text:
Fury Records

Fury Records was set up by Bobby Robinson in 1957. In 1959 it had a Billboard No.1 hit with Kansas City, sung by Wilbert Harrison. In the early 1970s, it helped launch Grandmaster Flash.

title: Fury Records


text:
Fire Records

Fire Records was an American independent record label, set up in 1959 by Bobby Robinson. Amongst others, it released records by Lightnin' Hopkins, Elmore James, Buster Brown and Arthur Crudup. At one point it was thought Fire had issued the last commercial 78rpm disc in the United States. Although this has been disproven, the label is still known for their late-issue 78s.

Selected discography

 * 1000 – Tarheel Slim and Little Ann – "It's Too Late" (1959)
 * 1008 – Buster Brown – "Fannie Mae" (1959)
 * 1011 – Elmore James – "Bobby's Rock" / "Make My Dreams Come True" (Issued 1960 – A-side is a 1959 recording but B-side is a 1953 Flair recording brought in by Robinson)
 * 1016 – Elmore James – "The Sky Is Crying" (1960, reissued with different B-side in the mid-1960s on Flashback)
 * 1024 – Elmore James – "I'm Worried" (1960)
 * 504 – Elmore James – "Shake Your Moneymaker" (1961)
 * 1034 – Lightnin' Hopkins – Mojo Hand (1962) – label states artist as "Lightin Hopkins
 * 1501 – Arthur Crudup – "Mean Old Frisco" (1962)
 * 1503 – Elmore James – "Stranger Blues" (1962)

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

title: Fire Records


text:
Category:Villages in Slovakia

This page will become Villages and municipalities by district within regions of Slovakia. The following pages should be recategorized by region of Slovakia.

title: Category:Villages in Slovakia


text:
Consortium for the Barcode of Life

The Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) was an international initiative dedicated to supporting the development of DNA barcoding as a global standard for species identification. CBOL's Secretariat Office is hosted by the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, DC. Barcoding was proposed in 2003 by Prof. Paul Hebert of the University of Guelph in Ontario as a way of distinguishing and identifying species with a short standardized gene sequence. Hebert proposed the 658 bases of the Folmer region of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome-C oxidase-1 as the standard barcode region. Hebert is the Director of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding, and the International Barcode of Life Project (iBOL), all headquartered at the University of Guelph. The Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) is also located at the University of Guelph.

CBOL was created in May 2004 with support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, following two meetings in 2003, also funded by the Sloan Foundation, at the Banbury Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Since then, more than 200 organizations from more than 50 countries have joined CBOL and agreed to put their barcode data in a public database. CBOL promotes DNA barcoding through workshops, working groups, international conferences, outreach meetings to developing countries, planning meetings for barcoding projects, and production of outreach material to raise awareness of barcoding. CBOL's Database Working Group developed the data standard that GenBank, the European Bioinformatics Institute, and the DNA Data Bank of Japan have endorsed. CBOL's Plant Working Group proposed matK and rbcL as the standard barcode regions for land plants; CBOL approved this proposal in late 2005. The Fungal Working Group has identified ITS as the best barcode region for fungi, and CBOL's Protist Working Group is analyzing candidate regions for protistan groups. CBOL helped to plan and launch the global campaigns to barcode all species of fish and birds, and socioeconomically important groups like fruitflies.

One of CBOL's primary contributions to the success of barcoding was its outreach efforts to government agencies (agriculture, environment, conservation, and others) and international organizations (CITES, Convention on Biological Diversity, Food and Agriculture Organization) that could benefit from barcoding.

title: Consortium for the Barcode of Life


text:
Enjoy Records

Enjoy Records was a record label owned and operated by Bobby Robinson from 1962 through the mid-1980s, and was run out of his record shop at 125th Street and 8th Ave. in Harlem. Starting with blues, R&B, and rock and roll, the label recorded many of the original old-school hip hop groups and MCs, including Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, the Funky 4+1, Spoonie Gee, and the Treacherous Three, beginning in 1979. The label closed down in 1987, although Robinson's shop remained opened.

title: Enjoy Records


text:
Talk:Brass

Brasses are alloys that vary in malleability -
Brass is an alloy consisting mainly if not exclusively of copper and zinc. The brasses may be conveniently divided into two groups according to their malleability, the dividing line being approximately the composition of 55 percent copper and 45 percent zinc.

Deep Recycling Industries (http://www.deepri.com)

Thank you

Misc : old Suggestion for properties, uses production
It will be good idea if some one add something related to mechanical properties of brass like compressive and tensile yield stresses.

Thank you

Sarvesh S.S.

Good article. I'd like to see a section addressing the most common and/or most important uses of brass in industry today. Also, a section breaking down the most important centers of brass production (assuming there are any). Just a suggestion. Thanks.

Brass vs. Bronze
This article seems to imply that, while some brasses are called "bronze", this is incorrect: "Some types of brass are called bronzes, despite their high zinc content." On the other hand, the bronze article indicates that "bronze" is a general term for copper alloys, and therefore includes brass: brass, a subset of the bronze alloys in which zinc is the principal additive I am not qualified to judge which of these is correct, but they seem to contradict each other.

Similar comment posted on Talk:Bronze.

— Nowhither 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: This issue has been resolved - the bronze article has been reworded (a subset of copper alloys) to resolve this. Spenny 08:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Lead in brass
- Lead- With all the RoHS initiatives underway in the electronics industry, the question came up- is there ever lead in brass, or bronze? No indication in the article. Thanks- Doug

 * Lead has been a common additive in many different types of brass. The small nodules of lead act as a lubricant and make the brass easier to cut and machine. For example, a very common type of brass is C360000(Often designated as simply C360). It is also referred to as "free machining brass", as it is the alloy of brass with the highest "machinability" rating. In fact, it is considered to be the reference alloy for machinability. C360 brass contains 3% lead. Brass used in pipe fittings for potable water systems contained lead until very recently when it began to be removed to meet RoHS standards.Gcronau (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Brass VS Bronze cost
Dear editor,

Is there an appreciable difference in cost for Brass as compared to Bronze? What would be the basic difference? Is there a "rule of thumb" when it comes to pricing one verse the other e.g. a standard ratio?

Thanks

Tom

Brass Monkey most brass is cheaper in price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.243.118 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Uses
Aside from decorative uses such as doorknobs, why is brass used? For example, it seems to me that brass bushings and valves are common. —BenFrantzDale 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably a lot has to do with that it looks like gold (not exactly, but close) and is a hell of a lot cheaper.--CB319 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some companies preach the benefits of brass for use in car aerials. Does anybody know if there is any real reason or benefit offered by this material. reduced resistance for example.

Most house keys are brass coated in nickel, I guess its because its corrosion resistant, shiny and brass is easy to machine (customise)

It seems rather odd that such eclectic uses as cryogenics are mentioned, but not the near-universal use of brass in cartridge casing. 68.230.161.164 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Friction
It also might be mentioned friction for a brass on brass contact is low as metal-to-metal contacts go.

 * Agreed, brass is commonly used for its "self lubricating" properties. Kinema 09:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Brass appears to have been used on battleships for surfaces that handled black powder charges, supposedly because brass-to-brass contact does not create sparks (like other metals do) that could set off the powder. I can't seem to find much about that property of brass, nor see it as a use, but it might be something of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.62.5 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

History
I was hoping to find much more about history here... I have read that, while brass-like alloys were in use for specialized purposes, brass didn't come into common use until after 1600. I suspect, if true, that has something to do with the availability of zinc, but that's just a guess at this point. Some references to bell-metal and (the original meaning of) gunmetal might be helpful. Rtimwest 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Could someone who knows Wikipedia formatting please add reference 47 as a needed source in the history section concerning confusion of brass and bronze. The confusion in later European literature of brass and bronze is clearly stated in the abstract.

 * If more substantial references are needed please refer to  under "name and origin" as motivation to look into the way that the Hebrew word for copper/copper alloys translates. Upon researching it you will find that when the old testament was written, there was only one word for copper and all of its alloys.  This is likely the reason for the later confusion of brass and bronze in English translations of the bible.75.252.128.204 (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

brass
Is brass a homogeneous or a heterogeneous mixture? It's an alloy. But somewhere it said not all alloys are homogeneous mixtures. What makes the difference?

don't relaly know where to post this but i have alink to the brass phase diagram. might be useful to put on page but i dont know how.

http://www.metal.or.kr/college/m_etc/bp/img/Cu-Zn.gif

i asked, they said we have permission to use this picture. thanks.

71.208.233.158 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Kris King

 * The above link appears to be dead. Has it been removed or relocated somewhere else? Plantsurfer (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Saltwater effects on Brass
How does saltwater effect brass?

Thank you! Ckelley4 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Random question, yet interesting. Brass is used in brass instruments; when these instruments are played, saliva will enter the instrument.  So, since saliva is mostly water, and salt wouldn't be expected to react with brass, I don't think saltwater would affect brass.  -68.4.73.34 (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

does ammonia corrode Aluminium brass?
hey i have a random question too, does ammonia corrode Aluminium brass?

thanks! Wesleytong322 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

COPPER in BRASS as a Disinfectant
On UK radio (Radio 2) today (14th March 2007) they have just announced that one hospital is testing the effectiveness of using a small piece of copper on door handles to act as a disinfectant that kills the super bug MRSA amongst others. Does anyone know if the copper content in brass is equally effective at killing germs and viruses? If so replacing all door handles with brass would seem an obvious solution to the spread of germs from touching door handles!

Adrian Hepworth 80.189.113.110 12:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Brass is slower, but still effective and advisable, according to this copper industry brochure http://www.cda.org.uk/antimicrobial/pub-182-naturally-antimicrobial-alloys-for-touch.pdf Femto 13:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project
There is evidently no extant WikiProject which deals with articles concerning alloys and other chemical compounds. This could be a problem, as many of these articles deal with what are considered to be generally important topics. To correct this situation, I have proposed a project to deal with these articles at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Anyone interested in contributing to such a project should indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How brass is made
Only one paragraph on how brass is made? And nothing on where in the world it is now primarily made. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

brass compention is a defintion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.4.11 (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also came here for information on brass/ bronze production. There is a fair amount of material on the *history* of production but not on current methods, which seems odd. Other metals (e.g. iron) covers this to a much greater extent. Can someone add this material? I am too ignorant of the subject to do so. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Akkadian brass
Saw this. Not sure if there is a reference to support it.

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/researchbriefs/display.php?id=121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploversegg (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

various brasses - unsourced
Admiralty brass contains 30% zinc and 1% tin which inhibits dezincification in most environments. Alpha brasses (Prince's metal), with less than 35% zinc, are malleable, can be worked cold, and are used in pressing, forging, or similar applications. They contain only one phase, with face-centered cubic crystal structure. Alpha-beta brass (Muntz metal), also called duplex brass, is 35-45% zinc and is suited for hot working. It contains both α and β' phase; the β'-phase is body-centered cubic and is harder and stronger than α. Alpha-beta brasses are usually worked hot. Aluminium brass contains aluminium, which improves its corrosion resistance. Used in Euro coins (Nordic gold). Arsenical brass contains an addition of arsenic and frequently aluminium and is used for boiler fireboxes. Beta brasses, with 45-50% zinc content, can only be worked hot, and are harder, stronger, and suitable for casting. Cartridge brass is a 30% zinc brass with good cold working properties. Common brass, or rivet brass, is a 37% zinc brass, cheap and standard for cold working. DZR brass is Dezincification resistant Brass with a small percentage of Arsenic. Gilding metal is the softest type of brass commonly available. An alloy of 95% copper and 5% zinc, gilding metal is typically used for ammunition components. High brass, contains 65% copper and 35% zinc, has a high tensile strength and is used for springs, screws, rivets. Leaded brass is an alpha-beta brass with an addition of lead. It has excellent machinability. Low brass is a copper-zinc alloy containing 20% zinc with a light golden color, excellent ductility and is used for flexible metal hoses and metal bellows. Naval brass, similar to admiralty brass, is a 40% zinc brass and 1% tin. Red brass, while not technically brass, is an American term for CuZnSn alloy known as gunmetal. Rich low brass contains 85% copper 15% zinc often used in jewelry applications. White brass contains more than 50% zinc and is too brittle for general use. Yellow brass is an American term for 33% zinc brass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.95.125 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Brass - Africa, Americas and East Asia
Hi all, I recently added content to this page under the history section. My coverage beyond Europe and the middle east isn't that extensive I'm afraid. I wondered if any one could take a look at adding some content for America and expanding the content for the old world.

(Michael D L Marshall (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Image:SDC10257.JPG
This image is captioned "Microstructure of cast brass at magnification 400×". However, it appears that the original uploader was mistaken and that it is in fact annealed. As evidence, please see the links below to microscopic images of cast and annealed brass - the two are very different:

 * Microphotograph of brass showing annealing
 * Microphotographs of cast brass

cast vs. rolled & annealed
The previous section (SDC10257.JPG) explains a lot, but the rules of kindness suggest responding when asked. So, here we go: Cast alloys usu. have a dendritic type microstructure, or at least somewhat directional shape of grains (single crystals). In sdc10257.jpg, there are no dendrites, and the grains show no special orientation (meaning elongation). If one looks at sdc10257.jpg, sees rather unoriented grain shape, with random orientation of crystallographic axes (brightness of each grain), there are twins typical of deformed and annealed alloys with fcc structure (annealing twins, produced by recrystallisation).

In March 2009, I made the comment to the description of the image (see File_talk:SDC10257.JPG), but there was no further discussion. Apparently, it's easier to discuss on the referring page than on the original file's talk page. It's also easy to undo a change without deep investigation into the issue. Thanks to the author of the previous section for his/her work.

--JPFen (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the response. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Physical properties
Please add a table of physical properties of various brasses, including density and electrical/thermal conductivity.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Two History Sections
This article currently has two distinct "History" sections. They should be merged. --SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Please elaborate where the "other" history section is, because I'm not seeing it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There were two, a short one on top and a longer, with several subsections. While tidying refs, I've mechanically merged them, making the short History a kind of introduction to the long one, but this needs a proper rephrasing. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

CR Brass
The web has many references to "CR Brass" (corrosion resistant brass). I believe this is another way of referring to DZR Brass. Perhaps the DZR Brass reference could be updated in the article to refer to CR Brass as well? Jabba the Hot (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

CR brass has also had an exact temperature annealing done to it, and there are a number of types. Most exacting standards are applied to cast valves. Unfortunately, normal sliver soldering and excessive soft solder heating destroys the CR properties. Arsenic brass is used during manufacture of plumbing stock, then the annealing is performed. Waste brass fittings do not need to be CR/DN. CR brass items are usually stamped with DR, DRZ, CER, or W. If the item lacks the stamp, then it is unlikely to be CR. Items that do not directly contact water are usually not CR. 220.244.78.222 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Brass alloys table
I wondered if the list of alloys could be listed by %age copper rather than by name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.183.175 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * A table would be better, having columns for Copper, Zinc, Tin, Lead, and one for other ingredients, with the % value in each column (need to use a consistent and stated measure of %, eg by mass).  Other columns could include Alloy Name, Typical Uses, Reactivity (resistance to corrosion), Antibacterial effectiveness, etc.   FreeFlow99 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 * We now have a table, that can be sorted by name or the elemental compositions. I've filled in a few of the copper % so it sorts better. - Rod57 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusion between orchestral Brass Section and Instruments Containing Brass
The opening paragraph of the properties section (as of 5 Jan 2014) implies that the Brass Section of an orchestra contains instruments made out of brass. It continues by noting that other instruments belong to other orchestral sections despite being made out of brass. The implication is that an instrument made out of brass belongs in the brass section. This is misleading and incorrect.

In truth, the orchestral brass section is so named because, historically, those instruments were made from brass. Those instruments also use pursed lips on the mouthpiece to create the sound. The brass section could easily have been named the embouchure section, but it didn't happen that way.

Instruments in other orchestral sections may also use brass, but that is done for its tonal qualities. There is no reason that other instruments using brass (woodwinds, percussion, or otherwise) should be called brass instruments and no justification is needed for their exclusion from the orchestral brass section.

I can edit the properties section to remove this confusion, but I would like input from other editors and comments from readers before doing so. Please add your comments immediately following. Thank you. --OhioFred (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Substitutional alloy
I removed the sentence "Brass is a substitutional alloy" from the start of the third para of the introduction.

Firstly, it's not relevant to the rest of the paragraph. Secondly, I imagine that very few readers will know what it means - I'm pretty well-informed technically but I didn't know. So I think it's inappropriate for the introductory paragraph.

If someone could contribute a section about the structure of brass, it might fit in there.

Macboff (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Brass vs bronze
Why, per these repeated edits, is it so vital to remove mention of bronze? Brass is a bronze. Distinguishing brass from other bronzes is a key goal for this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the terms overlap and are often used interchangably or to overlap in discussing historical work, it is important to cover both. I have added on this. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Brass is on the periodic table, replacing zinc - Joke ?
Zinc is replaced by brass as an element, per IUPAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:200:5F55:91A0:3A63:9505:B99A (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that was a joke. - Rod57 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Historical Nature of the Brass/Bronze distinction.
The lead to the article states:

"The distinction between the two alloys is largely historical, and modern practice in museums and archaeology increasingly avoids both terms for historical objects in favor of the more general "copper alloy"."

But this isn't what the references say; indeed they actually seem to state the opposite - that the names for the copper alloys were interchangeable historically - not now. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference #3 (Bearings and bearing metals) states that "Bronze is the term which was originally applied to alloys of copper and tin as distinguished from the brasses, or alloys of copper and zinc ; but gradually this term has become applied to nearly all copper alloys containing not only tin, but lead, zinc, etc., and no sharp lines of demarcation exist between the two". However, this is from a book that is literally 100 years old, so I'm not sure its a reliable source for current usage.  (It's also possible that in other fields, the distinction is more important and so is retained).  Iapetus (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, of course it isn't; "modern" here means 21st-century. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference 4 (from the British Museum) is actually the relevant one here. It says "... bronze and brass have at times been used interchangeably in the old documentation" (my emboldening) and "... 'The Benin Bronzes' most of which are actually made of brass", implying that brass is well defined and distinct from bronze. I think, as you suggest, that reference 3 fits into its "old documentation" category. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, brass is (fairly) "well defined and distinct from bronze" - I don't know why you think the article says otherwise. But the definitions vary. The BM ref says exactly what the first sentence you quote from the article says. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My idea that the article suggests that the distinction is largely historical is that it says: "the distinction between the two alloys is largely historical". Perhaps that's just me. ;-)
 * And no, that's not what the BM reference says. It says that in the past the distinction was less defined, and hence when searching historical documents you should use "copper alloy" to avoid that problem. It does not say that the distinction is historical - quite the contrary.
 * And, of course there are variations and borderline cases - that's not the point. My comment is not about the article in general, just the statement about the distinction being a historical thing. And the fact that a reference which states the opposite is being used to support it. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold (as brass) and try and clarify what I'm saying. I don't think it's actually controversial although it does invert the sense of the sentence which is why I wanted to discuss it here. Bagunceiro (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No source to that claim in the article.
Und Early copper-zinc alloys in the article the last sentence reads as follows: ...However, isolated examples of copper-zinc alloys are known in China from as early as the 5th millennium BC.[56]

But in the linked article (only archived) there is no such information to be found. Maybe someone confused millenium with century?--213.142.96.62 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the abstract has none before the Eastern Han (25 AD). Changed. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Red brass is vague - confusing in Brass alloys table
Red brass seems to refer to 3 or 4 different compositions, so rather than mention them all in the notes on the red brass line, I've split it into gunmetal / ounce metal / C23000. So now the red brass line could be removed ? But what about Rose brass ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brass


text:
Dan Cruickshank

Daniel Gordon Raffan Cruickshank (born 26 August 1949) is a British art historian and BBC television presenter, with a special interest in the history of architecture.

Professional career
Cruickshank holds a BA in Art, Design and Architecture and was formerly a visiting professor in the Department of Architecture at the University of Sheffield and a member of the London faculty of the University of Delaware. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Artists, a member of the executive committee of the Georgian Group and on the Architectural Panel of the National Trust, and is an Honorary Fellow of RIBA.

He has served as Historic Buildings Consultant for ADAM Architecture since 1999 and has been involved in the repair and restoration of many historical buildings including Spencer House in St James's, Heveningham Hall in Suffolk and numerous early 18th-century houses in Spitalfields and other parts of London.

In 2014, he was appointed President of Subterranea Britannica, a UK-based society for all those interested in man-made and man-used underground structures and space.

His professional publications include London: the Art of Georgian Building (1975), The National Trust and Irish Georgian Society Guide to the Georgian Buildings of Britain and Ireland (1985) and Life in the Georgian City (1990).

He edited the 20th edition of Sir Banister Fletcher's History of Architecture and Timeless Architecture: a study of key buildings in architectural history and is a contributing editor to Architects' Journal, The Architectural Review and Perspectives on Architecture.

Television work
Cruickshank began his career with the BBC as consultant, writer and presenter on the architectural programmes One Foot in the Past and The House Detectives. He also contributed films to the Timewatch and Omnibus strands.

In 2001 he wrote and presented the series Invasion in which he examined attempts and plans to invade Britain and Ireland over the years by exploring coastal fortresses and defensive structures around the coast of the country to discover their military heritage.

Further series included Britain's Best Buildings examining architecturally – or culturally-significant buildings in Great Britain, Under Fire visiting museums and buildings in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel to see how recent warfare has affected the country's historic artefacts, and What the Industrial Revolution Did for Us focusing on the scientific, technological and political changes of the 19th century.

In 2003, Cruickshank presented a documentary entitled Towering Ambitions: Dan Cruickshank at Ground Zero following the debate and discussion that led to the selection of Daniel Libeskind's design for the World Trade Center site in New York City; while in 2005 he presented a documentary on the Mitchell and Kenyon collection – rolls of nitrate film shot in the early 20th century, depicting everyday life in Britain, which were discovered in 1994 in Blackburn.

In 2004, Cruickshank was at the centre of a controversy when historian Marc Morris said that a documentary about Harlech Castle shown on BBC4 and billed as "written and presented by Dan Cruickshank" contained obvious borrowings from Morris's earlier Channel 4 series, Castle. The BBC subsequently stated that Cruickshank was not responsible and that it was an error by researchers. Channel 4's head of history programming, Hamish Mykura, commented that "When a programme claims to have an author's voice, it should be that author's voice and no one else's". The BBC subsequently made a "goodwill payment" to Morris in recognition of the error.

In 2005, Cruickshank presented Around the World in 80 Treasures, charting his five-month trip around the world to visit eighty man-made artefacts or buildings that he had selected, in order to chart the history of mankind's civilisation.

In 2006, Cruickshank presented Marvels of the Modern Age, a series focusing on the development of modernism in design, from Greek and Roman architecture, to Bauhaus and the present.

Dan Cruickshank's Adventures in Architecture, a 2008 series in which he travelled around the world visiting what he considered to be the world's most unusual and interesting buildings.

In 2010, he embarked on a 3 part series on the history of the railways in Britain for National Geographic TV channel, including visits to Chester to examine the events surrounding the Dee bridge disaster of 1847, and Manchester for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway which opened in 1830. The series was entitled "Great Railway Adventures" and first appeared on UK television in the spring of 2010. In 2014, he appeared in The Life of Rock with Brian Pern as himself.

Personal life
Cruickshank lives in a Georgian house in Spitalfields, London, which he shares with his partner, the painter Marenka Gabeler, their two sons, and his daughter from a previous marriage. The house was among those he featured when presenting the BBC television programme Ours to Keep – Incomers in 1985, when he discussed the role of the Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust, a charity of which he was a co-founder in the 1970s.

Cruickshank had previously lived in a Victorian house in Bloomsbury when he was a student in the 1970s.

Filmography

 * 1985 Ours to Keep - Incomers guest presenter
 * 1993 One Foot in the Past guest presenter
 * 1997–2002 The House Detectives presenter
 * 1997 Travels with Pevsner: Norfolk with Dan Cruickshank writer and presenter
 * 2001 Timewatch writer and presenter
 * 2001 Invasion writer and presenter
 * 2002 Omnibus: Dan Cruickshank and the Lost Treasure of Kabul writer and presenter
 * 2002 The Lost World of Tyntesfield writer and presenter
 * 2002 Britain's Best Buildings writer and presenter
 * 2003 Under Fire writer and presenter
 * 2003 Towering Ambitions: Dan Cruickshank at Ground Zero writer and presenter
 * 2003 What the Industrial Revolution Did for Us writer and presenter
 * 2005 Around the World in 80 Treasures writer and presenter
 * 2005 The Lost World of Mitchell & Kenyon presenter
 * 2005 Egyptian Journeys with Dan Cruickshank writer and presenter
 * 2006 The Lost World of Friese-Greene
 * 2006 Betjeman & Me presenter
 * 2006 Marvels of the Modern Age writer and presenter
 * 2006 The Lost World of Tibet presenter
 * 2006 Britain's Best Buildings writer and presenter
 * 2008 Dan Cruickshank's Adventures in Architecture writer and presenter
 * 2009 Cruickshank on Kew The Garden That Changed The World writer and presenter
 * 2009 The Art of Dying writer and presenter
 * 2010 Great Railway Adventures writer and presenter
 * 2010 Britain's Park Story writer and presenter
 * 2011 The Country House Revealed writer and presenter
 * 2012 Brick by Brick: Rebuilding Our Past presenter along with Charlie Luxton
 * 2012 The Bridges That Built London
 * 2012 London: A Tale of Two Cities with Dan Cruickshank
 * 2013 The Fairytale Castles of King Ludwig II with Dan Cruickshank writer and presenter
 * 2014 The Life of Rock with Brian Pern as himself
 * 2014 Majesty and Mortar: Britain's Great Palaces writer and presenter
 * 2014 Dan Cruickshank and the Family That Built Gothic Britain
 * 2015 Dan Cruickshank's Civilisation Under Attack
 * 2015 Dan Cruickshank: Resurrecting History – Warsaw
 * 2016 Dan Cruickshank: At Home with the British
 * 2018 The Road To Palmyra (with Don McCullin)
 * 2018 Dan Cruickshank's Monuments of Remembrance

title: Dan Cruickshank


text:
User:Faethon3.1415926535

This account is no longer a public account. I changed the password from "Faethon3.1415926535" to a super secret private password. Nothing to see here, move along.

title: User:Faethon3.1415926535


text: Category:British furniture designers

title: Category:British furniture designers


text:
User:Faethon299,792,458

This account is no longer a public account. I changed the password from "Faethon299,792,458" to a super secret private password. Nothing to see here, move along.

title: User:Faethon299,792,458


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarvis Family

 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jarvis Family
doesnt establish notability. Nateji77 22:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also it's only one line anyway. Delete Radiant! 23:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a geneological database. Szyslak 01:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, while this is not much of an article the Jarvises are one of the most important families in Toronto history. - SimonP 01:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only after it is greatly expanded to establish notability. --Spinboy 01:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It has not been expanded, so is this now a vote to delete? -- James Teterenko (talk) 06:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. —Mar·ka·ci: 2005-02-13 02:02 Z
 * Keep. The subject is encyclopedic.  CJCurrie 02:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Some of the Jarvis's are notable (e.g. Samuel & William) and they should have their own pages. Having an article on the family does not seem to make sense to me.  Another sample Canadian family is the Aspers: we have articles for Izzy Asper and Leonard Asper, but nothing in Asper Family -- James Teterenko (talk) 02:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, genealogy (articles on historic individuals are a different kettle of kin). Wyss 11:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -entirely vacuous.Brookie 19:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete sub-stubs, but if someone expands this to also say "one of the most prominent Loyalist families in 19th century Canada, and a key reference in the study of the 19th century due to the large collection of letters between the extended Jarvis-Powell Family stored in The Loyalist Collection in the University of North Brunswick" then they may change my vote to keep Mozzerati 20:46, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * On the other hand.... I've got several ancestors more famous than that yet none of my family's names have generic WP articles. Wyss 19:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If I was arguing to keep, then I would say that there's a difference between a family which is deliberately studied as a family and one which has several famous individuals.  Since I'm arguing to delete, because the article doesn't say anything about that, I won't disagree.  VFD is not a cleanup tool and all that :-) Mozzerati 20:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Yes, in trying to be brief I neglected to say there's a line in there somewhere. Wyss 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database.  See the current version of Gahn for contrast.  Rossami (talk) 14:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles, even substubs, of notable people?  A-ok.  But articles on their entire families?  It'll take more than this one-liner to convince me to overlook precedent on genealogical entries. —Korath (Talk) 02:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could be persuaded to change my vote if the article is rewritten and expanded to establish notability. But I'm not promising to. -R. fiend 20:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. Article in desperate need of expansion. Megan1967 05:38, 18 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.


text:
San José de Mayo

San José de Mayo (Mayo ) is the capital city of the San José Department in southern Uruguay.

Geography
The city is located at the centre of the state, on the intersection of Route 3 with Route 11, 90 km from the centre of Montevideo. The railroad track connecting Montevideo with Colonia and with the northwest of the country passes through the city. The river Río San José flows along the northeastern and eastern limits of the city.

Increased precipitation as a result of climate change and impermeabilization of the local land surfaces has made San José de Mayo more prone to flooding over the 1987–2017 period.

History
San José de Mayo was founded on 1 July 1783. It had acquired "Villa" (town) status before the Independence of Uruguay, which was elevated to "Ciudad" (city) on 12 July 1856 by the Act of Ley Nº 495. During the 19th century it became a commercial and cultural centre, known as "Montevideo chico" ("little Montevideo"). The theatre "Teatro Macció" was constructed at the turn of the 20th century.

Population
In 2011 San José de Mayo had a population of 36,743. Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Uruguay

Places of worship

 * Cathedral Basilica and National Sanctuary of St. Joseph (Roman Catholic)
 * Our Lady of the Rosary of Pompei Parish Church (Roman Catholic)
 * Our Lady of Fatima Parish Church (Roman Catholic)
 * Our Lady of the Orchard Chapel (Roman Catholic)

Economy
Besides being the administrative capital of the department, the city is an active regional commercial and financial centre. Its economy is linked mainly to cattle ranching, and it is an agro-industrial centre for dairy products, packing houses, mills, and chemicals.

Notable residents

 * Cesár Cortinas, (1892-1918), musician and composer
 * Laura Cortinas (1881-1969), writer, politician, feminist and playwright
 * Ismael Cortinas (1884-1940), politician

title: San José de Mayo


text:
E. J. H. Corner

Edred John Henry Corner FRS (12 January 1906 – 14 September 1996) was an English mycologist and botanist who occupied the posts of assistant director at the Singapore Botanic Gardens (1929–1946) and Professor of Tropical Botany at the University of Cambridge (1965–1973). Corner was a Fellow of Sidney Sussex College from 1959.

Early life
Corner was born in London in 1906. He was the son of Edred Moss Corner (1873–1950), a surgeon and surgical author, and Henrietta Corner. At the age of five he developed a stammer which persisted through elocution lessons. From the age of six to nine, he attended Arnold House, a day school in London, where he studied Greek and Latin. From ten to 13, he went to boarding school in Hertfordshire where he focused on the classics and maths. Here, his athletic prowess dominated, but a bout of polio temporarily crippled his abilities. He attended Rugby school during his high school years where he studied the classics, but soon grew bored and switched to science. He gave up playing sports to take botanical excursions where his fascination with mushrooms began. His father joined the British Mycological Society and took his 14-year-old son on one of the forays where Corner had the chance to rub shoulders with mycologists such as Carleton Rea and AHR Buller.

In 1923 he went to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. He continued studying science and realised how much there was yet to learn. This realisation was lifelong and drove him in the relentless pursuit of knowledge until the day when he could no longer see. At Sidney Sussex College, Corner met and became the disciple of Arthur Harry Church. He initially focused his research on microfungi and the association between fungi and bryophytes.

Singapore
Because of his stammer, Corner believed he could never hold a teaching position; this led him to enroll in the Colonial Service and he took a position as a mycologist at the Botanical Gardens in Singapore. He was appointed Assistant Director in 1929 and remained in this position until 1946.

As the Malaysian forests were being logged for timber, he took several trips there to study the diversity of fungi and plants. It was in these forests that he was first exposed to fig trees. This was the beginning of his systematic reorganisation of the genus Ficus based on breeding systems.

From 1934 to 1938, he took several journeys to Malaysia where he discovered many new species of plants. During this period, the value of the Botanical Gardens was being called into question; to illustrate the value of the collection and the diversity of the region as a whole, Corner took it upon himself to write the Wayside Trees of Malaya—a two volume, 800-page book aimed at amateur naturalists as an aid to identifying trees in the region. The book was the culmination of many years of effort that drew upon his knowledge of flora, months of field activity, examination of herbarium collections and other scientific documentation—-an effort that encompassed the work of many scientists before him.

Corner found help with his collecting from an unusual source: to obtain specimens from the tops of trees that he could not safely reach, Corner trained coconut-collecting macaque monkeys to do the climbing and collect specimens for him while at the Botanic Gardens.

In 1942 Singapore surrendered to the invading Japanese forces during WWII. Japan would occupy the region until 1945. Corner went to enlist in the Singapore Volunteer Force, but an attack by one of his collecting monkeys left him unable to participate.

Corner was conscripted by the Japanese to protect and preserve the Botanical Gardens' herbarium collection and various library contents from looters during the time of occupation. The Japanese Emperor Hirohito was an orchid enthusiast and approved the decision to keep Corner at his post at the Gardens. While most British subjects were detained in overcrowded prisoner camps and suffered from severe food shortages, Corner was allowed to live outside the prison camps and to lead a somewhat ordinary life. The caveat was that the Japanese identified Corner as an enemy alien and required him to wear a red star. Because of these freedoms, Corner was accused by some of collaborating with the enemy, while in reality he cooperated just enough to keep the herbarium collection safe. Additionally, he smuggled food and other goods to the people detained in the prison camps. He later wrote about his experiences during wartime in his book, "The Marquis — A Tale of Syoyan-to".

Post-Singapore
When the war ended, Corner returned to England, but two years later, he was off to South America working for UNESCO as Principal Field Scientific Officer for Latin America. He planned to set up a field institute; but this fell through due to conspiracies about breaches of natural security. Undoubtedly, the most important scientific contribution to come from this time was the formation of Corner's Durian Theory.

The Durian Theory was Corner's way of explaining how forests evolved to their present form. This theory was based on observations of a suite of morphological anomalies of tropical plants in Malaysia. The morphological features on which his theory was based were fruits with fleshy arils, fruits with distinct black and red coloration and seeds hanging away from the fruit. These features were relatively rare in forest plants as a whole, but they occurred across a broad range of plant families. He postulated that the peculiar characters he observed were ancestral, making them anomalies in present-day forests. For instance, it was his view that the pachycaul tree form, or stumpy little-branched tree with big leaves, was ancestral compared to the leptocaul form, or tall tree with many branches, slender twigs and small leaves. He thought that an increase in tree height was in response to feeding by ground-dwelling animals. An increase in tree height also resulted in an explosion of biodiversity in the canopy due to new niches to fill.

Corner returned to England in 1949 when he was appointed Lecturer in Taxonomy and Tropical Botany at the Botany School in Cambridge. Here he was able to work on the botanical and mycological groups he had collected in Singapore. For research on the phytogeography of Ficus he visited Bougainville in 1960 and took part in the Royal Society Expedition to Solomon Islands in 1965. In 1973 he retired as Emeritus Professor. During his retirement, he generated over 2200 printed pages of accepted publications—mostly in mycological research.

Contributions to mycology
Corner started his career studying microfungi and published five papers on discomycetes. He then moved on to nectriaceous fungi and was likely the first person to demonstrate the intimate relationship between fungi and bryophytes. Further research regarding the fungal/bryophyte relationship has uncovered many more such associations, and researchers now estimate that more than 2000 exist.

One of the qualities that made Corner such a remarkable scientist was his analytical skills; his legacy in mycology resides in the conclusions he was able to draw on fungal morphology and development as well as systematics. During his internment in Singapore, he published on Malaysian wood-rotting polypores, especially economically important ones such as Phellinus noxius. He also worked through the hyphal structure of polypores with descriptions and illustrations of monomitic, dimitic and trimitic hyphal construction.

He also made major strides in the systematics of clavarioid fungi. As it stood in 1950, the genus Clavaria was a polyphyletic assemblage of coral-shaped fungi. Corner determined that many species of "Clavaria" were actually members of different genera, families and even orders. Using spore characteristics, he determined that a genus of clavarioid fungi—Ramaria—is closely related to a genus of cantharelloid fungi—Gomphus.

In his research, Corner stressed the importance of understanding the development and anatomy of fungi, which he realised could not be known just by observing one stage of the specimen. Arguably, his most important contribution on fungal development was determining the role of the basidium as a charged ampoule. He also observed basidiospore development in boletoid and tricholomatoid fungi.

In addition to working out systematic relationships of many groups of macrofungi, he also wrote monographs of large groups present in southeast Asia. His work on boletes led to the description of 123 new species and culminated in his classic monograph Boletus in Malaysia as well as a supplement which included species in the genus Phylloporus. Corner also wrote monographs on tricholomatoid, cantharelloid,  clavarioid and polyporoid fungi, as well as the genus Thelephora. Corner's monographic work has not only aided those who work in tropical mycology but also those working on the groups in temperate ecosystems. Additionally, these monographs provide the framework for helping mycologists understand the extent of biodiversity in tropical ecosystems.

Most of his collections, annotated books and illustrations are housed at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. His other collections remain at Cambridge or at the United States National Fungus Collection in Beltsville, MD.

Personal life
In February 1939, Corner married Sheila Kavanagh Bailey in Cambridgeshire. Their first child, John Kavanagh Corner, was born in Singapore in January 1941. The couple also had two daughters, Stephanie Christine Corner born in 1947 in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Dorothy Lindsay Helga Corner in 1948 in Essex. Corner and his wife ultimately divorced in 1952. He remarried in April 1953 to his daughters' nanny, Helga Dinesen Sondergaard (John K Corner). In 1975, he was diagnosed with glaucoma and then cataracts in both eyes, and by 1983 he was unable to do any more microscopy. Even though his physical capacities declined sharply due to muscular paralysis and he was near blindness, Corner's mental faculties remained sharp until his death in 1996.

Corner's son, John, left home at 19, never to see his father again. In 2013 he published a memoir of his father's life and their relationship, My father in his suitcase: In search of E.J.H. Corner, the relentless botanist (Landmark Books, Singapore, 2013, 413 pages, photographs, notes and bibliography, ISBN 978-981-4189-47-7), based on letters, pictures and other memorabilia his father had saved for him in a suitcase.

Although Corner reportedly detested the idea of naming new species after people, he currently has three fungal species and the fungal genera Corneroboletus and Corneroporus named after him, as well as 30 plant species including: Anisophyllea corneri, Calamus corneri, Bulbophyllum corneri, and Platyscapa corneri.

Societies and honours

 * Honorary Member of the British Mycological Society
 * Honorary Member of the Mycological Society of America
 * Darwin Medal (1960)
 * Founder's Medal of the Royal Geographical Society (1966)
 * Linnean Medal (1970)
 * Japanese International Prize for Biology (1985)

title: E. J. H. Corner


text:
Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom

Differences with Marriage?
The article hints that there might be some minor differences with marriage. E.g. rights are not "identical" with marriage - they "mirror" those of marriage, while partnership dissolution is only "similar" to divorce. A section outlining any differences would be useful. If there are no differences, then the language in the article should make that clearer. The difference (or not) between marriage and civil partnership is a hot topic, so this distinction is worthy of discussion. Fig (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Is it a "hot topic"? Can't say I've heard it mentioned much around the water-cooler.  Worthy of discussion, perhaps tho it doesn't seem to have raised much chatter here.  But, whatever...

 * You claim that the article hints there are differences, but you don't provide us with examples.  The article states specifically in Para 1 that the rights and responsibilities are identical to civil marriage.  The word "mirror" is used as this was a word that appeared in much of the government's briefing documentation: its use is therefore reasonable.

 * Aside from the blindingly obvious (both spouses being of the same gender) there's something trivial about same-sex spouses not receiving titles if their partner is made a peer.  And the non-religious nature, but again it's a civil process, so no big surprise there.  As far as "differences" go, that's pretty much the sum of it - and both are mentioned in the body of the text anyway.

 * Dissolution is actually said to be "akin" to divorce. Differences in the dissolution process are so slight as to be negligible, mainly relating to terminology.

 * Hope that helps.

 * 81.151.32.223 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In this entry, there is the statement that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 gives same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. This is not true as there are a number of differences between the two unions and their consequences.

The processes of civil marriage and civil partnership are different. At both, a Licensed Registrar officiates, but whereas there is set wording at a marriage that has to be articulated, at a civil partnership there is set wording, but there is no requirement for it to be said, it merely has to be read by both parties. Indeed, although a civil wedding differs from a religious wedding in that one is a ceremony and the other a service, a civil partnership differs from a civil wedding on the basis that the latter requires no ceremony to take place at all. A civil partnership is merely an agreement that has to be signed by the parties and a Licensed Registrar and this can be done in silence. Couples who marry become spouses whereas couples who register their civil partnership become civil partners. The rights of spouses regarding survivor pensions in certain final salary pension schemes do not extend to civil partners. Thus, it can arise that the surviving civil partner of a person who has contributed to such a scheme has no entitlement to a survivor’s pension from the scheme, but a surviving spouse is entitled to a widow’s or widower’s pension.

Although access to life insurance is equalised between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, this is not true of some other types of insurance. For example, some underwriters of car insurance policies offer lower premiums to married couples but do not offer lower rates to civil partners. Indeed, some refuse to allow civil partners to specify their marital status on insurance application forms and in doing so deny civil partners the opportunity to use their services at all. [I’d like a lawyer to tell me if this contravenes the Equality Act 2006 that outlaws discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services].

TimChapman (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Tim Chapman

 * Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but how does any of the above count as a difference in "rights and responsibilities"? Being called a spouse or civil partner is neither a right nor responsibility.  (And please provide a reference from either the CPA or the Marriage Act as I have seen this claimed nowhere else.)

 * Can you provide a 3rd party ref for the pension/insurance-related examples you provide?  Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three bits of legislation that would prevent such abuses.   I'm part of a gay legal firm in central London, and I would relish acquainting these firms with the law of the land!  Obviously, as such discrimination is not legal, it cannot be listed as a legitimate difference in the article. :-) 81.151.38.166 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the process of registering a civil partnership at the Register Office because my understanding and experience is that civil partners have the right to insist that no ceremony takes place whereas same-sex couples getting married are obliged to have some form of ceremony. This, then, is one difference between the rights and responsibilities of civil partners and married people, albeit a small one.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not claim that being called a civil partner or a spouse was a right under the CPA or the Marriage Act. Without reference to legislation, I stated the fact that couples who marry become spouses and couples who register their civil partnership become civil partners. I made this statement in order to introduce the terminology so that I could use it to demonstrate how the rights of civil partners are different to those of spouses in relation to certain final salary pension schemes. Given that you are part of a gay legal firm, assuming you are qualified, you’ll already be aware that legislation obliges certain company pension schemes to equalise benefits for spouses and civil partners, but only from 5th December 2005. This means that, for example, a single person who is a member of such a scheme could have made contributions into a pension fund for, say, 25 years then, in June 2006, become a civil partner. Any subsequent surviving civil partner pension from the fund will be based only on the member’s contributions from 5th December 2005 – ignoring the previous 25 years’ worth of contributions. However, had the member become a spouse in June 2006 through marriage, then any surviving spouse’s pension would be based on the entire contributions record, resulting in a substantially greater widow’s or widower’s pension over that of a surviving civil partner’s. If that’s not a difference between the rights of civil partners and those of married people, then I don’t know what is. The above example reflects my own experience. I worked for a large plc for many years and on becoming a civil partner was advised that the 5th December 2005 cut-off applied. However, by using the company’s own claim to be an equal opportunities employer, I mounted a challenge and eventually the trustees of my pension scheme agreed to treat civil partners the same as spouses. But this was nevertheless a matter for the trustees’ discretion rather than the right that spouses have under the scheme. As the pension scheme is acting within the law, I shall not name it. Nevertheless, I know that there is at least one other final salary pension scheme which goes no further than the legislation requires because I read a letter in Gay Times a while back where a civil partner was complaining about this very thing – his scheme confirmed that they will ignore his contributions prior to 5th December 2005 in calculating the pension his civil partner will receive in the event of his death. I wrote to GT to try to contact this person and although my letter was published, he never replied, so I do not know the name of his pension scheme. But shame on the legislators who have allowed this to happen.

With regard to car insurers, a recent email to me from moneysupermarket.com advised “To confirm whether the lower premiums applied to Married couples also applies to a Civil Partnership you will have to contact the Car Insurer provided”. So here we have a player in the industry confirming that married people receive favourable treatment. My experience is that my premiums were higher when I was single than they would have been had I been married (even though my partner and I have been together since the late 1970s). Of course, this would also have applied to an unmarried same-sex couple, but they’ve always had the opportunity to gain marital rights by, er, getting married! There was nothing I could do to get them because I could not, and still cannot, marry my partner. I assumed that when I became a civil partner, I would have access to the same lower “married” premiums without difficulty. Not so, many insurance companies, such as Churchill and Saga to name two, do not even list civil partnership as an option.

Other service providers are also guilty of this. Abbey plc requires marital status information on its savings account online application forms but gives no option for civil partners. Ditto Citi Financial Europe plc and Egg plc in relation to their online applications for credit cards.

I am interested to read that you would relish the opportunity to tackle firms who do not comply with legislation in this area. If, as a gay man, my only option to gain legal recognition of my relationship with my male partner was to register a civil partnership and I then find my access to services barred as a consequence of my marital status, is that not discrimination against me on the basis of my sexual orientation? If so, isn’t that in breach of the Equality Act 2006? As these questions are outside the scope of this article, will you be good enough to contact me at tim.chapman@inbox.com as I’d be very interested in a legal professional’s take on this?

TimChapman (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)TimChapman

 * Hi Tim,

 * For the record, I was called to the bar in 1997.

 * You said "civil partners have the right to insist that no ceremony takes place whereas same-sex couples getting married are obliged to have some form of ceremony". But civil partners are same-sex couples.  Am I missing something (Monday mornings not being my best time) as I can't make sense of this sentence?  For the sake of clarity, there is no obligation to have a ceremony at a civil partnership: if you don't want one, don't have one.  However, this may be conflating a procedural/administrative matter with a "right" and legally these are far from being the same thing.  Whatever, the procedural differences are listed in the body of the article.

 * You are correct re the "from December 2005" date, however the right to the benefit itself matches that obtained by entering a civil marriage. And the 12/05 start date is far from universal - my partner (assuming he survives me) will receive the full benefit of my umpteen years of contributions when I finally conk out.  Nevertheless, if you want to add this information to the article, find a few good third party refs and go right ahead.

 * As you probably know, on WP we don't view personal experiences as an acceptable source. Nevertheless the quote from moneysupermarket.com is clearly shorthand for "don't know, don't care, we just provide you with a cheap quote and our commission ain't enough to provide you with customer service, chum- ask your actual insurance provider" : this clearly does not equate to "confirming that married people receive favourable treatment".  And did you do as they suggest and actually contact your provider? - you don't say.

 * FYI, if a form (online or otherwise) has yet to be updated to take account of the Act's passing, you are at liberty to either state that you are married or (if it's a paper form) cross though the offending word and write "civil partnership". It is completely legal.  My own bank, Barclays, is very good in this respect, but every now and then a form/pro-forma letter will arrive that has not received the appropriate post-CPA tweak.  It happens: ignore it, tick "married" or cross though and carry on regardless.

 * "... my access to services barred as a consequence of my marital status, is that not discrimination against me on the basis of my sexual orientation? "

 * Yes, that would be so - but based on what you have said, you are not in fact being denied any service. I'm sorry, but personalised legal advice would have to be offered in the usual, businesslike way. :-)

 * We seem to have wandered away from the article itself into the realm of personal experience. We need to be careful that this doesn't descend into chat.

 * 81.151.38.166 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply again. The sentence that didn’t make sense was entirely my error, I meant to say “opposite-sex couples getting married”. I do apologise.

You say that, notwithstanding the 12/05 date, the right to the benefit itself matches that obtained by entering into a civil marriage. It may be that both civil partners and spouses gain rights to survivors’ pensions for their partners should they predecease them, but is it really the same right when one partner ends up getting far more money than the other? They both gain a right to the pension accrued from 12/05 but only the spouse gains the right to, as you put it, the full benefit of umpteen years of contributions.

You’re right that there’s a lot of personal experience in my posts and I seem to have misunderstood the nature of this forum. I guess that my experience to date of civil partnership has re-enforced my belief from the outset that we should not have been fobbed off with civil partnership but should simply have been allowed to get married like everyone else – then equality would have been delivered at a stroke; there would be no differences in relation to procedures, administration or rights and responsibilities and I would not be wasting my time being annoyed by them. Even this WP article would not need to exist - don’t forget the thing that started this off for me was the statement on WP that civil partners have identical rights and responsibilities to people in a civil marriage. As I have said, that statement is not true - my civil partner’s pension will be at someone’s discretion whereas if we were married it would be his right. They are not identical and that is not equality.

I don’t find it acceptable for civil partners to have to state that they are married in order to access services even if it is completely legal (and can you cite the legislation that confirms this?). With online forms, it’s not possible to cross out “married” and insert “civil partner” because one is obliged to select from available options in a pick-list, yet the application cannot proceed otherwise. I’m sure nobody would say to married people, “oh just tick something you’re not and carry on regardless”. If a form that asked about ethnicity and, in relation to skin colour, omitted black you would not suggest that a black person should just tick white, would you? If I was denied the right to use the marriage word at the Registry Office, I’m not willing to use it subsequently. I’ll be happy to call it marriage when they issue me with a marriage certificate. Meanwhile, I suggest that these organisations are, consequently, barring my access to their services on the basis of something that arises out of my sexual orientation. Not only do they have to provide their services on an equal basis, they also have to provide access to them on an equal basis. So, if group one sails straight through the process without difficulty but group two encounters obstacles, whether insurmountable or not, then they’re not offering equal access. There’s still stuff that needs fixing and if we all just pretend that what we’ve got now is okay, then it’ll stay broken. I do agree, however, that we’re descending into chat so I guess I should stop here. It’s a shame we cannot chat offline but I do understand. Thank you for your input.

Tim Chapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimChapman (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Hello Tim -

 * Please speak with an independent financial adviser (they are usually excellent value, IMHO) or your Citizens' Advice Bureau if you believe your pension pay-out will be at the whim of some unnamed authority.

 * If you choose not to enter "married" on e-forms on a point of principle, that is your choice. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but...  There is no "legislation" to cite, however there are a number of cases where it has been cited in the record.  If I were less of a lazy ass and if it wasn't 2 minutes to knocking off time on a damp and gloomy Monday ...

 * No, not all web sites are as good as they could be (though the vast majority have caught up) but such is the way of the world. I'm afraid the rest is digressing into a socio-political discussion and you're right, it's best avoided.

 * All the best to you and yours. 86.168.157.136 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with Tim that the rights under marriage and civil partnership are not equal. They may be deemed small but that is not a good basis for disregarding them. The anonymous lawyer suggests that certain things are not rights (the right to not have a ceremony, the right to use the word 'husband' etc.) but they patently are. It is irrelevant if they are not 'rights' in some contrived legal sense. They are clearly rights in the standard English use of the word. Wikipedia is not a legal forum. (Tim, you are also quite correct to boycott the word 'marriage' when you have not been allowed one.) Salopian (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JARGON is not absolute (it's an essay, not a policy), but it does suggest using the common sense, not the technical legal sense of words, particularly when those usages are unqualified. As such I've changed the lede to say "almost" entirely. This does not reflect any sense on my part that the difference is large, quite the contrary, it is, generally speaking, a quite trivial difference. And yet it is one, a mathematician would not say that 1.999999999993 is 2, although one might say that they were "almost identical." If you'd like to further qualify "almost identical", e.g., "identical except for the most trivial differences", or approach making this point otherwise, I'll have no issue. Rather than judging for our readers what is or isn't such a trivial difference that we just ignore that it exists entirely for them, it's more accurate (and emphasizes just how close the two institutions are, I'll add) to be explicit about the differences. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the almost from the lead as I didn't think it'd be controversial, but it clearly is so I think I should justify it. The UK courts have ruled that civil partnerships give the same rights as marriage, not that they are almost the same. If forms having errors on them and missing the civil partnership as an option that is a mistake on the form - you can complain to the person setting the form, or you can tick the obvious alternative answer to the question which is "married". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I've explained the issue before, but here goes. At least one signficant difference exists in legal rights in the common usage of the word rights (and please see WP:JARGON before saying that we should be talking about the legal sense of the word rights) is the use of legally-established courtesy titles for partners of peers. As the couple involved does not, I presume, include a peer, the statement your citation that the rights accorded to them are equal does not necessarily generalize to all civil partnerships. The article also makes a statement that "Civil partnerships give the same legal rights as marriage on issues such as finances and next of kin.", but the qualifying final clause leaves open the possiblity of other differences. The article itself here lists such a difference and sources it, the issue was brought up with respect to the partner of Sir Elton John, the article on courtesty titles appears to substantiate my understanding that such titles are established as a matter of law as well as what a normal indivual would call courtesy (I'm open to correction on this point.) Finally, it has happened in other areas of civil partnership-like arrangements that statements such as "rights equal to marriage" have provided unequal rights in other jurisdictions for a variety of technical, legal reasons about what the word "rights" means in a legal, rather than a commonplace sense. I don't know if that is part of the issue here or not, but you can look at (say) the domestic partnership arrangements in California or Nevada (the pages on those exist here) to see those in play."  I will not edit war (nor may I, says WP:3RR) this, but I stand by my statement that the article as stands is, and I admit this is pedantic, incorrect. If you want to continue discussion further, poke me on my talk page, I'm very irregular in my editing and and may miss future followups here. Thanks for your patience.--Joe Decker (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my change and added a note which hopefully explains the minor differences. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead1, thank you, that's great. I've just reverted someone reverting your change and asked them to return here to discuss the issue if they wish to rerevert it.    --Joe Decker (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Parentage legislation
From 1 May 2009, IVF, surrogacy and other parentage rights and even access rights will be granted to all couples regardless of sexual orientation, marital or relationship status or gender of the partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Your point? If any... 86.165.34.60 (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
This article is extremely limited, barely saying anything other than the mechanics of the legislation. It ought to have sections on the subsequent impact on society (approval rates amongst the population/proportion of civil-partnered couples remaining together etc. etc.) and the attitude to civil partnerships from those favouring equal marriage and/or equal partnership, including political parties (Lib Dems for the former, Greens for both). Salopian (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I have added some basic statistics relating to the uptake of Civil Partnerships in British Consulates - also indicating the Consulates which currently will perform CP ceremonies. Re the impact on society, the Lillian Ladele case and the opening up of religious venues for CP ceremonies (which is largely misunderstood) could be added too.

Paul Jeffrey Thompson 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

Hi, I’ve been working on a biographic entry about Dr. Peter Scott-Morgan who’s notable for non-LGBT issues – though in my research I’ve just discovered he also helped change same-sex immigration law in the USA! The BBC coverage about him having been the first civil partner in Devon (with his partner of 27 years) was complete news to me and a complete other side to what’s generally reported about him. So I thought it might be interesting to add this bridge between the two very-different entries. Hope that’s helpful and OK.LisaNotsimpson (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested Lede Edit
For clarity, I'm opening a new section. I have provided a corrected lede multiple times (as had another user, who created a different wording) which reflects the fact that the legally-entitled courtesy titles given to spouses of peers, not being available to civil partners of peers, represent a difference in the rights (in the general sense of the word) between the two institutions. I have cited WP:JARGON as a policy statement suggesting that the general sense, rather than the technical legal sense, is the most appropriate usage of the word "rights" in this Wikipedia article. An anonymous user at 86.172.196.114 has reverted these changes 3-4 times. I've asked the matter be discussed here on the Talk page with respect to the specific points I've made, and at this time I repeat my request. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Joe. Point 1: "corrected" implies that the lead is incorrect, which has not been established.  2) You do not wiki-link to WP:JARGON.  It is a while since I'd seen it, so I had a look - the only page I can find is for a redundant policy. WP:JARGON  Perhaps you would be kind enough to link to the up-to-date policy, as it is the main support for your argument.  Apologies if this message is poorly formatted.  My iPhone seems to have taken a dislike to WPs talk pages for some reason and is failing to display them correctly. 86.172.196.114 talk) 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmm. "Comparable" ?  I am not suggesting that we adopt it at this stage (the case for changing the long-standing wording has yet to be made) I'm simply offering it as a possibility now, while the word is in my head. 86.172.196.114 (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for responding! (Point 1, yeah, I had intended this as an expression of my intent, I didn't mean to beg the question.)  Your point 2 is very much on point, and I apologize for my confusion there, it appears that WP:JARGON has been deprecated relatively recently.  I will work to reframe my argument in terms of the relevant replacement, which appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MTAA -- as an essay, that replacement is at best guidance, which is a weakness to my argument.
 * Roughly speaking, my argument boils down to this. There are technical meanings to the words "rights", and commonplace ones.  It is my experience that these meanings offer differ in small but meaningful ways.  To point at an analagous situation, a difference in the age in which one can get a California marriage vs. a California domestic partnership is not considered a "right" in the legal sense in that state, but it is very much a "right" in the general sense that people use the word.  In the California example, the average reader is more likely to be familiar with the commonplace meaning rather than the legal meaning, I believe, and essays like the one I cite above seem to suggest, that there should be a presumption that the commonplace meaning be preferred.  I'm arguing that the same situation appears here.  The courtesy title is incredibly minor, but is in fact a difference.  Where is it that you believe I've gone astray in this argument?   Last minute addition b/c I just saw your suggestion:  I have no problems at all with comparable.  --Joe Decker (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * While I do not wish to pre-empt discussion, if the argument has changed from one of policy to one of opinion and belief and presumption (and we have no possible way to know what "the average reader" may or may not think) I would suggest that this matter is laid to one side until a relevant policy is in force. There is a policy on semantics that (I think) would support my opinion, but this ****ing iPhone is driving me nuts, and I hope you'll spare me the need to go in search of it, instead agreeing that with no policy back-up (at this time) the long-standing wording can remain pro-tem86.172.196.114 (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I sympathize, I have an iPhone too I'll leave the current wording until we finish the discussion and achieve consensus to do so (if we do in fact achieve that), if that takes a handful of days or more that's no problem.  It's about 1:30am here, I should be heading to bed myself. --Joe Decker (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, Joe, on reflection there seems to be no reason not to try "comparable" - it's a good fit. Let's try it and see if the article's original authors want to change it.  If they do, fine, we'll debate it.  If not, the word's a pretty good fit.Good night! 86.172.196.114 (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about comparable with the note? That seems to be the best solution to me. Though comparable alone isn't too bad so I'm not bothered if its just that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note seems superfluous. It just repeats text from the article body. 86.172.196.114 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay without the note, too. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Applicability to British Overseas Territories?
Does anyone know if civil partnerships are available in British Overseas Territories, or perhaps in some of the territories that have less legislative autonomy, or what? I ask because Wikipedia's has blue coloring (i.e. civil partnerships recognized) for Pitcairn Island and a couple of islands in the Lesser Antilles that I believe are Anguilla and Montserrat, but other BOT (e.g. Bermuda, the Caymans) are grey (i.e. no partnerships are recognized). There doesn't seem to be any info on the relevant recognition of same-sex unions article or in this article. --Jfruh (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Some of the overseas territories have their own system of government, and localised laws.
 * None of them have adopted nor have been forced to adopt UK Civil Partnerships as yet.
 * Some still have sodomy laws.

*Anguilla - have sodomy laws *Bermuda - NO - sodomy laws *the British Antarctic Territory - no population / no elected government. *the British Indian Ocean Territory - no population / no elected government. *the British Virgin Islands - have sodomy laws punishable with up to life imprisonment at the discretion of the judge. *the Cayman Islands - limited equal rights *the Falkland Islands - homosexuality is legal *Gibraltar - has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 18 for homosexuals, and 16 for heterosexuals. *Montserrat - have sodomy laws *Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, - homosexuality is legal *the Turks and Caicos Islands - have sodomy laws *the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands,
 * PjThompso 11:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

The Falkland Islands are looking at offering Civil Partnerships under UK legislation. This is possible and should come into action in September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.131.38 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any confirmed sources available regarding the aforementioned comment about the Falklands? Is it confirmed that a Civil Partnerships law is currently under discussion in that territory? Would this be an in-house Falklands law (similar to what has occurred on the Isle of Man) allowing civil partnerships to be performed in the islands? Or would this simply be a resolution recognizing civil partnerships performed in the UK? Crm18 (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've added a section to the article about British crown dependencies and overseas territories, because I feel it's something unlikely to be covered adequately elsewhere and because the UK is, ultimately, sovereign. The UK could force territories' hands if desired, and if not doing so is ever deemed contrary to EU law in the future, probably will. So far, to my knowledge, only the Isle of Man and Jersey have implemented CP legislation; Guernsey is looking into it. I can't find any confirmation about the Falklands at present, and certainly some of the Caribbean territories have been openly against the prospect of CPs (most vocally, the Caymans). But I think the whole area of the OTs will be worth watching on this subject in the years to come. Bradpogo (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Differences?
A section describing the differences between CP and traditional marriage would be useful. As someone above said, the article hints at there being some differences but doesn't really say what. From what I can gather there are only a few differences - 1. it isn't called marriage, 2. it is only available to people of the same sex, 3. it can't be performed in a place of worship (unless that has now changed) and 4. the issue about hereditary titles which isn't really of much importance. Is that it? How does this compare to CPs in other countries? Most don't allow for custody of children and many have limits on insurance rights and inheritance. A proper comparison with traditional marriage and between different countries is needed. Plus how amazing is it that it will be a Conservative government who finally open marriage to everybody? Just 20 years ago they didn't even consider gay people to be normal yet they've come so far since (shame about the economic mess though).--79.34.11.198 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Real differences
1. Civil partnerships are not recognised anywhere else in the world. This can cause major problems with immigration and holidays. Even countries which have same-sex marriage or civil unions do not recognise British civil partnerships, because they are not the same. Marriage, on the other hand, is recognised universally.

2. Pension differences, which actually continue an inequality in the law that already existed. If a married person dies, their spouse is entitled to a higher amount from their pension if they are a widow than if they are a widower. If a person in a civil partnership dies, their partner is treated as a married man and receives the lower amount, regardless of their actual gender.

3. By calling it "civil partnership" instead of "marriage", this means that people in a civil partnership have to out themselves as LGBT every time they so much as tick a box on a form which lists civil partnership separately from marriage. We would not ask people to identify on such forms if they were in a mixed-race or mixed-faith relationship.

4. A marriage can be performed in a house of worship and be legally binding. A civil partnership is purely civil, and is not permitted to contain any religious content. And yes, there are several religions which have openly lobbied for the ability to marry same-sex couples, namely Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism, Quakerism (the Society of Friends), and Unitarianism.

5. There is no appropriate title for a woman in a civil partnership: neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" apply. "Ms" is still not used all that much, and many organisations simply do not recognise it as an option (trust me, I've been called "Mrs" or "Miss" more times than I've been called "Ms", even though I make a point of insisting that my title is "Ms". This is actually a problem for all women who are neither single nor married, for instance if they are living with their partner, or any woman who does not wish to reveal her marital status in her title).

6. Language is also lacking in other areas: there is no verb analagous to "marry", so you can't say "I got civil-partnered last year". "Civil partner" is too clunky for everyday use (I have never encountered a single person who refers to their partner in that way), and few people accept the terms "husband", "wife" or "spouse" for same-sex couples. This reflects a continuing social inequality where civil partnerships are seen as being inferior to marriage.

Elettaria (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, I seem to recall that, in a case specific perhaps to Elton John's partner, courtesy titles are not extended to same-sex partners of ... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/20/sbt.01.html --j⚛e deckertalk 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Overseas territories (specifically Gibraltar)
Gibraltar has recently legalised a civil partnership bill which has been given Royal Assent. I was wondering if the wording in the Overseas Territories section of the article should therefore be changed? Specifically when it says "none of the overse... etc." which is now incorrect Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Effect of same-sex marriage legislation on the take-up of civil partnerships
I came to this article looking to see if the number of couples opting for CP was in decline following the equalisation of the marriage laws in England & Wales, but as yet there seems to be no information about that. It would be interesting to know if CP is now effectively moribund - are there any figures available anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406103519/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/registering-a-civil-partnership-in-scotland.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/registering-a-civil-partnership-in-scotland.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130420050443/http://www.furleypage.co.uk/services-for-individuals/civil-partnerships/ to http://www.furleypage.co.uk/services-for-individuals/civil-partnerships/
 * Added tag to http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-06-24-Same-sex-civil-partnerships-down-by-50

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) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


text:
Augmented second

In classical music from Western culture, an augmented second is an interval that, in 12-tone equal temperament, is sonically equivalent to a minor third, spanning three semitones, and is created by widening a major second by a chromatic semitone. For instance, the interval from C to D is a major second, two semitones wide, and the interval from C to D♯ is an augmented second, spanning three semitones.

Usage
Augmented seconds occur in many scales, most importantly the harmonic minor and its various modes. They also occur in the various Gypsy scales (which consist almost entirely of augmented and minor seconds). In harmonic minor scales, the augmented second occurs between the sixth and seventh scale degrees. For example, in the scale of A harmonic minor, the notes F and G♯ form the interval of an augmented second. This distinguishing feature of harmonic minor scales occurs as a consequence of the seventh scale degree having been chromatically raised in order to allow chords in a minor key to follow the same rules of cadence observed in major keys, where the V chord is "dominant" (that is, contains a major triad plus a minor seventh).

Tuning
An augmented second is enharmonically equivalent to a minor third in 12-tone equal temperament, but this does not hold true in most tunings. In any tuning close to quarter-comma meantone it will be close to the 7:6 ratio of the septimal minor third.

The 75:64 just augmented second arises in the justly tuned C harmonic minor scale between A♭ and B.

title: Augmented second


text:
User talk:RF~enwiki

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchanwikiiii!!!!.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mitchanwikiiii!!!!.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reevecaitwiki2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Reevecaitwiki2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called RF. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name RF~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:RF~enwiki


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 13


text:
Raging Cow

Raging Cow was a line of milk-based beverages created by Dr Pepper/Seven Up. The five flavors were Berry Mixed Up, Chocolate Caramel Craze, Chocolate Insanity, Jamocha Frenzy, and Piña Colada Chaos.

The mascot of the beverage, an angry cow fed up with "boring milk", was also known as The Raging Cow.

Marketing controversy
After the introduction of the beverage in March 2003, there was controversy over the strategy of marketing agency Richards Interactive to capitalize on the then-novel weblog phenomenon. Along with whimsical blogs "authored" by the product's barnyard mascots, six teenagers were hired to promote the drink in otherwise authentic blogs. Although the intent was to gain a stronger, more credible connection with the young target audience, adult observers saw the tactic as disingenuous and subversive and staged a boycott, which attracted press coverage. The campaign is now regarded as a failure.

Status of the beverage
Since the protest began, the official Raging Cow website has gone offline. An official webpage about the beverage still existed at the Dr Pepper/Seven Up website until mid-2006. At first, the Raging Cow beverages were only available in a few cities across the United States, an example of test marketing. Additional information about the distribution of the beverage was never released. Currently, many Raging Cow vending machines are stocked with other Dr Pepper/Seven Up products. No official message was ever given regarding the end of production of the drink.

title: Raging Cow