text:
Talk:List of national birds

East Timor
Hi, can anyone tell me if there is a national bird for East Timor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.70.144 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This list is useless. Without further comment the white stork is called national bird of Germany. Yes, the International Council for Bird Preservation has declared this. But this has near to zero significance for Germany. Nobody in Germany would view the stork as national bird. The concept of having a "national bird" is not even known to Germans. And if you would force them to answer the question "What is your national bird?" they would most likely mention the Bundesadler, the federal eagle, not the stork. --:Slomox:: >< 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick question ... is there a source for a master list of birds that the ICBP (now BirdLife International) has deemed to be "National Birds"? Honestly, I don't imagine the "national bird" question to be of interest to much anyone beyond naturalists and politicians (I'll bet 90% of any given nation's population doesn't care!), but we have to support or debunk all of this somehow seeing as we're Wikipedia and we're supposed to be as infallible as possible.  I wish I had the time to get cracking on fixing this list -- I'm starting to regret ever working on it.  Good luck, though, and thanks for the added info.  -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS> Per the German Embassy I've removed Germany from this list. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This list needs cleaning. Adding unofficial entries is POV. Unofficial entries need removing for discussion. Ian Cairns 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've changed cleanup to unsourced. The cited website is not an international agency, nor does it cite its sources - so we only have one website as a source. Ian Cairns 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Solution perhaps
Start from scratch and consider the camacdonald list to be pure buncombe. Well, I'd love to, but in the meantime, we have a wiki to fix, right?

In any case, I'm having problems with contradictory information. Care to help me untangle this?

The pelican is the national bird of Barbados and appears on the Barbados Coat of Arms supporting the left side of The Golden Shield. - Barbados has no national bird -

Cheers! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I started working down the alphabet and the first species cited by camacdonald didn't even occur in the country. I think there is a modicum of value in this article but a lot of the cites are junk. Is eupedia reliable as in WP:SOURCES? It seems to out-source back to WP for a lot of stuff. I will carry on tidying but will put in cn tags where needed. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been through the whole list and added some better cites where I could, removed some junk ones, and added citation needed tags where there is now none. Where a cite actually says that the bird is unofficial, I've added that in column 2. I would also like to find a form of words to expand the intro to explain what an official national bird is and what the different degrees of unofficial might be. Just because some radio station has a phone poll to choose a bird does not make it the unofficial national bird! --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 16:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections and Subsections
The page could also help from adding of sections or subsections, and maybe even several tables, like on other "national symbols" pages, as in splitting them up by region or continent. It would at least make it easier to navigate than simply bullets. Irish♣Pearl 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anguillian National Bird
As an Anguillian, I can say with 100% confidence that the Zenaida Dove (Turtle Dove as we call) it is our National Bird. However, I have no source to cite and although I'm confident in my knowledge, I still feel that in the name of being professional I should cite something... I'm not sure what I can really find online, as there isn't a whole lot out there on Anguilla's culture or history. (Most information is centered on tourist destinations and such.) Suggestions?

Seir Corall 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland - Chicken?
I've looked all over for a source for the claim of Switzerland's bird being the chicken, but so far all I can find is a lot of sources that say Switzerland has no national bird - or a few who claim the chicken in jest. I think that item should probably be removed. It's unsourced at best, and more than likely offensive to Swiss people, but I'll let people who are better researchers than myself make the call. Lurlock (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Garbage without references
What this page needs is some proper references, same as any page in Wikipedia. Then people will be able to clearly see the difference between official national birds, unoffical but commonly referenced ones, and completely made up ones (The Robin, for the UK, with no citation is ridiculous, for instance).

Tasks:

 * edit the page, and add proper tags to all existing URLs
 * List and explain the external sources properly
 * add a "citation needed" tag to each entry that is left —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osado (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Spain
Spain has no official national bird, or other kind of animal, what is said here about Short-toed Eagle is wrong.--Osado (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Countries Needed To Be On The List
Iceland has the gyrfalcon, Iraq has the chukar, and Poland has the white stork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.5.42 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added Iceland/Gyrfalcon. I can't find a usable cite for Iraq/Chukar and some places say white-tailed eagle is the national bird of Poland. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 15:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries with no bird, official or unofficial
I've been through this list and added cites (or cite needed) for each entry so I think it is a lot cleaner now. One thought - if a country has none, should it have an entry saying that? (For example, someone has deleted the row for Germany which was White Stork - cite needed). Otherwise, how do we know that the list (including negative entries) is complete? --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Austria
Generally, I believe the list needs a major clean-up. With regard to Austria I can find no evidence that the barn swallow (as stated) is the national bird (the source provided is absolutely ridiculous). Maybe there was a mix up with the "bird of the year 2010" which appears to be the swallow. According to this source (German only) Austria has declared the Great Egret as their national bird at the 12. "International Council for Bird Preservation" in Tokio 1960 (would make much more sense as well). However I have no access to a primary reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogi85 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

China
Red-crowned Crane is the unique candidate but not accepted due to its name is Japanese crane, what a shame!--刻意(Kèyì) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pidgeotto
Who put pidgeotto, a pokemon, for the United States? And how long has it been there? This is ridiculous, people. I will fix this. Anyway, I have added citations for several countries but can't find anything for Ireland or Malawi. Consider deletion? Thanks,Canada10wi (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Junk cites
There are a couple of web sites that list national birds but give no additional evidence. As mentioned above, the camacdonald list is junk and Eupedia is an unreferenced wiki. I worked through the entire list a while back and checked for reliable references for each country. It is not useful for people to replace cite needed tags with junk cites. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Newly elected national bird of the netherlands.
The Black-tailed godwit was elected the national bird of the Netherlands very recently, since we didn't have one yet.

I fear that if i try editing the article myself i might disfigure it horribly so i'll leave it to those who can do it.

The best of luck and thank you people for all you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.200.185 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Some user vandalized this page with this [||edit]. He replaced Pakistan's national bird with the Predator drone, an edit that's both funny and sad. Please raise the protection to atleast auto-confirmed. There are other such vandalisms like US having Pidgeotto as the national bird etc, this page is prone to such edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on List of national birds. 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/20110928075301/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/coat_of_arms.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/coat_of_arms.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622005600/http://www.hnb.hr:80/novcan/kovanice/e1kuna.htm?tsfsg=2f8fb802e4db3c45c05d9feb07991fe6 to http://www.hnb.hr/novcan/kovanice/e1kuna.htm?tsfsg=2f8fb802e4db3c45c05d9feb07991fe6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917234353/http://www.sthelenatourism.com/pages/bird_watching.html to http://www.sthelenatourism.com/pages/bird_watching.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
As noted in several of the talk sections above, this page is useless or misleading without citations to official sources. The List of national animals page had many of the same issues and was even nominated for deletion in 2014. To that end:

 * I have placed an edit warning similar to that found on the list of national animals page that warns that adding a bird to the list will require a reliable source, and that any uncited additions will be removed.
 * I propose that all unofficial listings should be deleted as they are just opinions or recommendations (CAN)
 * I propose that any remaining entries lacking citations from official (national government) sources also be stricken from the list

Yes, this course of action would drastically shorten the list but this is the only way to keep it credible. Alternatively, any entry with a reference other than the national governing body could be retained, but with the status set to "unofficial". Loopy30 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of national birds. 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/20091001012311/http://www.ab.gov.ag/gov_v2/shared/about_nationalsymbols.html to http://www.ab.gov.ag/gov_v2/shared/about_nationalsymbols.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113022038/http://www.redargentina.com/Faunayflora/Aves/hornero.asp to http://www.redargentina.com/Faunayflora/Aves/hornero.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918050750/http://www.radioflorida.co.cu/en/utility/national-symbols-of-cuba.asp to http://www.radioflorida.co.cu/en/utility/national-symbols-of-cuba.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619153047/http://www.jis.gov.jm/special_sections/This%20Is%20Jamaica/symbols.html to http://www.jis.gov.jm/special_sections/This%20Is%20Jamaica/symbols.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140913060625/http://www.japanlink.co.jp/ka/symb.htm to http://www.japanlink.co.jp/ka/symb.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://birds.poland.pl/directory/gallery%2CWhite-tailed_Eagle_%28Haliaeetus_albicilla%29%2Cgid%2C236008%2Ccid%2C923.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on List of national birds. 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/20110929171741/http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Belgium/Bird to http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Belgium/Bird
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716044115/http://web1.audubon.org/waterbirds/species.php?speciesCode=berpet to http://web1.audubon.org/waterbirds/species.php?speciesCode=berpet
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920190515/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/bhutan/cache/offonce/pid/7060%3Bjsessionid%3D7CEED270A343F0335A81BC5784139EC5 to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/bhutan/cache/offonce/pid/7060%3Bjsessionid%3D7CEED270A343F0335A81BC5784139EC5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612215119/http://brasilemb.org/brazil/national-symbols to http://www.brasilemb.org/brazil/national-symbols
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111080858/http://www.wcscambodia.org/saving-wild-places/northern-plains/bird-species-of-the-northern-plains.html to http://www.wcscambodia.org/saving-wild-places/northern-plains/bird-species-of-the-northern-plains.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714225305/http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/sparrow-china-national-bird-4004.html to http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/sparrow-china-national-bird-4004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920190726/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/dominicanrepublic/cache/offonce/pid/3263 to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/dominicanrepublic/cache/offonce/pid/3263
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910221511/http://www.ecuador-travel.net/biodiversity.birds.condor.htm to http://www.ecuador-travel.net/biodiversity.birds.condor.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717092342/http://www.travel-to-honduras.com/faq-10/51.php to http://www.travel-to-honduras.com/faq-10/51.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929171757/http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Myanmar/Bird to http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Myanmar/Bird
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724143818/http://www.mific.gob.ni/docushare/dsweb/GetRendition/Document-800/html to http://www.mific.gob.ni/docushare/dsweb/GetRendition/Document-800/html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929171805/http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Nigeria to http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Nigeria
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827084404/http://nationalheritage.gov.pk/nationalsymbols.html to http://www.nationalheritage.gov.pk/nationalsymbols.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825000537/http://portal.wildlife-pal.org/php/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=28 to http://portal.wildlife-pal.org/php/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=28
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615214910/http://www.habitat.org.pg/birds_of_paradise.htm to http://www.habitat.org.pg/birds_of_paradise.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916094321/http://www.go2peru.com/peru_birds_30.htm to http://www.go2peru.com/peru_birds_30.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161010162805/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/eagle.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/eagle.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817165952/http://www.sknvibes.com/Government/NationalSymbols.cfm to http://www.sknvibes.com/Government/NationalSymbols.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224075011/http://www.visitsvg.com/intro/symbol.html to http://www.visitsvg.com/intro/symbol.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214175852/http://ecologyasia.com/news-archives/2002/may-02/straitstimes.asia1.com.sg_singapore_story_0%2C1870%2C122962%2C00.html to http://www.ecologyasia.com/news-archives/2002/may-02/straitstimes.asia1.com.sg_singapore_story_0%2C1870%2C122962%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716023657/http://www.saembassy.org/aboutsa/bird.htm to http://www.saembassy.org/aboutsa/bird.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204060228/http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Sweden/Bird/ to http://www.geosymbols.org/World/Sweden/Bird
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725055043/http://zambiatourism.com/travel/traveladvice/general.htm to http://www.zambiatourism.com/travel/traveladvice/general.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of national birds. 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/20110714150516/http://www.namibstamps.com/namibia2004birds.htm to http://www.namibstamps.com/namibia2004birds.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aruban-Prikichi-Nov-2012-Jeff-Wells.jpg

Sweden = No
The blackbird is not an official national bird. According to sv.wik ipedia, a vote arranged by BirdLife Sverige made it the "national" bird. BirdLife Sverige is a NGO, hence no official status.Creuzbourg (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Barbados
Apparently the national bird of Barbados is the Brown Pelican, (Pelecanus occidentalis,) yet I cant seem to find any official sources that prove this fact. Also it seems like Barbados isn't even in this article.Vortex4020 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We require a reliable source, I'm afraid. If you find one, let us know! --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Italian sparrow
Can we add the Italian sparrow?80.180.105.109 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable citation that satisfies WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of national birds


text:
User talk:DANJO

For my first article, I would like to engage people to talk about what makes people believe that what they believe in is the only way to go. For instance some people have some religious or political beliefs that have been inculcated in them through culture, environment and other cliches. Yet very few people are willing to critique themselves.

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

title: User talk:DANJO


text: User talk:66.41.75.236

title: User talk:66.41.75.236


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comedy websites

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 20:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of comedy websites
Article is a list of links to external humour web sites. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a web guide. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a Web guide. The page is alsp inherently POV in selection, scope, and classification. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree --Anonymous Cow 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, wikipedia is not a web guide. Megan1967 07:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Another "incomplete list with two items" article brought to you by SamuraiClinton. android↔talk 15:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * These websites have offhand humor and they are stupendous. how can you hate that? ... del WP is not a web directory, and if it was, it would at least be complete. BigFatDave 21:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 01:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Mcfly85 06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Meaning of pain

NOPV
Looks like advocacy of a certain religious point of view. Should be either removed or re-written. --DuKot 03:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. It sounds rather Christian. He should also mention Rabbi Akiva: "Suffering is good" JFW | T@lk  23:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the Christian worldview Pain can also be good. - also everything has a religious basis. Atheism is a religion. Everything ties into what you believe. This should NOT be removed or edited. Its truth. - Curtis

I'm not touching that with a ten-foot stick, but readers may want to know that the article had quite a bit of interesting but hardly encyclopedic content that was nuked and is accessible [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meaning_of_pain&diff=17400748&oldid=13291795 here]. --Kizor 07:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine, you only interpret it as religious. He is right in what he says and I cannot think of a simpler way to say it.

Vote for Rewrite or Deletion
The style of this article is unprofessional. The points of the argument sometimes repeat and sometimes leap. It is unnecessarily 1st person rather than expository. There is a lack of primary source materials in reference to pedigree of philisophical concepts and recommended actions. The personalities mentioned are primarily theologans, but this is treated as a philisophical article, which is a misnomer that needs to be addressed.

If rewritten with these points in mind it will certainly fair better under scrutiny. There is a kernal of a potentially great article here. LambaJan 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed; it's a worthwhile subject but it needs to be rewritten with heavy citations and a clearer structure. ERobson 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As discussion on this has been dead for awhile, and there is a pain (philosophy) page that seems to be fairly duplicitous with this one, I'm going to redirect from this page to that. Not only do we not need both pages, I feel as if "Meaning of pain" is a rather fuzzy subset of "philosophy of pain," and should not have its own article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert my changes. Rock. --ILikeThings 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meaning of pain


text:
The March (1945)

"The March" refers to a series of forced marches during the final stages of the Second World War in Europe. From a total of 257,000 western Allied prisoners of war held in German military prison camps, over 80,000 POWs were forced to march westward across Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany in extreme winter conditions, over about four months between January and April 1945. This series of events has been called various names: "The Great March West", "The Long March", "The Long Walk", "The Long Trek", "The Black March", "The Bread March", and "Death March Across Germany", but most survivors just called it "The March".

As the Soviet Army was advancing on the Eastern front, German authorities decided to evacuate POW camps, to delay liberation of the prisoners. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of German civilian refugees, most of them women and children, as well as civilians of other nationalities, were also making their way westward on foot.

Notorious examples include:
 * from Stalag Luft IV at Gross Tychow in Pomerania the prisoners faced an 800 km trek in blizzard conditions across Germany, during which hundreds died, and;
 * a march from Stalag VIII-B, known as the "Lamsdorf Death March", which was similar to the better-known Bataan Death March (1942) in terms of mortality rates.
 * from Stalag Luft III in Silesia to Bavaria

Motives
On 19 July 1944, Adolf Hitler issued an order from his headquarters, Wolfsschanze, 150 km west of Stalag Luft VI, "concerning preparations for the defence of the Reich". It put the German civilian population on total war footing and issued instructions for preparations for evacuations of "foreign labour" (slave labour) and civilians away from the advancing Soviet Army in the east. Item 6(a) called for "preparations for moving prisoners of war to the rear". This prolonged the war for hundreds of thousands of Allied personnel, as well as causing them severe hardship, starvation, injuries and/or death.

In the later stages of the war there were great concerns among POWs over the motives for moving them westward. Many different and conflicting rumours abounded, including suggestions that:
 * They were being moved towards concentration camps to be killed, in revenge for Allied commanders' deliberate targeting of civilians in cities such as Dresden.
 * POWs would be force-marched until their deaths from exhaustion, a practice that had already been made notorious by the Japanese military (see, for instance: Bataan Death March).
 * They would be held hostage to leverage peace deals, including claims that they would be held at a national redoubt in the Alps. This claim was backed up by SS General Gottlob Berger, who was appointed general commander of POW camps during 1944. Berger stated during his trial for war crimes (1948), that Hitler had considered a threat to execute 35,000 POWs, unless the Allies agreed to a peace deal. Similarly, SS chief Heinrich Himmler had made similar plans, centred on the Baltic coastal region and set up a new headquarters in a castle on the Bay of Lübeck.

Main evacuation routes to the west
Robert Schirmer was the Red Cross delegate in northern Germany when the evacuation of POW camps was taking place. His situation report was received in London and Washington on 18 February 1945. He is likely to have seen a group of marchers on the road in Pomerania. He had knowledge of the overall POW situation in Germany, and his report described three main POW evacuation routes to the west:

 * The "northern route", included POWs from Stalag XX-B, Stalag XX-A and Stalag Luft IV. Many of the men in Stalag Luft VI, the camp closest to the Russian advance, were transported to Stalag XX-A by train in July 1944, and so took part in the evacuation from there. (This is the group that included Dixie Deans.) Schirmer estimated that 100,000 POWs took the northern route. It went to Stalag Luft IV at Gross Tychow, Pomerania then via Stettin to Stalag XI-B and Stalag 357 at Fallingbostel. Some prisoners were marched from here at the end of the war towards Lübeck, however, for most, Fallingbostel was their final destination. The route involved crossing the River Oder and the Elbe. In interpreting Schirmer's description, Nichol and Rennell emphasise that the various groups of POWs were distributed across an area of more than 500 mi2, with some still far behind on roads to the west of Danzig (Gdansk): so the reality was much less organised than it might first appear.
 * A "central route", started at Stalag Luft 7 at Bankau, near Kreuzburg in Silesia (now Poland), via Stalag 344 (formerly and usually known as Stalag VIII-B) at Lamsdorf, to Stalag VIII-A at Görlitz, then ending at Stalag III-A at Luckenwalde, 30 km south of Berlin.
 * The "southern route", from Stalag VIII-B (formerly Stalag VIII-D) at Teschen (not far from Auschwitz) which led through Czechoslovakia, towards Stalag XIII-D at Nuremberg and then onto Stalag VII-A at Moosburg in Bavaria.

The direction of travel was not consistent. An individual group would sometimes travel in circles and end up at a previous stopping point; it often zig-zagged. Charles Waite describes his route as: Marienburg (Stalag XX-B), Neustettin, Nuebrandenburg, Schwerin, heading for Lübeck but diverting south to Wittenberge, Stendal (after crossing the frozen Elbe), Magdeburg, Halle (just north of Leipzig), Luckenwalde, Belzig, Brandenburg, eastwards towards Potsdam and then in the direction of Berlin. Waite estimated the distance covered as 1,600 km. Comparison of this route with Schirmer's description of the three lines of march may suggest to the reader that his group started on the northern line of march and finished on the central one.

According to Nichol and Rennell, the forced march of thousands of western Allied POWs from Stalag Luft VI at Heydekrug beginning in July 1944 was the first of the series of marches known as the Long March. The POWs were marched either to Stalag Luft IV at Gross Tychow (a journey which also involved a 60-hour journey by ship to Swinemünde), or to Stalag XX-A at Thorn in Poland (with part of the distance covered by cattle train).

The marches
January and February 1945 were among the coldest winter months of the 20th century in Europe, with blizzards and temperatures as low as –25 °C (–13 °F), and even until the middle of March, temperatures were well below 0 °C (32 °F). Most of the POWs were ill-prepared for the evacuation, having suffered years of poor rations and wearing clothing ill-suited to the appalling winter conditions.

In most camps, the POWs were broken up in groups of 250 to 300 men and because of the inadequate roads and the flow of battle, not all the prisoners followed the same route. The groups would march 20 - 40 km a day, resting in factories, churches, barns and even in the open. Soon long columns of POWs were wandering over the northern part of Germany with little or nothing in the way of food, clothing, shelter or medical care.

Prisoners from different camps had different experiences: sometimes the Germans provided farm wagons for those unable to walk. There seldom were horses available, so teams of POWs pulled the wagons through the snow. Sometimes the guards and prisoners became dependent on each other, other times the guards became increasingly hostile. Passing through some villages, the residents would throw bricks and stones, and in others, the residents would share their last food. Some groups of prisoners were joined by German civilians who were also fleeing from the Russians. Some who tried to escape or could not go on were shot by guards.

Those with intact boots had the dilemma of whether to remove them at night - if they left them on, trench foot could result; if they removed them, they may not get their swollen feet back into their boots in the morning or get frostbite. Worse still, the boots could freeze or be stolen.

With so little food they were reduced to scavenging to survive. Some were reduced to eating dogs and cats — and even rats and grass—anything they could obtain. Already underweight from years of prison rations, some were at half their pre-war body weight by the end.

Because of the unsanitary conditions and a near starvation diet, hundreds of POWs died of disease along the way and many more were ill. Dysentery was common: according to Robert Schirmer, a Red Cross delegate in Germany, 80% of the POWs on the northern line of march were suffering from this disease. Sufferers had the indignity of soiling themselves whilst having to continue to march, and being further weakened by the debilitating effects of illness. Dysentery was easily spread from one group to another when they followed the same route and rested in the same places. Many POWs suffered from frostbite which could lead to gangrene. Typhus, spread by body lice, was a risk for all POWs, but was now increased by using overnight shelter previously occupied by infected groups. Some men simply froze to death in their sleep.

In addition to these conditions were the dangers from air attack by Allied forces mistaking the POWs for retreating columns of German troops. On April 19, 1945, at a village called Gresse, 30 Allied POWs died and 30 were seriously injured (possibly fatally) when strafed by a flight of RAF Typhoons.

As winter drew to a close, suffering from the cold abated and some of the German guards became less harsh in their treatment of POWs. But the thaw rendered useless the sledges made by many POWs to carry spare clothing, carefully preserved food supplies and other items. So, the route became littered with items that could not be carried. Some even discarded their greatcoats, hoping that the weather did not turn cold again. As the columns reached the western side of Germany they ran into the advancing western Allied armies. For some, this brought liberation. Others were not so lucky. They were marched towards the Baltic Sea, where Nazis were rumoured to be using POWs as human shields and hostages. It was later estimated that a large number of POWs had marched over 800 km by the time they were liberated, and some had walked nearly 1500 km.

New Zealander Norman Jardine explained how, once liberated, his group of POWs were given a revolver by a U.S. Army officer and told to shoot any guards who had treated them unfairly. He stated that "We did!"

On 4 May 1945 RAF Bomber Command implemented Operation Exodus, and the first prisoners of war were repatriated by air. Bomber Command flew 2,900 sorties over the next 23 days, carrying 72,500 prisoners of war.

Total number of deaths
The total number of US POWs in Germany was in the region of 93,000-94,000 and official sources claim that 1,121 died. The British Commonwealth total was close to 180,000 and while no accurate records exist, if a similar casualty rate is assumed, the number who died would be around 2,200. Therefore, according to a report by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, almost 3,500 US and Commonwealth POWs died as a result of the marches. It is possible that some of these deaths occurred before the death marches, but the marches would have claimed the vast majority.

Nichol and Rennell, after detailed enquiries with the British authorities, concluded that no consolidated figures for deaths of British and Commonwealth POWs was kept. They are only able to put forward a "guess" of between 2,500 and 3,500 American, British and Commonwealth POW deaths on the marches.

Other estimates vary greatly, with one magazine for former POWs putting the number of deaths from the Gross Tychow march alone at 1,500. A senior YMCA official closely involved with the POW camps put the number of Commonwealth and American POW deaths at 8,348 between September 1944 and May 1945.

It is possible to get an impression of the casualty rate among Commonwealth POWs from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website. The casualties of the March who have a known grave have mostly been reburied in the larger war cemeteries in Germany. In cemeteries away from the line of advance of Commonwealth troops, army (as opposed to air force) casualties from January 1945 onwards have a high chance of representing POWs who died on the March. For POW casualties with no known graves, their names should appear on a campaign memorial, such as the Dunkirk Memorial, and the date of death suggests whether or not it occurred on the March. Army casualties in 1945 buried at Durnbach War Cemetery, the Berlin 1939-1945 War Cemetery or appearing on the Dunkirk Memorial total 469; this must exclude RAF and Naval personnel, POWs buried in other cemeteries, or those with unknown graves who were taken prisoner in other campaigns. This may be consistent with the 2,200 estimated total shown above.

Blame for the marches
SS Generalleutnant Gottlob Berger, who was put in charge of POW camps in 1944, was arrested and put on trial in the Ministries Trial in 1947. In 1949 there was an attempt to assign blame for the marches against Berger and the indictment read:

"that between September 1944 and May 1945, hundreds of thousands of American and Allied prisoners of war were compelled to undertake forced marches in severe weather without adequate rest, shelter, food, clothing and medical supplies; and that such forced marches, conducted under the authority of the defendant Berger, chief of Prisoner-of-War Affairs, resulted in great privation and deaths to many thousands of prisoners."

Berger argued that it was in fact the Germans' duty under the 1929 Geneva Convention to remove POWs from a potential combat zone, as long as it did not put their lives in even greater danger. He also claimed that the rapid advance of the Red Army had surprised the Germans, who had planned to transport the POWs by train. He stated that he had protested against the decision made by Hitler. According to Berger, he was "without power or authority to countermand or avoid the order". He was acquitted due to these statements and the lack of eyewitness evidence—most ex-POWs were completely unaware of the trial taking place.

However, in 1949, Berger was convicted for his role in the genocide of European Jews and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The sentence was reduced to 10 years in 1951 because of his refusal to kill the "Prominente" (famous or high-ranking Allied officers), who were held at Oflag IV-C (Colditz Castle), despite direct orders from Hitler. He had helped these prisoners escape by moving them to Bavaria and then to Austria where he met with them twice before they were returned to American forces. Berger claimed that he had saved the Prominente from Gestapo head Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who had sent agents to kill them.

Berger was released from prison in 1951 and died in 1975.

Timeline of POW evacuations

 * 13 July 1944 – -evacuation of Stalag Luft VI at Šilutė (Heydekrug) in Lithuania begins, to Stalag Luft IV at Gross Tychow involving a force march and 60hr journey by ship to Swinemünde, or by force march and cattle train to Stalag XX-A at Thorn in Poland.
 * 24 December 1944 – POW work camps near Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) are evacuated.
 * 27 December 1944 to April 1945 – POWs at Stalag VIII-B (formerly Stalag VIII-D) at Teschen began their forced march through Czechoslovakia, towards Dresden, then towards Stalag XIII-D at Nuremberg and finally on to Stalag VII-A at Moosburg in Bavaria.
 * 12 January 1945 – Red Army launched offensive in Poland and East Prussia.
 * 19 January 1945 – evacuation from Stalag Luft 7 at Bankau, near Kreuzberg, Poland, begins in blizzard conditions – 1,500 prisoners were force marched then loaded onto cattle trucks and taken to Stalag III-A at Luckenwalde, south of Berlin. Evacuation of work party 344 at (Piaski), part of Stalag VIIB, prisoners commenced march on foot.
 * 20 January 1945 – Stalag XX-A at Thorn, Poland, started evacuation.
 * 22 January 1945 – Stalag 344 at Lamsdorf, Silesia was evacuated.
 * 23 January 1945 – Evacuation began at Stalag XX-B at Marienburg, Danzig.
 * 27 January 1945 to February 1945 – evacuation began at Stalag Luft III, Sagan, to either Stalag III-A at Luckenwalde, 30 km south of Berlin, or to Marlag und Milag Nord, near Bremen, or to Stalag XIII-D, near Nuremberg, then onto Stalag VII-A near Moosburg, Bavaria.
 * 29 January 1945 - Stalag IID Stargard (now Stargard Szczeciński, Poland) was evacuated. Almost a thousand men struggled into formation. There were about five-hundred Russians, two-hundred Frenchmen, one-hundred Americans and twenty-five Canadians in the march. The POWs were put on a forced march along a northern route in blizzard conditions via Settin (Szczecin) to arrive at Stalag II-A, Neubrandenburg on February 7, 1945.
 * 6 February 1945 to March 1945 – Evacuation from Stalag Luft IV at Gross Tychow, Pomerania began an eighty-six-day forced march to Stalag XI-B and Stalag 357 at Fallingbostel. Many prisoners were then marched from here at the end of the war towards Lübeck.
 * 8 February 1945 – Stalag VIII-C at Sagan was evacuated. The POWs marched across Germany to Stalag IX-B near Bad Orb, and arrive there 16 March.
 * 10 February 1945 – Stalag VIII-A at Görlitz was evacuated.
 * 14 February 1945 – Commonwealth and US bomber squadrons attacked Dresden.
 * 19 March 1945 – Hitler issued the Nero Decree.
 * 3 April 1945 – Stalag XIII-D at Nuremberg was evacuated.
 * 6 April 1945 – Stalag XI-B and Stalag 357 at Fallingbostel were evacuated.
 * 16 April 1945 – Oflag IV-C, (Colditz Castle), was liberated.
 * 16 April 1945 – POWs left behind at Fallingbostel were liberated by the British Second Army.
 * 17 April 1945 – Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was liberated.
 * 19 April 1945 – POW column was attacked by allied aircraft at Gresse resulting in 60 fatalities.
 * 22 April 1945 – Stalag III-A at Luckenwalde was liberated by Soviet forces.
 * 27 April 1945 – US and Soviet forces met at the River Elbe.
 * 29 April 1945 – Stalag VII-A at Moosburg was liberated by Patton's Third United States Army.
 * 30 April 1945 – Berlin falls to the Red Army and Hitler commits suicide.
 * 4 May 1945 – German forces surrendered on Lüneburg Heath.
 * 10 May 1945 – The last POWs evacuated from Stalag 357 / Stalag XI-B at Fallingbostel are liberated.
 * 12 May 1945 – The Red Army releases Commonwealth and US POWs at Stalag III-A, Luckenwalde.

title: The March (1945)


text: User talk:81.224.113.227

title: User talk:81.224.113.227


text:
User:Wendydrag

be Inspired, seek God's love and you will find.

title: User:Wendydrag


text:
Talk:Comparison of American and Canadian football

Untitled
This was broken out as a separate article because the original Canadian football article was becoming so long. Rlquall 03:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

terminology
Because this is now its own article, some of the terminology must be altered from Canadian to universal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfat (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed recently that some terminology for at least players who first played football in the United States, but then moved to Canada and played in the CFL are now being called gridiron football players. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them American-Canadian football players or if they started playing football in Canada and went to the NFL or an American college, be called Canadian-American football players? I first noticed this in the Recent Additions column on the Wikipedia English main page, where 3 such players were all being called gridiron football players. Gridiron is a term used outside North America and the gridiron system for football was abandoned by the 1920s. EagleTech199 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 * You have a point. I pulled up three articles on cross-border QBs: Warren Moon, Vince Ferragamo, and Doug Flutie. Flutie's lead flowed well, that he's a former player of American football and Canadian football.

 * That said, I wouldn't use the hyphenated style, because that makes readers think nationality rather than two varieties of the sport. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

One point plays in American football
The article says

 * Other than conversions, there is no single-point score in American football

There is, however, a one-point safety, at least in NCAA football. See, for example,. I suppose the text in the article covers this case (as the safety was scored on a conversion attempt), but I think the text is misleading. I don't understand the NCAA rule well enough to characterize it for the article, but perhaps someone with more knowledge can. Molinari 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The only one-point scores in American football are all conversions: a touchdown during a conversion attempt is worth two points, while a field goal or safety is worth one. So, as of 2005, the only way for a football game to end 1-0 in the US is for it to be a forfeit. (As of...2003 I think was the last time, a high school game under Georgia's state-specific rules could end 1-0 through the old "penetration" overtime system, but that's another matter entirely.) C.Fred 02:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Team size
From the "Team size" section of the article: "on the defensive end of the ball, two safeties are employed instead of one."

The suggestion that American football employs only one safety is wrong. American football features two safeties (free safety and strong safety) in the base defense (usually 4 linemen, 3 linebackers, 2 cornerbacks, and 2 safeties).

Something else I read somewhere there is often an extra linebacker in Canadian football (4-4?), or something called a "defensive halfback". We don't have defensive halfbacks in American football.

Perhaps someone familiar with Canadian football can fix this. (Or I can do it sometime when I have time to research it.) - gohlkus 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Metric
Is it necessary to have metric conversions? Distances in both North American football codes are measured in yards, not metres. Iceberg3k 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. They're in as a courtesy to international readers or Canadians unfamiliar with imperial measurement. At least in defining the dimensions of the field and goals, they should be present. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The XX-yard line is an example where metric should not be used. 216.179.123.102 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the article, there are some excessive conversions. I would say, in the definitions of the field and the ball, use them. Since the rest of the measurements are by rule (e.g. 15 yard penalties), do not convert. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Kicker advancing the ball
This part is sort of unclear to me:

"Kicker advancing the ball

The Canadian kicker, or a player behind the kicker when he kicks the ball, may recover his own kick and advance with the ball. American kickers are not allowed to do so, except on a kick-off, when the kicker and anyone behind him (i.e., the entire team, lest they be off-side), are eligible to recover the ball, so long as it has progressed at least ten yards down the field; hence the "onside kick" play. Canadian football extends this principle to all kicks, including those downfield."

Does this mean on kickoffs or punts? Because if it's punts, then most of the players would be in front of the punter, right?

--Awiseman 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. I think it's just a round-about way of saying on-side players may recover a kick.  Double Blue  (Talk) 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Teams may leave a (usually very speedy) man in the backfield to recover a kick, but this is usually when a quick-kick is run as a trick play to gain yardage. But yes, everybody on a kickoff is onside—unless they're offside at the kick, of the 5-yard penalty variety. On punts, generally only the punter is onside. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still pretty confusing however, could one of you two rewrite it? I don't want to do it and mess it up further. --Awiseman 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I broke it out into four paragraphs: all kicks in Canada, kickoffs in the US, scrimmage kicks in the US, and all blocked scrimmage kicks. This hopefully makes it clearer and easier to follow. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

so can the quarterback kick to the WR instead of throw if he wants to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.248.219 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

History
The second paragraph starts Football was introduced to North America...

Was this Rugby (as the above paragraph implies), Soccer, or another form? Ubermonkey 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it was rugby but the rules were pretty loose in those days and evolved into North American football gradually. Canadian football was, in fact, called rugby football into the 1950s.  Double Blue  (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the evolution is beyond the scope of this article, I have made the word "introduced" in the above quote as a link to History of American football. That gives the reader quick access to the history. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who thinks statistics for players who played in both leagues are "combined". The NFL, and more specifically, the NFL Hall of Fame Committee, does not recognize stats from the CFL, while they do recognize stats from the AAFC and the AFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.196.111 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could this be put in a table?
I was thinking that this would look cleaner in a table, and various forms of north american football could be added (i.e. NCAA ruleset, NFL ruleset, XFL ruleset,Arena Football .....) Duke toaster 19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The problem is, a lot of this lends itself to narrative form, and multiple columns would look ugly. By contrast, I think a table would be appropriate in American football rules when discussing penalties and yardage, but that's another matter entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Duke toaster that a table would be cleaner but I also agree with C.Fred that it may be too difficult to make clean and clear in a table. See for an example. Perhaps a briefer version could be made in a table with just the highlights after all the narrative explanations.  Double Blue  (Talk) 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dialect choice
Football articles are rough for US/Canada border stories, because offen[cs]e, defen[ce], and cent[er|re] are important to the terminology. I know for first reference the last, it's done as center (centre in Canada). We interchange throughout the article, though, with the first two. What should the convention be? Since it's used in generic usage to cover both, we can't go by the code being discussed all the time. It's a minor issue, but it's something a reader would notice, especially if we want someday to make a featured article out of this. I'm also on the fence about which dialect to use (but leaning Canadian). Does anybody have a compelling reason to use one or the other? —C.Fred (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll disclose my bias for Canadian spelling first but, nevertheless, make a plea for it. Articles on American things can be reasonably expected to be spelled American.  This particular article is on an inherently international interest and, therefore, should be spelled in the international English.  Only the United States changed "centre" to "center", while the rest of the English-speaking world has maintained the original.  Double Blue  (Talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible retooling and move
I just read the Gridiron football page, wich is little more than a glorified DAB page with no sources. Merging the article with something else has been discussed, but no concensus was reached. One user mentioned redirect that page to North American football, but there is no such page. THis got me thinking that perhaps we could merge Gridiron football and this page, and move the result to North American football. This page already includes a short history of both variants, and could be expanded some more. THe differences section is probably fine as-is. One alternative is just to move the history section to North American football, merging it with Gridiron football, and leaving the differences section here. Comments? - BillCJ 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rule creates unusual strategy
Quote: "Following a successful field goal, in Canadian rules, the team scored upon has the option of receiving a kickoff, kicking off from its 35-yard line, or scrimmaging at its own 35-yard line. In American football, there is a kickoff by the scoring team after every score, with the exception of safeties (see below). The option for the scored-upon team to kick off after a touchdown exists in American amateur football, but it is very rarely exercised."

I recall watching a CFL game on US television, when Willie Wood (former NFL star) was coaching a CFL team: it must have been Toronto in 1980 or 1981. Very late in the game, the opposing team had just scored to draw within a touchdown of the Argos, and the broadcasters were telling of how an onside kick was forthcoming and how good this team was at executing said play.

Wood's response was to exercise the option to have his team kick off instead (the kickoff was from the 45-yard line in those days), and this worked to stifle the opponents' comeback attempt. He gave them the ball, but on his own terms.

I have never seen an NFL or NCAA team elect to do this, and wondered if it is common in the CFL. WHPratt (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've watched pretty much every CFL game from about 2000 onwards and have never seen this. It's certainly not common, I didn't even know it existed. Maybe it was removed since you saw it. SteveLalancette (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2021 (EST)

 * The rules now do not allow for the scored-upon team to kick after a touchdown, and they may only elect to kick after a field goal before the three minute warning in the fourth quarter. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

safeties
"In 2009, the CFL changed the latter option to be a kick-off from their own 25-yard line." It would seem that this was in response to too many teams opting for an intentional safety rather than risk a punt near their own goal area -- there were three in quick succession by one team in a Grey Cup game a couple of years ago. If so, this should be mentioned. (It doesn't seem to have worked. In the few CFL games I've seen this year, the safety seems almost automatic.  They should have required a kickoff from the 10-yard line.  Or, perhaps, award four points for a safety.) WHPratt (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The TSN announcers seem to agree about why the rule was changed. I'm not sure this is the article for the analysis of why the change was made, though; the CFL's article would probably be the place to include TSN's and/or CFL's observations about why the rule was changed and what the results have been. That said, a comparison of the rates of conceding a safety between the CFL and NFL would be within the realm of this article, provided it's not original research. (Safeties are much rarer in the US; safeties are conceded typically late in a game with an odd margin between the teams.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that the reasoning for the rule change does not belong in this comparison article. This article by Glen Suitor does, however, analyse why the rule change would make a difference in the strategy and this CFL release credits the fans desire to reduce the number of teams "taking a knee" and wanting more punt return possibilities. Double Blue  (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't have any statistics but it's clear to me that there have been several instances this year where the team would have given up a safety last year but this year did not. In fact, I've seen few safeties given when there was a choice. Double Blue  (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guilty of generalizing from a small sample. But it is very rare in the NFL. Almost always very late in the game, and with a six-point lead (which isn't all that much better than a four point lead).WHPratt (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Hey, how come the punter always runs around with the ball until they chase him out the back of the endzone? I can see using up the clock if you're leading late in the game, but doing it in the first quarter just looks silly. WHPratt (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Substitution rules
Danged if I can remember where I read it, but for some reason I was under the impression that Canadian football did not all the free substitution that is common in American football. Instead, I thought that each team was limited to something like three substitutions after each play. This limited the use of specialists and favored the development of more well rounded players. For example, a player might be a tackle on offense and then play as a defensive end.

However, I can't find any cites, so I must be dreaming. Does Canadian football have any rules like this? Did such a rule ever exist? Is there or was there some other league that had a rule like this?

Just curious. Thanks. Steven Marzolian (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Rules of that nature haven't been in effect since...since football in the US limited substitution. Off the top of my head, there are three substitution differences in CFL: an injured player is out for three plays; the referee will stop the clock before third down when wholesale special-teams substitutions occur; and when the offence breaks the huddle, no further substitutions are allowed by either team (the linesman and line judge extend their arms horizontally - "the gates" - to note that substitutions must stop). —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * C.Fred is right. It is true, however, that there is less specialisation and many players play on special teams as well but that's because of the limited roster of 42 players dressed for the game. Double Blue  (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * There also used to be rules regarding "import" (i.e., non-Canadian) players, such as: a team could alternate two imported quarterbacks and only use up one of their import slots, but couldn't put both of them on the field at the same time, things like that. Maybe some are still in force.WHPratt (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, the limits on import players are still in place. Quarterbacks don't count as import/non-import. A CFL team may have up to three quarterbacks on their roster, who may not lineup on defence. A key rule change this year relaxes the rules on where the QB can line up on offence. Before this year, he had to be in position to receive the snap. With this year's change, a team can run the "wildcat" formation with a runningback set to receive the snap and the designated quarterback at receiver/slot. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Field goals, singles and touchbacks
Quote: "In Canadian football any kick that goes into the end zone is a live ball, except for a successful field goal or if the goalposts are hit while the ball is in flight."

This point (or rather, lack of a point) was driven home in a game I saw just last weekend. A team trailing by one point attempted a field goal with seconds left. The kick hit the goal post and bounced back. Had the kicker missed badly, I presume he'd have scored a single and tied the game (unless the opponents managed to bring the ball out past the goal line). He was too close for his own good.WHPratt (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I saw that game and remember thinking "Just don't hit the upright" before he kicked. Of course, his cause wasn't helped that they committed a time-count foul - 10 yards in the last 3 minutes of the half - while lining up for the kick.

 * I've also seen games end the other way. Tie game, time running out. Offence lines up for a field goal. Defence rushes 10 but puts their punter and field-goal kicker deep in the end zone, so that if the kick is wide, they can return kick it out of the end zone and not give up the single. The field goal attempt is wide but goes just over the punter's outstretched hands for the game-winning single point. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * :-( Just can't stop making me re-live that can you. Perfect kick from 47 yards but it was after the 20 second clock had run out so re-do from 57. Medlock has a monstrous foot and I'm thinking possible win but at least a tie but ... http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/scores/gamelog/?id=873637 :-( Double Blue  (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm trying to think who the winning team was in the game I recounted. It was either Toronto or Hamilton against Winnipeg, since I'm pretty sure the ball went over Bob Cameron. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Hope you don't mind my moving the margin back for this . ..

I managed to find a short write-up of "Canada's first All-Star football game" in The New York Times of December 4, 1955. It was apparently staged for charity (children's hospitals.) Those interested should be able to locate the microfilm at their public libraries. It's on page S1, presumably the front of the Sports section. Perhaps Canadian papers had more detailed coverage. If someone wants to rework this into one of the other articles, be my guest -- this is my own summary, and not verbatim. It must have been quite a show.

The December 3 game (a week after the Grey Cup contest) was played on Toronto mud (it was raining) before 15,083 spectators.

The West squad took a 5-0 lead on a second-quarter touchdown by Gordon Sturtridge (of Saskatchewan). Sturtridge knocked the ball loose as quarterback Sam Etchverry tried to pass out of his own end zone, and then recovered the ball himself. Jackie Parker's extra point attempt was blocked. (That's correct: a Canadian touchdown was worth five points during the 1950s.) A single, on a Bob Heydenfeldt (Edmonton) kick early in the fourth quarter made it 6-0.

The East tied the game at 6-6 about the nine-minute mark on a pass from Tom Dublinski (Toronto) to Hal Patterson (Montreal). Patterson also scored the extra point because kicker Tom Tracy suffered a high snap, but caught it and managed to complete a pass.

With less than a minute to play, the West tried for a minimalist win. Heydenfelt punted into the East end zone, where Cam Fraser fielded the ball and punted it back – to Heydenfeldt, who got off yet another kick. However, the play ended with the ball at the East's 40 yard line after a no-yards penalty.

Dublinski completed a 42-yard pass to Al Pfeifer (also of Toronto). This permitted Fraser to make a last-second kick, which Jackie Parker kicked back as time ran out. Because Parker had been roughed, the West got another play, but chose to fall on the ball.

Sturtridge almost scored another defensive touchdown an amazing play. The East was within a yard of a touchdown when Sturtridge broke up a pitchout, and dribbled the ball the length of the field. However, Hal Waggoner (Hamilton) caught up to him and recovered at the other one-yard line. WHPratt (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This article is biased towards Canadian football. 128.211.198.168 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * How so? —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Language variants
As the article has used a hodpodge mix of styles for far too long, I'd like to recomend that one style be chosen and used consistently.

I find it odd that an article comparing American football, which is both played and watched by far more people than the other variant, must use the language variant of the game played and watched by less people. Also, given that, as a generalization, Canadians know more about America and Ammerican football than the reverse, it is far more likely that more Amercians would com to this article to learn the dfferences than Canadians. Therefore, I recommend the article be standardized on the US variant of English. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Where's a case where the article uses American style, other than in directly describing the American term where both are presented (center/centre)? If anything, your edits have introduced a mixture more than they've eliminated a mixture. And finally, what's a compelling case under WP:ENGVAR to change? —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I gave you my reasonings, which you haven't addressed. This will continue to be an issue as long as the variant of English used is that of a minority of the readers here. You can use ENGVAR to stonewall that if you wish, simply because the article was once part of the CFL article, but the problem will continue. You can try to adapt to the majority of readers, or you hold rigidly to a guideline, for whatever reasons. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The problem is, the article is the comparison of American and Canadian football, so national ties are not inherently stronger on either side of the border. The likelihood of American readers isn't a valid rationale for the change; by sheer numbers, it's more likely that American readers will read any subject on Wikipedia. That's why the MOS says to prefer a national variety when there is a strong national tie if one exists, and if not, to retain the existing variety. As I said before, the article is in Canadian English and has been since 2006. With no strong tie and no evidence of mixed dialect, the MOS says to leave it as be. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * There is no "hodgepodge"; it is in Canadian English and has been so since the beginning. Your theories of who would read the article are interesting but only a theory. I could argue that it is more likely that people will read this article are Canadians who are far more likely to see both sports. It doesn't really matter though because the relevant guideline is WP:ENGVAR which says not to have lame arguments to change the spelling an article is written in. If you cannot handle the Canadian spelling, shield your eyes, brace your limbs, or avoid these sort of articles. Double Blue  (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Um, what if paragraphs and sentences use the spelling that is indigenous to the country whose game is being described? That is, the paragraph that describes primarily the Canadian game uses "centre" and "colour", while the paragraph that describes primarily the American game uses "center" and "color".  If a paragraph covers both, then sentences are split?  Not entirely satisfactory, I would agree.

 * Perhaps it could be driven by context, bearing in mind that most Canadians are functional with American spelling as long as the context is clear. "The trophy case is in the center of the center." in the US, and "The trophy case is in the center of the centre." in Canada.  Based on that, use American spelling throughout the article (yes, I'm a Canuck and I'm usually a stickler for using my native land's spelling rules) for the most part, except the proper names of Canadian places (e.g. the Air Canada Centre). GBC (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Not really a workable solution. At least you didn't throw out stupid insults like the previous poster. I'm sorry I missed the oppurtunity to give a civility warning! - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yard marks
Should not the article state the differences in marking of yards? I never watch the game as it is of no interest to me, but I'm taking a writer's interest in it to be able to utilize references more properly. I understand that in the Canadian game, the highest value (55 yards) is in the center, while in the American game, my understanding is that the highest value (50 yards) is at the goal lines. GBC (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * No, both fields have the highest value at midfield. The typical field is numbered every 10 yards. The Canadian field does add a mark at midfield, usually a C rather than the number 55. Net result is, looking every 5 yards, the fields are numbered like this. (Goal lines and midfield are bolded only for visual reference.)

American: G. 10  .  20   .  30   .  40   .  50   .  40   .  30   .  20   .  10   .   G Canadian: G. 10  .  20   .  30   .  40   .  50   C  50. 40  .  30   .  20   .  10   .   G
 * In all cases, the number is the distance to the nearest goal line. (Compare that with rugby union, where the 22-metre lines are 22 m out from the goal lines, but the 10-metre lines are 10 m from the half-way line.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian first
The article is titled "Comparison of American and Canadian football" implying that comparisons are being made of the slight differences between American vs. Canadian games. Many of the articles compare Canadian vs. American games. Shouldn't the comparisons list the American stats first and compare them to the Canadian stats as the title implies ? UrbanNerd (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The title presents the two in alphabetical order; that's a WP:Article titles convention. I think the comparisons list Canadian first on the assumption* that readers are more familiar with the American standards, so the Canadian terms are the more "interesting" and are thus listed first. * And yes, I know what happens when you assume. I don't think it's a problem to have the title read as A and C and the comparisons all in C vs. A order. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearer diagram for Canadian football field is needed
The article has a diagram for each type of football. The diagram for the American football field is an overhead diagram that clearly shows the dimensions and markings on the field. The diagram for the Canadian football field is some sort of isometric diagram with a corner at the top. This latter diagram would work better if it was replaced with a diagram in the same top-down format as the diagram for the American football field, so as to facilitate comparisons between the two. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 06:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Concur with the need, but it wouild have to be created. There are other images of the CFL field that are overheads, File:Terrain football canadien.png and File:Terrain football canadien2.png, but they've been removed several times as "innacurate". However, no one ever bothers explain why they're wrong. Ideally, I'd like to see two diagrams (1 US, 1 Can) created on the same scale, so that when they're stacked, they make an easy comparison. It should be pretty simple to make for someone who knows how to do it, it's just finding that person that's willing and able to do it. - BilCat (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Feet?
Even tho Canada is on the metric system, Canadian football uses yards, as does American football. So this article should be using yards, with parenthetical metric conversions for the international reader. There is really no reason for feet to be used, even when there is a fraction of a yard. There must be a standardized fraction system for yards?Donutcity (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Let's check a rulebook.
 * "The game of football is played…on a rectangular field 360 by 160 feet" (2010 NFHS Football Rules, Rule 1-1-2).
 * "The team in possession has a series…to advance…10 yards in advance of the spot where the series begins" (1-1-2).
 * Rule 1-2-1 refers to a diagram that shows the goalposts 23'4" apart, with each upright 68'4" from the nearest sideline and at least 20' high. It shows each end zone 30 feet deep, with the field of play 300 feet long. It shows the hash marks 53'4" from the sidelines and the tops of the yard line numbers 9 yards from the sidelines. The restraining lines are indicated at 2 yards or more from the sideline, and 5 yards or more of space are recommended from the end line to the nearest obstruction behind it.
 * "A series of "hash marks" should be 24 inches in length and 4 inches in width and shall be located 53 feet, 4 inches from and parallel with each sideline dividing the field of play longitudinally in thirds. The lines shall be marked so that each 5-yard line bisects the hash mark" (1-2-3e).
 * "Nine-yard marks, 12 inches in length and 4 inches in width… The tops of [on-the-field] numbers shall be 9 yards from the sideline, should be 6 feet in height and 4 feet in width…" (1-2-3f).
 * "Team boxes shall be marked on each side of the field outside the coaches' area between the 25-yard lines… The coaches' area is a minimum of a 2-yard belt between the front of the team box and the sideline…" (1-2-3g).
 * "A soft, flexible pylon, which is 4 inches square, 18 inches high…shall be placed at the inside corner of each of the intersections of the sidelines with the goal lines and the end lines, as well as with each intersection of the hash marks extended and shall be placed either 3 feet beyond the end lines or on the end lines" (1-2-4).
 * "The top of the crossbar shall be 10 feet above the ground" (1-2-5b).
 * So, while yards are used pretty much for every aspect of the game while it's under way, the field definitions, at least on the American side, are primarily in feet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Open-field kick: What about drop kicks?
The "Open-field kick" section says that in American football, it is illegal to kick the ball from beyond the line of scrimmage. This isn't true. Drop-kicks are legal from anywhere on the field. Technically, if the clock is about to run out and the player with the ball at somepoint downfield from the line of scrimmage feels they won't be able to score a touchdown, they can attempt to drop kick the ball for a field goal. Hasn't happened in a whole lot of years, but to my knowledge, it's still legal (except in the NFL)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.212.7 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It's illegal in high school: any kick (punt, drop kick, or place kick) from beyond the line of scrimmage or after change of possession is illegal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Return kicks and kicks from beyond the line of scrimmage are also illegal in college. So that makes them pretty much illegal in American football. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Comparison of American and Canadian football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628211436/http://www.ncaa.org:80/releases/rules/2003021801ru.htm to http://www.ncaa.org/releases/rules/2003021801ru.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Comparison of American and Canadian football. 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/20120511072051/http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rule_Book_2011.pdf to http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rule_Book_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719172954/http://www.cfl.ca:80/page/game_rule_2009 to http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_2009
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104163054/http://www.cfl.ca/page/stats_indrec_rushing to http://www.cfl.ca/page/stats_indrec_rushing

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) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of American and Canadian football. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Border%2Bstands%2Bguard%2BLions/1882995/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_2009
 * Added tag to http://cfl.ca/noleadissafe
 * Added tag to http://wilson-sports.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wilson_sports.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=ffUQvlwh&p_lva=&p_faqid=36&p_created=982774271&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTIzJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9Zm9vdGJhbGwgZGltZW5zaW9ucyZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPTMmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9fmFueX4mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9fmFueX4mcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9wYWdlPTI%2A&p_li=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515152323/http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1 to http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105203148/http://www.13thman.com/cflvsnfl.html to http://www.13thman.com/cflvsnfl.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Percentage difference
There is a dispute on the percentage difference of field area between American and Canadian football, so here's my take on it. If I remember how to do a percentage difference correctly, it goes like this:

If the basis for comparison is the American field: (9750 yd2 − 6400 yd2)/6400 yd2 = 52%. The Canadian field is 52% bigger than the American one.

If the basis for comparison is the Canadian field: (6400 yd2 − 9750 yd2)/9750 yd2 = −34%. The American field is 34% smaller than the Canadian one. Indefatigable (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking receivers
I checked the CFL rulebook. Just like the NFL, contact on an eligible receiver by the defence is only allowed within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Beyond that, it's illegal contact, a 10-yard penalty from the previous spot. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The ball
The text says that there are no stripes on the American ball yet the picture shows stripes. I think the text is correct so it seems that a more accurate picture is required. Newwhist (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 * The picture is accurate; the ball pictured is for amateur football, not NFL. The NFL is the only level of American football with no stripes on the balls; there are stripes on two of the four panels of an NCAA or high school ball. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * OK. Thanks. Noted and understood. Nevertheless, the caption could be worded for greater clarity on the distinction, otherwise, what is the point of the pictures? Would not 'similarity' of the two balls be the point to be be made in the caption? Newwhist (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


text:
FIVB Volleyball World Championship

FIVB Volleyball World Championship may refer to
 * FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship
 * FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship

title: FIVB Volleyball World Championship


text: User talk:69.250.183.54

title: User talk:69.250.183.54


text:
User talk:Wendydrag

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you wish to contest the contents of an article please do so on the talk page of the article. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV
In wikipedia all points of view are give due consideration, we strive to maintaining a NPOV, edits which remove a large amount of information, including those that are sourced, which you have removed several, are considered POV edits, and will be reverted. Their are procedures in place if you wish to contest the POV of an article, see NPOV dispute.

See also:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I too would like to see lies removed from Pat Robertson - if they are lies. But many of them appear to be well-documented (certainly the quotes are), and if they are lies, it should be explained why and how. The best place to explain and discuss this point would be the discussion page at Talk:Pat Robertson. - Mustafaa 04:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * God loves you, yes you. Why not let Him shine through your words and your way. This is a struggle, as I know all too well. God Bless. Wendydrag 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wha? →  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

3RR
You also might want to look at this policy, Three-revert rule, as your next reversion of the Pat Robertson article will put you in violation. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It may get you blocked from editing for about 24 hours. →  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is in need of a fundemsntalist Christian view point but, you must understand that as long as you delete information your edits will be removed. The proper thing to do is to find good things about Pat Roberston or sources that counter what is already there and place them in the article too, not remove information just because you personaly believe it to be untrue. God Bless. - JCarriker 04:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyways, they aren't lies; they're just political terms. If you don't believe me, look up the words in a dictionary. →  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:22, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your views will be apreciated at wikipedia and if they can be documanted welcomed into the artcile. However, your tacticts are not going to get your view heard they are going to get you blocked. Please amend your tactics. Elaborate about your views on the talk page, it is considered inappropriate to revert a page more than there times please don't do it again. Our community will listen to your concerns but please respect our customs. -JCarriker 04:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have been reported in viloation of the 3rr policy. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have proof that they're lies, or are you so caught up in your mindless following of him that you ignore reason? → Jarlaxle Artemis   04:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

And how dare you compare the Holocaust to criticism of evangelical Christian ideas! 6 million Jews were murdered! And how many evangelical Christians were murdered by critics? None. → Jarlaxle Artemis   05:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The page is now unprotected. Please direct your comments to the talk page. Your are already in viloation of the 3rr policy and if you revert the page again I will have no alternative but to block you for 24hrs. -JCarriker 05:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry Wendy, but I have blocked you for 24hrs becasue you have continued to revert the Pat Robertson page, despite being warned repeatdely to respond on the talk page. Please use this downtime to review wikipedia policy. Thanks. -JCarriker 05:12, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wendydrag


text:
Kegerator

Kegerator, a portmanteau of the words keg and refrigerator, is a refrigerator that has been designed or altered to store and dispense kegs.

A kegerator keeps a keg in a refrigerated environment and uses CO2 to pressurize and dispense beverages from the keg. This process keeps the contents of the keg fresh and carbonated for up to 60 days on average.

Kegerators are specifically designed and available for both commercial and residential use. But a standard refrigerator can be often reconfigured into a kegerator with a kegerator conversion kit.

Not all standard refrigerators have enough room for a keg, so kegerators are specifically designed to house one or more kegs along with the dispensing system.

Kegerators are typically used to dispense draft beer, but are also gaining popularity for dispensing wine, cold brew coffee, and kombucha with certain modifications.

Components
The kegerator contains the following components:
 * Stainless steel keg
 * CO2 cylinder
 * CO2 pressure regulator, with inlet and outlet pressure gauges
 * Keg Coupler (also known as a Keg Tap)
 * Beer and air lines
 * Tower
 * Drip tray
 * Shank
 * Faucet
 * Faucet handle

A crucial part of any draft beer system is the keg coupler, the part inside the kegerator that taps the keg. Different types of kegs require different keg couplers, so considering what you plan on serving is important in order to purchase the appropriate coupler.

 * System D (U.S. Sankey) — standard for North American beer
 * System S (European Sankey) — most common for European beer (Beck's, Heineken, Amstel, Stella Artois)
 * System U — used for stout and ale by a few breweries in UK/Ireland (Guinness, Harp)
 * System G — used by some breweries in UK/Ireland, and in the United States by Anchor Brewing. Broadly used in Argentina By commercial, craft, and home brew.
 * System A — chiefly used by breweries in Germany (Warsteiner, Paulaner, Hacker Pschorr)
 * System M — used by some German breweries (Schneider, Einbecker)
 * Pin and ball lock home brew keg taps — designed to work with Cornelius kegs.

The D, S, U and G couplers are secured to the keg by twisting them in place (like a screw). The A System coupler is often called a "German Slider" because, unlike the other couplers, it slides in place and can be secured at any angle. The M-coupler also slides onto the keg, but it taps different brands than the German Slider. Home brew couplers are different in that they have a separate component for the gas in and the liquid out.

Economics
Kegerators may have cost benefits that make them a viable choice over canned or bottled beer.

Because a keg typically stores large amounts of cold beer, kegerators can save up to 60% on costs when compared to the same amount of volume in cans and bottles. Depending on the brand of beer, cost savings may be even greater.

The cost of a kegerator can range anywhere from $400 to $7,000 for a premium model. Refills range between $5 and $22.

Conversion kits
A kegerator conversion kit allows you to convert an existing refrigerator into a beer-dispensing kegerator. This may be a more economical solution if you already have a refrigerator ready to use. You must consider whether or not the refrigerator will be able to hold a keg. Many refrigerators have a step inside them that houses the compressor and takes up half the bottom of the fridge, which means there isn't enough space above or in front of the step for a keg. Pre-configured kegerators are designed with this in mind and install the compressor in a manner that allows plenty of room. Conversion kits are configured to either dispense through the door of the fridge or through the top into a draft beer tower. Door mount kits have a shank that goes through the door, with an attachment for the faucet on the outside and a hose nipple for the beer line on the inside. A draft beer tower would extend above the top of the fridge and already includes the faucet, shank, and 5' beer line.

Installation requires tools, such as a socket wrench set, screwdriver, and a drill with a hole saw bit to modify the refrigerator. A CO2 tank can be installed inside the fridge if there is enough room, or placed outside the fridge and secured into place.

You can also convert a top opening chest freezer into a beer dispenser (sometimes called a keezer) with the use of a thermostat control unit. The advantage of a keezer is that you are assured it will get cold enough to dispense beer at the proper temperature range (32-38 degrees Fahrenheit) and it usually has more interior floor space than a refrigerator, allowing it to store and dispense more kegs. The disadvantage is that it requires the thermostat to be overridden to ensure you don't freeze your kegs and you have to lift the heavy kegs up and over the freezer wall. You can accomplish this conversion with a tower kegerator conversion kit or build an extension (collar) on top of the freezer to mount the door and taps onto it.

Configurations
Kegerators are generally designed for use with beer kegs, but they are gaining popularity for dispensing other types of drinks, most notably wine, cold-brewed coffee, kombucha, and soda. With home brew kegs, you can put whatever liquid you want inside the keg, pressurize it and dispense it with a kegerator. Different types of liquids require different alterations to the dispensing system. Wine and cold brewed coffee use a CO2/Nitrogen blend to pressurize the kegs. These types of drinks also require all stainless steel contact with the dispense system fittings because the higher acid content can corrode the chrome-plated brass normally found in dispense systems. You may also need to change out the beer line for a silicone wine line, which is less likely to impart flavors. In many larger cities, coffee houses and wineries are offering their products in commercial kegs for use in a kegerator. If that is not available, you can always fill a home brew keg yourself.

Pouring Guinness or other nitrogen beers from a kegerator requires a stout faucet, nitrogen regulator, and a nitrogen tank. The stout faucet has a small restrictor disc inside the faucet head. Forcing the beer through the restrictor disc creates the rich and creamy head that nitro beers are known for. A nitrogen regulator or /nitrogen adapter is required and should be set to 30 psi. Nitrogen tanks are filled with a 75% nitrogen and 25% blend referred to as mixed gas or beer gas.

Kegerator storage
Interior space can be an issue for the installation of a kegerator, especially a commercial-grade version. You will need about two to three square feet of floor space and space above. You'll also want to factor in keeping the kegerator on a ground floor to avoid hauling kegs up flights of stairs.

If you're able to fit a kegerator in your residence that can hold one half-barrel, that equates to 15.5 gallons of beer, an equivalent of over 120 16-ounce pours.

For a properly stored keg in a kegerator, beverage freshness depends on the style of beer. Pasteurized beers can stay fresh from three to six months. For non-pasteurized beers, you can expect the keg to stay fresh for approximately two months.

title: Kegerator


text:
Mom's Cancer

Mom's Cancer is an autobiographical graphic medicine webcomic by Brian Fies which describes his mother's fight against metastatic lung cancer, as well as his family's reactions to it. Mom's Cancer was the first webcomic to win an Eisner Award, winning in 2005. Its print collection, published in 2006, won a Harvey Award and a Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis.

Characters and story
There are four main characters in the story, all of which are part of the family. None of the characters are ever referred by name, and the author uses his relationships to identify them. Aside from the main characters, there are several secondary characters who appear several times, most notably the author's stepfather and his mother's head doctor.
 * Mom: the author's mother; she is in her 60s, and suffers from stage IV metastatic lung cancer.
 * Me: The author, a "self-employed writer" in his 40s, and the eldest child.
 * Nurse Sis: One of the author's sisters; slightly younger than him, and a registered nurse.
 * Kid Sis: The author's youngest sister; an actress and writer who lives with her mother.

A reviewer described the story as "not a discussion about the science of cancer, [and] not a guidebook to the troubles one may face with this disease... through this graphic novel, Fies simply tries to make sense of and document the reality of the course of his mother’s illness and how it affected his family... he simply tells the reader how it is, how he felt, and how it happened... Mixed messages from different doctors contradict and confound one another. As Fies’ mother struggles (and to an extent, fails) to understand her illness she is made to feel less than by providers who belittle her concerns or simply put on a big smile. The pain, fear, and anguish that patients face once they leave the hospital is brought to the forefront throughout the book."

Format
The story is divided into chapters, each one containing several multipanel pages. Although the webcomic is mostly presented in black and white, several chapters are done in full or partial color, primarily for effect or when color helps the understanding of the ideas that are presented. In total, there are thirty-three chapters, including an epilogue.

The comic was originally published Mom's Cancer on its own website. The comic is no longer hosted there, but appears in full on GoComics. The webcomic was published as a graphic novel by Harry N. Abrams Inc. in March 2006.

Awards
Mom's Cancer was the first webcomic to receive an Eisner Award. Fies won in 2005 under the newly-created category "Best Digital Comic". Fies also won a Harvey Award, in the Best New Talent category, for Mom's Cancer, as well as the Lulu Blooker Prize in its Comics category. The German edition of the graphic novel received the Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis (German Youth Literature Prize) in the Non-Fiction category. Mom's Cancer was also nominated for a Quill Award and two further Eisner Awards.

Reviews
Medical student Samantha Estevez, writing for the blog Graphic Medicine, encouraged anyone in medicine to read the work, saying "No matter what field of medicine you are in, you are sure to encounter cancer and Fies’ perspective may help you not only be a better physician for your patients but a better friend to them as well." Several scientific papers have cited Mom's Cancer when examining medical humanities such as doctor-patient interactions and narratives around illness.

About the author
Mom's Cancer was created by Brian Fies (pronounced ). Fies also wrote The Last Mechanical Monster, which was also nominated for an Eisner Award in 2014. Other works by Fies include Whatever Happened to the World of Tomorrow? and the 18-page webcomic A Fire Story (later expanded to a 154-page book) which recounts the devastation caused by California wildfires in 2017 which destroyed his home. Fies was given an Inkpot Award in 2018.

title: Mom's Cancer