text:
Talk:Windscreen wiper

John Amos?
United States Patent US3262042 was filed two years before Kearns filed, and was also granted before Kearns. It appears to be the earliest US patent for an intermittent windshield wiper - it was granted, and the only other patents it cites are nor for intermittent wipers. The patent owner was Lucas, a UK company, so there may be prior art in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Hirst (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Kearns
I don't know what to say about this article. Some guy called Robert Kearns claim he invented wipers but never compensated. The interesting part is it looks like Ford acknowledged it by paying him something See "Kearns had gained some vindication in the form of $30 million in settlements from Ford and Chrysler, but he never got what he had sought from the beginning."

 * The whole issue of the inventor looks highly open to debate. Solid citations for Anderson, Hofmann and Mills Munitions? The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography mentions even more possibilities: a Gladstone Adams of Newcastle upon Tyne (a 1911 patent he said had been stolen by someone else called Capstaff, who patented it in the USA); Prince Henry of Prussia (for his Benz car in 1911); and a reference to the existence of hand-operated wipers in France in 1907. RayGirvan 19:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Kearns invented the intermittent wiper mechanism, i.e., the device that lets you adjust the speed for different rains. He never claimed to have invented the wiper itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.67.247 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

picture
A better picture is reccomended 69.244.157.99 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) What makes some windshield wipers better than others? I find it hard to believe that you have to buy a $50K car to get a decent set of windshield wipers. What can people with average cars do to ensure they have the best possible wipers? 69.244.157.99 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

nozzle
Is there a specified term for the nozzles that spray cleaning fluid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.186.134.103 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Rotary "wiper"?
I have a picture of a rotary "wiper" on a ship's bridge. Does that belong here or is there a name for those? 72.74.204.205 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rear wiper?
The article mentions that rear wipers are found on square-backed vehicles; why are they not found on sedans? Is the airflow better? It seems like the rear window of a sedan, which faces up, would gather more water. 72.74.204.205 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the erroneous assertion that rear wipers were "invented" by a Ford engineer in 1972, since they were standard equipment on Volvo station wagons starting with the 1970 model year, and were available on high-end Italian cars (e.g. Lancia Flaminia) as early as the 1950s. Can anyone confirm when the first rear wiper was actually offered? (To answer the anonymous question above, yes, airflow over a sedan's rear window often precludes the need for a wiper, whereas a wagon's rear window is exposed to road spray in relatively stagnant air, and the steeply-raked rear window of some sports cars makes them prone to water accumulation when stopped or moving slowly.) Jelliott4 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Name of article
This article's title uses the term "windscreen," while the article on the piece of glass in question uses "windshield." It seems to me that they ought to be consistent, and I thought about moving this to "windshield wiper" on that basis, but I took a look at "what links here" and I think that ensuring that all the links are correct would be a formidable challenge, one for which I don't have the time. 1995hoo (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no call for such a change, we only require interarticle consistency and in any case, you should go through the process at WP:RM before making changes without consensus Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reqphoto
I just added a reqphoto because, despite all the photos, we don't have a picture of a regular automobile windshield wiper. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish
Would like to add info that windshields can't be cleaned with glass cleaner if there is roadgrime or wax on them. They need to be cleaned with a razor, window polish or bonami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pivot and pantograph
Somebody needs to find and include some information about pivot and pantograph wipers.

Pivot (or radial) wipers are attached to a single arm, which in turn is attached to the motor. These are commonly found on many cars, trucks, trains, boats, airplanes, etc.

Pantograph wipers, OTOH, are used on many commercial vehicles, especially buses with large windshields. Pantograph wipers feature two arms for each blade, with the blade assembly itself supported on a horizontal bar connecting the two arms. I believe one arm is attached to the motor, while the other is on an idle pivot. The pantograph mechanism, while being more complex, allows the blade to cover more of the windshield on each wipe. However, it also usually requires the wiper to be "parked" in the middle of the windshield, where it may partially obstruct the driver's view when not in use.

Some larger cars in the late '70s, early '80s, and perhaps beyond, had a pantograph wiper on the driver's side, with a conventional pivot on the passenger side. I've seen these only on LH driver American cars; I don't know if they ever appeared on RH drive cars (mechanically, they should have been of about equal complexity). The two arms of the pantograph were of different length, with the outside arm being longer, allowing the blade to change position slightly during each wipe, presumably to provide better coverage of the lower and upper corners on the driver's side without the other end of the blade having to leave the windshield. Usually these were in a tandem arrangement (both wipers pointing in the same direction—usually if not always toward the passenger side—when in the down position), though I suppose an opposed arrangement (with the wipers pointing in opposite directions when in the down position) would have been possible (in which case both wipers could have been of the uneven-arm pantograph configuration).

Any insight that could be provided regarding these devices by those with knowledge and access to resources would be appreciated. 64.85.240.2 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Windscreen wiper → Windshield wiper — other articles use the American term "windshield" (see: Windshield, Windshield washer fluid). Just in the interest of consistency, rename to Windhsield Wiper. -TinGrin 08:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose: See WP:ENGVAR for a lengthy exposition of why move requests between national varieties is a waste of time for next-to-no gain, and thus why the community rejects them outright. Knepflerle (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and speedy close this, WP:ENGVAR is very clear. Jeni  ( talk ) 13:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose common noun not a proper name. I think a speedy close here is appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. Who said anything about whether the topic was a proper name or not? We're perfectly free to discuss titles of articles that are not proper names. Propaniac (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original request was to Windscreen Wiper (capitalised), hence the talk of proper nouns. Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the nominator that it doesn't make a lot of sense for the respective articles to be named Windshield and windscreen wiper. I don't care whether the object is referred to as a windshield or a windscreen, but consistency between them seems a reasonable objective. I didn't see anything in the linked WP:ENGVAR guideline that expressly forbids this type of nomination -- the argument is about consistency, not about picking the term used in a particular country. Propaniac (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR says we should avoid these moves for any reason. They're just not worth the hassle.  It would only be a matter of time before the US titled articles are requested to be moved to UK spellings for consistency with them, or vice versa.  Seeing as the redirects take you to the right place at the moment, what is there really to gain? Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neatness, really. It's hardly a major matter either way, but even within that guideline, it calls for internal consistency (meaning if an article refers first to "color" and then to "colour", you should change one to the other) and I don't see why consistency between articles about such closely relate topics is any different. And I still really do not see any part of that guideline that applies to this discussion, if you actually read the guideline, because this isn't about one variety being "more correct", it's about already having chosen one variety for this topic. It doesn't say anything in line with "avoid these moves for any reason." Perhaps that was the intent of those who wrote it, but it certainly doesn't say that. Propaniac (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and speedy close: Ref:WP:ENGVAR, and note that "America" didn't invent the automobile, so we need not show WP:BIAS by using American terms for international topics. Added suggestion: it would likely also be acceptable to propose swapping Windshield/Windscreen and Windshield washer fluid/Wiper fluid. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 19:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

New Section(s)?
I was thinking, shouldn't there be a section devoted to the ongoing maintenance and potential problems with windshield wipers and certain unique types? Kyle1081 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (February 2011)

 * No consensus, not moved. Courcelles 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Windscreen wiper → Windshield wiper — Relisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Although the prior request for this name change/page move for consistency was denied on grounds of WP:ENGVAR, my rational is to go with the most commonly used name, per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick Google Search for "Windshield wiper" bring back About 14,600,000 results (0.13 seconds), as opposed to About 788,000 results (0.13 seconds) for "Windscreen wiper". Furthermore, a search for the plural forms of the two bring back About 4,730,000 results (0.16 seconds) for "Windshield wipers" and About 803,000 results (0.25 seconds) for "Windscreen wipers". It is obvious that "Windshield wiper" is the common name here by far. --Greekboy (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I also suspect that Google may be doing something clever as, for me, in the UK using google UK, google reports 2.59 million hits for windscreeen and 2.83 for windshield which suggests that the common name case may not be that clear cut either. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, this isn't a matter of naming of preference and variation (i.e. WP:ENGVAR) in my opinion, but rather the most common name used. Regarding searching, be sure to search the phrase/name using quotation marks, as that searches for the specific term. (see this guide for more information on searching for specific terms) I doubled checked using Google.co.uk (instead of .com), I got the same results I did as using .com. Furthermore Bing brings back 5,710,000 results for "Windshield wiper", 1,760,000 results for "Windscreen wiper", 2,650,000 results for "Windshield wipers", and 1,780,000 results for "Windscreen wipers". A Yahoo! search brings back 6,060,000 results for "Windshield wiper", 1,780,000 results for "Windscreen wiper", 2,480,000 results for "Windshield wipers", and 1,750,000 results for "Windscreen wipers". As far as I can see, "Windshield wiper" is in fact the most commonly used. Greekboy (talk)
 * OK, that's true, I may have forgot to put it in quotes (very unlike me) but I'm confused as to how "windshield wipers" gets 14.1 million and without quotes (i.e. less restrictive) gets much less, so I'm still not believing googles results. I don't think the Bing results are clear enough to warrant ignoring WP:ENGVAR. Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. While ENGVAR would usually rule here, it would be best to move the page so it will be consistent with windshield, which is essentially its parent article. Also there is the article Windshield washer fluid. Grk1011 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like where that arguement could possibly lead. In this case there is a clear "parent" article so it's not so likely to cause problems but what about cases where the parent article isn't so clear or where there's more than one parent.  In those cases we would end up having long discussions about which is "parent" and possible switching between English variations based on which one different people think is "parent" which is exactly what WP:ENGVAR is trying to avoid.  Dpmuk (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But how is that relevant to this article? In this case it is rather clear, but you are saying it shouldn't be moved because someone might have a similar argument where the relation isn't as clear on another article? Grk1011 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR is there to try to stop arguements, reversions etc. If we allow this we'll just going to be shifting the arguement to is the COMMONNAME clear enough in this case.  In this case it's rather clear but where do we draw the line - there's no easy definable place so it's better, in my opinion, just to apply ENGVAR.  Allowing excpetions could be a slipepry slope to real harm to the project and as keeping it at this name causes no real problem this is not a risk I think is worth taking even if I was convinced that windshield was overwhelmingly the common name (which I'm not). Dpmuk (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support per argument of User:Greekboy with Google tests & User:Grk1011 for related articles. Imperatore (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pure ENGVAR issue. Outside North America, "windscreen" appears to be the common term, in far more countries than those that use "windshield". If we used Google searches to determine all our article titles then they would invariably be American, as far more webpages seem to come out of America than anywhere else. Thankfully, this is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia and we don't. Of course, if we just used numbers of people who used one term or another then all our articles would probably be titled in Indian English, which is closer to British English than American English! It is unfortunate that it doesn't match the windscreen article, but that's how the ENGVAR rule works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should. It's a rare enough case I'm not surprised it's not called out specifically as an exception, but that's what we're here for: to help define those edge cases.  Powers T 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the various technicalities involving policies like ENGVAR & COMMONALITY, however there is a flaw in your logic about the number of countries that use the term and their potential misrepresentation on the internet. It might be fact that most webpages eminate from North America, at least webpages in the English language. If British English conventions be preferred on the basis that they're surely adopted in more countries over any other English convention, then every general article (with a subject matter not pertaining to national ties) should only be using British spelling conventions under this logic. I would think that this type of logic goes against the very spirit of ENGVAR or similar Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Imperatore (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall making such an argument. Did you mean to reply to Necrothesp?  Powers T 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it's aligned correctly now. Imperatore (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No flaw at all, since ENGVAR states that articles which deal with common objects not specific to one country should remain in the variant of English in which they were originally written. My point was that ENGVAR trumps COMMONNAME in such articles and claiming that more webpages use one form rather than another is irrelevant in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case the page should be moved. The article windshield was created in June 2003 and windscreen wiper was created in December 2003. The American English was already the first name chosen and should be retained according to ENGVAR. It shouldn't matter if it is a separate page because it is a component related to the windshield. Grk1011 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I was ready to oppose based on ENGVAR (which can be overcome by a persuasive enough COMMONNAME argument, but search engine results are often tailored to a user's location and other preferences, so it would require much clearer results than what's listed above).  But two alternative arguments have swayed me: one, consistency with windshield; and two, WP:COMMONALITY, as it seems "windshield" is more common in the UK than "windscreen" is in the U.S.  Powers T 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What led you to the second conclusion? I live in the UK and to me it's most defnitely a "windscreen".  If you can show me what led to your conclusion I may change my !vote above. Dpmuk (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And me. I've never once heard it referred to as a windshield in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was basing it on the UK Google results mentioned upthread. Powers T 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close per previous consensus and Opposes above. – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a speedy close is appropiate as a) a different arguement is raised and b) 9 months has passed since the last discussion and consensus can change. Dpmuk (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I would normally oppose per WP:ENGVAR but it is a little disconcerting to have articles to be named windshield and windshield washer fluid but windscreen wiper. Also, is there any confusion in the US between windscreen and window screen that would call for WP:COMMONALITY to be invoked?  —  AjaxSmack   01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still to be convinced that we can apply WP:COMMONALITY as I'm not yet convinved that windshield is used and understodod in the UK. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how common it may be in the UK, but it most certainly has been used in UK news articles. Some examples from the BBC:, , . Some more examples from The Guardian: , , , . Also checking out Ford's UK website, I see they use both terms as well: , . Furthermore, this UK repair site seems to use both terms as well: . Greekboy (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. WP:ENGVAR seems pretty clear cut on this. --DAJF (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per above on WP:ENGVAR and previous consensus. -- de Facto (talk). 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per wp:engvar Adding &pws=0 to the google search string eliminates personal search bias. walk victor falktalk 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not know about "&pws=0", but adding it to the end of my Google search still gives me the same results as before. I get the same amount of results per the tested searches, only thing that changes is the amount of seconds. I don't think I ever had "personal search" turned on to begin with, so no "bias" with the search as claimed. Also everyone opposing this move and hiding behind WP:ENGVAR is only seeing the situation in black-and-white. As User:Grk1011 pointed out, the windshield article was created back in June 2003, with the wiper article following in December 2003. As the wiper is a component of the windshield itself (a wiper can't work without the windscreen/windshield, or else it would be something else entirely), the first established term (Windshield) should be retained based on WP:ENGVAR it self. In this case it seems WP:ENGVAR actually supports such a move, based on consistency and WP:Retain. (Not to mention the possibility of it falling under WP:COMMONALITY as I have found usages of "Windshield" on UK sites posted above.) Greekboy (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that ENGVAR arguement is invalid (although I'd agree that the COMMONALITY one has some merit). Should we rename Animal colouration, Liturgical colours, Political colour etc as are article on colour is at color? Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Question: Are the opposers, then, okay with having this article at "windscreen wiper" while another article is at "windshield"? This doesn't strike anyone as a silly discrepancy?  Powers T 13:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not particularly. On the contrary, it reminds readers of the richness and variety of the English language and that wikipedia editors come from many different cultures. And it's always funny to stumble upon silly parochialisms. walk victor falktalk 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather unprofessional, don't you think? I have a hard time imagining any other encyclopedia with such a discrepancy.  Powers T 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really no and certainly not something important enough to risk the possible disruption that would be caused if we tried to implement something based on "parent" articles given that "parent" article is a pretty alien concept to wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose Stable, no reason to change, no reason to argue. Too many countries use Windscreen and there is no such thing as a parent article. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the WP:ENGVAR guideline tells us that it does not really matter which term we use, the principle of Consistency (as outlined at our WP:Article titles policy) tells us that articles on related topics (such as Windshield and Windscreen wiper) should use consistent (ie the same) terms.  So... make up your minds... one or the other, but not both. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or both if you could get the 'Windshield' article renamed to 'Windscreen'. -- de Facto (talk). 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting moving Windshield to "Windscreen" as an alternative to the move proposed here... that would certainly be acceptable from a consistency standpoint. If you are suggesting that both articles should move ("Windshield" to "Windscreen" and "Windscreen wiper" to "Windshield wiper") ... then no.  That would simply reverse the inconsistency without resolving it.  My point is that we need to move one article or the other, so they are consistent with each other. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The consistency argument seems a slippery slope: once you start to say that it applies between articles, rather than within, then we could end up with an entirely US-speak encyclopedia, with every usage of "theatre" becoming "theater" for consistency. Leave it alone, as the inconsistency is part of the rich international style of Wikipedia. PamD (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No new argument or evidence, so why even raise it again? As has been stated many times, the Google stats simply reflect the greater use of the Internet by users of American English, and therefore are not significant. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The new argument is consistency with related terms and the fact that it is more widespread with use even in the UK while windscreen is never used in the US and Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While the odd website may use the term, I can assure you that no Briton would ever use it in speech. Most may understand it due to the influence of the American media, but none would actually use it. Changing for consistency's sake would open a massive can of worms as far as ENGVAR is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment: I feel like there's a void in the policies/guidelines here, as hinted at in the request. On one hand, WP:COMMONNAME says use the most common name—I assume that to mean the one used by the most people on the Internet, since that is our audience. On the other hand, WP:ENGVAR says don't change between varieties of English unnecessarily and retain the original spelling. Can somebody clarify for me? –CWenger (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – This rationale has been provided so many times but it's not correct. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to national varieties of English (see WP:Article titles). Moving this page would violate policy.  McLerristarr |  Mclay1  12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. So long as ENGVAR is consistent within the article, who cares about the rest of the encyclopedia? Otherwise we'll end up with one form of English cascading across all articlespace. (Note: just realised PamD made the same point above. What he/she said.) Brammers (talk/c) 16:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

old geometry
OK, we have the "Geometry" section. Notice that coming into 1960, most U.S. cars were still being made with Figure 2 but with less (no?) overlap of the 2 wipers, resulting in a wedge down the middle which could not be wiped. As noted, Figure 1 cleans most of the window space in front of the driver (with the driver being on the left side in the passenger compartment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mary Anderson -- A Feminist Invention Myth?
A year before Mary Anderson's patent, some guy named Henry Bayer patented a windshield wiper. US Patent 724534. Looks to me like Mary Anderson is the feminist equivalent to the many black invention myths floating around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.79.76 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I came to this page just to laugh at how woke Wikipedia is becoming. 24.46.151.135 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Attachment standard
There seems to be a small number of industry standards used to attach wipers (and replacement wipers) to a car. These might be worth mentioning. -- Beland (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to footnote?
The list of cars using the "Fig. 2" wiper geometry has gotten way too long. I think the caption should be changed to "Numerous vehicles use this wiper geometry", with a footnote that can list all the relevant models. Could somebody with expertise in Wikipedia "Group notes" set this up? Reify-tech (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Windscreen wiper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101202140916/http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/anderson.html to http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/anderson.html

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 21:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Induction wiper
Suggest include information about induction wiper (automatic wiper). BoldLuis (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Framed, Frameless Beam and Hybrid blades
Came to this page looking for clear definitions on specific types of wipers blades, such as framed, frameless beam-types and hybrid blades, which are a combination of both frame and beam types.

Just wondering why no mention of this on this page? --2607:FEA8:E320:6F1:F0CE:E5AB:F3FC:E0E7 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

History of wiper geometry
I do see "Modern windscreen wipers usually move in parallel".

Before 1960, most American cars had wipers pointing in opposite directions, but I'm seeing the parallel system on pictures of full size Mercury of 1959 and 1960, although I am seeing the "pork chop" windshield wraparound still in use (an unusual combination of windshield and geometry of the wipers).

The "parallel" system (wipers in rest position pointing to right when the driver is on left) cleans as much space as possible in front of the driver, and it would have to point in the opposite rest position for driving on the opposite side of the road. Carlm0404 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) 〜  Festucalex  •  talk  09:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Windscreen wiper → Wiper blade – Fairly common name that allows to avoid using names specific to a variety of English. Summer talk 14:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - "wiper blade" does not encompass the whole subject of this article, it is just one component of the complete windscreen wiper system.
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with above comment. Station1 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

AquaBlade
How does this differ from the system whereby washer fluid is dispensed from holes in a plastic tube that runs up the wiper arm? I had the latter on a 1989 Citroën CX and I believe similar systems were in use considerably earlier on commercial vehicles with large vertical windscreens. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windscreen wiper


text:
Talk:Mary J. Blige

Acting
I think it should have been mentioned that Mary is staring in the lead role in the new movie coming out in the 2007 year, based off of Dr.Nina Simone's autobiography, "I Put A Spell On You." Which is going to be phenomenal, especially to me considering Mary is my favorite R&B singer and Nina is my favorite Jazz singer. -Rakash Singh April 13,2007

Queen of Hip Hop Soul
Is the title Queen of Hip Hop Soul in this article?

Semi-protection edit request on 12 April 2015
Just in there will be vandalism of this page. Or it can be temporary. Done

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

title: Talk:Mary J. Blige


text:
Agathangelos

Agathangelos (in, in Greek Ἀγαθάγγελος "bearer of good news" or angel, c.  5th century AD) is the pseudonym of the author of a life of the first apostle of Armenia, Gregory the Illuminator, who died about 332. The history attributed to Agathangelos is the main source for the Christianization of Armenia in the early 4th century.

The "standard" version of Agathangelos' history accepted in the Armenian tradition dates to the second half of the 5th century. This version was soon translated into Greek; on the basis of this Greek translation, a translation into Arabic was made, as well as many secondary Greek, Latin and Ethiopic versions. Another, earlier Armenian version of the history, now lost, was the basis for two Greek, two Arabic, and a Karshuni translation.

He claims to be a secretary of Tiridates III, King of Armenia in the early 4th century. Some researchers assume that the life might have been written after the 5th century. It purports to exhibit the deeds and discourses of Gregory, and has reached us in Armenian, Greek, Georgian, Syriac, Ethiopic, Latin and Arabic. The text of this history has been altered by some modern researches, but it has always been in high favor with the Armenians and the early medieval scholars who translated it into different languages. Von Gutschmid maintains that the unknown author made use of a genuine life of St. Gregory and of the martyrdom of Saint Rhipsime and her companions. Historical facts are intermingled in this life with legendary or uncertain additions, and the whole is woven into a certain unity by the narrator, who may have assumed his significant name from his quality of narrator of "the good news" of Armenia's conversion. It has been translated into several languages, and Greek and Latin translations are found in the Acta Sanctorum Bollandistarum, tome viii.

According to Agathangelos, he was tasked by Tiridates III to write about his father Khosrov II of Armenia and his reign period. Until the 19th century, based on this fact, scholars believe that Agathangelos lived in the 4th century. Later there attempts were made by researchers to demonstrate that Agathangelos lived and worked in the 5th century and was not able to be Tiridates III's secretary.. The opinion among many scholars however prevails that the systemic approach of the Armenian historiography allows calculating the approximate dates of the most authors. For instance, Ghazar Parpetsi, whose biographical data are known (second half of Vth century – beginning of VIth) century calls him the author of the “Third Book”. He calls P'awstos Buzand born before him the author of the “Second Book” and Agathangelos, the author of the “First Book”. Buzand has the same approach. Also, in his book each author focuses in greater details on the events happening during or close to his own live: Parpetsi's focus was the liberation wars led by Mamikonyans (450 - 484), Buzand describes in more details events of the second half of the IV century, and Agathangelos provides details of the adoption of Christianity and events in the first half of the IV century.

title: Agathangelos


text:
Steve Fairbairn

Stephen Fairbairn (25 August 1862 – 16 May 1938) was a rower and an influential rowing coach at Jesus College Boat Club, Cambridge University, Thames Rowing Club and London Rowing Club in the early decades of the 20th century, and founded the prestigious Head of the River Race in 1925.

Early life
Fairbairn was born on 25 August 1862 in Toorak, Victoria. He was the son of Virginia (Armytage) and George Fairbairn. His father, born in Scotland, was a wealthy grazier with significant pastoral holdings and married the daughter of his business partner George Armytage.

Fairbairn was educated at Wesley College, Melbourne, and Geelong Grammar School, where he took up rowing and was regarded a good Australian rules footballer and cricketer. He topped his leaving year in mathematics and was a senior school prefect.

Five of Fairbairn's brothers, including future Australian MP George, had attended Jesus College, Cambridge, and Steve followed them to read Law from 1882.

Rowing career
Fairbairn rowed for Jesus College Boat Club, like his brothers and six of his cousins had done. In Jesus College crews, he rowed to success in the Cambridge University bumps races and Henley Royal Regatta, where they won the 1885 Grand Challenge Cup. He also won the hammer throwing and putting the weight at the Freshmen's sports for Jesus College. He rowed for Cambridge in the Boat Race, in 1882 and 1883 and later while conducting post-graduate studies in 1886 and 1887.

After university Fairbairn's senior club rowing was from the Thames Rowing Club in London.

Philosophy
Fairbairn was an early proponent of training his crews to slide in their seats to facilitate leg-drive. He had realised that the secret to world-champion sculler Ned Hanlan's uncanny successes was not that he rowed a longer stroke, but rather that he used his legs to great effect during the stroke. He was also an advocate of fitting longer slides into boats to better allow the use of the legs. Fairbairn's observations led him to develop a revolutionary rowing style featuring concurrent use of the legs, back and arms at the catch.

He also coached that crews should not focus unduly on positioning their bodies according to rigid rules but should instead concentrate on the movement of the blade, creating an easy, flowing movement. His philosophy was that rowing, when done well, should be a sublimely enjoyable experience.

All of these features of his coaching are referred to as "Fairbairnism". There is continuing debate among rowing coaches and historians as to whether Fairbairnism better describes a style of rowing or philosophy of coaching.

Influence
Fairbairn was an iconoclast with strong views and great charisma. Opinions of him and his methods tended to be extreme. Fairbairn corresponded widely and wrote four volumes on coaching, and his views were therefore adopted by many coaches across the globe. In the 1920s and 1930s, many coaches followed his lead completely. However, others felt Fairbairnism to be anathema to the principles of the "English Orthodox" style. To those observers, Fairbairn's crews rowed sloppily. The schism between "Orthodoxy" and "Fairbairnism" had largely disappeared from rowing by the 1940s. Fairbairn's books were collected, and reprinted in 1951 and again in 1990.

Training methodology
Fairbairn was a strong believer in the benefits of distance training; part of his philosophy was that "mileage makes champions". As such he developed the concept of the head race, a long-distance race against the clock to mark the end of winter training, thus encouraging crews to train over longer distances.

In 1926 he founded the Head of the River Race, for men's eights held annually since on The Championship Course on the River Thames in London. Similarly he donated a trophy for a head race to be held annually on the River Cam. "The Fairbairn Cup" (known colloquially as "Fairbairns") is the annual race held on the first Thursday and Friday after the end of the University of Cambridge's Michaelmas Full Term (typically early in December). The race is organised by Jesus College Boat Club in Cambridge.

Memorial
Fairbairn died in London, 16 May 1938. His ashes rest beneath the shadow of Jesus College chapel. A portrait by James Quinn hangs in the college. A duplicate of the Quinn portrait hangs in Thames Rowing Club's Putney clubhouse.

A memorial to Fairbairn is situated on the southern bank of the Thames between Putney and Hammersmith. This memorial, a stone obelisk popularly known as the Mile Post, is exactly one mile from the Putney end of the Championship Course. In the Boat Race and Wingfield Sculls, the Mile Post is a formal intermediate timing point, and it marks one mile from the finish of the Head of the River Race.

A bronze bust of Fairbairn by George Drinkwater is the winner's trophy for the Head of the River Race. In 2010 Fairbairn was inducted into the Rowing Victoria Hall of Fame.

Personal life
Fairbairn married Eleanor Sharwood daughter of Sydney Sharwood, on 18 November 1891 at Toorak, Melbourne, Victoria.

Their eldest son Ian Fairbairn competed as a rower in the 1924 Summer Olympics and was a financier who originated the unit trust. Their second son, Sydney Fairbairn, was a cricketer and British Army officer. Steve Fairbairn's nephew George Eric Fairbairn won a silver medal in the 1908 Summer Olympics.

title: Steve Fairbairn


text: Category:971 deaths

title: Category:971 deaths


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Alrek

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Club Alrek
Delete. Pretty unnotable small student's club that sold booze illegaly. Could possily be merged with Alrek Studenthjem, below. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Egil, delete. Radiant! 11:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Brim/Sandbox

$$\int_{}^{} e^x $$

title: User:Brim/Sandbox


text:
Squatter (game)

Squatter is a board game that was launched at the Royal Melbourne Show in 1962, invented by Robert (Bob) Crofton Lloyd. With more than 500,000 games sold in Australia by 2007, it became the most successful board game ever developed in Australia. As of 2018 there are still Squatter competitions and active Squatter clubs. In 1999, a version became available on PC CD-ROM. However the PC version was not commercially successful and is no longer available.

Game play and components
Superficially, Squatter has the appearance of a Monopoly-type game. However, unlike Monopoly, all players remain in the game until the end. Players each start the game with their own sheep station and aim to be the first player to improve and irrigate their pastures and then fully stock their sheep station. Players run their sheep station as a business venture, to earn enough money to pay for the seasonal running expenses and to finance the improvements that are required to win the game. The Squatter game presents players with a mixture of strategy and luck that reflects the many challenges facing any form of livestock raising. These challenges include droughts, floods and bushfires, as well as disease, variable livestock prices, and luck.

The components of the game are stored in a cardboard box with a lid. The box depicts an Australian stockman herding sheep on horseback. The components consist of

 * A square game board with a hexagonal layout representing 6 sheep stations and a Monopoly-like set of squares printed around the edges of the board that pieces move around
 * Two "Ready Reckoner reference" cards
 * Six "Hay Stack" cards, twenty-two "Tucker Bag" cards, five "Stud Ram" cards, twenty-six "Stock Sale" cards, five "Worm Control Programme" cards, five "Fertilized Pasture" cards, five "Control of Weeds and Insects" cards, thirty "Irrigated Pasture" cards and thirty "Improved Pasture" cards
 * Two 6-sided dice
 * Six playing pieces and one hundred and eighty sheep tokens
 * Play money of various denominations

Australian cultural significance
The game has been added to the collections Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Centre as well as the National Wool Museum and the National Museum of Australia where in the Statement of Significance it quotes"''Squatter's' focus on sheep farming reflects the inextricable link between this industry and Australian history more broadly.' and 'The 'Squatter' boardgame, which has been a household favourite in Australia for 45 years, offers players a rough simulation of life as a sheep farmer with all the daily trials and tribulations this entails.'"

Criticism
The game has received some criticism in recent years (2016) with Mental Floss rating it number 8 in 14 justifiably forgotten Milton Bradley board games. Mental Floss's position is that:"'Some board games turn up the tension so high you practically sweat through your clothes. Squatter, an Australian import which brings home the high-stakes world of sheep-herding, is probably not one of them.'"

Reviews

 * Games & Puzzles

title: Squatter (game)


text:
Water of Leith (New Zealand)

The Water of Leith (also known as Ōwheo, the River Leith, Leith Stream or Leith Canal), is a small river in the South Island of New Zealand.

It rises to the north of the city of Dunedin, flowing for 14 km southeast through the northern part of the city and the campus of the University of Otago before reaching the Otago Harbour. The name of the city of Dunedin is the anglicised form of Dùn Èideann which is the Scottish Gaelic form of the name Edinburgh, and thus the river is also named for the Water of Leith which runs through the Scottish capital. The original Māori name for the stream was Ōwheo ("The place of Wheo"), Wheo being the name of a local chief whose village stood close to its mouth. This name is now rarely used (but the university's computer science department building is named after it).

Course
The Leith's source is close to the Dunedin Northern Motorway, part of State Highway 1, 100 m south of Leith Saddle, at an elevation of some 380 m above sea level. The motorway passes over the Leith Saddle, which lies between the sources of the Leith and the Waitati River, approximately halfway between the northern suburb of Pine Hill and the outlying settlement of Waitati.

From here, the Leith flows south, skirting a water supply reservoir formed behind Sullivan's Dam, which was constructed in 1916. This reservoir, along with the Ross Creek Reservoir on the Ross Creek, one of the Leith's tributaries, provides much of Dunedin's drinking water.

From the southern end of the Sullivan's Dam reservoir, the Leith flows southwest, passing under the motorway and through the wooded Leith Valley. A gravel road parallels the course of this stretch of the river, becoming asphalted close to the point where the Leith meets the urban parts of the city at Glenleith. Several small tributaries join the Leith on this stretch, notably Morrison's Burn.

As it reaches urban Dunedin, the river is often only a modest stream, partly because of the quantity of water abstracted upstream. Much of the northern part of Dunedin's inner city area is situated on the river's floodplain.

The first of the Leith's two main tributaries, Ross Creek, joins the Leith between the suburbs of Glenleith and Woodhaugh. The Ross Creek Reservoir, a historic engineering project, is surrounded by numerous popular bush walks. Much of the upper Leith Valley is also crossed by less well-known bush tracks, though part of the upper reaches are closed to the public due to their importance for water catchment purposes. Close to this confluence, the remains can be seen of watermills which were used at Woodhaugh, which—though now a sleepy suburb—was once the industrial heart of the city. From here, the Leith turns to the southeast, passing through a public park, Woodhaugh Gardens, as its floodplain begins to widen. At this point, the floodplain is less than a kilometre in width, and is bordered by steep cliffs to the southwest.

The lower reaches of the Leith are contained within engineered, canal-like concrete channels. These, and the various weirs located in the Leith's stream—notably just to the north of Woodhaugh Gardens, were built to prevent a repeat of the serious damage to Dunedin North by the highest recorded flood in March 1929. An earlier devastating flood occurred on the river in 1868. The original course of the Leith was, in fact, a meandering track through what is now the central city, emptying into the upper harbour where Cumberland and Stuart Streets now meet.

The Leith enters the wider plain which is the location of Dunedin's most intensely urbanised area at the southeastern end of Woodhaugh Gardens, close to the northernmost point of the city's main street, George Street. From here, it winds around the northern edge of the floodplain, skirting the Dunedin Botanic Gardens, where it is joined by its other main tributary, Lindsay Creek. This small stream flows from the southern slopes of Mount Cargill, through Bethune's Gully and along North East Valley before crossing the Botanic Gardens and connecting with the Leith. A bronze statue of a trout in the Botanic Gardens commemorates the first liberation into a New Zealand river of brown trout, imported from Tasmania in 1869.

The Leith then turns south, flowing through the heart of the University of Otago campus at which point it veers east, passing the campus of Otago Polytechnic and the Dunedin College of Education and then Forsyth Barr Stadium before reaching the Otago Harbour south of Logan Park.

In 2018 a new cable stay footbridge was erected over the mouth of the Water of Leith (between the state highway bridge and the harbour). The Water of Leith Footbridge was commissioned by Dunedin City Council with funding from NZ Transport Agency. The project was a "Design and Construct" project costing NZ$1.4M. Design commenced in January 2018 and construction was completed in December 2018. The bridge spans 45m over the Leith and was constructed by Edifice Structures and designed by DC Structures Studio.

In the early 20th Century, the watercourse was referred to as the "Leith Canal" in legislation (such as the Otago Harbour Board Empowering Act 1939) and in newspapers; this name is now rarely used.

title: Water of Leith (New Zealand)


text: Category:952 deaths

title: Category:952 deaths


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrek

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 MERGE and REDIRECT to Årstad, Norway; the merge had already been completed. —Korath (Talk) 14:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alrek
Delete. Etymology for pretty unnotable small student's home. Could possily be merged with Alrek Studenthjem, below. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merely an etymology. Merge with Årstad, Norway, to which it seems to belong. Martg76 17:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point - I've made an attempt at that -- Egil 20:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge and redirect to Årstad, Norway. Megan1967 01:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrek


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrek Studenthjem

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alrek Studenthjem
Delete. Pretty unnotable small student's home. If the decision is to keep, then Alrek and Club Alrek needs to be merged with this one. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Ah. It's an building that consists of small apartments where students live. Not much else to say about it, so delete. Radiant! 14:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with a section on student housing in the University of Bergen article. / u p p l a n d 12:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Barnett formula

The Barnett formula is a mechanism used by the Treasury in the United Kingdom to automatically adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England, Scotland and Wales, as appropriate. The formula applies to a large proportion, but not the whole, of the devolved governments' budgets − in 2013–14 it applied to about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget.

The formula is named after Joel Barnett, who devised it in 1978 while Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as a short-term solution to resolve minor Cabinet disputes in the runup to the 1979 devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales.

The Barnett formula is said to have "no legal standing or democratic justification", and, being merely a convention, could be changed at will by the Treasury. Barnett himself later called a 2014 pledge to continue using it a "terrible mistake". In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that "the Barnett Formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom's devolved administrations... A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced."

During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the Barnett formula came to widespread attention given Scotland's higher levels of public expenditure.

Calculation
Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Analogous arrangements apply to categories of expense which are only controlled by some of the devolved governments. The formula is not applied to all public expenditure, but is the default option if no other decisions are made. Expenditure is allocated en bloc, not by service, allowing each devolved administration to allocate these funds as it believes appropriate.

For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England only, for example education and health, the formula for funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations:

 * Extra funding in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland
 * Extra funding in England
 * Population proportion compared to England
 * The extent to which the relevant English departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * Population proportion compared to England
 * The extent to which the relevant English departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * The extent to which the relevant English departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration

For example, in 2000, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were taken to be 3.69%, 10.34% and 5.93% (respectively) of the population of the United Kingdom (comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). For programmes in the Department of Health, the comparability factor for Scotland and Wales was 99.7%. Therefore, if £1 billion was to be added to planned health expenditure in England, then the extra amount added to the Scottish block, compared to the year before, would be £1bn x 10.34% x 99.7% = £103 million, and the amount added to the Welsh block would be £1bn x 5.93% x 99.7% = £59.1 million.

For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England and Wales, such as the Home Office and legal departments, the formula for funding to Scotland and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England and Wales in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations:

 * Extra funding in Scotland or Northern Ireland
 * Extra funding in England and Wales
 * Population proportion compared to England and Wales
 * The extent to which the relevant English and Welsh departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * Population proportion compared to England and Wales
 * The extent to which the relevant English and Welsh departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * The extent to which the relevant English and Welsh departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration

For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England, Wales and Scotland, such as Work and Pensions, the formula for funding to Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England, Wales and Scotland in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations:

 * Extra funding in Northern Ireland
 * Extra funding in England, Wales and Scotland
 * Population proportion compared to England, Wales and Scotland
 * The extent to which the relevant English, Welsh and Scottish departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * Population proportion compared to England, Wales and Scotland
 * The extent to which the relevant English, Welsh and Scottish departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration
 * The extent to which the relevant English, Welsh and Scottish departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by the devolved administration

When additional public expenditure is planned in England, the corresponding additions which are made to the devolved administrations' funding allocations are referred to as "Barnett consequentials". For example, the 2011 Autumn Statement allocated additional funds to aid supply-side reform in the economy aimed at encouraging investment and export growth, noting that where expenditure was undertaken in England, "the devolved administrations [would] receive Barnett consequestials to invest in their key infrastructure priorities".

Proportional to population
The ultimate predecessor of the formula was the 1888 Goschen formula, introduced by George Goschen when Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the proposals for Irish Home Rule. This allocated 80% of funding to England and Wales, 11% to Scotland and 9% to Ireland; hence the Scottish share was 13.75% of the English/Welsh amount.

By 1970, in preparation for devolution, changes in the relative populations were examined. By then the relative populations were 85% in England and 10% in Scotland, meaning that the new Barnett formula set changes to Scottish expenditure at 10/85th of the change in England (or 11.76%), 2% lower than the change that was being received under Goschen. The population percentages have been recalculated annually since 1999, and the Scottish share of changes was in 2002 set at 10.23% of the English amount.

The original calculation was based on incorrect population estimates, and no attempt was made to adjust the baseline for these errors though changes in expenditure are based on more current population numbers.

Political unwillingness to manage the task of making the changes necessary to rebalance existing expenditure meant that the Barnett formula was applied only to changes. Nevertheless, the expectation was that as inflation led to repeated application of the formula, average expenditure per head on devolved services in Scotland would over the years fall nearer and nearer to the English figure (the so-called "Barnett squeeze").

Details of the funding arrangement can be found in HM Treasury's Statement of Funding Policy.

Public expenditure by nation
Estimates of government spend by region are given in HM Treasury's annual publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA). These estimates of the spend per person have consistently shown highest levels of spending in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. For example:

The persistence of per capita public expenditure being lower in England than the other regions continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated.

As these variations were not ever a consciously decided policy of the Treasury or Parliament, this inequality has been cited as a reason for reform. Moreover, the erosion of these differences over time has been very slow and uneven. The change in Scottish identifiable expenditure as a percentage of English expenditure from 2001/02 to 2012/13 was 121.3% to 119.0%. Previous estimates that these differences would disappear in 30 years now appear unlikely.

The average UK total identifiable expenditure on services is approximately £8,788. Instant abolition of the Barnett formula, and adjustment of the four countries' spend to this average would result in a large decrease for each person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but an increase of about 3% per person for England.

Although not subject to the Barnett formula, there are also significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England, in 2012/13 ranging from £7,638 in the South East (87% of the UK average), to £9,435 in London (107%).

Based on need
As noted below, no account is made of the amounts raised by taxation in each of the home nations, nor the relevant fiscal need (based on factors such as sparsity of population, cost of travel, unemployment rates, health, age distribution of the population, road lengths, recorded crimes, and numbers of sub-standard dwellings) in each area. The Barnett formula never claimed to address these issues and was a basic calculation on the basis of proportions of the population.

A needs assessment study was undertaken by the Treasury in 1979 in preparation for planned devolution, to assess the relative needs just with respect to the policy areas which were to be devolved (i.e. excluding non-devolved government spending such as social security). This study was updated in 1993. Both studies found the highest need for devolved services in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. In 1979, Northern Ireland and Scotland received more to spend on services which would have been devolved than the needs assessment suggested they should, and Wales less. By 1993, all three countries had increased the gap between the needs assessment and actual spend. However, this does not necessarily reflect the total need and spend, including non-devolved services. A needs assessment was carried out by the Independent Commission n Funding and Finance for Wales (2010), established by the Welsh government. It used the allocation formula employed by the UK government for English regions and applied them to Wales, determining that Wales was then receiving some 3 per cent less spending per head than it would receive if treated as an English region. The Commission modelled the allocations with a regression formula and applied this to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ireland was found to be funded roughly appropriately, perhaps a percent or two above the consistent level but Scotland was receiving disproportionate expenditures - some 125 percent of English expenditure per head, whereas if treated as an English region it would receive 108 per cent.

Barnett was to eventually view the formula that he devised as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."

According to Scotland on Sunday, moving to a needs-based allocation of government finances would cost Scotland around £2.5 billion a year, but the Audit Commission (for England and Wales) concluded in a 1993 report that "needs assessment can never be perfect or fair."

Funding mechanism
Since devolution, once levels of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been determined by central government in a spending review using the Barnett formula, the UK Parliament votes the necessary provision to the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as part of their central government departments' Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). The secretaries of state then make payments to the devolved administrations from the DEL as block grants, which means that they can be spent by the devolved legislatures on any devolved responsibility however they see fit.

In 2011–12, the Scotland Office Total DEL outturn was £27.567bn, and from this the block grant to the Scottish Parliament was £26.985bn. The Wales Office Total DEL outturn was £14.625bn, and the Northern Ireland Office Total DEL outturn was £10.465bn.

The Barnett formula only applies to the devolved administrations' expenditure classified within DEL, which for Scotland is about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget. Other sources of income for the devolved administrations include:
 * The Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) portion of the grant from central Government. (AME is demand-led funding not subject to limits, e.g. student loans. AME can only be allocated by the devolved administration to the purpose for which it is assigned. Further AME can be drawn from HM Treasury if required, while any unspent AME is returned. )
 * Scottish Variable Rate of Income Tax
 * Borrowing
 * The Northern Ireland Regional Rate

Controversy
The Barnett formula is widely recognised as being controversial but there is no consensus on how to change it.

 * 1) It takes no account of different needs or different costs in different areas.
 * 2) It does not affect existing levels of public expenditure, even if relative population shares change.
 * 3) Since existing levels of public expenditure are not allocated in proportion to population, a particular expenditure decision will lead to different percentage changes in different areas.
 * 4) It takes no account of different amounts of tax paid in respect of different areas or of changes in these amounts.
 * 5) It does not apply to divisions of expenditure between the different regions of England.
 * 6) Neither the Barnett formula nor needs-based spending is incentive-compatible, so neither plan would give the territories any fiscal incentive to become more productive.

English criticisms
Taxation and charges applied in only one nation or region controversially affect the Barnett formula. In one example, the top-up tuition fees introduced in England are counted as additional English public expenditure (as the extra income is spent by the universities) and, therefore, an equivalent amount from the Consolidated Fund, paid for by UK-wide taxation, has been transferred to the Scottish Government. It was argued that this meant that only the English paid tuition fees, yet this money is shared with Scottish universities, despite Scottish students studying at those universities not having to contribute any extra fees.

In contrast, if the Scottish Parliament were to use its tax-adjusting powers, the additional (or reduced) revenue would not be considered in any calculations by the Barnett formula of the block grant for Scotland.

Another criticism is despite at times England's fiscal balance almost being in balance between tax and spending, it's still liable for debts incurred at a UK level for borrowing almost entirely incurred for the devolved nations.

Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh criticisms
In 2007, the UK Government decided that there would be no Barnett consequentials in relation to the more than £7bn of public spending allocated to deliver the 2012 London Olympic Games, despite the fact that a substantial proportion of this spending was to be used to fund regeneration and transport infrastructure in the east London area.

The lack of a statutory basis for the formula concerns Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh citizens. The devolution legislation states only that the Secretary of State for each country will make a grant of such monies as Parliament makes available. This is seen as relying too heavily on the good will of the Westminster Parliament, and infringing the independence of the devolved executives.

A needs-based solution has been suggested as being more fair, especially considering areas of England are not taken into account or compared to the three devolved nations of the UK.

In Northern Ireland, there has been no review of the mechanisms involved in regard to devolving of fiscal power and responsibilities – unlike Wales with the Commission on Devolution in Wales, Scotland with the Scotland Act 2012, and England with the Heseltine Growth Review. The Silk Commmission in Wales was expressly excluded from considering the Barnett Formula, which, following the earlier report of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, was reserved for bilateral negotiation between the two governments,    The original formula has the effect when public expenditure is growing of very gradually reducing the relative share of countries with higher spending per head than England. Since at the time of its report Wales received less than equivalent English regions, the Commission proposed a floor to the Barnett formula to limit any further squeeze in the Welsh case. This proposal was eventually accepted and the Act of 2017 instituted a floor whch ensured Welsh expenditure per head would not fall below 115 per cent of the English level. At the present time no such floor exists for the other devolved administrations although it has now become a matter of debate in the case of Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action highlighted problems with the current system, key of which have been the potential to make corporation tax more attractive for investment, and that the formula favours Scotland much more strongly than it does Wales or Northern Ireland.

The Scottish National Party pointed to what has been termed the Barnett squeeze. They point out that rather than protecting the favourable spending position of Scotland, the Barnett formula steadily erodes that advantage: As it gives equal cash increases (per head), and Scotland's per head spending is higher than England's, Scotland's increases will be smaller as a percentage of their total budget than England's. For example, if a 4% increase is needed to cover inflation, the same cash increase which provides a 4% increase for England may translate into an increase of only 3% of Scotland's budget – after inflation, that would mean a 1% budget reduction for the Scottish Government. Opponents of that view claim that these are not cutbacks, merely lower growth, and that spending convergence between the home nations is not a policy objective of the current UK Government or Scottish Government. Also, in reality this erosion has happened extremely slowly − as shown in the table above, Scotland's reduction in identifiable spend per head from 121.5% of the UK average to 115.5% took nearly 30 years.

Options for change
In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that, "A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced."

The Scottish Liberal Democrats commissioned Lord Steel of Aikwood to investigate what options existed for changing the present arrangement. The report of the Steel commission was published on 6 March 2006 and called for greater fiscal powers for the Scottish Government, similar to the Common Purse Agreement that exists for the Manx Government.

The Scottish National Party proposed Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland which would have given the Scottish parliament full control of Scottish taxation, the result of which would have been a reversal in funding with the Scottish parliament paying the UK government a grant to cover the Scottish share of reserved issue spending. This option was rejected by the UK parliament.

title: Barnett formula


text: Template:Wiktionary category

title: Template:Wiktionary category


text: Category:900 deaths

title: Category:900 deaths


text:
Declarative

Declarative may refer to:
 * Declarative learning, acquiring information that one can speak about
 * Declarative memory, one of two types of long term human memory
 * Declarative programming, a computer programming paradigm
 * Declarative sentence, a type of sentence that makes a statement
 * Declarative mood, a grammatical verb form used in declarative sentences

title: Declarative


text:
Commonhold

Commonhold is a system of property ownership in England and Wales. It involves the indefinite freehold tenure of part of a multi-occupancy building (typically a flat) with shared ownership of and responsibility for common areas and services. It has features similar to the strata title system in Australia, and condominium systems in the United States. Following a consultation by the Law Commission, it was introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as an alternative to leasehold, and was the first new type of legal estate to be introduced in English law since 1925.

An important difference between commonholds and leaseholds (leases) is that a commonhold is indefinite in time, unlike a leasehold which is only granted for a fixed period of time (the term). As a consequence, a commonhold title is not a depreciating asset, whereas leaseholds lose value as the end of their term (term of years or in extraneous documents sometimes existence) approaches.

In the years since the 2002 Act became law, only a handful of commonholds have been registered, whilst hundreds of thousands of long leases have been granted during the same period. As of 3 June 2009, there were 12 commonhold residential developments comprising 97 units (homes) in England and one commonhold residential development comprising 30 units (homes) in Wales. By 2020, this number had not risen significantly—with under 20 developments using commonhold.

Where freehold houses should be subjected to positive covenants which force their owners to contribute to communal maintenance, such as in garden squares, as few such duties can attach to freeholds, access to such areas can be physically restricted to those who own that area, commonly through a residents' management company. Such a company, if the land was owned by the original landlord such as a developer, may come into the hands of the lessees (tenants) through a statutory process leading to legal agreements or a court order which creates a limited liability right to manage (also known as an RTM) company. A common alternative has been rentcharges where truly necessary services or contributions need to be made which cannot devolve to a local authority or statutory undertaker through adoption.

title: Commonhold


text:
Graphoscope

A graphoscope was a 19th-century device used in parlors in order to enhance the viewing of photographs and text. The graphoscope is supposed to be based on a 1864 patent of Charles John Rowsell. These novelty items consisted of a single magnifying glass, often in a wooden frame, in an overall construction that could collapse into a compact rectangular form. A photo/card holder was usually also included. A KOMBI camera often had included in its design a graphoscope for better film viewing. Many devices combined a Stereoscope and Graphoscope.

title: Graphoscope


text:
User:Tradnor

I am Tradnor. I suppose it would make more sense to be Reinhart, but what can you do.

title: User:Tradnor


text:
Talk:The Kennel Club

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DetongChe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias
This article is hugely biased and does not mention ANY of the good things the Kennel Club does for dogs. I appreciate that there is a need for a "criticism" section, but within the scope of the Wikipedia project the entry overall needs to be fair. The issues raised in the 2008 documentary can be discussed over on it's page. --Katheryn witha Y (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming
We've got two articles at the moment, here and at Kennel Club (UK). There are quite a lot of clubs calling themselves "the Kennel Club" worldwide, so my first thought is to have the article at "Kennel Club (UK)" - especially as the Kennel Club don't capitalise "the", and so our usual convention is not to use the word in the title - which would then need disambiguating. The offical site uses the (UK) form in the site url and so on to differentiate, so that's another point for that form. That said, other clubs seem to refer to the UK club just as "the Kennel Club", and that's certainly the usual form here in the UK. What do others think? -- sannse (talk) 11:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that Kennel Club (UK) is the better choice. Elf | Talk 17:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I started that; I did put a note in when I placed this stub here. I was trying to find out whether or not 'The' is actually part of the Club's name.  It's ambiguous; 'the' is in the url and the logo; elsewhere the 't' is in lower case.
 * My feeling is that even if it's proprietary, if 'the' is part of the name then this is where the article should be. If the English have scooped the name, the rest of us will just have to bear up as best we can.  I suppose one could also make a case for usage, as I don't know anyone who refers to any other clubs as just 'The Kennel Club' and certainly never in formal use, and as Sannse says, other clubs do refer to the UK club as The Kennel Club.
 * Quill 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's more info: I went prowling all around their web site and can't find a statement of incorporation or anything similar to it, but in their annual report (and other places) "the" is always lowercase except when at the beginning of a sentence, and in the rare sentences where "the" as a simple article isn't appropriate, "the" goes away entirely (e.g., "fewer Kennel Club registrations", "roles on Kennel Club committees"). And in several places on their site, they abbreviate to KC (not TKC). We'd have to see some official document, though--bylaws or whatever--  I know, because I have to deal with this with my dog agility club, The Bay Team, which *is* its full incorporated name ("The name of this Corporation is THE BAY TEAM, INC."), but we so often use the name without the "the" or a lowercase "the"...  as in "all Bay Team members" or "visit the Bay Team web site" and www.bayteam.org.

 * But here's a practical reason for leaving Kennel Club (UK) as the primary entry--we have hundreds (well, almost 2xx) breed tables that use that form as the link to the club! Who wants to go through and edit all those? Seems I spend my whole life these days working slowly thru all the dog articles making some sort of global change, then when I get to the end, I or someone thinks of something else--   (I know, I know, that's not a REALLY good reason to choose one main form over the other.)  Elf | Talk 10:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Bah, silly me for creating half an article before checking the talk page first!
 * Hmm, Personally, i would keep it as "The Kennel Club" it is after all the name it has used for 132 years! I dont see how any of the breed tables would need to be changed if this name were chosen, all the "(uk)" is there for would be to differentiate it over the other countries kennel clubs, is it not? Tekana | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus here, and we do need a decision...sometime...eventually.... I'm back to thinking maybe it should be at Kennel Club (UK).  Quill 22:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone want to try contacting KC and finding out whether their incorporated name is Kennel CLub or The Kennel Club (per my The Bay Team reference above)? I'd go with whichever is official; if it's really merely Kennel Club then I think we really need "(UK)" at the end to distinguish it from any generic kennel club. Elf | Talk 00:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've taken a stab at it. I'll let you know what they reply. Quill 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Quill says he received this not-quite-answering-the-question reply:

 * We are known as the Kennel Club

 * Regards
 * Gary Johnson
 * Information Services Manager
 * Health & Information Department
 * Email : gjohnson@the-kennel-club.org.uk

But I think that the domain name & the way that everyone calls them is probably sufficient justification to leave the main article here. Elf | Talk 16:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh, that had me laughing, has Gary Johnson ever heard of quote lines? Besides, to look at the KC emblem (or whatever you want to call it, im not very bright today... or any day for that matter) it clearly states "The Kennel Club"! Tekana (O.o) Talk 17:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits
Nice to see a little expansion in this article. I think the original text was pretty clear so I merged it with new text. Don't need to repeat "hound/Hound group" etc for external links; also details about Crufts shd be in Crufts article, since this article isn't about crufts, so I moved them. Elf | Talk 00:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vulnerable Native Breeds
In appropriate sections, user The Wizard of Magicland  has suggested the KC's VNB register as a topic which I think would be better under this article. eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bloodhound#Vulnerable_Native_Breed

Thoughts anyone? Sanft 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

History
There's a lack of a history section in this article. However I only found one source on google - and it's not secondary. If anyone else wants to take a look, go for it. I'll gladly write and add in the section if someone has some sources on the club's history. -- T K K  bark !  00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cobbled a very short piece together, obviously there is loads more but I'm pushed for time. I wonder if the 'Criticism' section should be pared back a bit? It reads more as a sub page to PDE rather than an article about the KC?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  13:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I think it might be important to mention since it did cause such a big controversy around the club but as it stands the section looks like it could be its own page. Maybe pare it down a bit and change the heading from 'Criticism' to 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' as that's the name of the show; or a mention at the end of the history section as 'Some practices of the Kennel Club were examined in the BBC investigative program Pedigree Dogs Exposed.' -- T K K  bark !  15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd think trim it pretty drastically as most is covered in PDE article, leave just the basics as you suggest under the heading of Pedigree Dogs Exposed down near the bottom of the article? There is a lot of stuff the KC do that isn't really (as yet) touched on in the article.
 * By the way, you may manage to find some bits and pieces for reference by using the search facility on the dogworld.co.uk site - it's usually pretty good at covering news items. There is a bit about Steve Dean being appointed as the 14th Chairman of the KC that I found on it earlier. I'm using my iPad at the moment and it's too much of a palaver to find the relevant link just now!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  15:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the one breed without new standards?
It says that The Kennel Club recognizes 210 dog breeds and that there are new standards set for 209 of these breeds. I can't be the only person wondering what the one breed who didn't get new standards was. Can anybody find it? ö  Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As of 2013, the KC now recognise 211 breeds (the Kangal Dog was added, see here ). I think perhaps quoting 209 was a mistake either in the article or possibly in the ref used - I can't access the ref given as it looks as if it is subscription only. The KC itself says 210 breed standards were revised in January 2009 here .  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I eventually managed to access a copy of the Times article - it does quote 209 breeds, which I would hazard is a typo/mistake (given the KC articles linked to in my response above). In an attempt to clarify the situation, I have added to the lead para re: the KC recognising 211 breeds effective 2013 and removed the 209 figure from the text given in the PDE section (just the figure). I hope this is okay but if it's problematic to do it that way, please change it!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Kennel Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091106160331/http://www.dogmagazine.net:80/archives/4304/pedigree-dogs-exposed-filmmaker-speaks-about-apgaw-report/ to http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/4304/pedigree-dogs-exposed-filmmaker-speaks-about-apgaw-report/

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 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Kennel Club. 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/20131231001909/http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/80650 to http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/80650
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6br4WwiIr?url=http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/90593 to http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/90593
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415084038/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3 to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221073744/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

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) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

see also section
Kennel club, the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, American Kennel Club, Kennel Club of India. Also Dog breed & Conformation show / Conformation_show#In_the_United_Kingdom ee 88.111.90.165 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming to The Royal Kennel Club
Should the article not be renamed to the royal kennel club? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Kennel Club


text:
Talk:Kennel Club (UK)

Please see Talk:The Kennel Club for naming discussion -- sannse (talk) 11:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kennel Club (UK)


text:
User talk:Xavier114fch

Welcome!
Hi Xavier114fch, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 11:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

West Island Line and South Island Line on MTR
Thanks, your contribution to MTR was good content, long enough to justify an article by itself. :) I've created it for you, summarized the section and added a link.

Anyway, you may also be interested to take a look at KCR, which we are currently working on its sections to make it another featured article.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for your rearrangement
No problem. If you need anything more, feel free to let me know. :)

Another fellow contributor reverted your changes, probably because he felt that it was indeed too "bloated". From the history the MTR article, there was also one occasion where every expansion plan that can be thought of, confirmed or unconfirmed was added to the article. The joke was, the entire section later disappeared. =P

Don't worry about the Airport Expansion Plan for now. Once the station is officially open you and I will be first ones to update it. :)

Are you from Hong Kong? If you are, you may want to know JuntungWu and Instantnood, two particularly active contributors to HK-related articles and even have a HK Wikipedians' section for it.

Finally, happy editing! Oh, and I forgot, perhaps you'll be interested in joining me to rewrite KCR to make it another featured article? =D

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't copy images off the KCR/MTR websites, modify and upload. I personally have a good set of photo collections I have taken on a trip that I will upload soon. For the map, I'll create one for KCR when I have the time. The current maps on both articles are there under "Fair use" provisions. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read your words on Mailer Diablo's discussion page. Modified images should be alright. Newspapers do the same thing. — Instantnood 15:14 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Your amendments looks good to me :) Personally I do also think the 'External links' may need some tweaking too, so feel free to make changes if you think that it'll add relevance to the MTR article. If any problems occur after editing, let me know and I'll fix them for you. Have a great weekend! ;) - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current events
Hello Xavier114fch, would you be interested to contribute to Current events in HK and Macao? You may also be interested to take a look of Wikipedia:HK wikipedians' notice board, and Wikipedia:HK collaboration of the week. — Instantnood 15:11 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:54 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Nice MTR Map
I really like your MTR/KCR Map. =) 68.48.32.65 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Xavier Fung 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong
encyclopedist 08:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

MTR Map Typo?
On your large future MTR/KCR map Image:FutureMTRNetworkAfterMerger.png the East Rail renamed South-North Line is written as 南北線, but all the other lines use the character 綫 (including the East-West Line AKA West Rail + Ma On Shan Rail). I notice that MTR uses 綫 (eg. ) while KCR uses 線 (eg. ). Since MTR is supposed to be the operating authority after the merger, perhaps it would be better to standardize under 綫?

And yes, I'm just as perplexed as everyone else as to why there needs to be two characters for the exact same meaning.

Kelvinc 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes it is a typo. We type 線 every day and being get used to it. I don't know why the MTR uses the character 綫, but you are right as long as MTR is taken over KCR in the near future.

 * This is the same case as Lai King (荔 vs 茘), as read from some source the Hong Kong character 茘 comes from the Japanese constructor when Lai King station was expanded to accommodate the Tung Chung Line. They use 茘, which is a Kanji, denotes the station name. --Xavier Fung 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the interesting history lesson. Kelvinc 22:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FutureMTRNetworkAfterMerger.png
You included the statement "Copyright Xavier" at the bottom-right corner of the image, which I think unsuitable as you published the image with the license CC-2.5-BY-SA. Please consider substituting the statement with the CC logo. Comments are welcomed. Thanks. - Microtony 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two currently unused templates
In going through the pages listed in, I found and. Both were created on February 11, 2006 by you, and based on the links to these two templates, both appear to be currently unused (but that doesn't list places where the template was substed). Based on your own editing history, I'm guessing that these are the colors used by MTR, but as I know less about that network, I'm only guessing.

Are these two templates still needed? If not, they could be good candidates for deletion. Slambo (Speak) 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

you got scammed mate
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table&action=history

the bbc article you linked was satire :) GTNz (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates_for_deletion
I have nominated Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table for deletion. I have notified you because you are freqent or recent contributor to the template. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the correction. I will post the reference in the original language and not translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografisica (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Singapore Cases
From now, I think i'd better stay out of the US update since it is a bit messy. Can you help me to clarify the number of H1N1 cases of Singapore. It is stated there that the cumulative total 47. Then the newly confirmed cases is 22. So for now, what is total number of H1N1 cases in Singapore? Yongjianrong (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Argentina flu
OK, I put sources (not like you want because I don't know how to put references)... Respect my job... I was 20 minutes with the "figures" and you have undone this in less than 10 seconds. --190.50.93.68 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes I don't know the format... Please visit 2009 flu pandemic in Argentina and do it like Wikipedia wants please on "June 24". --190.50.93.68 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed, that you reverted the Argentinian death toll back again. Now I went deeply into it and finally I do have to admit, that you are right. The one additional case in Formosa I included in my calculation apparently is a BA province case, since the woman, who died, had been resident of Quilmes. But I would recommend to keep the detailing (at least as hidden comment), because as long as they are not providing official data with some detail, we can never relate news reports to the numbers, unless we can detail the numbers ourselves.| FHessel (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that, but nevertheless it has to be reduced. Now somebody has added another case and I have to find out what this is about. Would you like to check Thailand's 6th death in the meantime? It is a strange source and I am not tending to believe it, unless another news ref will report the same story. This first report is now a couple of hours old and there should be at least another one existing by now. |FHessel (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thx! FHessel (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina flu
Argentina will no longer update their reports. So, in your opinion Argentina would never be updated in the table?. Also, why did you reverted Argentina death toll from 46 to 45?. Hope you don't get angry. But I have a question. DO YOU LIVE IN ARGENTINA?, I do and I watch news in my country. So, I wait your answer. --190.50.109.66 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * What I mean with "Do you live in Argentina" is that I think you will never know more than what an Argentine (me and others) know about Argentina death toll and infections. --190.50.109.66 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

it would be safe to revert to official figures. Don't you understand that Argentina will no longer update their reports --190.50.120.109 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Again, don't get angry please. May I seem to be rude towards you but I respect you Hong Kong dude. --190.50.120.109 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, the Government has decided to keep giving daily reports. Or at least weekly reports. Sorry if I was rude or disrespectful towards you. You have always been respectful. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebrations for 2nd Anniversary of Wikimedia Hong Kong

Dear:  ：

Wikimedia Hong Kong has been founded two year ago. Today, we would like to invite you to a great event for our second anniversary celebrations, that is co-host by us - Digital Content Jam 1.0, which is belongs to The 3C Digital Creativity Dialogue Series -- Creativity, Content, Community.

This is the information of the event：

 * Date: 31, July, 2009 (Friday)
 * Time: From 7:00pm to 9:30pm
 * Venue: eTech Centre Meeting Room M2 &3, 4/F Opulent Building, 402-406 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai（Google map）
 * '''Language: Cantonese
 * Free snacks and drinks will be served!

'''Please register via the link below to tell us if you would like to join the event. Registration Form'''

Regards, Hong Kong Wikimedian Tango Chan×Chat with me 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xavier114fch


text: Category:889 deaths

title: Category:889 deaths