text:
Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 2

This page is for discussion/improvement of the Community Portal. For general questions about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia FAQ and the Village pump.

The following subsections of this page have been moved into the Template namespace to make them editable; see Editing the main page for details. Purge the cache
 * "Things you can do" section
 * "Tip of the day" section

Archives: Feb-Mar 2004: Discussion about creating the page and adding a link to the sidebar

I have protected this page
A vandal fiddled with it, and I decided that we probably want this main page protected semi-permanently, just like the main page. If you disagree, please say so here. I will list this at Protected page also. Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree -- at least until a while has passed since the press release went out. Otherwise we should create an informal team to watch it. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Lots of pages get vandalised. There's no huge danger if this one is. This page is lower traffic than the main page. Further, those reading it will already be aware that Wikipedia is a wiki. Duly unprotected. Martin 00:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I respect your disagreement, but I disagree with you, Martin (a rare thing). :) I won't re-protect though....obviously we can handle the vandalism here for the time being (though I admit I would like not to have to be vigilant here long-term).  I guess I would just like to have the main information accessible to potential new editors.  If I want to contribute and hit "Community Main Page" to find out more and see "jack iz gay" or similar vandal nonsense, I probably give up then.  At least give first-timers a chance to see all the different places and aspects of Wikipedia.  As it stands, they couldn't find "how to edit a page" or any of the other useful things if the page is vandalized (previously the protected main page allowed this access).  This will be lower traffic than the main page, I agree.  But it will be proportionately much higher trafficked by those who want to contribute.  Shouldn't that have protection? Jwrosenzweig 00:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's try it in unprotected mode a little while longer to gauge how big the problem is, OK?—Eloquence
 * Makes sense. I guess I figured once in two days of this setup was a bad omen, but you're right, my sample is too small. :-) I'll wait and see a while. Jwrosenzweig 00:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Recall that the vandalism lasted precisely two minutes. Martin 00:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * True, true. For that matter, though, we could unprotect Main Page.  I guess I don't see a huge difference between the two, and as I support protecting MP, I support protecting W:MP.  But if 2 intelligent experienced fellows like you and Eloquence disagree, well, I have to assume I'm in a minority position. :-)  Just wanting to make my position heard, is all. Jwrosenzweig 01:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I see no reason to protect it. Unlike the main page, this is going to be trafficked by regular users who've already seen all kinds of vandalism anyway and know how to deal with it - revert. Anthony DiPierro 07:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I have found that now that I can influence the main page (for instance), the wiki feels much better; I don't want to be feeling that I want to be sysop, just to be able to to central wikipedia tasks. I want this page unprotected, and I think that the current solution for the main page is a very good one. — Sverdrup (talk) 23:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Auto updates
Jdforrester had a great idea that I was able to make reality. I created Template:February 26 and referenced it via  to get:

 * {{July_29}}

 * Is that cool or what? For the selected anniv queue I'm going to use the naming syntax MediaWiki:Month day selected anniversaries . MediaWiki:Month tip of the day or even MediaWiki:Month day year tip of the day may be good for the tip of the day queue (if you decide to create one - although I think you would be daft not to! ;). --mav 06:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Alright, I get the idea that you like it.—Eloquence 06:56, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Feedback link on every page
We could really use a feedback link at the top/bottom of each page, which runs an appopriate script "Say, gives the users an edit page that appends a comment to the end of a new Feedback page? to the MediaWiki bug report/feature request page? to the top of a 'Cleanup (raw)' page?  and pre-fills in what page they were on when they clicked the link, a user/timestamp, and what their prefs settings are" The problem: often I encountered a problem with WP ("what links here" fxnality breaking, the sidebar working in an unexpected fashion, a key page obviously missing (but I'm unclear where to put it), a kind of debate/interaction that makes me want to go away and not come back for a few months -- and there's no obvious or appropriate way to express my observation. Making it easier for users to provide feedback is important to making the project better, and to better serving/hearing from a reliable cross-section of its audience.  +sj+ 09:20, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Protecting this page
Shouldn't the Community Portal page be protected just as much as the Main Page is? RickK 02:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I think so. --Monsieur Mero 02:25, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I did this, initially, and was shouted down instantly by mav Martin/MyRedDice (sorry for the confusion, mav!) and Eloquence, I believe (though if my memory is bad, I hope neither of them will hold it against me). Someone instantly unprotected it and disagreed with me....something about how people need to be able to edit this page.  It has been vandalized a few times (always reverted fairly quickly), but I still agree with Rick that, if the Main Page is protected, this one should be too.  No one has ever answered me on that claim (explaining why the pages should be treated differently).  I'm open to having my mind changed, however. Jwrosenzweig 02:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)P.S. -- See Wikipedia talk:Community Portal above for the initial discussion. Jwrosenzweig 02:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes; CP has equal status w/ the Main Page, no? --Monsieur Mero 02:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most of the Main Page is now editable for non-sysops through MediaWiki. Much of this page is not. Also, the community page is not usually the first impression for people from the outside, so the vandalism is less of an image problem. Better to leave it unprotected and rely on reverts. --Michael Snow 02:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That the Main Page protection has a loophole alarms me, but shouldn't the CP have at least some protection in the non-MediaWiki areas? --Monsieur Mero 02:46, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no loophole in the Main Page protection — since the don't update the main page instantly, there is a time offset from the edit of the msg til it reaches the main page, and that is good protection. The Community Portal shouldn't be protected, since I don't like protected pages in the first place, but also because vandalism happening only sparsely is not such a big problem that we will want to bow for it and inhibit the editability of the page.— Sverdrup 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Since this has not been mentioned here yet - I think CP should not be protected precisely because it will be frequented by new editors. As a pretty new editor myself, I was very happy that CP was unprotected, because otherwise I could not have fixed the links to Article Resourses that I did.  The great thing about a Wiki is that anyone can modify any page, and new editors are editors because they value that ability.  The pages they frequent should be least likely to be protected!  Protecting the Main Page is reasonable, because visitors, who have no interest in editing pages, or fixing minor vandalism, or even knowing that they can edit pages, are very likely to view the Main Page, and it should be arranged for them(as well as other audiences).  But CP is for editors - people who want to edit pages, and fix vandalism, including editing and fixing CP itself.  That's why I think CP is different from the Main Page. JesseW 03:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has the Meta-Wikipedia been officially abandoned?
I've been away for a few months and this is the first time I've seen this new arrangement. I'm impressed. The main page looks very interesting and professional, and I like the idea of this "community portal". I'm a bit puzzled though that there seems to be no link to the Meta-Wikipedia as far as I can see. I always thought Meta was a very important facility that was grossly underused. Is it now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only by E-mail, with all its disadvantages? GrahamN 03:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There's a link to meta down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it, and of course there's one on Special:Recentchanges. --Brion 05:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why has it been put down at the bottom, where no one will ever see it? Surely it would be better to put it prominently up at the top somewhere, or at least in the middle, under "ways to communicate"; unless it is now official policy that Meta-type discussion should be carried out only on the mailing lists. Is it? GrahamN 16:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree strongly. There are certain discussions about overall policy and organization, particularly ones that newbies like to take up, which should take place on meta -- or at least be informed by some of the age-old structural docs on meta.  [for instance, just about anything involving translation, multilingual support, and foreign-lang WPs] +sj+ 20:57, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)(edited the word `strongly` it was spelt wrong... Dry○Thirst)

Merge proposal
I propose that Goings-on is merged into this page. To reduce the amount of scrolling,
 * Get involved and the current top box of Goings-on should be merged into one
 * The "New to Wikipedia" box should be merged with the intro text, and shorter

I further suggest that the current archiving process is reconsidered, because it makes it very easy to miss updates. The archives are also not particularly helpful, as there are too few items per page, so e.g. you have no complete log on one page of featured articles on the Main Page.

Instead, each box should have their own archive:
 * Get involved archive
 * Featured articles/Main Page log
 * Featured article candidates/Featured log (already exists)
 * Featured picture candidates/Featured log (to be created)

Pages would be added to these archives whenever the respective sections get too long.

Comments:

This would increase the incentive to visit the Community Portal, and to keep goings-on updated. If there are no objections, I will do this ASAP.—Eloquence 08:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * This makes no sense to me, could you share your reasons for proposing we merge a news page with a newbie-friendly links portal? fabiform | talk 08:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The Community Portal is not particularly newbie-friendly. Instead of trying to make it two things, we should work on pages like Welcome, newcomers and link these more prominently. A real newbie intro should have lots of nice pictures, use simple terms, and provide relatively few, carefully selected links to crucial "hub" type pages.

 * Stuff like Template:Opentask and even the tip of the day is often more useful to regulars than to complete newbies, and the link directory itself is rather overwhelming for first-time visitors.

 * Now that it is also part of the sidebar, the CP should provide regular updates that are of interest to long-time members. What incentive is there for me to click the Community Portal every day? If I like the tip of the day and opentask so much I can include either on my user page and access them from there. No, the CP should feature more than just these two dynamic elements. And Goings-on is exactly the kind of regularly updated "What's going on" information that is appropriate for a real community portal.

 * I have found that I personally don't check Goings-on much because it's not part of the site navigation. My bookmark toolbar is already full, the full bookmark menu is too slow to access, so I end up not visiting the page. If the goings-on information was accessible from the sidebar instantly I would read it more frequently and, obviously, update it as well. But we don't need another sidebar, we just need a single, well-integrated community portal.—Eloquence 10:37, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, and you do know how long the goings on page gets at the end of a week before it's archived? E.g.: Goings-on/March 7, 2004 - fabiform | talk 09:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That's because it covers a whole week. It doesn't need to, not in all areas.—Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Get involved section is poorly updated (how long has Talk:Evolution been listed there now?). We need something better, and we could use material from Goings-on instead. But there is way too much stuff at Goings-on that we would lose in a merge. The mailing list synopses, for example, are an excellent substitute for people who don't want to subscribe. People need a place to go for information they've missed out on, especially because events happen quickly and many places have high turnover. We could, however, merge Goings-on with Announcements; those two seem to have overlapping functions. --Michael Snow 18:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence states that one of the reasons to merge them is that the Community Portal isn't terribly newbie-friendly. It seems like adding the content from Goings-on will only add to that. Right now the topics are: Syntax Extensions - discussion about proposed ways to include different markup for music, hieroglyphs, plots, graphics, etc.; The Accuser of Kobe Bryant (reprise); Proposal to Merge Goings-on with Community Portal; and Revamping of Boilerplate Request for Permission. BCorr | Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course it would add to that. As I explained above, the newbie-friendly page should be entirely separate, e.g. Welcome, newcomers. The Community Portal would be primarily of interest to regular members of the community.—Eloquence

Spent the last 30 minutes going back and forth between both pages. A more interesting, integrated Community Portal is definitely needed. Merging the pages would facilitate this. Also, the increased eyeballs on a single page will address the initial concerns about disorganization because it will inevitably result in more edits and better layout. I will rehash Eloquence, the Community Portal should be targeted to all Wikipedians with a more developed Welcome, newcomers page linked prominently. Merging the pages would add value to the left-hand side menu bar and simplify the namespace- two big bonuses. The real significance of this vote is not simply "merging the pages" but is changing the purpose of the Community Portal to being a place that has value for everyone. Merging is a step in the right direction. -- Chevan

Support:
 * 1) I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page. Perhaps Announcements can be the analog to Current events. --mav
 * 2) —Eloquence 10:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but move the mailing list stuff to Mailing list summary as it won't fit on this page. Angela
 * 4) Support, I do like goings-on a lot and almost suggested this Matthewmayer 18:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Chevan 13:54, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) SimonP 14:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Lockeownzj00 20:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

 * 1) Timwi 08:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I really don't understand the point in this. The Community Portal serves a particular purpose, the Goings-on page servers another, different particular purpose.
 * 2) Not merge, but use a condensed version to replace the Get involved section. I'll elaborate below. --Michael Snow 18:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose strongly. Goings-on has been successful because it is standalone and focused. If Community Portal is not effective, then redesign it and fix it, you don't add more to it.  Personally, I would get move either "Tip of the Day" or "Things you can do" to the side so the FAQ can make it "above the scroll." I can't stand Tip of the Day in MS Office, I don't like it here. Also, how silly is it that the FAQ for Wikipedia is at least three clicks away (if you can even find it) from the front page. Fuzheado 03:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *Thanks for your kind words about my daily work on the tip of the day section, it is much appreciated. The FAQ is two clicks away from every page: Help->FAQ.—Eloquence 06:00, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) **(Seinfeld alert) "It's not you, it's me." I just don't find tips of the day useful. It's not a slight against you personally. As for FAQ, it's nice to know an alternate path, but it still feels lost in the shuffle. Fuzheado 06:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) — I think I would prefer Goings-on to be a stand-alone page. -- Cyan 04:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) silsor 05:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Hmmm. Fuz said everything i was going to say. Fuz, are you reading my notes? :) Kingturtle 05:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Anthere 05:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) (added by Fuzheado, by Anthere's request on IRC. Kingturtle a witness. "[13:54]  fuz, please vote for me") (it is true, i was witness to Anthere's request. Kingturtle 22:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))
 * 10) Pilaf 21:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) fabiform | talk 22:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) BCorr | Брайен 19:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) See my comment below.
 * 13) +sj+ 20:53, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) mav's first sentence above is exactly right -- but does not entail a merge of these pages.  "I think this is a great idea - the "Goings-on" section of this page can be an analog to the "In the news" section on the Main Page."  But it should then link to the current Goings-on page, which has a lovely format, a well-defined purpose, and a very satisfied user base.
 * 14) I agree 100% with SJ. →Raul654 23:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Ryan_Cable 03:42, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * 16) I think the current link on the Community Portal is fine, the portal is really for new users, and I doubt they'd be interested in the going-ons of wikipedia. Adding going-ons to the community portal would simply clutter it and detract from Community Portals main purpose, informing new users about how wikipedia works. --Flockmeal 05:19, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Undecided:

 * 1) On one hand, I think information such as this is spread across too many pages. Some of the information on Community Portal would be pretty useful added to Goings On as well. However, they both serve a purpose, and Community Portal is handy as a newbie-oriented page. Ambivalenthysteria 09:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Donors treated as vandals
Curiously, the Schools FAQ link was recently deleted and allowed to remain deleted after another donor made the edit, but when the original donor of the article earlier attempted to remove the link, citing the same general errors and imcompletion in the article, the original donor was widely treated as a vandal. The primary difference in the claims that eventually led to the durable removale was that the final removal included the allegation that the article was "Bird product." Apparently the tradition of weeding out "bad actors" instead of confronting "innacurate information" allowed the link to be deleted when it was attributed to a "bad actor". The same band of thugs that refused to allow the orignial donor to make further edits related to an article nobody else was actively involved with are continuing to bar efforts to correct the errors cited in edit summaries and talk pages. Even more curiously, the process that led to the original donor being treated as a "vandal" was exaclty the process Wikipedia encourages - in which donors are solicited to contribute information to the best of their knowledge in hopes that they or others will come along and fix the article. A donor created an article reflecting a very narrow point of view that endorsed wikipedia. When the donor used that knowledge to develop countervailing knowledge that was critical of Wikipedia as an academic resource, those defending an encyclopedia salesman's POV about Wikipedia concluded the attempt at balance and accurcy was vandalism. The primary result of the conflict was that a very astute and resourceful donor choose to advance the case that collegial behavior is not always the best approach to participation in the editorial collectivity assembled here, authored articles for other publications highly critical of Wikipedia, and began providing technical assistance to parties who aggressively oppose Wikipedia. Now this donor determines to be a bad actor in as much as other donors maintain the claim that some people are bad and have nothing to offer a community, rather than working from a scholarly posture that examines information on its merits alone. (anon)

 * In my mind, this post resembles the style used by Bird in his various incarnations. As the person who removed the links, I stand by my actions. The correctness and value of the content were disputed by a number of people, and there was no consensus to link it on this page. The Schools FAQ was not deleted; it is still available at Schools FAQ. --Michael Snow 23:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The link should be removed and if nobody has anything to contribute to the FAQ other than their hatred toward the original donor, it should also be deleted. Your reply, Mister Snow, revealsa disfunctional reasoning process in that you are unable to recognize and acknowledge the content of the comment you responded to here, but instead continued your personal campaign of hatred toward a pseudonym. Your continued citation of the user name as the problem instead of citing the exact errors, the controversial points and the point-of-view problems in the article betrays that your are a mental midget who makes decisions based on your opinion of the social status of persons and not on the merits of information presented in an article. Your inablity to recognize the concerns and interests of others disqualifies you as a non-fiction writer, which is probably why you are here pretending to establish authority in a context where truth takes a back seat to group allegiance. You can rest assured your continued aggression today has been redressed with a retaliatory attack to a part of this document where you will be unable to repair the damage. This is how the rest of the world operates in the face of aggression by the likes of you and your countrymen. (anon)

 * Yep, that definitely sounds like a Bird comment. I suggest we reinstitute the links to the schools FAQ now that the draft copy is being used. →Raul654 01:57, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * If this mental midget may still offer an opinion, since I can't edit this page while it's protected, and I wasn't aware it had been unprotected for a little while--I have to ask: 1)Do we need to proliferate FAQs? 2)How many of these questions are actually, or conceivably, frequently asked? 3)Can't most of the content be found in, or incorporated into, our existing FAQs? 4)How much of the content is really specific to schools? 5)Wouldn't Student FAQ be a better name, anyway? 6)Do we need to perpetuate this page, considering that it will probably serve as a magnet for Bird in the future? --Michael Snow 03:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Intro paragraph, categories
Since the New to Wikipedia stuff was combined into the introductory paragraph, I don't think we need the separate New user information category. That category contains very little and mostly duplicates stuff found at the top of the page (we could stand to get a link to Welcome, newcomers in the intro, though). Real newbies will never find one category mixed in with a bunch of others, but there's a good chance they'll read the opening text. I also prefer Goings-on back in the Get involved section where it was, with the icon. --Michael Snow 17:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the separate section for newbie links is more useful than the intro paragraph. It makes the links clearer and easier to find. I agree about the Goings-on icon though. Angela. 19:27, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
Why has the introduction moved to the bottom? That doesn't seem a sensible place for it to be. Angela. 00:49, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Article of the Week
Ok, we have links to where to vote for the AOTW, but we need an announcement somewhere semi-prominent saying that this week's article is Situs inversus. Where should this go? Isomorphic 16:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Eloquence suggested replacing the ancient pages box, and I concur. In fact, I'd move the tip of the day box down too. Tom- 21:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've added it, but it could be improved. I'm not convinced the snippet from the article is the best idea or not, so feel free to change it completely. :) Angela. 07:38, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Link-Chain Contest Suggestion
How about launching a link-chain contest? Take two random titles, e.g., incest and electronics, and see who can build the shortest sequence of articles starting with incest and ending with electronics where each article is linked to the next one. Adding links to articles to make the chain shorter should be allowed provided they are appropriate (appropriateness can be voted). This way, the contest would promote both reading and editing. -- Lev 18:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * See Six degrees of Wikipedia. Angela. 00:43, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * incest to anthropologist to natural sciences to Electrical engineering to electronicsPedant 08:36, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Election link breaks layout in Mozilla
The new Election link added yesterday now breaks the layout in Mozilla 1.6 (win2k). The tables following the link are now restricted to the width of the election link. I viewed the revision before the link was added, and everything displayed fine at that point. RedWolf 16:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Same problem with Mozilla 1.7rc2 on Mac OS X. RedWolf 16:22, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

New Wikipedia
I noticed today that since there is the new Wikipedia software (or at least since today), I see squares instead of characters with carons (lie š,č..., e.g. in Slovak language). Could someone tell me, what the problem might be? Juro

 * The new skin specifies the font more specifically, and thus your browser may not be able to find a font that contains the slavic characters. A temporary fix is to go to preferences and use the standard (old) skin. ✏ Sverdrup 11:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question about article content.
This is not a criticism, but rather a question. I just spent some time editing an article on the Community Portal page caller Maxim Kammerer. I was just putting in some links and editing spelling and such, but during the course of this, I was reading some of the article. It appears to basically be a book review. Isn't this site meant for encylopedic content? And would a book review be considered as such? I would think an article about a book would say something about the authors, book contents, and other knowledge, but a book summary seems strange for an encyclopedia. Could someone comment on this please. I am relatively new here and don't know exactly what is acceptable yet.

Skyler 19:05, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Just glancing at it, it does read like a summary of a book, but since Kammerer is apparently a fictional character, it's not necessarily wrong for the article to include relevant plot summaries. It's possible that the article focuses too much on the book and not the character specifically. Is there a separate article on the book itself? --Michael Snow 21:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * there are several book titles, Maxim Kammerer is a character in all of them.... there is an article on Sherlock Holmes, too. I think that the article as it's written now is a suitably encyclopedic entry, in the context of all the other fictional characters written of in WPPedant 08:41, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Copyrights and so on..
Hello. I'm in a class, and I've copied information on Ayn Rand to paper. Since we are all paranoid, my teacher INSISTS on giving credit to all the authors of the page. Knowing my teacher, she doesn't know of (or understand?) the GNU license. What should I do? What does Wikipedia say? Do I just have to say "I got it from Ayn Rand"? That seems to satisify myself... What do most people do in these situations? How can I teach my educators about Free Software, the GNU licenses, and that it's possible that some material is meant for education (in such my case)?

 * The article has been edited by 61 users (Aravindet, Bedevere, BigFatBuddha, Blanchette, Brenton, Calieber, Cantus, Carbuncle, ChessPlayer, Chinju, Clutch, Daniel Quinlan, Delirium, DHN, Enkrates, Graft, GreedyCapitalist, Ihcoyc, Infrogmation, IZAK, JamesReyes, Jasper Chua, Jiang, JoXn, Lacrimosus, LarryGilbert, Liftarn, Loweeel, Lucidish, Martijn faassen, Maveric149, Merovingian, Michael Hardy, Mike Krakora, Millerc, Mirv, Mkweise, Mkweise, Neilc, Nikai, Octothorn, Oliver Pereira, Philwelch, Polynova, Radgeek, RickK, Ronabop, Ruhrjung, Sciabarra, Scottryan, Seth Ilys, Simonides, Someone else, SWAdair, Synaptic, Synthetik, Timo Honkasalo, Wik, Wiki109, Wile E. Heresiarch and Zoe), plus 51 anon IPs and 2 bots. The GFDL says you should list the 5 main authors, but I don't know how you would pick out the main 5. If the main authors are those who have made the most non-minor edits, then they might be Neilc, Octothorn, Wik, Sciabarra and Loweeel, but this is basically a guess. Angela. 16:45, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you possibly autogenerate that text? Ambush Commander 02:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has anybody created a Wiki international news service?
Has anyone here ever thought of the possibility of creating a wiki national news source? Indymedia is struggling to get off the ground - and it's still riddled with logistics problems. But, one thing it's been able to do is to encourage ordinary people at the location of news events to get out and do video and photo documentation.. which has been used very creatively in at least one television broadcast program which I've seen.

One thing I really admire about the designers of wikipedia, is that they have very thoughtfully accounted for social logistics. It's a miracle that this place works in the manner it does - and it's because of a very thoughtful design of the auspices. In like manner, members of our community ought to, perhaps, start contributing ideas towards the construction of a wiki web news source...Rainbird 20:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * See Wikinews.--Eloquence*

 * Thanks indeed, my dear eloquence Rainbird

Page layout
Something appears to be broken on this page, as the various links headings suddenly are crammed into the Tip of the day box. --Michael Snow 21:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Now it's fixed, but all section headings are suddenly numbered, so I take it there must be some MediaWiki updates being worked on. --Michael Snow 21:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I changed the color of the bottom two borders to the same grey the top four boxes use. As I was trying to do it, I was previewing, and someone messed up the thing before I could submit. So somehow, I resubmitted the mess - or something like that. I copied and pasted from the text editor I was using, and the thing fixed thank God. Is there any reason the bottom two boxes are black? --Wilz (Talk) 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

General Wikipedia Spacing
I'm not sure if this should belong here, but does anyone else think that the paragraphs in Wikipedia are a little too closely cramped together? I hope it's not presumptuous for a newbie to be questioning such a long-time tradition but I find that my eyes have trouble differentiating one paragraph from another, especially in long articles where there are many paragraphs to a section/sub-section. It would serve readers better if article paragraphs are spaced out just a bit more so that paragraphs are distinguishable through jungles of text. This is of course a technical issue which can only be solved across Wikipedia by the programmers - but a quick change of a single variable in the CSS should do it. Wilz (Talk) 16:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mention vandalism on this page?
Maybe I'm blind, but every time I spot some vandalism I struggle to find the page(s) on Wikipedia describing what to do about it. I can't see it on the main page or on this page, which is to me the obivous place to look. If I'm right, could we have a link to the relevant pages from this page? Thanks. -- S

 * Here's a tutor: Rainbird 05:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who noticed that there is something wrong with the links of the 'update' part/section, under the 'things you can do' box. I really don't think is's supposed to link here As_of or here Special:Whatlinkshere/As_of_1911. Will someone who knows more than me look this up. Thanks. Cal 1234 15:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Merged articles and credits
If one article (A) is merged into another article (B), should those who edited the former (A) be credited? If so, how?--Logariasmo 18:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, request a history merge. So that the history of A is moved to B. Mgm|(talk) 12:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sub cotws
Should the subCOTWs articles be listed there in the COTW section? IMO yes, either remove the quote from the main COTW text or downsize the text. Then, add the subCOTWs something like this: What do people think? J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 17:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Aussie COTW: Article X
 * Literature COTW: some book article
 * Irish COTW: Irish topic article
 * and so on

Semantic Markup?
This page is marked up quite badly, I think -div-s should be used instead of tables, and I don't think that -center- tags etc should be used at all.

As a result, the page code is huge and hard to follow.

Should I try and fix the markup, (offline first)?

-A Wikipedia newbie
 * divs aren't available in all browsers, we try to keep wikipedia as compatible as possible with other systems. We also have wiki markup to make table coding easier and shorter, that should address most of your concerns. Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Recent Changes has been Taken Over
AAAAH!!! I went to Recent Changes and I have this freaky The Willy on Wheels thingy! This is a very disturbing annoyance and I need some admin to somehow purge this from the history (I have a feeling that he used the summaries to plant it there). HELP! HELP! Ambush Commander 00:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, it's gone now. Who did it? How??? Ambush Commander 00:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * And now I find that the Special:Recentchanges links to a template Recentchanges which can be edited by anybody but it's really hard to trace back to it. Grr! Ambush Commander 00:23, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Copyedit pages
Can the talk pages be shortened - getting long enough for the system to complain.

Could some form of date-system for queries etc be returned to - present system too cumbersome (especially when Wikipedia is slow, and there is limited time available).

A link to the encyclopedia listings again would be useful - I was going to extend some of them, but can't find them.

Discussing the contents of a specific page
Unfortunately I have not been able to post a remark for a specific Wikipage: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Suworow" as it says that the article does not exist (though it does exist). How can I do this?

The problem is that the last bit of information given there (on Suvorov shooting soldiers who refused to attack the enemy and the resons of his victories) is a little biased or at least too limited, so probably there are people who will be able to check it and edit the article in a more objective (?) way.

Inogoro

Discussing the contents of a specific page
But where??!!


text:
Brinkley Act

The Brinkley Act is the popular name given to (originally section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934). This provision was enacted by the United States Congress to prohibit broadcasting studios in the U.S. from being connected by live telephone line or other means to a transmitter located in Mexico.

Prior to World War II, Dr. John R. Brinkley controlled a high-power radio station, XERA, located in Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila (Acuna City), on the U.S.-Mexican border, across the Rio Grande from Del Rio, Texas. The programs on Brinkley's stations originated from studios in the US, which were connected to his transmitters via international telephone lines. Brinkley ran a popular but controversial program offering questionable medical advice to his listeners. Since Brinkley's transmitters were licensed in Mexico, which at the time had very limited regulation of broadcast content, his broadcasting licenses could not be directly threatened by the US government.

Dr. Brinkley's activities at his studio were thought to be a local matter, outside Congress's regulatory powers. However, the communications between the studio and his transmitters clearly involved international commerce and were therefore within Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. The operative language is as follows:

 * No person shall be permitted to locate, use, or maintain a radio broadcast studio or other place or apparatus from which or whereby sound waves are converted into electrical energy, or mechanical or physical reproduction of sound waves produced, and caused to be transmitted or delivered to a radio station in a foreign country for the purpose of being broadcast from any radio station there having a power output of sufficient intensity and/or being so located geographically that its emissions may be received consistently in the United States, without first obtaining a permit from the Commission upon proper application therefor.

The law goes on to state that the legal process for requesting such a permit is the same as that for requesting or renewing a license for a domestic station.

Although the original purpose of the Brinkley Act was to shut down a broadcaster, such applications are today granted as a matter of course, and a number of US broadcasters are permitted to program Mexican stations from their US studios in communities such as San Diego, California and Brownsville, Texas, where as many as a third of the stations in each radio market are licensed in Mexico. In recent years the law has returned to prominence, as its provisions have been used to extend US ownership limits to Mexican stations leased by US broadcasters.

Comparable legislation elsewhere
To prevent Radio Luxembourg from beaming a live signal which had originated in the London studios of the station to the whole of the United Kingdom from continental Europe, the British General Post Office, which had control of British telephones, enacted similar regulations to the Brinkley Act. Consequently, Radio Luxembourg, like Mexican border-blasters, had to either use studios at the station in Luxembourg, or record information in London on a transcription disc which could then be flown to Luxembourg for replay.

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

title: Brinkley Act


text:
Tribes: Aerial Assault

Tribes: Aerial Assault is an online first-person shooter video game released for PlayStation 2 in 2002 by Sierra Entertainment. It was one of the first PlayStation 2 titles designed almost exclusively for online play and was the first online PlayStation 2 shooter that supports both modem and broadband connections. It was announced in tandem with Sony's online strategy for the PlayStation 2 at E3 2001.

Gameplay
Tribes: Aerial Assault is a first-person shooter game with an emphasis on mobility. There are many game types in the single-player campaign and multi-player, including capture the flag (CTF), capture and hold, hunter, team deathmatch, and deathmatch. Campaign usually consists of some mixture of these game types.

In all games but hunters and deathmatch, there are team and player points. Depending on the game style, team and player points can reflect two completely different things. Player points are usually earned through an individual player's accomplishments that help the team as a whole. Player points are earned by setting and deploying equipment, repairing friendly assets, destroying enemy assets, defending friendly assets, and completing objectives of the game.

 * Capture the Flag: Both teams have a flag, and the objective is to capture the other teams flag. The "runner" is unencumbered by the flag, that is; he/she can still use weapons and grenades freely and without debilitation. After either team has captured the flag 8 times, or the time limit runs out, the game is over and the team with the most points wins. In CTF, team points reflect how many times a team has captured, or attempted to capture the flag. Trying to capture the flag, but dying before reaching the base, gives the player's team one point. Successfully getting the enemy flag to one's own base rewards the player team a hundred points.
 * Capture and hold: This is an asset-guarding game. Usually there are four buildings or bases scattered over the whole map. Inside each of these is a switch. The objective is to touch the switch in any building and try to prevent the enemy team from doing the same for as long as possible. For every second that a base is held, that team gets one point. When the time runs out, the team with the most team points wins.
 * Hunter: A survival-based game. The objective is to kill as many people as possible and collect the flags that they drop, and then try to bring those flags back to a central "nexus" for points. There are no teams in Hunter, so everyone is an enemy. If someone drops more than five flags, everyone in the game is alerted as to who has the flags and who dropped them.
 * Team Deathmatch: Two teams duke it out until time runs out. 1 kill = 1 point. The team with the most points when time runs out wins.
 * Deathmatch: No teams, few rules, kill or be killed. The person with the most points at time-out wins.

Like most first-person shooters, Tribes: Aerial Assault has a Heads Up Display (HUD). The HUD consists of a crosshair, health, energy reserve, grenades and grenade type, pack type, armor heat, lock-on detection, and vehicle condition. The HUD also has target identification, that is, a red arrow over the target is an enemy, a green arrow is a friend. An unusual feature of Tribes: Aerial Assault is the jetpack feature. The jetpack runs on armor energy and allows players to fly for short to medium distances.

Story
It is the year 3945 A.C. (five years after the events of Tribes 2). On the frontier "Wilderzone" of human space, hardy neo-barbarian tribes compete for possession of new worlds. Tribal warriors enter combat in powered armor, relying on skill and bravery to win glory. BioDerm Hordes have started to invade tribal space. Though the tribes boast of being the finest warriors humanity has ever produced, they face a genetically modified race that has literally bred itself for battle. The stakes are epic, and the Wilderzone is aflame with a new kind of war. The player controls J. Ransom, a recently recruited newblood. After a training segment, the story follows J. Ransom through missions to fight off the BioDerm horde and keep control of tribal space.

Development
Like Halo: Combat Evolved the year before, Sierra had hoped that gameplay elements popular on the PC would translate well to console and would catch on with a much bigger audience. Unlike the Xbox however, the PlayStation required an external device for online connection, which despite the console's success, limited the game's potential audience. In addition, PlayStation online functionality did not arrive in Europe until June 2003, and Ethernet ports were not added to the PlayStation 2 until 2004.

Sierra Entertainment was the publisher for Tribes Aerial Assault. Tribes Aerial Assault was developed by Inevitable Entertainment. As Tribes Aerial Assault was a port from the PC game Tribes 2. Essentially making it a simplified Tribes 2 for the Playstation 2 console.

In early November 2008, Sierra shut down the online servers for 21 games, including Tribes: Aerial Assault. In 2015, the game was released as freeware by Hi-Rez Studios.

Reception
The game received "average" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.

title: Tribes: Aerial Assault


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cambodia/archive1

Cambodia
The article should be a Featured article as it is was rebuilt by me (Before & After Minus edits between) to become a worth candidate. It has pictures, it is comprehensive, has the cosmetic changes to make it look appealing. Words don't describe the improvement of the article since the renovation, you will have to visit the article youself. :) [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Update: Note whilst initally I did indeed wanted this article to become a feature article. After reading the responses below. I now withdraw my decision to nominate this article as a feature article as of now. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 04:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The opening section isn't very well written ("Thwe country is..." and lots of short, choppy sentences) and too much of the article is just lists (organizations Cambodia is in, leaders of the country, provinces, etc). It's got a lot of good factual content, but it's not particularly great, so far as country articles go. Jacob1207 02:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The sentences are short because that is what the Oxford: Plain English guide tells me to use. Sentences are meant to be concise. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oppose for the moment. I agree that there is a need to cut back the lists in the articles, maybe putting them into Foreign Relations of Cambodia in the case of the list of organisations. Evil Monkey → Talk 02:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * The most longest list of organizations has now been moved to Foreign relations of Cambodia [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oppose, too short. For an country article to be featured it should be at least 32K. Also Military of Cambodia and Transportation in Cambodia should have a summary-style section with a "main article" wikilink. Culture section is too short. Too many timelines and lists and not enough prose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is too harsh. India is 20KB (according to Firefox page info) and is was a featured article. Cambodia article is currently 15KB. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added more ifnormation to the tourism section. It seems that on the Wikipedia a country article that is so neglected, can never be a feature article. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 02:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Squash (Talk)]] 04:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Numerous examples of truly awful prose, especially in the lead section, but also throughout. Needs a close copyedit from someone fairly proficient in English. Also, why might the anniversary dates be subject to change? And are both new years dates really important? I'm guessing (but don't know) that Jan 1 isn't really all that important. Psychobabble 03:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well it seems the only way to get a person to copyedit this neglected article. Is to nominatate the article as a Featured article candidate. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 03:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope that that's not the only way to get someone to copyedit the article, but it did motivate me to do so. I think that it significantly improves the article, but doesn't change my opposition to featured article status at this time.  Cambodia is an interesting country and with further work the article could be brought up to FA status. Jacob1207 13:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The calendar (now moved) was subject to change as it would be safer to say so, then to give reader wrong information. I admit that the article does need a copyedit and I shouldn't have nominated this article in the first place - but no one wishes to spend their time on the article. They would rather use their time on something else like List of so and so etc. [[User:Squash|
 * I feel your frustration, but nominating for FA to get a copyedit seems somewhat unethical to me :) It's a shame it comes to this... Psychobabble 02:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Buckcherry

Buckcherry is an American hard rock band from Anaheim, California, formed in 1995. The band released two albums, Buckcherry (1999) and Time Bomb (2001), before dissolving in 2002. Buckcherry's first album Buckcherry was DreamWorks' first album to go gold. In 2005, lead vocalist Josh Todd and lead guitarist Keith Nelson reformed Buckcherry with a new lineup and released a new album in 2006, 15. It contained Buckcherry's biggest crossover hits to date, "Crazy Bitch", and their first Billboard Hot 100 top ten hit, "Sorry". The band continued to record albums, releasing five between 2008 and 2019: Black Butterfly in 2008, All Night Long in 2010, Confessions in 2013, Rock 'n' Roll in 2015, and Warpaint in 2019. Their ninth album Hellbound released in 2021, and their tenth and most recent album Vol. 10 released in 2023.

Formation: 1995–1999
Josh Todd grew up in the Anaheim Hills neighborhood of Anaheim, California and later moved to Lake Forest, California. Early on, Todd fronted the Hollywood glam rock band Slamhound. He eventually met lead guitarist Keith Nelson through their tattoo artist (Kevin Quinn). The duo made a few demos before being joined by bassist Jonathan Brightman and drummer Devon Glenn, calling themselves Sparrow. Sparrow began performing around the Hollywood club scene, receiving a strong, local following due to their old school rock and roll vibe, and were signed to DreamWorks Records shortly after. The group changed its name to Buckcherry after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a record label called Sparrow (owned by EMI). Although the band's name is a spoonerism of the late Chuck Berry, the group said it was inspired by a drag queen acquaintance of theirs named Buck Cherry.

Commercial success: 1999–2002
The band released its self-titled debut in 1999 to critical praise and certified gold sales. The album, produced by Terry Date (Soundgarden/Mother Love Bone/Pantera/Steve Jones/Deftones), included the hit singles "Lit Up", "For the Movies", "Dead Again", and "Check Your Head".

After adding rhythm guitarist Yogi Lonich to the lineup in 1999, Buckcherry toured nonstop in support of the debut album, including opening for Lenny Kravitz on his Freedom Tour (1999) and participating at the infamous Woodstock 99, before going back into the studio in 2000 to work on a follow-up, Time Bomb (2001). The second album was considered a disappointment by many critics, and it did not fare as well on the charts. Allmusic noted that "For a second record, it's surprising how jaded and nihilistic they are already." Buckcherry performed opening dates for AC/DC in the spring of 2000. From August 2001 through January 2002, as tension over the musical direction set in, Jonathan Brightman, Yogi Lonich, and Devon Glenn each successively left Buckcherry, and were replaced by Dave Markasky, Josh Fleeger, and Matt Lawrence, respectively. Josh Todd and Keith Nelson still planned to continue the band, and began the writing process for a third album. The album was never completed, however, and the band was put on hiatus in July 2002.

Other projects: 2002–2005
Josh Todd and Keith Nelson performed together along with ex-Guns N' Roses members Slash, Duff McKagan, and Matt Sorum (also of The Cult) at the Randy Castillo tribute concert. Speculation ensued that Josh Todd would become the lead vocalist of the project headed up by Slash, Duff McKagan, and Matt Sorum. Josh Todd spent a month in the studio, reportedly completing 10 songs, but was abruptly dropped from the project by Slash. Todd was quoted as saying, "It was amazing, the band was slamming, and then Slash just came in one day and just shit-canned the whole thing". In his autobiography, Slash says the reason was because he was displeased with how Todd's voice sounded when they played the material back. Scott Weiland of Stone Temple Pilots was eventually chosen to helm the band that would become known as Velvet Revolver. Keith Nelson was given a songwriting credit on Velvet Revolver's track "Dirty Little Thing". Nelson then went on to write and produce on various records.

Commercial success and Crüe Fest: 2005–2009
In 2005, Josh Todd reformed Buckcherry with Keith Nelson and new members Stevie D. of Automatic Black, Jimmy Ashhurst, and Xavier Muriel. In 2006, the band released the album 15 to commercial and critical success. It resurrected the band with hits "Crazy Bitch", "Sorry", "Everything" and "Next 2 You".

Back on September 11, 2006, another lawsuit had been filed against the band, their current record label, and other related companies on behalf of a sixteen-year-old girl who claimed she was coerced into appearing topless and in various sexual scenarios at a concert while the band was playing a sexually-related song. According to sources, however, all participants in the Crazy Bitch video had to show proof that they were over eighteen years old and sign a release form further reaffirming their age. Band attorney Skip Miller is quoted in several news stories as stating, "This woman filled out a release form with false information. And once it was determined this woman was underage, the video was removed."

On April 15, 2008, Buckcherry announced they would be touring as part of Mötley Crüe's Crüe Fest, along with Papa Roach, Sixx:A.M., and Trapt. The tour began July 1, 2008, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

On September 16, 2008, the band released their fourth album, Black Butterfly, which debuted at number 8 on the top 200 charts. It was the number one rock album that week. That year, Josh Todd was featured on the album This War Is Ours by Escape the Fate. He sang co-lead vocals in the song "10 Miles Wide" and backing vocals on "Harder Than You Know". In 2009, he was featured in the music video for "10 Miles Wide".

In May 2009, KISS announced that Buckcherry would be the opening band in their 2009/10 US and Canadian tour. On July 30, Buckcherry was featured in the Kerrang! Week Of Rock Tour with The 69 Eyes and Hardcore Superstar at the HMV Forum in London. Other bands in the Week Of Rock included Limp Bizkit, Youmeatsix, and Lacuna Coil. DragonForce was also supposed to play during the Week Of Rock, but pulled out.

On September 29, 2009, Buckcherry released their first live album, Live & Loud 2009, which they played some of their biggest songs such as "Sorry", "Lit Up", "Crazy Bitch", and much more. The album was recorded in May 2009 during their Canadian tour in Edmonton, Calgary, Medicine Hat, and Regina.

All Night Long and Confessions: 2010–2013
It was announced on February 22, 2010, that Buckcherry would be a part of Rocklahoma 2010 in Pryor, Oklahoma.

Bassist Jimmy Ashhurst is one of the characters in the book Sex Tips from Rock Stars by Paul Miles, published by Omnibus Press in July 2010.

Buckcherry released their fifth studio album, titled All Night Long, on August 3, 2010. The album was mixed by Mike Fraser. The first single from the album, "All Night Long", was originally going to be released to rock radio on May 3, but was pushed back to May 24. It was released as a free download to all fans who posted a pre-defined "tweet" on Twitter or a similar message on Facebook on May 4. The album debuted at No. 10 on the Billboard Top 200 Album chart and was the No. 1 Rock debut.

The band released the holiday themed single "Christmas is Here" as a digital download on November 30, 2010.

From January 19 to March 18, 2011, Buckcherry toured with Hellyeah and All That Remains on the Jägermeister Music Tour.

As of June 2011, according to Keith Nelson, the band were already writing new material for their next album.

The band contributed the song, "Wherever I Go," for the Avengers Assemble soundtrack.

Buckcherry's sixth album, Confessions, was released February 19, 2013. The first single from Confessions, "Gluttony", was made available for streaming on December 7, 2012.

Fuck EP, Rock 'N' Roll and Warpaint: 2014–2020
Fuck was released on August 19, 2014. The title of every song on the EP includes the word "Fuck". The song, "Say Fuck It" is a cover of the 2012 Icona Pop song "I Love It", with a few modifications in the lyrics.

Buckcherry took part in VampPark Fest on February 19, 2015, hosted by the rock band Vamps at the Nippon Budokan.

Buckcherry's seventh studio album Rock 'n' Roll was released on August 21, 2015. On June 2, 2015, "Bring It On Back" was released as the first single from the album. A second single, "The Feeling Never Dies," which features country singer Gretchen Wilson, was released February 17, 2016.

In May 2017, Keith Nelson and Xavier Muriel left the band due to disagreements with Josh Todd over the band's direction. The band was said by Eddie Trunk and former bassist Jimmy Ashhurst to have over-toured. This was one of many reasons Keith and Xavier left the band. However Keith and Xavier have both stated they have no hard feelings. The band brought in new members guitarist Kevin Roentgen and drummer Sean Winchester shortly afterwards. Nelson's departure left Josh Todd as the only remaining original member of Buckcherry.

The band's eighth studio album Warpaint was released in 2019. The title track was released on February 8, 2019, and the full album on March 8, 2019.

Guitarist Kevin Roentgen left the band in July 2020. He was later replaced by Jetboy guitarist Billy Rowe.

In October 2020, it was reported that Buckcherry were due to enter the studio to record a new album.

Hellbound and Vol. 10: 2021–present
On April 21, 2021, Buckcherry announced their ninth album Hellbound (released on June 25, 2021, through Earache Records and Round Hill Records), along with the release of the single "So Hott" and its accompanying video (which was nominated for Classic Rock magazine's Track Of The Week ) and the announcement of a North American tour with dates from June 2021 - November 2021. Hellbound was produced by Marti Frederiksen (who has previously collaborated with Aerosmith, Def Leppard, Jonny Lang and Sheryl Crow - he's "like the sixth member of Aerosmith," said Buckcherry guitarist Stevie D) and is being sold on a variety of collectable vinyl (pink, yellow and orange via Earache Records and black and clear smoke vinyl via Round Hill Records).

Band members
Current members
 * Josh Todd – lead vocals (1995–2002, 2005–present)
 * Stevie D. – lead & rhythm guitar, backing vocals (2005–present)
 * Kelly LeMieux – bass (2013–present)
 * Francis Ruiz – drums (2019–present)
 * Billy Rowe – rhythm & lead guitar, backing vocals (2020–present)

Former members
 * Keith Nelson – lead guitar, backing vocals (1995–2002, 2005–2017)
 * Devon Glenn – drums (1995–2002)
 * Jonathan Brightman – bass (1995–2001)
 * Yogi Lonich – rhythm guitar (1999–2001)
 * Josh Fleeger – rhythm guitar (2001–2002)
 * Dave Markasky – bass (2001–2002)
 * Matt Lawrence – drums (2002)
 * Xavier Muriel – drums (2005–2017)
 * Jimmy Ashhurst – bass (2005–2013)
 * Kevin Roentgen – rhythm & lead guitar, backing vocals (2017–2020)
 * Sean Winchester – drums (2017–2018)

BDS Spin Awards
Buckcherry has received two awards.

 * 2007 || "Everything" || 50,000 Spins || Won
 * 2007 || "Crazy Bitch" || 100,000 Spins || Won
 * }
 * 2007 || "Crazy Bitch" || 100,000 Spins || Won
 * }

Billboard Music Video Awards
!Ref.
 * rowspan=2|1999
 * rowspan=2|Buckcherry
 * Best New Artist
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=1|
 * Best Modern Rock Clip (Lit Up)
 * Nominated
 * Best Modern Rock Clip (Lit Up)
 * Nominated

BMI Awards
The BMI Awards are accolades presented annually by Broadcast Music, Inc., honouring songwriters, composers, and music publishers in various genres.

 * 2009 || "Sorry" || Best Pop || Won
 * }
 * }

Kerrang! Music Awards
Buckcherry has received one award.

 * 1999 || Buckcherry || Best International Newcomer || Won
 * }
 * }

Discography
Studio albums
 * Buckcherry (1999)
 * Time Bomb (2001)
 * 15 (2005)
 * Black Butterfly (2008)
 * All Night Long (2010)
 * Confessions (2013)
 * Rock 'n' Roll (2015)
 * Warpaint (2019)
 * Hellbound (2021)
 * Vol. 10 (2023)

title: Buckcherry


text:
Talk:Huey tlatoani

I've changed this pages name from tlatoani. The word tlatoani was used to refer to any member of the Aztec nobility, the emperors were called Hueyi Tlatoani.

Now, is there anyone who wants to change all links from Tlatoani to Hueyi Tlatoani? :P --Mixcoatl 02:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Puppet" rulers?
Is the epithet "puppet" entirely NPOV, perhaps some more neutral description would be better. Thoughts?--cjllw | TALK  02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I see your point, although I think "puppet" describes them perfectly. Any thoughts on NPOV descriptions?  "Spanish-appointed"?  Madman 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spanish-appointed" or similar could work. Perhaps if some source explicitly calls them "puppets", that could be mentioned or expanded upon.--cjllw | TALK  05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Not all those rulers were puppets. While apointed by the spanish, only the first three could be considered puppets. The other, while taking orders form the spanish,  had some liberty, and even fought along the spanish. After the last one Luis de Santa María Na[na]cacipactzin, Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) was under the direction of judges, who were not originary from Tenochtitlan, so aztec cronicles, like "Relacion anonima de Tlatelolco" does not considered them as Tlatoques or "rulers". In this acount Nacacipatzin is counted as the 27th  (and last) aztec ruler.   Nanahuatzin 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Singular v Plural
In my understanding of (Huasteca) Nahuatl, -ani is the plural suffix and -que(tl) is the singular suffix meaning "doer of something". But the article currently says tlatoque is plural... Can someone who knows Classical Nahuatl help verify this? --Krubo 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is correct. -ni is an agentive (often called habitual) suffix deriving from a verb X a noun with the meaning "someone who X'es" or "someone who can X". Nouns derived with this suffix have several different plural patterns: sometimes they pluralize just with a -h (a saltillo), sometimes with a -meh, and sometimes with a -queh. tlahtōani always pluralize with -queh thus tlahtōqueh was the correct plural in classical náhuatl. The suffix Queh or quetl also has other functions beside it does form the agentive in some modern dialecs (I gather you are familiar with Xilitla Nahuatl where it may have this function). In classical nahuatl this suffix had the form -qui not -quetl as I think it dos in xilitla.  Maunus 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Then the singular and plural agentive/habitual -(a)ni and -que(tl) are swapped in Classical and Huasteca Nahuatl.  Perhaps the qui/quetl forms make sense because only -quetl (Huasteca singular agentive) can have a -tl singular noun ending, perhaps.  I am now avidly reading your Nahuatl dialects page.  PS: I have been flummoxed by the "saltillo" you mention (eg, is it [h] or [ʔ], etc.) and would appreciate any links to info on it.  --Krubo 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The saltillo is [ʔ].Maunus 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Split
The concept of huey tlatoani needs to be distinguished from Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan. The early rulers were not considered emperors: according to Chimalpahin, "ytzcohuatzin fue vltimo Rey de los que Gouernaron de Mexico Tenuchtitlan, y El Primer Emperador de ella" (Itzcoatl was the last king who governed Mexico Tenochtitlan, and its first emperor.) Neither, I expect, were the later ("puppet") rulers considered emperors. Furthermore, it's possible that other rulers such as Tezozomoc was called huey tlatoani in their time.

This article should be about the term huey tlatoani itself and how it was used, with the Aztec rulers at Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan. --Ptcamn 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I was right — Atonaltzin, a Mixtec ruler, was referred to as huey tlatoani in Nahuatl. --Ptcamn 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * On second thought, we could merge huey tlatoani into tlatoani, making it into a single article explaining both tlatoani and related terms like huey tlatoani, cihuatlatoani, teuctlatoani. --Ptcamn 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged togueter. Tlatoani means speaker, and Huey tlatoani, means Great speaker. it is part of the same concept. I think it was never equivalent to emperor. Emperor was an european concept, that implies an inheritable title. While rulers could be related, it was more like an aristocracy, where the ruler was elected between them. Nanahuatzin 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Huey tlatoani


text:
Talk:Water cycle

Mention to the videos
I think the videos included in the "Description" section are very helpful to understand the water cycle. However, I think that in the preceding paragraph there should be mention to the videos, such as "the first video is from NASA and describes the water cycle of the Earth." I would like to others' opinions. Thank you. --Takayuki Toyama (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't normally mention such videos in the text. Also, I felt we didn't need 4 of them. I have deleted 3, moved the one remaining video to the right and added a link to more videos under "see also". EMsmile (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Impact of drought in south Africa
Negative impact on farmers of south Africa 41.116.14.216 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How do people feel about the section "changes over time"?
I've just added two sub-headings to the section "changes over time" to make it clearer what this is all about. I am wondering if there would be interest to update the information about climate change in this section? It starts with an IPCC report from 2007 which feels a bit outdated, given that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report has come out this year. I've also written about that here where we are discussing the sub-article effects of climate change on the water cycle (which so far is not very good): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#What_do_you_think_of_the_new-ish_article_Effects_of_climate_change_on_the_water_cycle%3F. I am personally not convinced if such a sub-article is needed at this stage, or if the information shouldn't be rather included in effects of climate change or in water cycle. EMsmile (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Advection addition
Add a sentence to the advection line- "Atmospheric rivers AR that move large volumes of water vapor over long distances is an example of advection. AquariusTom (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:AquariusTom OK, done (I didn't look into it more deeply, assumed you are right). Do you have more suggestions for improving this article? EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. In the article opening paragraph add the physical process transpiration to the listed physical processes. "...by the physical processes of evaporation, transpiration, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, and subsurface flow."
 * I think it must be added as the current science does not emphasize the importance of transpiration by trees in the explanations of the water cycle. For example, in the article process graphic at the top right of the page, the student or reader would consider evaporation and atmospheric lift to high altitudes directly from the ocean surface as the dominant water process source. Because of the temperature inversion immediately upon the surface of the worlds oceans, water vapor cannot rise to high altitude. The water molecules that leave (evaporate from) the ocean surface are colder than the surrounding air and cannot rise. Moisture laden low altitude air returning with the trade wind entering the low pressure zone of the ITCZ being the exception. Trees of the three main equatorial rainforests provide the bulk of water for the atmospheric distribution around the world. Trees of the Amazon create an atmospheric river that moves off the South American coast that supply a continuous chain of thunderstorms whose tops or anvil heads provide moisture for the Hadley flow at high altitude. Subtropical jets move the moisture away from the ITCZ to provide the worlds major source of water.
 * More later but for now I just want transpiration added as a physical process in that sentence of the discussion. 2600:8807:9201:CAF2:5075:11CC:D6B6:4B32 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The USGS graphic at the top right of the article should be replaced with a very similar USGS graphic that uses "transpiration" rather than "evapotranspiration". The trees in the other USGS graphic are somewhat larger and bolder color than the current version. That version of the graphic implies greater importance of transpiration as a water cycle process. Is there a way to post a copy that USGS graphic on this talk page so you and others can look it over?  AquariusTom (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:AquariusTom, thanks: I have now added transpiration to the sentence in the lead as per your suggestion. Can you post here a link to the other USGS graphic that you mentioned? Hopefully there would be no issue with its copyright, are all the USGS graphics in the public domain? EMsmile (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the USGS graphic that would be an improvement. I think so because the term transpiration is used vs evapotranspiration. Some of the minor elements "dew" "sublimation" and others that are not noted processes are deleted.I think it makes a clearer picture of the overall process https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/pagesizeenglish.jpg AquariusTom (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Please go ahead and add it. Is it in the public domain / free of copyright? I couldn't find the website page where the image is located, is it somewhere here?:https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/publications ? Do you know how to add an image to a Wikipedia article? If not, take a look at my tutorial videos, e.g. Video number 1. EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the USGS publications somewhere. I found that graphic with a google search. When using the link to page feature there is an error "not found" from the USGS site. Searching the USGS site pages for "water cycle" illustrations yields (in English) only the current 2019 version we are currently using. There are many other language versions of the graphic. The graphic I wanted to use is in the USGS water resources publications somewhere-but not used on any of the site pages- and I'll continue to search. My computer and the USGS site search don't get along for some reason. Very cumbersome. Anyhow, it should be ok to use the screen grab even if we can't download from the site. It has the USGS logo on it.
 * I don't know how to edit the article-it's locked for me now as I don't have 10 minor edits? I'll study your tutorial.
 * This illustrates my principal problem with the current water cycle explanation: most -including USGS- want evaporation to be the majority source to condensation when, in my view, transpiration is the principal or at least equal in terms of process importance. The graphics of evaporation to condensation is much more complicated than shown in the diagram. Those steps from ocean evaporation to condensation/precipitation should be detailed in the process discussions. I am writing up changes to the evaporation and transpiration process discussions. AquariusTom (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Re-arranged the article (September 2022)
I've just re-arranged the article a bit. I took out content that was deviating from the main topic, namely that content about the deep water cycle which has its own article. Let me know if you disagree with any of the big changes that I made today? I am undecided what to do about the section on "physical processes": it really is just a links list to related sub-articles, does it make sense like this? And should it be reworked so that each of those processes shows up in the table of content? I am undecided. Pinging User:ASRASR for suggestions. EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree that the physical processes section needs reworking. Currently, it is a list of definitions for physical processes that occur within the water cycle. This section does not look necessary and feels disruptive to the flow of the article. A more robust description in the "overall process" section with links to articles defining each physical process could improve the flow here. The "overall process" section could even be broken into subsections if building it out makes it into an overwhelming section of text. Do you think this structure make a bit more sense? Heathadr (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Heathadr welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad you have an interest in this article. You can see from the history page that just last week I made quite a lot of changes to it. It still needs a lot of further work. If you can help that would be great. I wonder what the most suitable references we could use when we re-work the article: The water cycle is of course explained in numerous textbooks. But if we use content from such textbooks we have two problems 1) the textbooks are usually copyrighted so we cannot take content directly and 2) the textbooks are usually behind a paywall so our readers cannot easily verify the information that we provide. For this information I would prefer to rely more on open access publications. Do you have some publications in mind? EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also when you start working on this article, please keep a close eye on this sub-article: Effects of climate change on the water cycle. The two articles need to go hand in hand. So don't put too much about climate change here but just enough to provide all the right content, and then the details go into Effects of climate change on the water cycle? Will this work well? Alternatively, one could also argue that a separate article on Effects of climate change on the water cycle is counterproductive and that it should be merged into the main article. EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the individual processes should remain. As the separate process together add up to the water cycle in totality, each is separately important to understand. For example the evaporation process should be broken into two parts: evaporation from the oceans and evaporation from land. Transpiration needs a separate discussion as it occupies both land (rain forest) and ocean (mangrove forest). AquariusTom (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, User:AquariusTom your suggestions seem very good to me. I recommend: "be bold and go ahead and make the edits". I see you're still quite a new user. If you have any questions about how to edit or how to work with Wikipedia, please feel free to reach out to me (e.g. by sending an e-mail through the Wikipedia email system or by writing on my talk page). There are also these tutorial videos that I created a while ago which you might find useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Online_edit-a-thon_on_climate_change_-_November_2020#Help...!_I_have_never_edited_Wikipedia_before! . I'll also write on your talk page. EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When we edit, are the reference links required right away.\? I think I'll post the additions here at Talk first for review before edit. Both of my edits to evaporation process and the transpiration process are lengthy. Does that make the Talk page too messy? AquariusTom (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi AquariusTom, sorry for my delayed response. It's best to add the reference at the same time as adding new content. Make sure to use the "Cite > Automatic" tool as it's fast and easy for any reference that has a DOI number or a ISBN number. If you need help with adding refs, I have video tutorials for that. If you don't have the ref just yet but will probably have it soon, you could add this so that you (or others) don't forget:  . For "testing" of content you could use the talk page if it's short but perhaps to use your sandbox and then link to your sandbox from here. EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is my sandbox entries for the Water Cycle article. As you can see from the critique by Dan Arnt, many problems. You can help me by editing a sentence- any sentence- and rewriting it so that it appears encyclopedic and not like an essay. I'm not sure I understand the difference. I thought the links to existing Wiki articles would be enough as those contain many references. Do references need to be repeated for every statement? Must the references be repeated from existing Wiki articles or must the reference be found outside of Wiki and different from the references of a linked Wiki article?. Any examples and changes required be appreciated. AquariusTom (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is my sandbox link User:AquariusTom/sandbox AquariusTom (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your text seems to me to be a bit too long and detailed for inclusion in the high-level water cycle article. Could you envision a condensed version? Or would it fit better in an existing sub-article? To make it more encyclopedic you have to make each major statement verifiable, i.e. include a published reference. The text is not meant to be original research (see WP:OR). You can find the refs from scratch (e.g. Google Scholar) or copy them from another Wikipedia article. The other Wikipedia article itself cannot be a reference (i.e. Wikipedia articles are not regarded as a reliable source (see WP:RS). This water cycle article is actually a bit short on references. A better example could be the article climate change. Take a look at how many references it has! Pretty much every sentence has a reference. If not every sentence then at least every 2-3 sentences or at least every paragraph. - If you have other general editing questions, feel free to ask me by writing on your user talk page and pinging me with User:EMsmile. EMsmile (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Working to shorten verbiage and add references. AquariusTom (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:EMsmile. I don't think I can do any more work on the evaporation process because my understanding -or perhaps misunderstanding- of the process puts my thinking in direct conflict with the Wiki article on Climate Change and the Water cycle article "Water cycle intensification due to climate change". Those articles concludes that increasing temperatures will result in greater water vapor in the atmosphere because the warmer air can naturally hold more water vapor and as a result precipitation will be increasing and causing increased flooding. I think, to the contrary, the increased inversion intensity created by rising air temperatures over the ocean(s) surface means less water vapor in the atmosphere and is creating a weakened water cycle and more world drought. The IPCC report Chapter 8 Impact of Climate change on the Water Cycle -doesn't even mention the marine layer or inversion intensity with rising temperature and reiterates the overall impact as increased precipitation and flooding. So assuming the established and published Wiki article on Climate change is correct, it would be futile to argue otherwise. Who could argue with the IPPC conclusion that the hydrologic cycle will intensify? I could try to write the article parts for evaporation and transpiration but my bias would not do the subject justice. Someone else with an understanding that agrees with the Climate change article could do the evaporation and transpiration processes better than I. AquariusTom (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's probably true. But do you have any reliable sources that would back up the way you interpret the situation? I thought the intensification of the water cycle was pretty much a well-proven thing. EMsmile (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes intensification is occuring as reported in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report on Climate Change. The impact on the water cycle report- chapter 8-is based on the physical phenomenon that warmer air can hold more water vapor- up to 7 % more per degree C. And I would agree if there was a pathway for the water vapor at the ocean surface to get to the warmer atmosphere above. There are sources that describe the marine layer and temperature inversion imposed in that vast region of earth called the horse latitudes created by the descending and compressed air of the Hadley circulation; but no studies in the report that say the warmer atmosphere is going to make those regions grow in size. A warmer atmosphere, IMO, will mean more intense temperature inversion over the ocean surface and reduced transit of water vapor from ocean surface to atmosphere. The horse latitudes increase in size. I continue to look for sources that say the area of the descending dry air is expanding. Anecdotal news tells use that deserts are expanding. The Pacific high(s) off California and Peru/Chile are more persistent. Kenya and the Horn of Africa seem locked in perpetual drought. The European flooding 2021 and the Pakistan floods this year are caused by weak cold fronts that stall out allowing thunderstorm "training". For the northern hemisphere, the arctic or polar air is not cold enough nor is there enough of it to push the temperate horse latitude highs out of the way as the cold air attempts to move south. The cold front stalls out mid continent, creating the opportunity for flood. These floods are caused by climate change but not caused by worldwide increased precipitation. Previous to climate change, an Alberta clipper - a kind of North American cold front- could sweep across the continent in 3 days and freeze oranges in Florida. Today that event could take a week and most likely stall in the mid continent-never reaching the oranges of Florida. Briefly, my gut feeling is less precipitation. Considering the import of the IPCC report and my own bias, I can't give the article a positive effort. AquariusTom (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea, a gut feeling is unfortunately not a good basis for Wikipedia article editing... If you find suitable sources (WP:RS) they might be able to be included, but probably as "minority views", as per this guide: WP:DUE. Thanks for being open and honest about this and for respecting the Wikipedia guidelines for editing. Maybe you'll find content to add in future, or for other Wikipedia articles, that is more "main stream". EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Large and small water cycle
Hi @EMsmile. I am part of a team intending to develop a series of articles on ecosystem restoration/regeneration for mitigating climate change. Michal Kravcik and others differentiate between the large and small water cycles with small water cycles creating the biotic pump. There is a biotic pump page which has "start" status. Would reference to the small cycle be of use? Or might it complicate improving the status of this page? PeterBruce-Iri (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, PeterBruce-Iri, regarding your statement "I am part of a team intending to develop a series of articles on ecosystem restoration/regeneration for mitigating climate change." This sounds interesting. Please tell us more about this on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change . EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just written on the talk page of biotic pump as I'm not too sure that that article is needed under that name (note the very low pageviews and also low number of hits on Google). So it might be better to have a short section explaining this "large versus small water cycle concept" here, provided you have some good, reliable references for that. (Is it really so important to break down the water cycle into large and small? If so, please explain) EMsmile (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Reworked section on physical processes
I've just condensed the section on physical processes a bit. This was in response to an earlier discussion above which was: "I agree that the physical processes section needs reworking. Currently, it is a list of definitions for physical processes that occur within the water cycle. This section does not look necessary and feels disruptive to the flow of the article. A more robust description in the "overall process" section with links to articles defining each physical process could improve the flow here. The "overall process" section could even be broken into subsections if building it out makes it into an overwhelming section of text. Do you think this structure make a bit more sense?" by Heathadr. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: EEB 4611-Biogeochemical Processes-Spring 2024
— Assignment last updated by LynSchwendy (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Water cycle


text:
Chase Line

The Chase Line is a suburban railway line in the West Midlands region of England. It runs from its southern terminus, Birmingham New Street, to Walsall, and then Rugeley Trent Valley in Staffordshire, where it joins the Trent Valley line. The name of the line refers to Cannock Chase which it runs through at its northern end.

Part of the line, between Birmingham and Walsall, has been electrified since 1966; work to electrify the remaining 15 mile stretch of line between Walsall and Rugeley, was completed in December 2018.

History

 * The line from Birmingham via Aston, Perry Barr and Bescot was opened in 1837 as part of one of the earliest railway main lines; the Grand Junction Railway (GJR). This line did not serve Walsall directly, but continued from Bescot to Wolverhampton (this is now part of the Walsall–Wolverhampton line). A station on the GJR called Walsall was opened on the outskirts of the town, this was later renamed Wood Green, and is now closed. The GJR became part of the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) in 1846.
 * The section through Walsall, including the present Walsall station was opened in 1849 by the South Staffordshire Railway, as part of their (now closed) South Staffordshire line from Dudley to Wychnor Junction, north of Lichfield, a connection was opened from Walsall to the GJR at Bescot, allowing direct Walsall-Birmingham trains.
 * The section between Walsall and Rugeley Trent Valley was constructed by the South Staffordshire Railway, and the Cannock Mineral Railway (CMR): The South Staffordshire Railway built the line from Walsall to Cannock, opening in 1858, and the CMR built the line from Cannock to Rugeley, opening in 1859. The South Staffordshire Railway was absorbed by the LNWR in 1867, as was the CMR two years later.
 * The last part of what is now the Chase Line, the Soho Loop Line; a link running from Perry Barr Junction on the original GJR to Soho Junction on the Stour Valley Line, allowing an alternative route into Birmingham from the west which bypassed Aston, was opened by the LNWR in 1889. Two stations were opened on this line; Soho Road and Handsworth Wood, both were closed in 1941.

Walsall – Rugeley: closure and reopening
Passenger services on the line between Walsall and Rugeley Trent Valley were withdrawn in 1965, and the intermediate stations closed as part of the Beeching Axe, the line however remained open to freight, although until the 1980s it was not unknown for diverted Inter-City passenger services from Birmingham to Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. to use the line in the event of the Wolverhampton-Stafford route being shut for Sunday or late evening engineering work.

Passenger services were restored to the line and most of the stations reopened between 1989 and 1998, as part of a joint initiative between the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (WMPTE) and Staffordshire County Council. The name Chase Line was invented as a marketing name for the restored line, and came into use at this time. The restoration took place in stages, as follows:

 * 10 April 1989 — Walsall to Hednesford
 * 2 June 1997 — Hednesford to Rugeley Town
 * 25 May 1998 — Rugeley Town to Rugeley Trent Valley and Stafford
 * 12 December 2008 — Chase Line trains are cut back from Stafford to Rugeley Trent Valley.
 * 22 May 2018 — Chase Line trains increased to a 30-minute frequency Monday to Saturday, with a 60-minute frequency on Sunday
 * 19 May 2019 — Electric passenger services begin north of Walsall. In addition to this, services are extended to Birmingham International (2tph).

Route
The line from Birmingham to Walsall (sometimes referred to as the Walsall Line) has two alternative routes, both electrified at 25 kV AC overhead. One leaves New Street to the east, following the Cross-City Line as far as Aston, where it diverges to the west. The other leaves to the west, and travels via Soho. Beyond Walsall, the line was electrified in 2019, and continues north to Rugeley. This section was freight-only for some years, reopening to passenger trains in stages between 1989 and 1998.

Places served on the route are listed below. For information on the stations, please refer to the list in the route map.

Chase Line (Birmingham - Walsall - Rugeley)
 * Rugeley – Rugeley Town & Rugeley Trent Valley – Interchange services to London Euston and Crewe railway station.
 * Brindley Heath (closed in 1959)
 * Hednesford
 * Cannock
 * Great Wyrley (closed in 1965)
 * Landywood
 * Bloxwich North
 * Bloxwich
 * Walsall
 * Bescot (for Bescot Stadium, the home of Walsall FC), Wednesbury & IKEA
 * Stone Cross (near Tame Bridge Parkway station)
 * Hamstead
 * Perry Barr
 * Witton – for Villa Park
 * Aston – for Aston Villa F.C. and Aston Hall
 * Duddeston
 * Birmingham New Street (Interchange for Bullring, ICC, Symphony Hall & The Mailbox)
 * Services then continue onwards to Wolverhampton or Birmingham International via the Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line.

Passenger trains are operated by West Midlands Railway on behalf of Transport for West Midlands.

Services
Monday to Saturday daytime there are four trains per hour from Birmingham New Street to Walsall. Two per hour run via Aston and call at all stations, the other two per hour run direct via Soho and call at Tame Bridge Parkway and Walsall. Two of these per-hour continue to Rugeley Trent Valley during the day, dropping to one in the late evenings.

There is also a 6am service from Wolverhampton to Rugeley Trent Valley but this is only one way. It runs the entire Birmingham to Walsall section calling at all stations them onto the Chase Line.

As of May 2019, following the electrification of the line north of Walsall, West Midlands Trains began operating 2tph (Mon–Sat) from Rugeley Trent Valley to Birmingham International with 1tph continuing to Northampton or London Euston. On Sundays, all services from Rugeley terminate at Coventry. All services are operated by EMUs, Track is Shared with the Cross-City Line between Birmingham New Street and Aston.

Electrification
The lines between New Street and Walsall were electrified in 1966 as an offshoot of the West Coast Main Line electrification, along with the Walsall–Wolverhampton line.

In July 2012, the coalition government announced the electrification of the Chase Line between Rugeley Trent Valley and Walsall, with work scheduled to take place from 2014. It was estimated to cost around £36 million, as part of a £9.4 billion package of investment in the railways in England and Wales, including £4.2 billion of new schemes, unveiled by the government. Preliminary work to re-signal the route ahead of electrification was completed in August 2013, with the closure of the three remaining manual signal boxes at Bloxwich, Hednesford & Brereton Sidings and the panel boxes at Walsall & Bescot. Control of the area passed to the Saltley Rail Operating Centre.

The work originally had an estimated completion date of December 2017, but previously unknown mine shafts underneath the track meant that many bases for the overhead infrastructure had to be redesigned. Network Rail closed the line in August 2017 for two weeks. The electrification was finally completed in December 2018, the first electric train services started in May 2019.

Effects of electrification of the line
The electrification of the line was accompanied by a speed increase from 45 mph to 60 mph. Bloxwich level crossing closed to motorised traffic in January 2018, and the bridge at Central Drive, north of the crossing, had been strengthened and widened to improve the alternative route. This enabled a 25 mph speed limit to be lifted to 50 mph. It also enabled the line to transport W10 freight containers.

For residents of the stations north of Walsall, the changes meant shorter journey times and longer trains, which reduced overcrowding to Birmingham with 2 trains per hour (tph) for the whole day, continuing direct to Birmingham International (1tph). The electrification itself created over 1,300 jobs in the area and generated a further £113 million of gross value added (GVA) benefit per annum, as well as reducing the operating costs of the line. In May 2014, London Midland announced that it was intending to run longer trains on the route, requiring station platforms to be extended to accommodate.

Gavin Williamson, Conservative MP for South Staffordshire, campaigned to limit the speed of trains through Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay when the upgrade work of the line was to be completed. He wrote to then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, to request confirmation that trains travelling through the areas would not exceed a speed of 45 mph. He also requested that "environmental mitigation measures" be put in place to reduce the potential impact of the electrification on residents in South Staffordshire. Network Rail had previously said that electric trains are quieter, greener and cleaner, reducing carbon emissions.

title: Chase Line