now makes K+S the world's largest table salt producer, but you know what? They spell it "iodized" also. . Finally, if you want to talk about China, all salt production in China is monopolized under the umbrella China National Salt Industry Corporation. They iodize China's salt and are proud of it. And they spell it "iodize" when they use English: . So, the major guys who make the world's table salt, and who iodize it, use "iodize," not iodise. Why the hell should Wikipedia do otherwise?  S  B Harris 01:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the answer to your question is above, but it can be summarized as WP:ENGVAR. That said, I think the closing decision of the previous proposal could have easily gone the other way.  I again urge you to make the strongest argument you can that acknowledges and addresseses ENGVAR, and put forth your RM proposal accordingly.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't read WP:ENGVAR. Did you miss the "strong national ties" part? The articles on Tolkein and his works are written in British English because he was British. A number of other examples are given. Most of the world's salt production, and iodization thereof, is in North America and China, and these nations and companies both use "iodize." That's a strong national ties thing. The nations that do most of the iodizing, spell it "iodize." England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count, any more than if the article on Tolkein had been started by an an American Tolkein lover. S  B Harris 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really not get that I'm on your side? If you don't get that out of reading the above, then you have not read the above (not to mention my own arguments about why ENGVAR does not apply here).  If you're not willing to help yourself that much, then I'm not willing to help you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're not helping very much when you suggest that I make an argument that acknowleges and addresses ENGVAR, when I just did that. Your place, at this point, is to say "look, another guy has noticed that ENGVAR has another important clause that I missed." Who is on whose side at this point, is something you can't tell without a libretto. I'm trying to keep from noticing who is on which side. Okay, I'm looking above and see that User:GTBacchus was the closing admin. Okay, perhaps we should indeed report GTB on WP:PREMATUREADMINACTIONS. The arguments, however, should stand on their own merits. I can't be the first person to notice that iodized salt on planet Earth comes mostly from countries that called it iodized (not iodised) salt, can I? And that this makes a crucial difference in re ENGVAR? User:GTBacchus, we're waiting to hear from you. S  B Harris 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck waiting to hear from GTB. He retired from WP.  But his argument was simply that each version is acceptable in some variety of English, therefore it is a violation of ENGVAR to change from one to the other; that that is exactly what ENGVAR is supposed to prevent. I suggest that your point that iodized salt comes mostly from countries that use the z is stretching that aspect of ENGVAR, but I suppose it can't hurt to mention that, in your actual WP:RM proposal to move it. Why are we wasting time preaching to the choir instead of making an actual proposal?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't help but notice this by User:Sbharris '''England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count.''' However, Basil Hetzel, an Australian, appears to have been instrumental in identifying the need for dietary iodine supplementation. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/147428.php Paul foord (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, I don't mean that Australians don't count from any point of view. I don't think that an article on insulin production should be written in Canadian English because Canadians did most of the basic discovery. However, production of stuff does count and when Australia and England produce most of the world's iodized salt, I'll allow them to choose how "iodized" is spelled. At present, WP's argument on this boils down to "Most people do it one way, but we're doing it some OTHER way, just because we always have." That's sort of the military view. I suppose I can propose something on WP:RM but I'm not going to waste much time on it. WP has many WP:LAME polities, which arise simply because it is written by a certain group of people who want to see the world their peculiar way, rather than the way in which most of the people of the world see it. When it comes to truth, the majority cannot rule, but when it comes to custom (iodize vs. iodise) surely world popularity and world practice should overturn something that started by random chance on Wikipedia! (Such as where the person who expanded a stub to an article happened to be born-- cripes.). The entire WP:ENVAR section has a metaproblem, because in some cases it seems to endorse doing just that. Which is nutso. S  B Harris 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Iodised was the natural spelling for me when coming to this page, as a British English speaker. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2F42486_C062E073640EA71C2DB979760A8E7D18_journals__PNS_PNS70_OCE4_S0029665111001686a.pdf&cover=Y&code=cd8180fa8f1a3ff891802b67ab63f032 this academic paper also uses Iodised. It could be that like sulphur is sulfur in international chemical discourse, iodized is the accepted norm, but that doesn't mean this has filtered down to everyday usage in Britain and Australia etc.. From my perspective the differentiation appears to be whether the American English is to be preferred over the other english variants (I've seen no mentions in the discussion whether iodized is the preferred international chemistry version, and if it is it should be re-named to comply, if not then I guess it's a simple american or other english argument.Lacunae (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of dextrose?
The article claims that, over time, the iodide gradually leaves the salt. But I don't believe that's necessarily true. Morton salt has dextrose added to stabilize the iodide, which effectively keeps it in the salt. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? (I don't know how effective this stabilization is. Does it completely prevent the iodide from leaving? Does it simply slow down the rate of iodine loss? These question need to be considered as well.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Iodide or Iodine?
I'm a little confused, and maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but... does iodised salt contain "iodide" or "iodine"? The first two lines seem to be at odds with each other.ShadowsGathered (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Iodide is the term used for iodine as part of a compound with no oxygen (in which case it would be iodite or iodate), see Chemical_nomenclature and Ctrl+F for "-ide". I'm not familiar enough to say when if at all "iodide" should be used on its own. Like putting "fluoride" in the water doesn't mean bubbling pure fluorine F2 gas through potable water but instead means ionic compounds like sodium fluoride or whatever it is in toothpaste...
 * In any case I've been more of a physics person when it comes to science, but I'm almost certain iodine and iodide are interchangeable for most situations, unless you're trying to decide between "something iodide" and elemental iodine for supplementing your diet, in which case the article on Iodine clearly recommends against elemental iodine in your diet.Mattman00000 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iodised salt. 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:
 * Replaced archive link archive.org/web/20080325033408/http://www.cerebos.co.za/IodationHints.aspx with https://web.archive.org/20080325033408/http://www.cerebos.co.za:80/IodationHints.aspx on http://www.cerebos.co.za/IodationHints.aspx

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 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia
I have added a short section on Australia regarding the use of Iodized salt. I believe that the references are sufficient but can add further if necessary HaraldW1954 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iodised salt. 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/20110725051037/http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/What%20we%20do/New%20Solutions%20-%20Double%20Fortified%20Salt/DFS-Tech-Breakthrough-to-alleviate-I%26IDD-around-the-world.pdf to http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/What%20we%20do/New%20Solutions%20-%20Double%20Fortified%20Salt/DFS-Tech-Breakthrough-to-alleviate-I%26IDD-around-the-world.pdf

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) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Iodizing caused deaths?
Near the bottom of the article there is a quote lifted directly from the abstract of the cited paper which reads, "The study also found a large increase in thyroid-related deaths following the countrywide adoption of iodized salt, which affected mostly older individuals in localities with high prevalence of iodine deficiency."[27]" (emphasis mine).

I do not have access to the cited full article so I cannot check to see if the abstract contains an error but it is counter-intuitive to me that the widespread addition of a micro-nutrient to salt would have been continued if it caused a large increase in deaths. I'm not making a change because the "increase" word is an accurate quote of the linked abstract but ... really? Rengewwj (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I have received and read the original cited paper and, in fact, there was an increase in deaths. It seems that people who had very low iodine intake could develop a fatal over-reaction to the introduction of the tiny amounts of iodine in table salt. Authorities of the time (1920's) in the USA thought that the cost of approx 10k deaths was worth the overall benefit. Strange but true. Rengewwj (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 * People that have been iodine-deficient for a long time tend to develop some hyperthyroidism if you restore their iodine intake; also mentions this sort of thing. It's some very harsh calculus, but we are indeed reaping the benefits. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Himalayan Rock Salt in the Indian section
This section includes the following, "In India many people use himalayan rock salt,which it imports from Pakistan . It is also recommended by many intellectuals,as it is a natural form of salt." Can someone add something to explain what relevance this has to iodised salt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alant (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have issues with the "Chemistry, biochemistry and nutritional aspects" section
"Four inorganic compounds are used as iodide sources, depending on the producer: potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide."

> Sodium iodate is toxic. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.

"Salt is an effective vehicle for distributing iodine to the public because it does not spoil and is consumed in more predictable amounts than most other commodities.[citation needed] For example, the concentration of iodine in salt has gradually increased in Switzerland: 3.75 mg/kg in 1952, 7.5 mg/kg in 1962, 15 mg/kg in 1980, 20 mg/kg in 1998, and 25 mg/kg in 2014."

> The "for example" does not make sense. Ok, salt is consumed in predictable amounts. Why does it follow that the Switzerland iodine concentrations has been increasing? Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? Jgrov8 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sodium iodate is toxic. Basic chemistry dictates that it must be comparable in toxicity to potassium iodide. Like KI, NaI becomes Na+ and I- ions in water. And really we only care about the I-, because living animals have Na+ everywhere. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source. has a source.

Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? They probably are eating less salt (and especially home-cooking salt); this stuff has been mentioned as a risk in assessments of the UK. We do need a source though. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iodised salt


text: Template:Politics of Armenia

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

title: Template:Politics of Armenia


text:
Template:Politics of Aruba

{{Documentation|content=

title: Template:Politics of Aruba


text: Template:Politics of Austria

title: Template:Politics of Austria


text:
Template:Politics of Azerbaijan

{{Documentation|content=

title: Template:Politics of Azerbaijan


text: Template:Politics of Bahrain

title: Template:Politics of Bahrain


text: Template:Politics of Bangladesh

title: Template:Politics of Bangladesh


text:
California State Route 126

State Route 126 (SR 126) is a state highway in the U.S. state of California that serves Ventura and Los Angeles counties. The route runs from U.S. Route 101 in Ventura to Interstate 5 at the Castaic Junction-Santa Clarita border through the Santa Clara River Valley. The highway is an important connector highway in Ventura County, and serves as an alternate route into the Santa Clarita Valley, and (via Interstate 5) the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles and the High Desert of Antelope Valley.

Route description

SR 126 generally follows the Santa Clara River through the valley, passing through the towns of Fillmore and Santa Paula. The freeway portion of the highway, known as the Santa Paula Freeway, begins in Ventura at U.S. Route 101. It proceeds northeast through the city, interchanging with the western end of SR 118 at a grade-separated interchange. SR 126 then passes through areas of agriculture, orchards, and the Saticoy Oil Field to its northeast, continuing through Santa Paula, where it intersects SR 150, and the freeway portion terminates at Hallock Drive. SR 126 continues as a highway thereafter, known as Telegraph Road. This section extends through Fillmore as Ventura Street, where SR 126 meets SR 23. Following this, SR 126 as Telegraph Road encounters the community of Buckhorn, as well as the edge of Piru and the important historical Rancho Camulos.

The stretch of SR 126 between Santa Paula and the Los Angeles County line has seen an unusually high amount of traffic fatalities and other injurious accidents. Head-on collisions were very frequent on the older, curvy, two-laned sections, earning this portion of the road its nickname, "Blood Alley". An article from the Los Angeles Times in 1996, noted 34 fatalities between 1990 and 1994. Though the highway has since been improved in most areas, traffic fatalities are still quite common.

In Los Angeles County, SR 126 is known as Henry Mayo Drive. The highway continues east to an interchange with I-5. At this interchange the SR 126 designation terminates, and the road continues into Santa Clarita as Newhall Ranch Road.

SR 126 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, and is part of the National Highway System, a network of highways that are considered essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration. SR 126 is eligible to be included in the State Scenic Highway System, but it is not officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.

Original plans
In 1958, the freeway was originally planned to follow the northern banks of the Santa Clara River, connecting US 101 to US 99 (I-5 today) and US 6 (SR 14 today) through what is now Santa Clarita. In the mid-1960s, construction of the 4-lane freeway began immediately northeast of Oxnard at US 101 and immediately east of Santa Clarita at US 6.

Freeway revolts
In the face of anti-development pressure from Ventura County citizens, and suffering from severe financial problems as a result of the 1971 Sylmar earthquake and the late-1970s California tax revolt, Caltrans abandoned its plans. The freeway, which by then had reached Santa Paula, terminates at a four-way intersection immediately east of the city. From there, a 4-lane undivided highway continues on toward I-5. The eastern approach of SR 126 was abandoned midway through the interchange's construction at SR 14. Two long on-ramps and a large graded plateau are all that remain of the approach.

The only remnants of these plans are the two long ramps to and from SR 14 at the Sierra Highway interchange (exit 6A) in Santa Clarita, and Newhall Ranch Road, a six to eight-lane divided local road that continues from the current terminus of SR 126 at Interstate 5 and roughly follows the original 1958 route to just past Bouquet Canyon Road on the north side of the Santa Clara River. Newhall Ranch Road changes to Golden Valley Road 1.75 miles east of Bouquet Canyon Road, and continues to SR 14, roughly one mile south of the original planned terminus of SR 126.

1984 Summer Olympics
The 1984 Summer Olympics Organizing Committee was allowed to close the freeway portion between Ventura and Santa Paula for cycling practice for the 100 Kilometer Team Trials on two consecutive Thursdays.

Cross Valley Connector
On March 27, 2010, the City of Santa Clarita completed the decade-long Cross Valley Connector (CVC) project, which sought to connect SR 126 directly to SR 14 roughly along the original route alignment. The city-maintained route is named Newhall Ranch Road on the western segment, and Golden Valley Road on the eastern segment. The two segments meet at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Golden Valley Road, where Golden Valley Road turns and continues northeast.

Commerce Center Drive
In 2017, Caltrans began construction along the 1.75-mile eastern end of SR 126, upgrading the 6-lane divided highway to an 8-lane freeway. A new interchange replaced the traffic signal at Commerce Center Drive. The interchange is sequentially numbered as exit 13, as exit 12 is 27 mi away in Santa Paula near the eastern end of the Santa Paula Freeway section of SR 126. It is the only known instance of a sequential numbered exit in California. If the state's normal exit numbering system had properly been applied, Commerce Center Drive should have been numbered as exit 39 instead, as it is approximately 39 mi away from SR 126's western terminus.

title: California State Route 126


text: Template:Politics of Belarus

title: Template:Politics of Belarus


text: Template:Politics of Belgium

title: Template:Politics of Belgium


text:
Template:Politics of Bermuda

{{documentation|content=

title: Template:Politics of Bermuda


text: Template:Politics of Bhutan

title: Template:Politics of Bhutan


text: Template:Politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina


text:
Ada Semantic Interface Specification

The Ada Semantic Interface Specification (ASIS) is a layered, open architecture providing vendor-independent access to the Ada Library Environment. It allows for the static analysis of Ada programs and libraries. It is an open, published interface library that consists of the Ada environment and their tools and applications.

As explained by the ASIS Working Group:

“ASIS is an interface between an Ada environment as defined by ISO/IEC 8652:1995 (the Ada Reference Manual) and any tool requiring information from this environment” (SIGAda, 2020)

It is exclusively used for programming language applications and static analysis on Ada programs, therefore giving the relevant information and access to Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) and applicable developers. ASIS also has the ability in utilizing the relevant software engineering tools whilst also embodying an easy understanding of the complexities of an Ada environment display. In addition, it provides procedures, functions and relevant information that can be significantly used to access exclusive information found in reference manuals and the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST). Which in return will advance ASIS to the capability of being portable to transport and retain information and terminology of Ada tools.

“ASIS consists of 21 packages, 2 are optional and within these packages define 349 queries”. ASIS will also consist of a package which within it includes child packages that include “Errors Compilation units, Ada environments, implementation, exceptions, elements, iterator, declarations, expressions, clauses, definitions, statements, text and Ids”.

Overall ASIS is simply a straightforward way to collect data from an ADA program and increases any of the Ada tools portability.

Features of ASIS
Ada Semantic Interphase Specification under the ISO/IEC 8652 Ada 95 Reference Manual (Ada Language Referencing Manual, 1994) is defined as an interface amidst an Aria environment and other tools requiring information from the Aria environment.

Features of ASIS based tools could include:

 * high quality code analysis
 * automated code monitors
 * browsers
 * call tree tools
 * code reformators
 * coding standards compliance tools
 * correctness verifiers
 * debuggers
 * dependency tree analysis tools
 * design tools
 * document generators
 * metrics tools
 * reverse engineering tools
 * re-engineering tools
 * style checkers
 * test tools
 * timing estimators
 * translators

ASIS also provides limited approaches to the structural and semantic information that are found in the Ada library, it aims to provide and produce information that is similar if not the exact same semantic level as the definition of Ada. This will greatly assist in providing the exact same definitions and information of the Reference Manual for the Ada Programming Language (LRM) to interested individuals and clients (Ehrenfried).

Main abstractions
In ASIS, there are 3 main abstractions that exist in the Ada 'private' types. This consists of Context, Compilation_Unit and Element. While there are additional types of abstractions also involved but the 3 mentioned are the fundamentals.

The Context abstraction of ASIS consists of the definitions, terms and conditions that are available in ASIS enquiries. It is also used as a way and logical handle for the Ada environment. The Compilation Unit is also a logical handle for the Ada environment. This abstraction also defines the properties and characteristics which are further seen in the Ada Reference Manual. It uses Ada's programming language implementation to convey compilation units through ASIS. As said by Adacore;

"An ASIS  provides the ‘black-box’ view of a compilation unit, considering the unit as a whole. It may be decomposed into ASIS  and then analyzed in ‘white-box’ fashion."

Examplies of these properties given can include:

Comparably the Element abstraction is also a logical handle to the Compilation Unit discussed above, this can either be explicit or implicit.
 * 1) Time of last update
 * 2) Name of object containing unit's source text

Structure of ASIS
The ASIS application structure can be categorized into 3 categories; Setup ASIS Analysis, Process Compilation Units and Complete ASIS Analysis. This structure is to help in supporting various code analysis programs that appear in the Ada programming language.

Setup ASIS analysis
The first step to the structure of ASIS analysis is to set it up efficiently. During this step, various tasks and programs are initialised and established. For example, as identified by William Colket (1999), this step is when the ASIS program initializes ASIS, establishes ASIS context and state object, associates the ASIS Context with the analysis, opens the ASIS context, and performs any pre-processing needed to support the ASIS analysis. The first step is generally to get the ASIS analysis up and running and be ready to use efficiently and effectively.

Process compilation units
The setup is then followed by "processing compilation units", during this time is when elements are sampled and analysed to fit into the ASIS Context that had been opened and associated with at the beginning of the ASIS structure. During this step, it mainly processes most of the ASIS application elements in correlation with the ASIS context, it also has the added capability to perform compilation units before and after processing has been done.

Complete ASIS analysis
The last and final stage of the ASIS structure is the completion of ASIS analysis. This is where everything is finalised and reviewed to perform any post processing to the ASIS analysis. The ASIS context is also closed and disassociated and ASIS is eventually finalised.

Design criteria
As ASIS continues to evolve similarly so does the evolution of its design criteria. The criteria for how ASIS can be designed can be sorted into 9 different categories; wide acceptance, transportability, uniformity and cohesiveness, implementability, state of technology, extensibility, ada terminology and style, performance and minimal set of interfaces.

1. Wide acceptance
It must be designed according to this criterion so that a wide variety of tools can be used for ASIS. Designing it with this allows the interface library to be more flexible and available for tools across other platforms, Ada vendor implementations. It also allows for it to reduce training time for tool users and developers.

2. Transportability
ASIS must also be designed so it has the capability to be transferred from one computer to another computer or another environment to another.

3. Uniformity and cohesiveness
It should also be consistent in properties, concepts, types and operations but also be kept as a simple and coherent operation.

4. Implementability
ASIS is also criticised so that it is "implementable by any Ada Compiler Vendor with a reasonable effort". As well as maintaining consistency throughout the whole program.

5. State of technology
The state of technology must always be updated and advanced to ensure no issues take place. Additionally, it should be ensured that all possible variations and versions of ASIS will be coherent and efficient.

6. Extensibility
"It should not preclude extensions that will make use of the ASIS design model and abstractions."

7. Ada terminology and style
ASIS should also adapt to the terms and conditions of style and definitions to the Ada Reference Manual.

8. Performance
"ASIS design must allow for efficiency from both the client view and implementation view"

9. Minimal set of interfaces
"It should allow clients to implement additional layered interfaces using the primitive operations provided."

ASIS for GNAT
ASIS has been used by Adacore to implement an ASIS standard in the utilisation of ASIS-for-GNAT applications. ASIS can be used for GNAT through typical applications such as: “Static Analysis (property verification), Code instrumentation, Design and document generation tools, Metric testing or timing tools, Dependency Tree Analysis Tools, Type Dictionary Generators, Coding standards Enforcement Tools, Language Translators, Quality Assessment Tools, Source Browsers and Formatters and Syntax Directed Editors” (ASIS for GNAT).

This methodology has also been used to develop numerous tools with the assistance of ASIS including;

 * 1) gnatelim
 * 2) gnatstub
 * 3) gnatcheck
 * 4) gnatpp
 * 5) gnatmetric.

ASIS as insulator
Pace Drury (1999) utilises ASIS to create a code for his project named ‘SIDPERS-3’ where the code is used to identify intimate details and variations seen in Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) generated from data base interaction Drury used ASIS for his project where ASIS created a new layer of Ada code which successfully insulated the software developer from the same generated Ada code specifics.

Having written such a difficult code called ‘generate_db_support_code’ which majorly consisted of Ada code, the aim of it were to open 2 files, examine contents and create two new files based on the prior 2 files. ASIS had been used to examine the structure of the code efficiently, making it easier to store and link to a list containing Ada language. ASIS coherently completes what is asked to do and successfully gains constant and secure access to the data base information which meets the project’s needs.

AdaControl
AdaControl is a free (GMGPL) tool that detects the use of various kinds of constructs in Ada programs. Its uses include checking of coding standards, exploring the use of Ada features, making statistics, and more. It exploits all the power of ASIS, and can be considered as the most typical ASIS application.

Additional

 * 1) ISO/IEC 15291: Information technology — Programming languages — Ada Semantic Interface Specification (ASIS)
 * 2) Ada Language Reference Manual. Version 6.0 21 December 1994. Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 Intermetrics, Inc.
 * 3) ASIS 2.0 specification

title: Ada Semantic Interface Specification


text:
Template:Politics of the British Virgin Islands

{{documentation|content=


text: Template:Politics of Brunei

title: Template:Politics of Brunei


text:
User:Custodian

Custodian is an appointed representative of a special panel, composed of European academia and other experts, mainly reviewing information related to the history of higher education.

title: User:Custodian


text: Template:Politics of Bulgaria

title: Template:Politics of Bulgaria


text:
Steve Greenberg (record producer)

Steve Greenberg is an American record producer currently heading the S-Curve Records label. He also manages the pop band AJR and is the host/writer of the podcast "Speed of Sound".

He is noted for "discovering" popular musical acts such as Hanson, Baha Men, Jonas Brothers, Joss Stone and AJR. He received a 2000 Grammy Award in the "Best Dance Recording" category as a producer of "Who Let the Dogs Out?" by Baha Men. Greenberg also won a 2019 Grammy Award in the "Best Album Notes" category for his essay featured in the Stax '68: A Memphis Story boxed set. From 2005 to 2006, he served as the president of Columbia Records, where he produced the debut album by the Jonas Brothers. Prior to founding S-Curve Records, he was Head of Artists & Repertoire for Mercury Records, where he served as executive producer of Hanson's single "Mmmbop", which spent three weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and their debut album Middle of Nowhere.

S-Curve's roster/catalog includes Duran Duran, Andy Grammer, Hamilton star Leslie Odom Jr., 2018 Eurovision winner Netta Barzilai, reggae artist Conkarah, Tinted Windows, Fountains of Wayne, Nikki Jean, We The Kings, Joss Stone, A-WA, Betty Wright, Little Jackie, Tom Jones, Daisy the Great, Care Bears On Fire, David Broza, Rachel Crow, Broadway star Joshua Henry, A Great Big World, Maxi Priest and Diane Birch.

Greenberg co-produced Andy Grammer's triple-platinum single "Honey I'm Good", which was one of the 10 biggest-selling singles of 2015, according to Soundscan and did additional production on Grammer's debut platinum-certified single "Keep Your Head Up". Together with Betty Wright and Michael Mangini, he produced Joss Stone's The Soul Sessions and Mind Body & Soul albums, the latter which received a Grammy Award nomination for "Best Pop Album" in 2005. This same production troika produced the 2009 debut album by Diane Birch, Bible Belt. Greenberg also co-produced with Wright and Mangini two tracks on Tom Jones's 2008 album 24 Hours, and the 2019 O'Jays' album The Last Word, the latter of which was co-produced by Sam Hollander. He was co-Executive Producer of Betty Wright: The Movie by Betty Wright and The Roots, which was nominated for a 2011 Grammy in the Best Traditional R&B Performance category. In 2012, he co-produced and executive produced Joss Stone's The Soul Sessions: Vol. II, the sequel to her debut album. The Soul Sessions: Vol. II reached the Top 10 on both the U.S. and U.K. albums charts. He co-produced Care Bears On Fire's single "Everybody Else" with S*A*M and Sluggo.

In 2013, he produced several tracks on Diane Birch's Speak a Little Louder album. He also traveled to Jerusalem to co-produce, with Steve Earle, the album East Jerusalem/West Jerusalem by the Israeli singer David Broza, backed by a half-Israeli, half-Palestinian ensemble. He appears in the documentary film on the making of East Jerusalem/West Jerusalem. That year, he also began managing the band AJR, with their debut single "I'm Ready" becoming certified Platinum in the U.S. and Australia.

He has co-written songs for Joss Stone, Jonas Brothers, Boyzone, Baha Men, The O'Jays, Leslie Odom, Jr. and others.

He was also nominated for Grammy Awards in 1992 in the "Best Historical Album" category as producer of The Complete Stax/Volt Singles 1959-1968 boxed-set and in 1995 in the "Best Album Notes" category for ''Otis! the Essential Otis Redding''.

In 2020, Greenberg launched the pop music history podcast "Speed of Sound," produced by iHeart Media. Greenberg is the host, writer and co-producer of the podcast.

He contributed the chapter on Sugarhill Records to the book The Vibe Magazine History of Hip Hop (1999) and the chapter on pop music in the 1980s to the collection, Living In the '80's (Gil Troy, ed.), published by Oxford University Press (2009).

In 2014, he published his first book, called How the Beatles Went Viral In '64, about the Beatles' rise to U.S stardom. The book was excerpted as a cover story in Billboard magazine in January, 2014.

In the early 1980s, he was a DJ on the Voice of Peace radio station off the coast of Israel and was a news correspondent for Israel Radio, based in Tel Aviv. He holds an M.A. in Applied Communication Research from Stanford University and a B.A in International Relations from American University.

In 2020, he won the Grammy Award for "Best Album Notes" for Stax Records album, Stax ’68: A Memphis Story.

title: Steve Greenberg (record producer)


text: Template:Politics of Myanmar

title: Template:Politics of Myanmar


text:
Talk:Becky Worley

Untitled
from VfD:

Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Misnamed, and a person who has not yet achieved great things. Geogre 16:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing this on CSD, but I didn't have the time to submit to VfD. I doubt she's noteworthy enough for a wikipedia article, but if someone can prove me wrong I'm open to change. Until then, delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:06, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet notable. Wyss 23:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have you guys done your research?  IS NOTABLE.  Has achieved great things.  Becky Worley was a host of a national live daily television show for over 3 years.  This article may be poorly written, but has potential.  --Randy 02:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree w/Randy Johnston.  There does seem to be more than first meets the eye, she seems notable enough in the computer security industry. --MPerel 20:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Age
On the 2nd of February 2011 she is still 39, but she and the others on the twit network walkabout the rapid approach of the day. --IceHunter (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Becky Worley. 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/20110113203143/http://www.travelchannel.com:80/Video/ci.Webseries_Cash_And_Treasures.series? to http://www.travelchannel.com/Video/ci.Webseries_Cash_And_Treasures.series

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Becky Worley. 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/20110707221841/http://www.beckyworley.com/resume.html to http://www.beckyworley.com/resume.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421214810/http://www.beckyworley.com/bio.html to http://www.beckyworley.com/bio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817061049/http://beancast.us/profiles/blogs/episode-sixtyfive-please-be-my to http://beancast.us/profiles/blogs/episode-sixtyfive-please-be-my

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Becky Worley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Fife

Camp Fife
Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: A boyscout camp, like thousands of others around the world. Geogre 16:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. In principle, any school is notable, any youth camp is not. Wyss 23:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.Dr Zen 01:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete 195.144.131.2 08:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral: do we have articles on other Boy Scout Camps? Can we maybe at least group them at some level? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:28, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Indrian 18:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete – It has a new mess hall. [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 22:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. (I'm still laughing at Xezbeth's comment though!). Perhaps merge with Boy Scouts of America or go with Jmabel's idea to group BSA camps.  --MPerel 20:30, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Lear

Evelyn Lear 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 KEEP

Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Place on Clean Up and RFE: A very notable singer, well documented on the web with full biographies, interviews available, as well as CD's.  However, this is nearly B-Movie Bandit level substubbing.  Geogre 16:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up this article. Evelyn Lear was a very notable opera singer who won a Grammy Award in 1966. Keep. 203.219.222.133 11:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't signed in ealier but I am now. Capitalistroadster 11:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Wyss 23:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please give reason for listing. My suggestion is if it's been incorrectly tagged, be bold and remove the tag. No reason you couldn't make a note on the talk page. If you don't think it needs deleting, then don't list it.Dr Zen 01:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I pulled the speedy delete trigger on the original article. The sum of the original text was:  Evelyn Lear (b. January 8, 1926) is an American soprano.  She was born in Brooklyn.  Th-th-that's all, folks.  Keep brilliant new article. - Lucky 6.9 23:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm. That should have been given a substub or stub tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would have, but it was one in a series of similar substubs. I did put substub/biostub headings on some of the others.  The user now has a screen name and is going to flesh out future contributions. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brilliant article! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely. --MPerel 20:40, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Bush, House of Saud

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - no consensus

House of Bush, House of Saud
Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a vote (yet, anyway): just a question. The book is notable and deserves an article, should anyone decide to write one. But does the movie exist? (Do plans for it even exist?) -- Hoary 11:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've a feeling the movie may be Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the selling of American Empire which seems to feature the exact same people. This article should really be about the book. Perhaps send to peer review? Dbiv 12:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep—notable. Cleanup. Everyking 15:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and get new article. I agree with Dbiv:  the current article is about the Frontline documentary (same folks) or the one she mentions.  The documentaries are not notable enough for anyone to want to move this article (which would then create a redirect from this title).  There is no "keep" to this, though, except for the name, and the name is not editor labor to be saved. Geogre 16:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As the talk page mentions, the text is taken directly from houseofbush.com. Aside from that, delete and get new article seems reasonable. Kappa 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and get new article. The book is notable. And worthy of analysis. But this is not the start of an article about the book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and start new article. The book is noteworthy, but this has nothing to do with the book. --L. Pistachio 23:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, propagandist junk. -- Old Right 23:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Notable book, so if a non-copyvio article is written, it should be kept. -Sean Curtin 01:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Terminal PoV. I'm shocked... shocked to hear that a certain well-known politician may have potential conflicts of interest. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 23:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, far too PoV to keep, stinks of anti-Bush propaganda. --Librarian Brent 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite // Liftarn 20:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it.
 * Delete, but start new article on the notable book of that title at the same time. -- Key45 23:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to cleanup. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:35, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs substantial editing. --Edeans 02:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 06:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as an article primarily about the book (ISBN 074325337X), which is notable. Rewrite to make it NPOV. --MarkSweep 22:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I know, the book was pretty well researched, so if correctly written, wouldn't count as POV. Maybe merge with 'Dude where's my country' though... ;) --PoleyDee 23:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite plane

Infinite plane
Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This has been speedily deleted as nonsense, which I think was correct. At best it was a candidate for BJAODN, though I'm not sure the joke would have survived the journey to BJAODN. For the record, the content (in a table cell in the middle of the page) was: "This page simulates an infinite plane, a two-dimensional surface of infinite size. Click one of the arrows to move to a different part of the plane." (The arrows, one in each direction, were just links back to the same page). --rbrwr± 17:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to plane (mathematics)? -Sean Curtin 01:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Was not a candidate for speedy but should be deleted.Dr Zen 01:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Niterói

General problems in the article
I have edited the secion which talks about the State of Guanabara:

 * This main article is about Niterói. It is important to explain that the city was the capital of the State of Rio de Janeiro, and briefly mention highlights about surrounding events (i.e.: State of Guanabara). However, further developments about the State of guanabara should be kept in its own article.

 * Also, the previous text says quite confusing. It says:

 * During the period (1834 - 1975) when Rio de Janeiro was divided in two states: Rio de Janeiro and State of Guanabara (Federal District), where the national capital was [...]

 * This is quite confusing. So, Since 1834, Rio de Janeiro was divided in two states? Rio de Janeiro and Estado da guanabara? Not quite... First, the state was created in 1960, the city of Reio first became a municipality.

 * Also the previous text says:

 * [...] on March 15, 1975 was remerged with the State of Guanabara (correspondent to the city of Rio de Janeiro). The city was elevated to state capital by the Ato Adicional of 1834. [...]

 * So, first it talks about 1975, and then it goes back in time and talks about the Ato Adicional of 1834. This confuses the reader.

 * It also fails to mention the sequence of events after the proclamation of the republic (when regions started to be called "states"). Before the proclamation of a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, there where no such things as "states".

 * If the text is unclear, rewording for clarity is always welcome, but what you did is erasing information bluntly. I checked the State of Guanabara article (which by the way was created misspelled – please be careful when creating new articles), and 95% of the information in the paragraph you erased was simply not there.  Furthermore, that's not even the real point.  I don't know if you're new to Wikipedia, but we don't turn entire sections of articles into "see main article" pointers.  The history of Niterói is closely linked to that of the Guanabara Bay, and mentions to it in Niterói's article is only to be expected.  The Guanabara Bay is mentioned rather breafly, and is hardly the focus of the article.  The information therein came from official online sources on the history of the city.  If YOU find it confusing somehow, well you're the first, and this page has been quite visited and translated to other language Wikis, but more clarity is always welcome, not erasing though.  The issue of province/state pending the proclamation of the republic is not essential for the international reader to understand the state of affairs in the region, especially since the period at hand extends through both naming conventions, the article simply conveys the message,so to speak.  And I'm not quite sure what you meant about 1960, what was created then was Brasília, and it was immediately created federal capital, but the State of Guanabara and the State of Rio de Janeiro, both already in existence, remained as separate entities until 1975, that is common kownoledge.  Maybe you meant that in 1960 Rio was "demoted" from national capital to a municipality/capital of the State of Guanabara. The Ato Adicional from 1834 gives a timeframe for the reader to know for how long the division of the two states was in place, it not that uncommon to "go back in time" as you said while narrating the history of a city, any referrences to the A.A./34 prior to that moment would have been misplaced, since it would feel like the article was about the division itself, or maybe Rio de Janeiro or Guanabara Bay.  In conclusion, if you want to work on an article on the Guanabara Bay, that's a great idea, but it's completely inappropriate to erase sections of other articles that make referrence to it and replace them with "see main article" notices, and it looks particularly bad when one follows the link and discovers that the "main article" is just a stub.  Regards,  Redux 14:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are YOU from Niterói? Well, my family is... And this text is confusing to them as well. Please, keep the text -- as innacurate as it is.

Merging
I came here from WP:RM and saw three stubbish and not quite expandable articles about administrative subdivisions (Regions (Niterói), Administrative division (Niterói) and Neighborhoods (Niterói), so I was bold and merged them here. I think that, together, they make quite an appropriate section of this article (which isn't long enough to deserve such fragmentation anyway). Duja ► 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's looking good. :-) Redux 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the whole of Brazil??
It is the only Brazilian city to have been founded by an indigenous Brazilian. - Is there any evidence/proof for this? If not, why not change it to something on the lines of "It is widely believed to be".... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danielimb3bacon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

 * Sure there is. From the .gov website of Niterói's Municipal Secretary of Culture (main page: ):  (in Portuguese): Subtitle "A História da Cidade" (The City's History), subheader "A Aldeia de São Lourenço" (The Village of Saint Lawrence), third paragraph: Niterói é, portanto, a única cidade do Brasil fundada por um índio, o cacique temiminó Araribóia (Niterói is, therefore, the only city in Brazil founded by an indian, the temiminó chief Araribóia).  Redux 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Araribóia, a Tamoio Indian chief?
I noticed that the Rio de Janeiro article mentions Araribóia as a Tamoio Indian chief. In the Nitéroi article it says: Tupi indian. And finaly, Redux calls him a temiminó chief in the talk section here above. So which is it? Key to the city 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I looked into it on pt.wiki (Portuguese-language Wikipedia): the Temiminó were a tribe within the Tupi ethnicity (or Tupi nation). Araribóia's domain was in present day's Governador Island.  So in effect he was a Temiminó Tupi.  Tamoio, or The Tamoio Confederacy, was a name given to a coalition of a few Tupi tribes (Tupinambás, Goitacazes, Guaianazes and Aimorés) to fight the Portuguese and hopefully expel them.  Araribóia's tribe was part of the coalition initally, but he was convinced by the Portuguese to switch allegiances in exchange for the land where today is the city of Niterói.  This was facilitated by a previous change in the Tamoio leadership, which was taken over by Chief Aimberê after the previous leader, Chief Cunhambebe died of small pox.  Aimberê was a personal enemy of Araribóia's. So, since Araribóia was initially part of the Tamoio Confederacy, it is not technically wrong to state that he had been a Tamoio Chief as well: his tribe was part of the Tamoio Confederacy and he was Chief of the Temiminó, a Tupi tribe that inhabited the Governor Island, then known as Cat's Island to the Portuguese and Paranapuã to the Tupi.   Redux 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Niterói
On the Flags of the World site, the flag of Niterói it's not the same than the one in the article. I've searched the city hall website but found nothing. Which flag would be the official one? -- Bluedenim  02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I used these descriptions of the city website to do the flag. — Guilherme (t/c) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Niterói. 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/20110516205456/http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/populacao_por_municipio.shtm to http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/populacao_por_municipio.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Niterói


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Thomas

Jess Thomas
Jess Thomas 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 keep.

Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Extreme keep. Yet another unqualified candidate for deletion.  Jess Thomas appears to have been a highly notable musician in his field (classical).     6000 Google hits as well, FWIW.    This needed a simple stub tag, not a deletion tag.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As with the previous Phantom of the Opera entry, Clean up and send to RFE. This is not a stub.  This is a substub that tells you nothing at all.  If things stay like this, it should be deleted, but the figure is notable. Geogre 16:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you please explain why a stub (or a "substub") on a strongly notable person should be deleted?  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * First, a substub should be deleted. A stub can stay.  A substub says "Renee Magrite is a painter."  Anyone using us as a reference (an encyclopedia) figures we're worth nothing and no longer uses us.  The contributor has actually contributed nothing.  Anyone at all who wanted to create an article on Magrite would put in more information, so the only reason to keep is to honor someone so lazy or ignorant as to have managed only a single predicate nominative.  Saying "it could grow" in that case is ridiculous, because anyone at all who created the article would exceed it instantly.  Where a stub should grow is when what is in the stub is something that wouldn't be known by every single person who could create an article.  So, if it all it is is "a tenor," then this is a fact and not an article.  It's a substub and should be deleted, not a stub that should be expanded.  Geogre 21:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Extreme Keep This was never even close to an appropriate candidate for deletion. It was also a legitimate stub. It took me two minutes to expand it (and more could be done). Wyss 23:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. I can't find any policy supporting the deletion of stubs that are readily expandable. Please don't list articles for deletion without giving reasons.Dr Zen 01:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. However, I've taken a look at the first version and I would have agreed with deletion of that. I agree with Geogre: if a subject is worth inclusion it's always worth something more than a substub; substubs are expendable no matter how worthy their subjects might be. If somebody lacks the energy or information to write more than a substub, he or she should direct that little energy elsewhere. -- Hoary 03:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. I have added more to the article and added Wiki Links. Capitalistroadster 09:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. A completely valid article.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Proton Synchrotron

Super Proton Synchrotron 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 KEEP

Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It definitely exists, it's been there for nearly 30 years, and it's one of their main devices. Pity the article is so stubby. Dbiv 12:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Dbiv's reasons. Thue | talk 13:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid article, needs expansion, send to cleanup if needed. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:13, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to cleanup. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep valid stub Wyss 23:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've done a quick expansion job on it, by googling the CERN newsletter for some details. Average Earthman 17:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagner James Au

Wagner James Au
Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a copyvio, anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I notice that the creator has but one edit -- this article -- and that the IP resolves to Linden Labs, where Mr Au works. Coincidence? Even if cleaned-up, delete as non-notable. --Calton 16:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
John Greenwood (composer)

John Danforth Herman Greenwood (26 June 1889 – 15 April 1975), an English composer best known for his film scores, was the son of New Zealander Alfred Greenwood (1842–1912) and his English-born wife Ottilie Rose Minna (1855–1932) née Schweitzer. He was named after his grandfathers: Herman Schweitzer, a Prussian born analytical chemist; and Dr. John Danforth Greenwood (1803–1890) from Sussex, England, a pioneering New Zealand physician and educationist, who had emigrated to New Zealand in 1842 after retiring from medicine due to ill health.

Education and early career
Greenwood was born in London. He learned piano and viola from his parents and at 18 entered the Royal College of Music to study viola and horn, as well as composition with Charles Villiers Stanford. While there he won the Grove scholarship and Arthur Sullivan composition awards. For a short period he taught at Brighton and Hove Grammar School, and then made his living as a pianist, horn and viola player in various orchestras as well as conducting at the Queen's Hall and in the provinces.

During the First World War Greenwood was a conscientious objector. At that time he was living at 39, Hillcrest Road, Acton Hill. Greenwood married Winifred Margaret Hicks in 1917 and a son, Alfred Michael Greenwood, was born a year later.

Composer
Greenwood's early concert works had their first performances from the Queen's Hall Orchestra under Henry Wood in the early 1920s. But he quickly became involved with writing music for the cinema, composing and editing music for silent films from the 1920s onwards. In 1929 he wrote a new score for the part-talkie film To What Red Hell. From the 1930s until the mid-1950s he worked on around 50 films, from Man of Aran (1934) to Grand National Night (1953). While he no doubt gained considerable satisfaction from these compositions – and access to a large audience – there were also frustrations as the film editing process frequently required the removal or addition of passages of music quite regardless of the overall form and themes of the piece.

Whether his compositions of incidental theatre music for Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night's Dream (as staged by J.B. Fagan) were intrinsically more satisfying is not known. A Fantasy was extracted from A Midsummer Night's Dream and performed separately.

His film credits also include scores for documentaries such as Berth 24 (1950), portraying the life of the Hull docks, and The Lake District (1954), with narration by Michael Redgrave. His march The Eighth Army (from the film The Nine Men) written with Eric Coates, was recorded on 78.

The concert works, composed in parallel with his work for film and theatre, are now entirely forgotten. Salute to Gustav Holst was premiered at the Sir Henry Wood Promenade Concerts in 1936, conducted by the composer. His setting of Psalm 150 for chorus and orchestra was broadcast in May 1936, conducted by Adrian Boult. On 24 January 1938 Constant Lambert conducted the BBC Orchestra in the first performance and broadcast of Greenwood's Symphonic Movement.

The Piano Quintet, composed around 1940, was performed by the Aeolian String Quartet and Kyla Greenbaum on 15 October 1953 at Queen Mary Hall, Great Russell Street, as part of a chamber concert that also included the String Quartet No 2 (1928) and the Flute Sonata (1943). On 14 September 1956 his Viola Concerto received its world premiere at the Proms, with Watson Forbes as the soloist, conducted by John Hollingsworth.

The composer's archives, held at McMaster University, contain documentation (including some manuscripts) of two symphonies, three piano sonatas and two orchestral ballet suites (The Silver Harlequin, 1917 and Piccadilly, 1953).

Later life
By the 1930s he was living at Roedean, Brighton. During the Second World War he worked on the staff of the BBC European Service as Assistant Music Supervisor. By the early 1950s, as his work on films drew to a close, he was living at Greenwoods, North End, Ditchling in Sussex. In 1969 his address was Guntsfield, 32 Beacon Road, Ditchling. He died at Ditchling, aged 85.

Filmography
• The Lake District (1954)

• Grand National Night (1953) a.k.a. Wicked Wife (USA)

• The Gentle Gunman (1952)

• Another Man's Poison (1952)

• Family Portrait (1950) a.k.a. A Film on the Theme of the Festival of Britain 1951 (UK: subtitle)

• Trio (1950)

• Berth 24 (1950)

• The Lost People (1949)

• The Last Days of Dolwyn (1949) a.k.a. Dolwyn; a.k.a. Women of Dolwyn (USA)

• Quartet (1949)

• Eureka Stockade (1949) a.k.a. Massacre Hill

• Broken Journey (1948)

• School for Danger (1947)

• Frieda (1947)

• Hungry Hill (1947)

• They Knew Mr. Knight (1946)

• Painted Boats (1945) a.k.a. The Girl of the Canal (USA)

• San Demetrio London (1943)

• The Lamp Still Burns (1943)

• The Gentle Sex (1943)

• Nine Men (1943)

• A.1. at Lloyds (British Council documentary, 1942)

• 'Pimpernel' Smith (1941) a.k.a. Mister V (USA: reissue title); a.k.a. The Fighting Pimpernel

• Contraband (1940) a.k.a. Blackout (USA) (with Richard Addinsell)

• 21 Days (1940)

• Prison Without Bars (1938)

• The Drum (1938) a.k.a. Drums (USA)

• Elephant Boy (1937)

• Secret Agent (1936) (uncredited)

• East Meets West (with Louis Levy)

• The Invader (1935) a.k.a. An Old Spanish Custom

• Man of Aran (1934)

• The Constant Nymph (1933) (with Eugene Goossens)

• Alibi (1931)

• The Sleeping Cardinal (1931)

• Stranglehold (1931)

• At the Villa Rosa (1930)

• To What Red Hell (1929)

title: John Greenwood (composer)