text:
Wikipedia:Article improvement drive/Removed/25 April 2005

Nominations

 * Next two project articles to be selected on 10 April. Ten nominations are voted on each week, please put overflow nominations under Pending.

Nancy Ajram*

 * Reason: Article needs much improvement.

Surinam*

 * Reason: It doesn't seem to be a very detailed article, especially since it's about a country. There are also some parts of the page that need cleaning up like the pictures of the houses at the bottom of the page.

Theater*

 * Reason: A very important arts topic with a rather poor entry. I suggested on the talk page that the section on the theater buildings should have its own entry, but as of yet, no one has responded. Ganymead 22:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Support
 * 1) Ganymead 22:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maurreen 05:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Dhodges 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Nobbie 12:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments

Magic (illusion)*

 * Reason: A lot of people are interested in magic. Yet this article fails to give a comprehensive view of the art's history. It also has no real bearing with a whole bunch of unrelated sections in a non-logical order. It needs loads of help. More than I can give on my own.

 * Support
 * 1) Mgm|(talk) 01:35, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Litefantastic 22:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ganymead 04:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments

Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language*

 * Reason:

This is Samuel Johnson's famous work, which celebrates the 250th anniversary of its publication on April 15. The article is okay, but nowhere near Featured Article status.

 * Support

 * 1) Cormaggio 07:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ganymead 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Litefantastic 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments
 * I nominated this for COTW but some people felt it would be more appropriate here. Cormaggio 07:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Town gas*

 * Reason:

This article covers an extremely important pre 1950s technology. Klonimus 05:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put some links which may be useful for potential contributors to read in the talk section.
 * Support
 * 1) Litefantastic 23:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Kaszeta 14:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments

Cookware and bakeware*
Beginning cooks everywhere could use a good resource to explain the benefits and tradeoffs of the multitude of various pots, pans, and other cooking implements. --Allen3 talk 16:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reason:

 * Support
 * 1) Allen3 talk 16:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ganymead 17:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Litefantastic 19:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments

Wall Street (Manhattan)*
It's such an important financial district of New York, with the NYSE and the NASDAQ, yet 350 words is all it gets?
 * Reason:

 * Support
 * 1) Tony Jin | (talk) 05:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ganymead 08:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Litefantastic 22:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments

Fan fiction*
The poor man's novel. I really do believe this is a major factor in current pop-culture, or sub-culture, anyway. -Litefantastic 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Reason:

 * Support:
 * 1) Litefantastic 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Puget Sound 19:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Mgm|(talk) 07:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments

Tacoma, Washington*

 * Reason: Why does the second-largest city in Washington have an article that is only a fifth as long as Seattle's?
 * Support
 * 1) Puget Sound 19:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ganymead 04:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comments
 * Actually the third largest city in WA now, I believe, after Spokane, Washington. ;-) — RJH

Vladimir Putin*

 * Reason: Leader of one of the most important countries in the world, and he's quite controversial, especially his alleged crackdown on freedom of speech, claims that he's an autocrat, etc. The article has way too little about his actions as President, his perception in Russia, criticism about him.

 * Support
 * 1) Zscout370
 * 2) Solver
 * 3) Ian
 * 4) Ganymead 22:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Dave (talk) 00:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I also wish to add in this article about his pre-Presidential era, including some of his time in the KGB. Zscout370 14:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macrophilia*

 * Reason:The article is very much incomplete. Seemingly focused on Giantesses then any other form of giant. Needs expansion and clean-up.

 * Support
 * 1) Louisisthebest_007 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Contaru 21:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Tails623 22:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Pentalis 20:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC - 4:00 (Chile))
 * Comments


text:
Talk:Cao Wei

Untitled
Is it possible to take the data from Wei (state) and put it here??

Quibus 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wei (state) is from the Warring States Period, that's different from Three Kingdoms. Hanfresco 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Wei Status
As I review over the Wei state so many times, I see the one thing that I believe that could've have made it the more than just the strongest among the other kingdom. Cao Cao made the kingdom of Wei into a state of overwhelming man power, having more generals than Wu (maybe not), yet it seem that he would, to me, try to use chaos to his advantage or try to use surprising troops from the least place to expect. Overall, the kingdom of Wei had the man power, the perfect number of generals to command the troops yet at some points, they did not have the strategy to combat the likes of Zhuge Liang (till Sima Yi came to Wei's need) or of Lu Xun (Lu Meng's successor). I do though have much respect for Cao Cao and the use of chaos to his advantage; he displays this talent when he fought against Yuan Shao at the Battle of Guan Du.(Indeed, chaos can be a powerful ally.)

Nevertheless, Wei had all the resources needed, but it did not have the strategy to combat the best of Shu or Wu. --Zhang Liao 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Top Five Wei Generals
Zhang He, Yue Jin, Zhang Liao, Xu Huang, and Yu Jin. Out of all the generals that were in Wei, only these five men showed more skill(Maybe not) and more feats when war was upon them.

1.) Zhang Liao repel the Wu army at Hefei with only 800 troops and aid from only two officers.(Li Dian and Yue Jin)

2.) Zhang He assist Sima Yi in the assault from the South led by Zhuge Liang and scored a tremendous win at Jieting.

3.) Xu Haung displays his skill not only by maintaining order within Cao Cao's army but also by remaining on state duty weather he was in battle or not.

4.) Yue Jin was noteable for his amazing service to Wei from the time of Yuan Shao and after Cao Cao suffers the defeat at Chi Bi.(Known as the Red Cliffs)

5.) Yu Jin gains his own way into the high ranking from his efforts in the Yellow Turban battle. Upon the rise of Cao Cao, Yu Jin assist the Duke of Wei in his battle at Guandu and soon was promote.

If Anyone has any more interesting intel about the Top 5 Wei generals then, please add on.--Zhang Liao 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

personally i think Xuahou Dun was the strongest general, but whatever...Also Xiahou Yuan and Li Dian were very good aswell.--Teniii (UTC)

There is much debate about Xiahou Dun's ability. I'm on the supporting side of Xiahou Dun having skill. He was a renowned Vangaurd general along with Xu Huang. Both were on about the same level, except by coincidence, the books seems to allow Xiahou Dun to get ambushed more often. Zhang He was considered a discraced officer for a large majority of the time. He regains some honor in the latter end with his victories with Sima Yi, but he remains a supporting general and little more. Li Dian was a flank general, or a supporter. He did little more than that. He hardly his the 'famed' level. -Patricoo

I agree that xiahoa dun should be in the top 5, I also think that dian wei, cao cao, cao pi and guan yu [who was a genral] should be in the top 5. I think this because dian wei defended cao cao during a invation, cao cao lead the wei army for a long time, cao pi defended guandu well and guan yu ashured victery agenst yuan shou by killing two of his best genrals.-marknjp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.231.23 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dian wei is one of the top genrals saving cao cao's life many times. Second genral is Guan Yu. I know he only assisted Cao Cao for his Yuan Shao campain but because of him Cao Cao didn't have to deal with Yan Liang or Wen Cho. Third genral is zhang Lio who helped at He Fei. Forth is Xhaho Dun because he faught a long way with his cousin from the begining he assisted Cao Cao in many battles. Finaly is sima yi who used many stratigys to take out the army of Shu at the Wu zhang plans. -Marknjp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.100.208 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Established English terms should be predominant on the English Wiki -- Cao Wei as page title violates this
The Kingdom of Wei is not chiefly known as Cao Wei. That's Chinese nomenclature. Although I'm fluent in Chinese and believe in adding Chinese nomenclature parenthetically whereever it helps clarify, this should only be done in accordance with established Wiki style. This is the English Wiki, not the Chinese Wiki. Established English names go first, followed by the Chinese and Pinyin in parentheses at the beginning of main pages. The page title of Cao Wei is therefore inappropriate. I am renaming it 'Wei Kingdom'. Dragonbones 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem with "Kingdom of Wei" is that it's inaccurate. It wasn't a kingdom.  I'm moving it back, but please discuss further.  I can be convinced otherwise, and I'd also urge that you file an request for comment on this.  --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also see all the categories that already have "Cao Wei" in their names (e.g., Category:Cao Wei emperors and Category:Cao Wei empresses), as well as all the articles that have been added with "Cao Wei" in their text. It would be a great hassle to edit them.  --Nlu (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Glad to discuss. My sources do call them kingdoms, e.g., JAG Roberts 'A Concise History of China', Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1999), pp.40 onward, and it is primarily known in English as Wei of the Three "Kingdoms". The clearly established name of the period is the Three Kingdoms, and I don't feel we should change that. If you have an argument for why they don't really qualify as kingdoms, that should be reflected within the text and not in the title. Furthermore, Cao Wei is a completely Chinese term IMO (I would say that when speaking Mandarin but never when speaking English, much as I would only say kuang2cao3 in Mandarin vs. something like 'wild cursive' in English. I had already begun the process of editing pages with Cao Wei in their text, btw... I'd like to hear your side, as to why it's not a kingdom; but let's remember this is the English Wiki, and English terms should predominate. The period IS known as the Three Kingdoms, clearly making Wei one of the three "kingdoms". Dragonbones 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not a kingdom because its ruler was not a king; its ruler was an emperor. While the period is known as "Three Kingdoms," the cumbersome "Kingdom of Wei" isn't as established, and we shouldn't intentionally encourage historical inaccuracy.  It is a similar situation, I think, to "Eskimo" -- while it is a more known word choice in English, "Inuit" is used on Wikipedia and should be used on Wikipedia because it is more accurate.  --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Quoting from Wiki: "In 216, Cao Cao was promoted to Wèi Wang (Prince/King of Wèi). In 220, Cao Cao died and his son Cao Pi succeeded to the title Wèi Wang" (not huangdi!). My history books don't call either him or his son emperor. An overly glorious posthumous title of 'emperor' when in fact you don't rule an empire doesn't make you an emperor btw. Please provide references supporting your claim he was an emperor and Wei was an empire. I've never ever seen "the empire of Wei" in English. Is it called 魏代 Wei4dai4 (Wei Dynasty) or 魏朝 Wei4chao2 (Wei Dynasty) in Chinese? Or just 魏國 Wei4guo2(Wei country/state)? What makes an empire? Is royal bloodline enough? (If so, how is that different from being a king?) Doesn't one need to rule over something 'greater' than a state or kingdom? And was this the case with any of these three states and their rulers? Does anyone really call them Cao Cao Huangdi or Cao Pi Huangdi??? I'll admit that the history of this period is not my strength -- I'm pleased to discuss this with you, and hope to learn something! ;) Dragonbones 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Let's pull in some third opinions, and do a bit more research and discussion before adding this to the RfC request for comment, as per RfC guidelines. I'm not convinced yet but will keep an open mind. Cheers! Dragonbones 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Uh, please see the entry on Cao Pi. Cao Cao indeed died without ever being emperor -- because he was the chancellor of Eastern Han Dynasty, even though he was the ruler in reality.  He was only the wang (which I translate as "prince", but "king" is a perfectly fine translation) of Wei during his lifetime.  It was after his death (less than a year later) that Cao Pi took over the throne from Emperor Xian of Han, thus ending Han Dynasty formally and starting Cao Wei.  All of Cao Wei's rulers carried the title emperor (huangdi).
 * If you want more details on this, going to the source (Sanguo Zhi) is probably the best thing to do. Since you mentioned you speak Mandarin, I am going to assume that you can read Chinese.  See, which has all the traditional Chinese histories (except, for some weird reason, Song Shi).  If you read simplified characters, I think the source of Sanguo Zhi might be on Chinese Wikisource.  For an alternative source, see Zizhi Tongjian.  --Nlu (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, all three states' rulers carried the titles huangdi. Again, major reason why I feel "kingdom" is inaccurate.  --Nlu (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the references. I do read Chinese, but much too slowly to skim those sources for the information. Ok, Cao Pi declared himself emperor, but was he? Anyone can declare themself emperor -- does that really make them one? Is he generally known by historians as Emperor? In other words, does his claim of empire hold water? The Han empire was split into three states, right? If Cao Pi didn't manage to make grounds against Liu Bei's Shu Han and Sun Quan's Eastern Wu, as the Cao Pi page states, then weren't the three really just kingdoms or states, not empires?
 * If it's an empire and a dynasty, then shouldn't we call it the Wei dynasty and after that add disambiguating info such as '(Cao Wei)' or the dates or 'of Three Kingdoms period' after it, rather than using a Chinese term 'Cao Wei' as the main title? The main point comes back to the primacy of English names on an English Wiki, and the crux of the question is this: Is 'Cao Wei' a well-established English name, and if not, is there a well-established English designation which, perhaps with disambiguating information added after it, would either solve or skirt the Kingdom/Empire issue? Dragonbones 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Cao Wei was the largest of the three states. I'd say that if any of the three qualified as an empire, it was.
 * But in any case, each of the three states was far larger than many other states known in history as empires. (Compare, for example, the Latin Empire -- which certainly was a legitimate empire.)  It's also not just they themselves declaring themselves emperors; their subjects certainly viewed them as emperors.  I think that here, in order to be NPOV, we have to treat them as the titles that they themselves claimed; otherwise, we get into value judgments on, "Is he a legitimate emperor?"  But certainly "kingdom" doesn't make sense in that regard; if he's not an emperor because he was self-proclaimed, then what makes him a king?  Why not call it the Usurpate of Wei?
 * I don't deny that the "primacy of English names" is important, but far more important is accuracy. "Kingdom of Wei" gives incorrect information, and I think should thus be avoided.  --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the point stands --if it's an empire and a dynasty, then shouldn't we call it by the English term 'the Wei dynasty' and after that add disambiguating info such as '(Cao Wei)' or the dates or 'of Three Kingdoms period' after it, rather than using a Chinese term 'Cao Wei' as the main title? (Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult; it's just that this was my main point all along and you haven't addressed it.) Dragonbones 09:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Wei Dynasty" has the trouble of then requiring disambiguation with Northern Wei Dynasty (which is obviously already disambiguated, but is made into a three word article title as a result) -- which then may make it have to be "Cao Wei Dynasty," which brings us full circle. Why not just stay with Cao Wei?  (I am considering moving Northern Wei Dynasty to just Northern Wei, incidentally.)  --Nlu (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Wei Dynasty" and "Northern Wei Dynasty" respectively are fine with me. Nothing wrong with a 3-word title; I'd keep the Dynasty but wouldn't insist on it. Cheers!Dragonbones 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that then makes a value judgement that Cao Wei was more "legitimate" than Northern Wei, which is another problem. Northern Wei might have slightly less territory than Cao Wei even at its prime, but it lasted far longer.  In Chinese history, when you talk about "Wei," disambiguation is required precisely because those two states in particular had significantly long history that you can be talking about either.  I don't like the title of Liang Dynasty, but I accept it because there is not another significant Liang Dynasty in Chinese history.  I don't think "Wei Dynasty" is appropriate standing alone.  --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Wei" standing alone matches the usage in the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary by DeFrancis, and that's always worked for me. I don't think there's any difference in legitimacy conferred by the presence or absence of a compass direction prefix. But if you insist on disambiguation, why not "Wei Dynasty of Three Kingdoms period"? I'm also very interested in having others weigh in on this... Dragonbones 03:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I mostly agree with Nlu's position. I prefer the use of Wei (Cao) myself, then Cao Wei. The last name of the rulers is logically a simple and effective way to differentiate different states with the same name in English; it's preferred because it's simple, clear and accurate, not because it's Chinese convention (although it has become Chinese convention when used to differentiate Wei). Many academic writings in English also share the same usage. Due to the nature of the English language, I slightly prefer the use of Wei (Cao) over Cao Wei, since Wei is emphasized. Kingdom is an inaccurate reflection of the status of Cao Wei; actually, Wei (state) was closer to being a kingdom than Cao Wei. Cao Wei is best classified as a state or polity; avoiding terms like kingdom, empire, dynasty etc. is a good NPOV decision when it comes to Chinese polities (unless it's something like the Han Dynasty), since those terms have legitimacy POV connotations in the Chinese context. Calling Cao Wei a dynasty (but not Northern Wei) would elevate the polity to a status that's not recognized in history versus Northern Wei, as argued by Nlu. I don't think we should blindly follow common English usage, especially when it's rather problematic from an accuracy standpoint--Confuzion 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that we should stick with Cao Wei, just because I don't know any better way to disambiguate it from other political entities called Wei. "State" is, as Confuzion suggests, a better term to use than "kingdom", but the State of Wei implies the Zhànguó-era entity; and, if we used "Kingdom of Wei" instead, I don't know what makes that clearly distinct. It's true that Cao Wei was, at one point, a "kingdom", in the sense that Cao Cao was styled 魏王, King of Wei—but this translation is misleading, because Wei at that point was a feudal subentity subject to the empire, and "kingdom" is rarely used in this sense in English ("Grand Duchy" might be more appropriate). It appears that what Wei was was actually a military regime run by the Cao family on the basis of its de facto control of territory, which used a variety of titles to refer to itself. These titles, then, must be seen as formalities and propaganda devices rather than somehow definitive. Cao Wei seems to offer the best combination of precision, concision, and non-originality. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * (Random un-indent) T'sao T'sao's state is not a kingdom; the 'king' title given in Chinese context does not revolve around actually being a King, as with the title of 'prince' or 'Marquis'. It is not a dynasty, as the emperor T'sao Pi never declared a dynasty by changing era name or calling his state anything other than T'sao Wei. So we are stuck with Empire-sized areas ruled by Emperors who were given nominal 'King' titles at the end of Han by a defunct Emperor, and yet none of them formally denounced the Han dynasty until the Jin Dynasty formed. So none of the three are technically Empires either (only Jin changed era Name). They are states under Han, until S'suma changed their era name to Jin, of which then they are their own empires(each changed their own era names - Shu of Han, Eastern Wu), until Jin absorbed them.Annihilatron (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Un-protection
Is protection of this page really necessary? About time to request an un-protect? Hanfresco 10:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of important individuals
How many "important" people do you think should be listed for a state that lasted 45 years? --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Haha, okay, heres what I will do than i will edit the list to what i think are the more important people meaning i will add some and delets some from the current list, if you disagree fell free to intrude, but I think I got it under control. Hardworker111 10:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're having a grasp of true importance. You removed regents and empresses and replaced them with people who had very little impact on Cao Wei's history. Further, if somehow you think Wen Qin was more important to Eastern Wu than to Cao Wei, you havve a rather strange definition of importance. --Nlu (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I am sorry if it sounds like I'm losing my temper. After some thoughts, I will submit this to WP:RFC and look for opinions.  As Cao Wei appears to be the one that is the most disputed of the three lists, I'll request that the discussion be directed here.  --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind, afterall you have been here a lot longer than I have. I was just trying to help out, and I didn't even realize i added Wen Qin to Wu, must have been a mistake, so sorry for the hassel and I suppose i will leave the pages the way the are now, however I'm surprised you feel Yue Jin was not important. Also I personally think most empresses aren't important since they usually had no diplomatic, military, or political power, they just gave birth to some important people. Hardworker111 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i looked back and understand what your saying, I didn't add Wen Qin to Wu I added Jiang Qin to Wu. Jiang Qin, if u don't know, was Zhou Tai's pirate partner who joined Wu the same time, etc. I think you may have gotten confused, not sure. Hardworker111 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. But I'll address your view about empresses below. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC
RfC has been filed. Here are some of my views on what the criteria of inclusion should be, for all three articles (Cao Wei, Eastern Wu, and Shu Han):

 * 1) The individual needs to have actually possessed a high position during the state's existence or made a major, major impact on the founding of the state.  (Examples of the former, one from each state: Cao Shuang, Zhuge Ke, Jiang Wan; examples of the latter are Cao Cao, Sun Ce, and Guan Yu.) and
 * 2) The individual himself/herself has to be completely non-fictional, and his/her impact on the state's governance has to be itself non-fictional.  This excludes such individuals as Sun Shangxiang (based on real character, but the character as written later is fictional).

The reason is that these are encyclopedia articles, and people who may be signifiant in the public consciousness due to Romance of the Three Kingdoms and related works but are in actually non-important, or vice versa, are/can be more than adequately dealt with in their respective articles, rather than letting their inclusion continue to obfuscate on true importance. Based on the Romance of Three Kingdoms, you would not thiink that Sun Jun was important; in reality, he had already become important late in Sun Quan's reign, and later on became all-powerful after he overthrew Zhuge Ke. This is an encyclopedia, not a work of literary analysis. If there is a list of "important individuals aboard the RMS Titanic, including Sun Shangxiang in the list of important individuals for Eastern Wu is the equivalent of including Rose Bukater in that list. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why I also think that empresses should be included, ontrary to Hardworker111's view above that they're not sufficiently important, is that they actually wielded substantial powers -- at least when their husbands had substantial powers and were not purely puppets. Their power inside the palaces over imperial servants, both male and female -- of which there are substantial numbers -- are near absolute, and they had fairly high powers over even the emperors' concubines. Further, many of them had substantial influence over the politics. Empress Guo (Ming), for example, was titular regent over three emperors' reign and made several (futile) to restore the power of the Cao Wei emperors. Empress Pan (Da) was indicated by histories to be highly influential late in Sun Quan's reign. Empress Zhu (Jing) was part of the decision process that led to the disasterous seletion of Sun Hao as emperor. Their importance isn't diminished simply because they're not individuals coming to the forefront of public consciousness when thinking of the Three Kingdoms. Including Zhang Bao (Shu Han), for example, while excluding his sisters Empress Zhang (Liu Shan, former) and Empress Zhang (Liu Shan, later), in particular, makes no sense in my opinion. Zhang Bao's authorities and impact on Shu Han's governance were minimal, while his sisters, while not much is recorded about them, had actual powers. (It may be the case that all three should be excluded; but if one has to go, Zhang Bao should go since he did not even have actual authority to exercise, whereas they did.) --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * And, after some thought, I think I'll propose this: remove the lists altogether. The lists will either again spawn problems with over/under inlusion or create false impressions about what things actually were in history.  --Nlu (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know about that Nlu, i understand your trying to prevent any edit wars from re-occuring, but that would make the page so dauntingly small, unless you plan on buffering it up and making it larger by adding more history and key facts. Hardworker111 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I support removing the lists. After all, the article (Shu Han, Eastern Wu as well) is much too brief, given the amount of information present. So size is not really a concern. _dk 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Not as a comment as to whether the lists should be included, but some empresses and people you have listed to be 'unimportant' are very important; some wielded a lot of power as said before. However, Lady Sun (Sun Shangxiang by ROTK name) was politically important in the marriage to Liu Bei, and then she attempted to take Liu Bei's eldest son with her to Wu when the two states went to war later. I would think that is of at least political importance, although she did nothing later on to influence the country. I think the final problem is 'who judges' what is important and what is not; and that would be an issue should the list be kept. Annihilatron (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Whole Crew is here!
I like this! Everybody who made some important impact to the Cao Wei kingdom is here. Cool listing to the Han Era Crew and the Three Kingdoms Crew. I also noticed the other two (Eastern Wu & Shu Han) Also done like that or similiar. Well there is no more reason for me to add on to the three kingdoms chars or places. Nice work!--Zhang Liao 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The territory disputes
I do not understand why the Chinese would be so hell bent on trying to prove Korea was dominated by China. Especially when it was not quite this in the ancient times, Wei had its eastern coastal provinces taken by foreigners who ruled the Downriver HwangHe for 400 years, so says a Chinese official today! Also, Kogureyeo is smack bang in the area in the northern korean peninsula where Wei has its territory drawn into it. If that was the case, why does the Great wall end near Beijing and not into the Korean Peninsula? The Great wall is made to prevent Northerners from invading.

I even witnessed old Chinese men saying the Wei territories were not drawn like this in Chinese historical textbooks only 20 years ago.

 * The Great Wall at that time did end in the north Korean peninsula. Today's Great Wall was built around ming dynasty and was supposed to fend the Mongolian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.70.49 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wei part of Vietnam?
How is Wei part of todays Vietnam? I would add Mongolia, but certainly not Vietnam. I guess somebody confused it with Wu here. (EnTerbury (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC))
 * It's weird. Maybe the person was thinking of the Wei after it conquered Shu but before it became the Jin Dynasty. Some of Shu's southern territories might have been in present-day Vietnam.   LDS  contact me 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The person who added it was probably thinking about the Wu mutiny in Jiaozhi (which includes parts of Vietnam) that declared themselves to be under Wei control in 264. _dk (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * point 1, wei first became jin then conquered shu. shu also included myanmar and laos as well. point two, yeah thats true, which is now explained in the article. good! point 3, but the part above xihai in caowei is in todays mongolia. further, the korean part extends across the border to south korea. edit? EnTerbury (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 not true actually, 3 needs explicit sources before editing. EnTerbury (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Former Wei" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former Wei. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Cao Wei


text:
Swithland Wood and The Brand

Swithland Wood and The Brand is a 87.9 ha biological Site of Special Scientific Interest south of Woodhouse Eaves in Leicestershire. Swithland Wood is a Nature Conservation Review site, Grade II. The Brand is designated a Precambrian site in the Geological Conservation Review, but the dating has been changed due to the discovery of trace fossils from the succeeding Cambrian period.

Swithland Wood is a public woodland in Charnwood Forest, in Leicestershire. Although close to the village of Swithland, it is almost entirely within the parish of Newtown Linford, just north of Bradgate Park and also near Woodhouse Eaves and Cropston. The wood is Leicestershire's most important ancient woodland for nature conservation. Quarries within the wood were a source of the distinctive Swithland Slate roofs found on many local buildings as well as the slate gravestones common in Leicestershire churchyards. Swithland Wood has been a public woodland since 1925, upon its acquisition by the Leicester Rotary Club, having previously been part of the estate of the manor of Groby. Since 1931 it has been managed by the Bradgate Park and Swithland Wood Trust.

Ancient woodland
Swithland Wood is classed as ancient semi-natural woodland. Medieval ridge and furrow shows that most of the area was once cleared of trees, and used for growing crops. Documentary evidence of its use as woodland dates back to 1512 by which time at least part of the site was established woodland. It was probably not 'planted', but simply recolonised the soon-abandoned farmland. However, it has been woodland continuously since then, primarily managed through coppicing. It was subdivided into compartments known by various names: Great Lynds, Little Lynds, Dunham Lynns, Hollgates Wood, Slate Pit Hey and Slate Pit Hill. The woodland was part of the Grey family's Bradgate Estate throughout their time as earls of Stamford. In 1880 they had 26 woodlands on the Bradgate Estate and these were an integrated part of the Grey estates throughout the 17th to 19th centuries. The earliest known use of the name 'Swithland Wood' is in a schedule of 1772. The name now covers all of the Grey estate woodlands on this site. Adjoining the woods on the east are two areas of woodland in Swithland Parish, historically known as Stocking Wood and Whites Wood. These were part of the estates of the Danvers family, and then the earls of Lanesborough. These two woods remain private, and are not part of the Swithland Wood public woodland, although they are part of the designated SSSI.

Slate quarrying
Swithland Slate has been a traditional local roofing material since Roman times. Swithland gives its name to a line of 'slate' outcrops found along the east side of Charnwood, from Hallgates and Little John, through Swithland Wood and The Brand, up to Woodhouse Eaves. All these locations have old slate quarry pits, as does a corresponding outcrop on the other side of the Charnwood anticline at Groby. Swithland Wood had been quarried for many centuries for small-scale slate production. Many of the 24 small pits in Swithland Wood may relate to early slate quarrying. Unlike the management of the woodland, the quarries were leased to local quarrymen. Two industrial scale quarries developed within the woods, one in the 'Great Pit' in the centre of the woods, and the other near the road at the northern end. Similar scales of activity also developed on the other side of Swithland Road, in The Brand, where four more water-filled pits remain.

By the mid-19th century under the management of John Ellis of Leicester, among other things Chairman of the Midland Railway, slate in the Great Pit was being extracted from a depth of more than 180 ft (55 m). Swithland Slate began to be used on vernacular roofs from around 1750 and is still very common on older buildings throughout Charnwood and beyond. Unlike the thinner, lighter Welsh slates, which are used with fixed sized slates, Swithland Slate roofs are graded from small slates along the ridge to largest sizes at the base. Notable buildings on which the slates were used included the Midland Railway's London terminus at St Pancras railway station and the Leicester houses designed by Ernest Gimson. Headstones for graves have been made from Swithland Slate since the 17th century and are found in graveyards throughout Leicestershire and in neighbouring counties, especially Nottinghamshire. They could be engraved with detailed letterings and patterns, which prove to be much more durable than on many other types of stone. Other uses included kerbstones, windowsills and sinks. Once the canals and railways could transport Welsh slate in large quantities at low prices, the demand for local slates diminished. Quarrying in the northern pit ended in 1838, and then in 1887 the Great Pit ceased production. Both pits now have deep water and are fenced off for safety reasons, but paths around the quarries afford good views of the pools and rock faces. The Great Pit is used occasionally for scuba diving.

Public woodland
After the closing of the quarries the area continued to be an important woodland resource, with active timber management and planting by the Grey Estate. However in 1921, as part of a wholesale disposal of the Bradgate Estate lands, the woods, along with two local farms, were bought by William Gimson. Two adjacent areas of woodland totalling 137 acres (554,000 m²) were offered to the Rotary Club of Leicester in order to preserve these important ancient woodlands and provide public access for the benefit of the people of Leicester and Leicestershire in perpetuity. A charitable trust was established and a fund-raising appeal raised £6,000 (more than half of it from members of the Rotary Club itself) which covered not only the £3,000 purchase price but also renewed fencing, woodland management works and public access facilities. The Rotary Club employed rangers and managed the country park directly for seven years. On the rock face of the Great Pit is an inscription recording the Rotary Club's donation which reads "The Leicester Rotary Club Secured Swithland Wood For A National Heritage".

The area is notable in spring for its bluebells and other spring flowering bulbs which cover large areas of the woodland floor. In 1927 the Rotary Club, in partnership with Swithland Parish Church, initiated an annual Bluebell Service by the Great Pit, and this tradition continues, with the Bluebell Service being held on the afternoon of the third or fourth Sunday of April.

In 1928 a leading Leicester businessman, Charles Bennion, similarly bought the adjacent and larger Bradgate Park for preservation and the public benefit, vested in a charitable trust supported by the Leicester City and Leicestershire County councils and the National Trust. In 1931, with the Bradgate Park Trust fully established, the Rotary Club offered to merge Swithland Wood with Bradgate Park. This was readily agreed by all parties and the two Trusts were combined as the Bradgate Park and Swithland Wood Trust. Since then Swithland Woods has been managed by the Trust rather than the Rotary Club, open to the public, and greatly appreciated for its conservation and leisure value.

Site of Special Scientific Interest
According to Natural England: "The site includes some of the best remaining examples of oak-lime and alder woodland in Leicestershire and is representative of ancient woodland on somewhat acid, loamy soils in the English Midlands." Swithland Wood has received a blend of continuity and disruption in its management that has stimulated its diversity of plant life, whilst allowing complex ecosystems to survive and develop. The disruptions include the quarries, substantial periods of felling in the 19th century, construction of a water main across the site, clearing back of rides and paths, and the arrival of countless tramping feet. Each of these has impacted on some of the trees and plants, but created additional habitats, allowing other species to become established. But as a whole, Swithland Wood has had great continuity, at least since the medieval ploughing ceased. The woods themselves are mixed, principally mature oak, ash, lime and holly. These have been the predominant species for many hundred years, and on the rockiest places have probably always been there. This provides the continuity that has enabled such richness to develop. The result is a woodland with a flora score = 147, the highest score of any of the Leicestershire and Rutland woodlands., ahead of Owston Woods (132) and Burley Wood (125).

Geology
The ancient rocks that characterise Charnwood Forest are an eroded anticline - the layers of sediment built up on a sea floor were uplifted some 420 million years ago, at the end of the Silurian Period. This created a dome, the top of which was eroded to expose successively more ancient rocks. The oldest rocks are found at the northern core, at Blackbrook Reservoir, while Swithland Wood lies on the south-eastern edge of the anticline. The Swithland Slates and other rocks of the 'Brand Group' are the most recent of the Charnian rocks. For most of the 20th century they had been classified as Precambrian rocks along with the more central Charnwood outcrops. This would have dated them to before 539 million years ago. However, recent discoveries of trace fossils, evidence of animals burrowing in the soft mud that became the Swithland Slate, have reclassed all of the Brand Group rocks as Cambrian, formed around 530 million years ago. Although the Charnwood Precambrian rocks have the internationally significant fossils of the frond-like lifeforms of Charnia species, clear evidence of trace fossils of burrowing animal life places the Swithland Formation firmly in the Cambrian Period. Some of these trace fossils can be seen on Swithland Slate headstones, such as those in Ratby churchyard.

The mud that became Swithland Slate was deposited in great quantity on the sea bed, after the more dramatic Precambrian volcanic activity had subsided. It was very fine sediment resulting in fine-grained evenly bedded material. Subsequent deposits above it, combined with the uplifting of the anticline, produced the heat and pressure which turned the mud into hard rock (lithification). The tensions created during uplift are what created the cleavage planes in the slates, and it is along these cleavage joints (rather than the bedding planes) that the slates are split to create roof slates. With the Charnwood area uplifted into a high mountain range, the processes of erosion began.

By the Triassic Period, (240 million years ago) the mountains were eroded down to something like their current height. There then began a new deposition, this time of desert sand and fine dust, that produced a new layer of soft red marl, creating the gentler rolling appearance of the land, with just the tips of the older rocks reaching the surface. Over most of Swithland Wood the marl is the surface rock type (although the slate beds occur underneath that).

Finally, during the ice age, glacial erosion stripped back the Triassic material (plus whatever had accumulated above that), to re-expose the eroded peaks of the older rocks. At the end of the ice age, patches of boulder clay were deposited over much of the local area, including parts of Swithland Wood.

Access
Swithland Wood is open to the public during daylight hours. There are pay and display car parks on Roecliffe Road at and on Swithland Road at. There is also access via a footpath from near the Hallgates entrance to Bradgate Park. There are several bridleways within the wood for horse-riding, and a network of marked cycle routes.

title: Swithland Wood and The Brand


text:
User talk:Steveo2

helpme Could someone please delete the Peanuts portal for me? You'll now why when you see it. Thanks!
 * I added a db-p2 speedy deletion tag to it. You might blank the page of everything except for the db-p2 at the top, so the responding admin knows you're no longer working on it.  Cheers, ➪ Hi DrNick ! 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Archive 3: 4/25/06 through 6/7/06
 * Archive 2: 2/2/06 through 4/25/06
 * Archive 1: 4/25/05 through 2/2/06

Intro by Steveo2
Welcome to my talk page! If you're wondering where all of the messages you wrote went, then here they are: (Click Here). Please place all of your comments at the bottom of the page, or at the bottom of the category in which it belongs. Feel free to make your own category, too. End all of your messages with ~. This will automatically sign your name when you save.

Oh, I can only write on weekdays that aren't in summer. Sorry about that one. And in case you were wondering, I don't really like my username, and I had never heard of the comedian "Steveo" when I chose it.

I'm sorry
I haven't been on Wikipedia as much lately. I am still interested in helping run the BD Committee. I should be on more often now. Mr. Turcotte talk  19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See? :-) lol! Mr. Turcotte  talk  19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Later then. Mr. Turcotte talk  19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A late Birthday
Just thought I'd wish the BD Committee Founder a late birthday!

Joke template
user:The Republican--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at User:GeorgeMoney/tricktemplates -- GeorgeMoney T·C 07:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation!
I know that you will be leaving tomorrow, the 14th (I might not be online myself, gasp :-)), so enjoy your break/vacation/whatever you are doing!

P.S. Don't mean to be nitpicky, but reclaiming leadership is the 25th Amendment. The 26th gave 18-year-olds the right to vote :-)

See you around!

Thistheman 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, that's right, you'll be away for a while! Hope you have a good time! Sergeant   Snopake  11:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006
Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again
Hey, Steveo! I got bored, so I decied to talk to you again. I was kidding about that alter-ego thing, but sometimes I do log off to type bad things to people I don't like, or to voice opinions that aren't my own. Anyway, my computer i haveing problems running Wikipedia at home, so don't write back till tomorrow between 8 and 11 (I'm haveing a half day) or today between 11:03 and 11:45 (that's recess). Bye!--Wack'd About Wiki 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Category renamed
Please note that Category:Trumpeters was renamed to Category:Wikipedian trumpet players. Conscious 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  11:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)
The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 11:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I hope that you had a great wiki-break. :-) Mr. Turcotte  talk  23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sig
Hi Steveo, the E in your sig is way too bright. WP:SIG states that your sig should be readable by colourblind people. Not that I'm colourblind, but the E may as well be white. There are darker shades of yellow. Ps, if you don't like your name, there is Changing username.  J o r c o g a  08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you, Steveo2, for changing your mind on my most recent RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —     21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings
Hi Steveo,

I've reverted this edit, where you have added Nielsen Ratings data for the 1949-1950 season. I have never seen this information; where does it come from? Do you have a reference? And, as this is the official list, I'm not sure a "generally accepted" figure should be included. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * My source for the 1949-1950 show was (I'm slightly embarassed to admit) Uncle John's Giant 10th Anniversary Bathroom Reader. Of course, a book with "bathroom" in the title may not always be trusted, and I agree that this fact is out of place in an article about the Nielsen Ratings. Steveo2 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your note, Steveo. You know, even a book of trivia like that can be a valid source. One problem I see is that it doesn't appear to be an official number, just a number that is generally regarded correct. Strangely enough, in my research, I've come across data for 1948: "The Original Amateur Hour", DuMont, according to this site. Of course, this also can't be listed on the Nielsen Ratings page, as it's a Hooper Ratings number (Hooper measured radio audiences from 1935-1950 and TV ratings frm 1948-1950 until being bought out by Nielsen in February of 1950). And I've also got a source which lists the Texaco Star Theater as the number one program during October of 1949 (Variety, listed in Total Television. Alex McNeil. Penguin Books 4th edition) Maybe we could start a page for Early TV ratings? What do you think? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, thank you for the birthday wishes:) -- Dakota 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Novels leaver
Sorry to loose you - but thanks for the honesty. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

B-day Committee
Could you please give me confirmation that I am officially a part of the Wikipedia B-day Committee? Thank you! And, have a great day!  B e  arly  541  10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what's up with the lag?  B e  a  rly  541  08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A vote of thanks from Terence Ong
That birthday wishes made my day this weekend. I celebrated my birthday today instead of yesterday since I still had school, unfortunately. Thanks for the birthday wishes, and I greatly appreciate it. --Ter e nce Ong (C 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay ( Talk )  12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Help me

 * Steve, what is your question? Hoof Hearted 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re add the tag after you have asked a question. Nick Garvey 19:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey. i am a member of the Birthday committee. Are you the leader? Politics rule 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey. I asked because on the Bulletin Board for the Committee, it said you where giving tempoary power to Mr.Turcotte. I did not know if you were the leader, if he was the leader, or as you said, no one is technically the leader.

I was also wondering, is there a line of succession, or do you appoint the leader.

Thank you for ansering me!,

Politics rule 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * A belated thanks for the Happy Birthday! And a belated happy birthday to you! Evil Monkey - Hello 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday / First Edit Templates
Can you create one on your own? Or do you have to go by the one's that are on the WP:BDC page? Cause I don't want to go against the system!!!!  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Gardens
Thanks for the compliments. It's an encouragement to know my efforts are appreciated. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Users AYB
A tag has been placed on Template:Users AYB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New Birthday Template
I created a new template for the Birthday Committee, it's waiting for approval at Template:Happy Birthday 11.

Have a good one, §tepshep

Finally! Someone that agrees with me!
I hate my userpage to. I post everything on my talk page. Just wanted to say so. Mm40 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday, founder of the B-Day Committee! Idontknow 610 TM 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research
Steveo2,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guardians of Ga'Hoole

The article Guardians of Ga'Hoole has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:BOOK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture

The article Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:BOOK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
Hi878 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture
I have nominated Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Haemon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Haemon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Haemon.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Haemon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Redlight, Greenlight

The article Redlight, Greenlight has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Long unreferenced article about defunct VH1 show with no claim to notability and no context

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Haemon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Haemon.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Poor Ana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Poor Ana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Poor Ana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Daft Punk, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sound Gems Records

A tag has been placed on Sound Gems Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!
-- John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  08:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
 Removal from member list You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TV Land: Myths and Legends

The article TV Land: Myths and Legends has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Has been an unsourced stub since 2007 with no sources forthcoming"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Game Show Moments Gone Bananas

The article Game Show Moments Gone Bananas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Only one passing mention on ProQuest, nothing better found."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Steveo2


text:
Graphics software

In computer graphics, graphics software refers to a program or collection of programs that enable a person to manipulate images or models visually on a computer.

Computer graphics can be classified into two distinct categories: raster graphics and vector graphics, with further 2D and 3D variants. Many graphics programs focus exclusively on either vector or raster graphics, but there are a few that operate on both. It is simple to convert from vector graphics to raster graphics, but going the other way is harder. Some software attempts to do this.

In addition to static graphics, there are animation and video editing software. Different types of software are often designed to edit different types of graphics such as video, photos, and vector-based drawings. The exact sources of graphics may vary for different tasks, but most can read and write files.

Most graphics programs have the ability to import and export one or more graphics file formats, including those formats written for a particular computer graphics program. Such programs include, but are not limited to: GIMP, Adobe Photoshop, CorelDRAW, Microsoft Publisher, Picasa, etc.

The use of a swatch is a palette of active colours that are selected and rearranged by the preference of the user. A swatch may be used in a program or be part of the universal palette on an operating system. It is used to change the colour of a text or image and in video editing. Vector graphics animation can be described as a series of mathematical transformations that are applied in sequence to one or more shapes in a scene. Raster graphics animation works in a similar fashion to film-based animation, where a series of still images produces the illusion of continuous movement.

History
SuperPaint was one of the earliest graphics software applications, first conceptualized in 1972 and achieving its first stable image in 1973

Fauve Matisse (later Macromedia xRes) was a pioneering program of the early 1990s, notably introducing layers in customer software.

Currently Adobe Photoshop is one of the most used and best-known graphics programs in the Americas, having created more custom hardware solutions in the early 1990s, but was initially subject to various litigation. GIMP is a popular open-source alternative to Adobe Photoshop.

title: Graphics software


text: User talk:81.82.228.99

title: User talk:81.82.228.99


text:
Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

The General Sejm (sejm walny, comitia generalia) was the bicameral legislature of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was established by the Union of Lublin in 1569 following the merger of the legislatures of the two states, the Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was one of the primary elements of the democratic governance in the Commonwealth (see Golden Liberty). The sejm was a powerful political institution. The king could not pass laws without its approval.

The two chambers of a sejm were the Senate (senat) consisting of high ecclesiastical and secular officials, and the lower house, Chamber of Deputies (I Rzeczpospolita) (izba poselska), the sejm proper, of lower ranking officials and the representatives of all szlachta. Together with the king, the three were known as the sejming estates, or estates of the sejm (stany sejmujące, literally, "deliberating estates").

Duration and frequencies of the sejms changed over time, with the six-week sejm session convened every two years being most common. Sejm locations changed throughout history, eventually with the Commonwealth capital of Warsaw emerging as the primary location. The number of sejm deputies and senators grew over time, from about 70 senators and 50 deputies in the 15th century to about 150 senators and 200 deputies in the 18th century. Early sejms have seen mostly majority voting, but beginning in the 17th century, unanimous voting became more common, and 32 sejms were vetoed with the liberum veto provision, particularly in the first half of the 18th century. This vetoing device has been credited with significantly paralyzing the Commonwealth governance.

In addition to the regular sessions of the general sejm, in the era of electable kings, beginning in 1573, three special types of sejms (convocation, election, and coronation sejms) handled the process of the royal election in the interregnum period. In total, 173 sejms met between 1569 and 1793.

Etymology
The Polish word sejm is derived from old Czech sejmovat, which means to bring together or to summon. In English, the terms general, full, or ordinary sejm are used for the sejm walny.

Genesis
The Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was established by the Union of Lublin in 1569 and merged the Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Both countries had centuries-long tradition of public participation in policy making, traced to the Slavic assembly known as the wiec. The sejmik "little sejm" was a regional or local assembly, among whose later tasks were sending delegates and instructions to the "general sejm". Another form of public decision making in Poland was that of royal election, which occurred when there was no clear heir to the throne, or the heir's appointment had to be confirmed. With time the power of such assemblies grew, entrenched with milestone privileges obtained by the nobility (szlachta) particularly during periods of transition from one dynasty or royal succession system to another (such as the Privilege of Koszyce of 1374). Tracing the history of the Sejm of Poland, Bardach points to the national assemblies of the early 15th century, Jędruch prefers, as "a convenient time marker", the sejm of 1493, the first recorded bicameral session of the Polish parliament. Sedlar, however, noted that 1493 is simply the first time such a session was clearly recorded in sources, and the first bicameral session might have taken place earlier.

The first traces of large nobility meetings in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can be found in the Treaty of Salynas of 1398 and the Union of Horodło of 1413. It is considered that the first Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania met in Hrodna in 1445 during talks between Casimir IV Jagiellon and the Lithuanian Council of Lords. As the Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars raged the country almost continuously between 1492 and 1582, the Grand Duke needed more tax revenues to finance the army and had to call the Seimas more frequently. In exchange for cooperation, the nobility demanded various privileges, including strengthening of the Seimas. At first the Seimas did not have the legislative power. It would debate on foreign and domestic affairs, taxes, wars, state budget. At the beginning of the 16th century, the Seimas acquired some legislative powers. The Seimas could petition the Grand Duke to pass certain laws.

Political influence
Sejms, including their senate (the upper chamber), and sejmiks severely limited the king's powers.

Already the Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland has a great impact on the king's powers. From 1505 the king could not pass laws himself without the approval of the sejm, this being forbidden by Polish szlachta privilege laws like nihil novi. According to the nihil novi constitution, a law passed by the sejm had to be agreed by the three estates of the sejm. There were only few areas in which the king could pass legislation without consulting the sejm: on royal cities, peasants in royal lands, Jews, fiefs and on mining. The three estates of the sejm had the final decision in legislation on taxation, budget and treasury matters (including military funding), foreign policy (including hearing foreign envoys and sending diplomatic missions) and ennoblement. The sejm received fiscal reports from podskarbis (treasurers; they were Ministers of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), and debated on most important court cases (the sejm court), with the right of amnesty. The sejm could also legislate in the absence of the king, although such legislation would have to be accepted by the king ex post.

Following the Constitution of May 3, 1791, the senate's competences were altered; in most cases, the senators could only vote together with the sejm, and the senate's veto powers were limited. Legislative power was limited to the deputies of the sejm (not senators voting separately, except on the senate's privilege of veto, a suspension of a given legislation until the sejm votes on it again during the next session). The king, who nominated senators, ministers and other officials, presided over the senate, and could propose new laws together with the executive government, over which he also presided (the newly created Straż Praw or the Guardianship of Laws). The sejm also had the supervisory role, as government ministers and other officials were to be responsible to it.

Voting
Until the end of the 16th century, unanimity was not required and majority voting predominated. Later, with the rise of the magnates' power, the unanimity principle was enforced with the szlachta privilege of liberum veto (from the Latin: "I freely forbid"). From the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to paralyze sejm proceedings and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse. The growing power of sejmiks also contributed to the inefficiency of the sejm, as binding instructions from sejmiks could prevent some deputies from being able to support certain provisions. The pro-majority-voting party almost disappeared in the 17th century, and majority voting was preserved only at confederated sejms (sejm rokoszowy, konny, konfederacyjny). The liberum veto was finally abolished by the Constitution of May 3, 1791.

Reforms of 1764–66 improved the proceedings the sejm. They introduced majority voting for items declared as "non crucial" (most economic and tax matters) and outlawed binding instructions from sejmiks. Reforms of 1767 and 1773–75 transferred some competences of the sejm to the commissions of elected delegates. From 1768, hetmans were included among the senate members, and from 1775 also the Court Deputy Treasurer.

In the senate there was no voting; after all the senators who wished had spoken on a given matter, the king or the chancellor formed a general opinion based on the majority.

The Constitution of May 3, 1791 finally abolished the liberum veto, replacing it by majority voting, in most important matters requiring 75% of the votes.

Composition and electoral ordinance
The sejm comprised two chambers, with varying numbers of deputies. After the 1569 Union of Lublin, the Kingdom of Poland was transformed into the federation of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the numbers of sejm participants were significantly increased with the inclusion of the deputies from Lithuanian sejmiks. The deputies had no set term of office, although in practice it was about four months long, from their election at a regional sejmik, to their report on the next sejmik dedicated to hearing and discussing the previous sejm's proceedings (those sejmiks were known as relational or debriefing). Deputies had parliamentary immunity and any crimes against them were classified as lèse-majesté.

The two chambers were:
 * The senate (senat) consisting of high ecclesiastical and secular officials; it was an evolution of the royal council. The senate numbered over 140 bishops and Senatorial offices of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; it grew from 149 around 1598–1633 to 153 around 1764–1768, and 157 during the era of the Great Sejm (1788–92). The Constitution of May 3 set their number at 132.
 * The lower house, Chamber of Deputies (I Rzeczpospolita) (izba poselska), the sejm proper, of lower ranking officials and general nobility. In the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the number of lower house deputies exceeded that of the senators. In 1569 it was composed of 170 deputies representing and elected by a local sejmiks. The 170 included 48 from Lithuania. Deputies from several cities and towns were allowed a status of observers. The number of deputies grew to around 236 in 1764–68, dropping to 181 during the time of the Great Sejm (1788–92). The Constitution of May 3 set their number at 204, including 24 non-voting representatives from cities and towns.

The Constitution of May 3 specified that the deputies were elected for two years, and did not require reelection in that period if any extraordinary sejms were to be called. Senators, for the most part, were selected by the king from a number of candidates presented by the sejmiks.

Due to population size differences between Lithuania and Poland, the Grand Duchy had three times less representatives than the Crown. Usually larger voivodeships could send 6 deputies, smaller 2; ziemias, depending on their sizes, would send 2 or 1. Numbers of deputies elected to the sejm by sejmiks from particular localities, in the order of precedence, based on a 1569 decree, were as follows:

Proceedings
A sejm began with a solemn mass, a verification of deputies mandates, and election of the Marshal of the Sejm (also known as the Speaker). (The position of the Marshal of the Sejm (and sejmik) who presided over the proceedings and was elected from the body of deputies evolved in the 17th century. ) Next, the kanclerz (chancellor) declared the king's intentions to both chambers, who would then debate separately till the ending ceremonies.

After 1543 the resolutions were written in Polish rather than Latin. All legislation adopted by a given sejm formed a whole and was published as a "constitution" of the sejm. Prior to the May 3 Constitution, in Poland the term "constitution" (Polish: konstytucja) had denoted all the legislation, of whatever character, that had been passed at a sejm. Only with the adoption of the May 3 Constitution did konstytucja assume its modern sense of a fundamental document of governance. From the end of the 16th century, the constitutions were printed, stamped with the royal seal, and sent to the chancelleries of the municipal councils of all voivodeships of the Crown and also to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Such constitutions were often subjected to some final tweaking by the royal court before being printed, although that could lead to protests among the nobility.

Location
The majority of the sejms were held at the Warsaw's Royal Castle. A few were held elsewhere, particularly in the first years of the Commonwealth, and from 1673, every third sejm was to take place at Grodno in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (first hosted in the Old Hrodna Castle, later in the New Hrodna Castle). In practice, most of the sejms were still held in Warsaw, which hosted 148 sejms, compared to 11 sejms hosted in Grodno.

The sejms in Warsaw were held in the Warsaw Castle, within the Chamber of Deputies (Hall of Three Pillars), with the upper Senate Chamber located literally above it. In the late 17th century, new quarters were constructed for the Chamber of Deputies, and were joined on the same level by the senate quarters in the mid-18th century. The new Senate Chamber was the larger of the two, as it was intended to host both chambers during the opening and closing ceremonies.

Duration and frequency
In the mid-15th century the general sejm of the Kingdom of Poland met about once per year. There was no set time span to elapse before the next session was to be called by the king. If the general sejm did not happen, local sejmiks would debate on current issues instead.

King Henry's Articles, signed by each king since 1573, required the king to call a general sejm (lasting six weeks) every two years, and provisions for an extraordinary sejm (Polish: sejm ekstraordynaryjny, nadzwyczajny) that was to last two weeks were also set down in this act. Extraordinary sejms could be called in times of national emergency, for example a sejm deciding whether to call pospolite ruszenie (a general call to arms) in response to an invasion. The sejm could be extended if all the deputies agreed. No set time of a year was defined, but customarily sejms were called for a time that would not interfere with the supervision of agriculture, which formed the livelihood of most nobility; thus most sejms took place in late fall or early winter.

After the Constitution of May 3, 1791, sejms were to be held every two years and last 70 days, with a provision for an extension to 100 days. Provisions for extraordinary sejms were made, as well as for a special constitutional sejm, which was to meet and discuss whether any revisions to the constitution were needed (that one was to deliberate every 25 years).

It is estimated that between 1493 and 1793 sejms were held 240 times. Jędruch gives a higher number of 245, and notes that 192 of those were successfully completed, passing legislation. 32 sejms were vetoed with the infamous liberum veto, particularly in the first half of the 18th century. The last two sejms of the Commonwealth were the irregular four-year Great Sejm (1788–92), which passed the Constitution of the 3 May, and the infamous Grodno Sejm (1793) where deputies, bribed or coerced by the Russian Empire following the Commonwealth defeat in the War in Defense of the Constitution, annulled the short-lived Constitution and passed the act of Second Partition of Poland.

Royal elections
In addition to the regular sessions of the general sejm, three special types of sejms handled the process of the royal election in the interregnum period. Those were:
 * Convocation sejm (Sejm konwokacyjny). This sejm was called upon a death or abdication of a king by the Primate of Poland. The deputies would focus on establishing the dates and any special rules for the election (in particular, preparation of pacta conventa, bills of nobility privileges to be sworn by the king), and screening the candidates. This sejm was to last two weeks.
 * Election sejm (Sejm elekcyjny), during which the nobility voted for the candidate to the throne. This type of sejm was open to all members of the nobility who desired to attend it, and as such they often gathered much larger number of attendees than the regular sejms. The exact numbers of attendees have never been recorded, and are estimated to vary from 10,000 to over 100,000; subsequently the voting could last for days (in 1573 it was recorded that it took four days). To handle the increased numbers, those sejms would be held in Wola, then a village near Warsaw. Royal candidates themselves were barred from attending this sejm, but were allowed to send representatives.  This sejm was to last six weeks.
 * Coronation sejm (Sejm koronacyjny). This sejm was held in Kraków, where the coronation ceremony was traditionally held by the primate, who relinquished his powers to the chosen king. This sejm was to last two weeks.

Other special sessions
Confederated sejm (Sejm skonfederowany) first appeared in 1573 (all convocation and election sejms were confederated), and became more popular in the 18th century as a counter to the disruption of liberum veto. Seen as emergency or extraordinary sessions, they relied on majority voting to speed up the discussions and ensure a legislative outcome. Many royal election sejms were confederated, as well as some of the normal sejm walny (general sejm) sessions.

Jędruch, who classifies the regular general sejm session as ordinary, in addition to the convocation, election and coronation sessions, also distinguished the following additional types:
 * Council of state
 * Constitutional
 * Delegation (ending with a formation of committees)
 * Extraordinary
 * General sejmik held instead of a sejm
 * General council (rada walna) without the king present. That sejm would be convoked by the primate when the king could not attend and had no legislative powers. It was attended by deputies from the preceding sejm. Held three times (in 1576, 1710 and 1734).
 * Inquest, debating the case of royal impeachment. Two such sejms were held (in 1592 and 1646).
 * Pacification, to quell a potential civil war after a disputed election, to pacify the opponents through political concessions. Five such sejms were held (in 1598, 1673, 1698, 1699 and 1735).


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Did you know

[]

title: Portal:Astronomy/Did you know


text:
Horsham railway station

Horsham railway station serves the town of Horsham in West Sussex, England. It is 37 mi down the line from London Bridge, measured via Redhill, on the Arun Valley Line and the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines, and train services are provided by Southern and Thameslink. Services on the Sutton & Mole Valley Line from London Victoria via Dorking terminate here, as do Thameslink services from Peterborough via London Bridge. The other services continue into the Arun Valley: a half-hourly service from London Victoria to Bognor Regis, and a half-hourly service to Portsmouth Harbour. These trains usually divide here with the front (Portsmouth) portion travelling fast (next stop Barnham) and the rear (Bognor Regis) half providing stopping services.

History
Horsham would have been an important midway point in two of the original proposals for a London to Brighton railway via the Adur valley but in the event Sir John Rennie's proposed direct line through Three Bridges (in east Crawley) and Haywards Heath was given parliamentary approval. As a result, the original Horsham station was the terminus of a single track branch line from Three Bridges opened by the London Brighton and South Coast Railway (LBSCR) in February 1848.

Between 1859 and 1867, the station was enlarged on several occasions to coincide with the doubling of the branch line from Three Bridges; the extension of the railway from Horsham along the Arun Valley Line; the opening of new lines from Horsham to Shoreham via Steyning and from Christ's Hospital to Guildford. Finally, in 1867, a new route to Dorking, Leatherhead and thence to London, was opened. The station was again partially rebuilt and resignalled, with three signal boxes, in 1875.

The present station was built by the Southern Railway in the International Modern Style in 1938 to coincide with the electrification of the line. The building was designed by James Robb Scott and is grade II listed, see external links below. The lines to Guildford and Shoreham both fell victim to the Beeching Axe in the mid-1960s, the former being closed to passengers on 14 June 1965 and the latter on 7 March 1966.

In September 2011, the station frontage was closed to undergo extensive refurbishment work to the main ticket hall. It reopened late in 2012 with a new side entrance, internal lift access, relocated barriers and stairway, a new ticket office, and new information screens. The platforms received a rebuild of the roofing and refurbished waiting rooms. Previously, the building was shared with Henfield Hire, who vacated in order to give the floor space needed to create the new features and new ceiling and lights and so completing a complete reconfiguration of the layout.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 9 January 1972, an engineers train overran signals and was in a rear-end collision with an electric multiple unit at the station. Fifteen people were injured. The crew of the engineers train had failed to check their brakes on departure from Three Bridges and thus failed to discover that the isolation cock between the two locomotives had not been opened.

Services
Services at Horsham are operated by Southern and Thameslink using and  EMUs.

The typical off-peak service in trains per hour is:
 * 2 tph to London Victoria via Gatwick Airport
 * 1 tph to London Victoria via Epsom and Sutton
 * 2 tph to Peterborough via Gatwick Airport, London Bridge and Stevenage
 * 2 tph to Portsmouth Harbour (non-stop to Barnham)
 * 2 tph to Bognor Regis (stopping)

On Sundays, the service to London Victoria via Epsom does not run. In addition, the Thameslink service is reduced to 1 tph and runs to Bedford, instead of Peterborough. Mainline services are reduced to 1 tph and trains divide at Barnham instead of at Horsham.

Motive power depot
A small wooden motive power depot was built at the station in 1876. This was replaced by a brick-built ten-road semi-roundhouse together with a 46 ft (14 metre) turntable in 1880. This in turn was extended with a further eight-roads in 1900. In 1927 the Southern Railway installed a 55 ft (16.8 metre) turntable. This depot was closed in 1964.

Signalbox
Nearby is the type 13 signal box dating from 1938, which is also Grade II listed. It closed in 2005 when its controls were transferred to Three Bridges Integrated Electronic Control Centre.

New Services
New services from Horsham have been introduced to destinations north of central London from December 2018. The new timetable was originally proposed in May 2014, with services between Horsham and London Bridge extended to Peterborough via St Pancras International, Stevenage and St Neots.

title: Horsham railway station


text:
Talk:United Kingdom constituencies

History
I am wondering when it became appropriate to refer to UK constituencies. 1707? And: did Scotland have constituencies (so called) prior to 1707? I am thinking about whether and how the article might be expanded with a history of the use of constituencies in what are now parts of the UK. Laurel Bush 11:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Technically, the United Kingdom came into existence in 1801, with the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Today it is officially the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Both England and Scotland had Parliaments elected by constituency even before 1707, although of course the franchise was much more restricted than today. The history of UK parliamentary constituencies is indeed a fascinating one, but unfortunately I am not the person to do it justice. Alex Swanson 14:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

A dimension of the history is now developing in List of former Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom. Laurel Bush 10:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC).

EU
Shouldn't something on the UK's EU parliamentary constituencies be added? Andelarion 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for next general election
Declaring my interest as a candidate, at what point should candidates for the next general election be mentionned, or only afterwards? MikeHobday 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Expenditure limits?
Our table says that the expenditure limits for Westminster elections are £7,150 + 5p/7p per elector in boroughs and counties respectively. Do we have a source for this? Section 76 ("Limitation of election expenses") of the Representation of the People Act 1983 would seem to be the thing, but according to the version online (which includes amendments) - viz:

The limit is £5,483 + 4.6/6.2. Who's right? The SLD is sometimes behind in applying amendments, but in the absence of a citation on this page, i have no idea what's going on.

Time passes ...

Okay, got it - this was changed in a 2005 SI that hasn't been applied to the SLD yet. I'll add the citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.106.202 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Limits as of May 2015
For the General Election of May 2015, the limits for UK constituencies are:

 * Long campaign: £30,700 + per-constituent spend
 * Short campaign: £8,700 + per-constituent spend

The per-constituent spend is:

 * 6p per registered parliamentary elector in a borough constituency (burgh constituency in Scotland), or
 * 9p per registered parliamentary elector in a county constituency.

Source - Page http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/uk-parliamentary-general-election-great-britain PDF direct link - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/173074/UKPGE-Part-3-Spending-and-donations.pdf

Seantellis (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

County constituencies and borough constituencies
"County constituencies are the successors to the historic parliamentary divisions of counties, and most are predominantly rural in nature. Sometimes a town can be covered by more than one constituency, with one a borough and another a county. Reading and Milton Keynes are both examples of this." Can this be written more clearly, because I can't relate it to the reality in Milton Keynes (borough) and therefore can't see what the editor intended to say. Looking at Reading East and Reading West, I can see parallels with Milton Keynes North East and Milton Keynes South West, but nothing that matches the text in either case. In every case, the constituency consists of an urban element and a rural element. Neither element is predominant in terms of electors (though in MK, 'North East' is physically the larger of the two). So is the text saying that, in each case, the tag 'Borough Constituency' or 'County Constituency' has been attached fairly arbitrarily?

[For background, the (certainly rural) Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency) was split in 1983 into a revised Buckingham and a new Milton Keynes (UK Parliament constituency) as the population of Milton Keynes grew. The Milton Keynes constitency was split again in 1992 to its present configuration (and has just been rejigged to increase the urban component of the new Milton Keynes North (UK Parliament constituency) to equalise their population).] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

size?
There is no information here about the size (population) of an average constituency, or how much they vary. That seems an important fact that is omitted. T-bonham (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on United Kingdom constituencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726095050/http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032.pdf to http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032.pdf
 * Added tag to http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/406678_Guide-to-the-2013-Review_acc.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714112551/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/acts/acts1998/19980046.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980046.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070902220742/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/acts/acts2004/20040013.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040013.htm
 * Added archive //web.archive.org/web/20071205011910/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/newsreleasereviews.cfm/news/226 to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/newsreleasereviews.cfm/news/226

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United Kingdom constituencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504234425/https://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk:80/maps/westminster/2005/ to http://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/maps/westminster/2005/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

County, borough, etc.
Are the constituency qualifiers of county, borough, etc, still relevant and used or should they be consigned to the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylornk (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:United Kingdom constituencies