text:
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (military units)

These naming conventions are intended to encourage consistency and a high scholarly standard in articles that refer to military units. As mentioned in the conventions, they are intended to guide the use of names within articles, as well as the names of articles.

Ideally we will expand this to cover all nations at all periods, noting any exceptions to the more general conventions. (The initial draft is very slanted toward the German WWII order of battle, but that's mere happenstance.)

A bit of bureaucracy...

It will be helpful if we preserve the structure of the article here, to make it easier to find comments about a topic. Thus the structure is reproduced below; if you have comments that do not fit the structure, please add them to a new section at the end.

If you add multiple sequential bullets or paragraphs to this page, please sign each of them, so we will be able to figure out who said what after people have interpolated additional comments between your bullets/paragraphs.

General conventions

 * Re Naming conventions (use English), I did a sanity check to see what people are doing on interwiki sites, and it seems that converting everything to the language of the site is the prevailing convention elsewhere as well. For example, at various sites for the Battle of the Bulge I find:
 * Ardennenoffensive : die 101. amerikanische Luftlandedivision,
 * Batalla_de_las_Ardenas : los ejércitos 7º y 15º, el 5º panzer armeè,
 * Bataille_des_Ardennes : le 21e Groupe d'armées, la 5e Pz Armée, La 7e Div Bl US, la 1re SS Pz Div
 * Offensiva_delle_Ardenne : la 5a armata Panzer, La 2a divisione Panzer, la 101a divisione aviotrasportata statunitense
 * Ardennenoffensief : de 101 luchtlandingsdivisie
 * Ofensywa_w_Ardenach : 9. i 3. armii amerykańskich, 6. Armia Pancerna SS, 99. i 106. dywizja piechoty, 101. Dywizja Spadochronowa, 12. Dywizję Pancerną SS "Hitlerjugend
 * Ardenneroffensiven : Waffen-SS-divisionerna "Das Reich" och "Hitlerjugend"
 * Ofinsive_da_Von_Rundstedt : Les 12inme et 277inme divizions Vk gr., Li 6inme tancreye di Panzer, Les 2inme, 99inme, 106inme et 28 inme divizions amerikinne, Les Inglès (30inme coir, 53inme divizion, Tancreye del Wåde, 43 inme divizion), l’ 2inme divizion d’ Panzers

 * This draft does not yet address conventions for translating vs. not-translating unit nicknames or proper names used as part of a unit's name
 * My intuition tells me not to translate them except when first introduced. The Use English forms precept suggests that we should translate them, but let's look at some examples to see whether too much awkwardness arises. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For units from non-English-speaking countries, give the native language form of the name in parentheses and italics immediately after the bolded name of the article:
 * The German 3rd Mountain Division (3. Gebirgs-Divison) was...
 * I see a bit of variety in the use of hyphens for German-language forms, so we will probably need a convention for that, too. — B.Bryant 00:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For languages that do not use Latin-based alphabets, give a transliteration of the native-language form instead of (or in addition to) the "native" native-language form.
 * See Use English forms for more on this. — B.Bryant 23:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For articles that mention military units that are not the subject of the article:
 * Do not give the native-language form of units' names in article bodies.
 * Notice that the first mention should be linked, and the native-language form will be available at the link. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Prefixing the names of units with their nationality does not allow you to distinguish between cases where the nationality is a proper part of the unit name and cases where it is merely a descriptive, disambiguating label. For example, the Australian Army Band Corps is officially called exactly that: however, the Australian Special Air Service Regiment is actually called the Special Air Service Regiment.
 * Good point. We wouldn't want an article named Australian Australian Army Band Corps! — B.Bryant 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we distinguish between similarly named units by appending their nationality/country in parentheses where necessary? E.g. the Australian Army Band Corps page would be titled just that, while the Australian Special Air Service Regiment page would be retitled Special Air Service Regiment (Australia); its British equivalent would be moved from the plain Special Air Service to  Special Air Service (United Kingdom), allowing Special Air Service to be used as a disambiguation page and preventing accusations of Pommie arrogance from our Antipodean cousins. (Conversely, Special Air Service of New Zealand would be moved to  New Zealand Special Air Service Group, its official title.)
 * Using this form in the introductory sentence would be a bit awkward, so there the nationality could be prefixed as per the existing draft convention, with the proviso that you only emphasise it if it forms part of the unit's official title (e.g. "The Australian Army Band Corps...", but "The Australian Special Air Service Regiment..."): however, as these sentences often continue "... is a unit in the [nationality] Army", this will often prove unnecessary. — Franey 09:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm open on parentheses rather than prefixes; I just put prefixes in the draft standard because I've been finding lots of articles and edit-links using that format. Also, if something is prefixed or appended to a unit name for the sole purpose of avoiding clashes with other country's units, I don't think we should make the whole a mandatory part of the introductory sentence. Hopefully people will pitch in with more awkward examples here, so we can try to derive a general convention that covers almost everything. — B.Bryant 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this one? There is a British unit with the official title of Joint Communications Unit (Falkland Islands) (JCUFI). Under the scheme I suggested, its page would apparently refer to a unit called the Joint Communications Unit in the (non-existent) military of the Falkland Islands, as distinct from any other country's Joint Communications Unit. — Franey 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the example given above of the JCUFI, a person familiar with the naming convention as proposed here would be justified in believing that the unit is an element of the military service of the FI. Of course, that person may be confused by the fact that there is no such thing as the military service of the FI. The issue is avoided, though, by applying the convention as proposed to the unit's name: Joint Communications Unit (Falkland Islands) (United Kingdom). A person familiar with the convention will see immediately that the unit is of the military service of the UK (based on an understanding that a national reference in parentheses at the end of the name means that). The interior parenthetical reference to the FI may prompt the curious person to click on the link, to have the situation clarified in the introductory sentence. This example is actually a strong argument in favor of the proposed convention. --Mddake 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar convention being proposed for ministries and departments of civil governments that uses the ending jurisdictional reference in parentheses method. Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) --Mddake 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Another example is the Estonian corps and divisions that the Soviet Union raised during WWII. I am finding them referenced as "8th Estonian Rifle Corps", "249th Estonian Rifle Division", etc., regarding which our draft convention would call for articles named Soviet 249th Estonian Rifle Division, etc. I actually think that would be correct, since they are Estonian by nationality rather than part of an Estonian national army, i.e. IMO Estonian 249th Rifle Division would be incorrect. — B.Bryant 16:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Another example is the Freikorps Danmark, a battalion-sized Waffen-SS unit recruited from Danes. Although it was strictly speaking a unit of the German military, it doesn't sound right if prefixed as German Freikorps Danmark. I suspect the reason this contrasts with Soviet 249th Estonian Rifle Division is that 'Soviet' doesn't imply nationality as strongly as 'German' does; e.g. Russian 249th Estonian Rifle Division would sound kind of funny too. However, since the unit is a nonesuch rather than part of a series, we may not need to prefix it at all.

Units that were redesignated, upgraded, reorganized, or reconstituted

 * Additional material for this section is TBA
 * A very important decision is whether we should be lumpers or splitters — do we cover the unit's entire history in a single article, or provide a separate article for each "version" of a unit. I've been using several "splitter" sites as references for the WWII/German stubs I've been creating (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=31, http://www.feldgrau.com/, http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/inhaltsverzeichnis1.htm), and I find it very annoying — especially when you have to read three one-sentence articles to get an overview of a unit's history, or when parts are missing or not linked. However, when I tried going the "lumper" route on the aforementioned stubs, a whole different batch of headaches show up. (Not least, the question of what qualifies as "the same unit" in some cases.) At any rate, let's try to get a concensus on when to lump and when to split, and then we'll need to propose some conventions for implementation (e.g., maybe a format for an "alias list" at the top of lumped articles, or for a group of "alias links" for split articles). — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A suggestion (from a "wingnut" (USAF) point of view): The AF Historical Research Agency keeps pretty good tabs on the history of units as they progress through time (and change designations left and right). I'm sure the other branches must have some agency or historical information warehouse like this.  Why not just follow the "official story", "lumping" when official information is available; and in the absence of official information, "splitting"?  NDCompuGeek 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Army groups
Can we collapse this section? Will there be any differences at the different levels, other than the form of numerals used? — B.Bryant 23:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think a note should be made that Soviet army groups/armies are referred to as Fronts. Oberiko 01:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, good point. I think the various sections (however we end up organizing the page) will need to have sub-sections called "national peculiarities" for stuff that doesn't fit with more general international usage. As for the Soviets, as I understand it an "army" was bigger than a western corps but smaller than a western army, a "front" was between western army and army group, and a "strategic direction" controlled several fronts. — B.Bryant 21:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armies

 * If named, put the name at the end:
 * ...to Army Karpaty...
 * I'm pretty sure I'm going to think of a good counterexample as soon as I take a break from this.... Maybe if we throw in a bunch of examples we can induce a rule from them. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, we can probably discuss named corps, divisions, etc. here as well, since the same sort of issues are involved. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corps
Numbered corps are groups of divisions and are in turn parts of armies. In addition to the divsisions they have corps-level artillery and other stuff. Internationally, in my experience, corps are numbered with Roman numberals (XVIII Airborne Corps). Also, in my (American) experience, they do not take ordninals when pronounced ("18 Airborne Corps," not "18th"). Why this is I have no idea.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If named, – TBA
 * See discussion for armies, above. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two sorts of corps names. Some corps are named (Royal Catering Corps, Army Air Corps, Marine Corps). These tend to be functional groups of no fixed organization. All the maines work in the marine corps.

Exceptions

 * Soviet World War II era tank and mechanized corps are numbered with ordinalized Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals:
 * ...then the Soviet 2nd Guards Mechanized Corps advanced...
 * I believe this is standard English usage, based on the fact that these formations were divisions in all but name. I'm not sure the same applies to their cavalry corps, and infantry divisions were usually controlled by army HQs without any intervening corps. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the notion that WWII Soviet Corps = western division accurate? I know that it's portrayed that way almost universally in wargames, but my source for the OB for the Battle of Velikiye Luki shows the 2nd Mechanized Corps controlling not only the three expected mechanized brigades, but two rather than thex expected one tank brigade, plus a rifle division, two rifle brigades, and a ski brigade. Were these just attachments, or was the Soviet corps not the kind of organic unit that it is commonly portrayed to be? — B.Bryant 15:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the notion is correct only if you just look at the number of men in the units. Most Soviet divisions were only (western) brigade strength and corps had (western) divisional strenght, but the Soviet army, late war, still used the order army > corps > division for ordinary infantry units, but the order army > corps > brigade for mechanized units, where divisions and brigades were the highest organic units. --Elisson 20:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, Soviet and Eastern bloc Corps are never referred to with Roman numerals. --RaiderAspect 13:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Deutsches Afrika Korps" is not well known it is usually known as the just the "Afrika Korps" and if a country designation is given it is "German Afrika Korps" the most English speakers will assume that Deutsches means something to do with Holland. Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Divisions and brigades

 * If named, – TBA
 * See discussion for armies, above. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding (and I can't provide a link for proof, but almost any veteran could corroborate) that in the U.S. Military, numbered divisions always include the word division—thus 82nd Airborne Division, 1st Infantry division, 4th Armored Division.

To refer to the 1st Marines, however, means the 1st Marine Regiment. Regiments, when identified (and the 1st Marines were identified a lot in the Pacific in WWII) are known by the number of the unit and the organization or specialty: 1st Armored, 5th Marines, 7th Cavalry, etc. are all regiments and not to be confused with the 1st Marine Division (also used a lot in WWII), or 1st Air Cavalry Division.

The Army Air Corps did not follow this, e.g. 8th Air Force, which as a corps sized organization neither used the Roman numerals nor followed the above convention.

 * It is my experience that the USAF uses the spelled-out number ("Eighth Air Force" as opposed to "8th Air Force") when referring to these major units. Not sure if any other countries follow this format though....  NDCompuGeek 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Navy likewise does not have such a convention, its organization being entirely different (ships, squadrons, task forces, fleets). Duckecho 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There are more armed forces than just the Americans. Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, yes, there are more forces than just the US Forces, but persons working on those units need to add their own 2 Cents here, and in the article. As it is, there need to be major divisions to this article for each nation in question.

 * Second of all, "Type" Divisions did not exist before 1922 when the first Cavalry Divisions were created as permanent units. After that, there were only Divisions and Cavalry Divisions until the 2nd Division was designated the 2nd Infantry Division when it tested the Triangular TO&E format. The remainder of the current batch of designated type Divisions all date from 1940 when the Armored Divisions started to be created. The Airborne Divisions were all redesignated from Divisions, and would have been Infantry Divisions if the airborne concept did not change circumstances. This is also true of the 10th Mountain Division, which was redesignated from the 10th Division; and the 4th Motorized Division, which ws redesignated from the 4th Division, and redesignated again to the 4th Infantry Division. The 11th Air Assault Division was redesignated from the 11th Airborne Division, which was redesignated from the 11th Division. And so on ad infinitum. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regiments
TBA

See my discussion above under "Divisions and Brigades." Duckecho 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Over time the British army has designated regiment by colonel name, number and name. Other armies have also used different systems, so I do not think that it is easy to set global rules on this. For example of what I mean have a look at the current names for British regiments. Currently the British Army seem to use every combination apart from the "colonel name". -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Battalions / squadrons
TBA

The standard US Army usage is that Battalions and Squadrons are given numbers within their Regiments. Example: "1st Battalion, 384th Infantry Regiment". This is sometimes written in literature as "the 1st of the 384th", and frequently abbreviated (particularly for US Marine Units) as 1/384. So "the First of the Third" or "1/3" means "First battalion, #rd Marine Regiment.

For separate battalions and other units that are not part of a higher-level unit, they are given numbers, usually 3 digits, similar in style to Companies.

147.240.236.9 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the official usage in the US Army is only to designate battalions/squadrons with a slash when they part of a tactical regiment (e.g, 1/3rd Armored Cavalry). When the battalion or squadron is an element of an parent (i.e., administrative) regiment, use a hyphen (1-87th Infantry, 1-5th Field Artillery, and so on). It is a rule that is often not followed, but it is the official usage.Cyane 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Cyane

 * That's pretty close, as most units in the Army don't have regimental headquarters. Regiments for the most part in the U.S. Army are ceremonial and lineage-related, and not even administrative. Technically, administration of those regimentally-aligned units without RHQs falls to a higher unit command outside the regiment. Outside the ACR/SCR world and the Ranger Regiment, there's not much that qualifies as having a slash. The Marine Corps does have Regiment-level tactical commands, though.Caisson 06 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Companies / troops / batteries
TBA

The standard US Army usage is to use letters, and have the letters before the word 'Company' or 'Troop'; sometimes the letters are after 'Battery'. This is done when the company, troop, or battery is part of a larger administrative unit. Sometimes just letters are used, sometimes they are spelled out phonetically. Examples:

"A Company, 1st Battalion, 515th Airborne Regiment";

"Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion"

"F Troop, 2nd Squadron" or just plain "F Troop"

"Battery D, 2nd Battalion" or just plain "Battery D"

When the company is a separate company, a numerical designation is used, usually with 4 numbers. Examples: "1776th Military Police Company" or "8063rd MASH" (and yes, the MASH units were company-sized units).

147.240.236.9 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is the appropriate usage? Phoenetic or just letters?... NDCompuGeek 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Both. It's mostly a matter of preference, but in "official" correspondence, letter designations alone are usually used (e.g., "A Troop, 2d Squadron, 9th Cavalry"); when spoken aloud, the phonetic pronunciation is most common (e.g., "Alpha Troop, ...").  To complicate matters further, many organizations (especially U.S. Army, and particularly Cavalry units) prefer to use the unit's unique "nickname" in both written and spoken communication (e.g., "Apache Troop ...").  Hope that helps. :-) Mike f 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're asking specifically which usage would be most appropriate for WP articles, I'd recommend:
 * For lists, tables, and the like: Letter designation only. ("A Troop")
 * For prose paragraphs, the more common of phonetic ("Alpha Troop") or nickname (e.g., "Easy Company").
 * Mike f 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, that is incorrect. if you look at official documents in organizational documents and Army historical files and such, the correct "official correspondence" method of identifying company-level (and detachment-level) organizations in the U.S. Army is to place the unit echelon designator first, followed by it's identifying number or letter, to wit: Caisson 06 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully written as "Company A" "Battery B" "Troop C" "Detachment 1" etc. Caisson 06 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Abbreviated "Co. A" "Btry B" "Trp C" "Det. 1" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caisson 06 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Platoons
TBA The standard US Army usage is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Headquarters, etc. Examples: "1st Platoon, A Company"; or "Headquarters Platoon, 4th Infantry Regiment".
 * Actually, it would be "1st Platoon, Company A" in official correspondence, if the writer knows what he is doing.Caisson 06 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sections
Standard U.S. Army usage is a letter or phonetic designation ("A Section, 1st Platoon" or "Bravo Section, 4th Platoon), or a descriptive term ("Mortar Section, B Troop").Mike f 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: "Mortar Section, Troop B" or "Section A, 1st Platoon." Shouldn't be using phonetic in official written correspondence.Caisson 06 (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Squads
TBA

The standard US Army usage is: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. As in "1st Squad, 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company". 147.240.236.9 22:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, "1st Squad, 2d Platoon (no "n" in U.S. military ordinal number abbreviations (1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, etc.), Company A" for official written correspondence.Caisson 06 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Type designations
The length of my throw-down list for WWII Germany suggests that we will have to move these to separate pages once we cover more than a couple of nations/eras. — B.Bryant 23:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Germany

 * Flieger → TBA
 * I've always seen 7th Flieger as "7th Flieger", but I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. "7th Air Division" sounds OK to me, in a pinch. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not using 7th Air Division as that leads my thoughts to air force units. For instance, the Soviet Union used a designation for their air force units that is usually translated to air division in English. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, the Germans used air divisions too; 7th Flieger's name was a ruse to hide the fact that it was an airborne unit. (Though it may actually be more complicated than that; I read something that left the impression that it was an air division in the ordinary sense, mostly controlling air transport units, and with the paratroopers subordinated to it as well.) Either way, it may affect our choice of name for it. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Fallschirmjäger → TBA
 * I would prefer not to translate, but again I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. I can live with "Parachute". — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Parachute --Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * FLAK, Flak → TBA
 * Pretty much borrowed into English, but should we use Flak or FLAK? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if native english-speakers use FLAK or Flak, but in German, Flak (with capital K if referring to the anti-aircraft gun designation, lower case k if using in any other meaning) is the correct way to capitalize it. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My Websters encyclopedia simply lists it as "flak", so presumably they consider it borrowed into English, in which case we could use "Flak" when it is part of a unit's name. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Füsilier → TBA
 * Grenadier → TBA
 * Füsilier, Grenadier, Schützen... any serious distinction between these? Should we translate all as "infantry", or maybe use "rifle" for some? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Schützen should be translated to Rifle. Why not use Grenadier for Grenadier and Fusilier for Füsilier? That's pretty common names for British regiments IIRC. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points; we USAians forget that those are English words as well. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to further obfuscate things, a British Rifle regiment is historically a light infantry unit, distinct from other line infantry, --Yendor1958 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jäger → TBA
 * Translate or not, when used in isolation? (Compound forms are addressed elsewhere in the list.) — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the Germans overuse the word: "ani"-tank, "Fighter" for aircraft. "Hunter Killer" for subs, but "Destroyer", "Minesweeper" or what ever for ships. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You forgot Light Infantry --Yendor1958 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Kosaken → Cossack
 * Are all these actual Cossack-based units, or does the term sometimes just mean "Cossack-style cavalry" (in which case we should probably translate it as "Cossack Cavalry" instead of just "Cossack"). — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd use Cossack when the Germans used Kosaken-, and Cossack Cavalry when they used Kosaken-Kavallerie-. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Motorisierte, (mot.) → motorized
 * Use "motorized infantry" rather than the parenthetical "(motorized)":
 * ...then 20th Motorized Infantry Division crossed...
 * That's just my opinion, but it sure seems to make for smoother flowing prose. (No need to constrain ourselves to excessively literal translations.) — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Might even use just Motorized Division as an even shorter alternative form. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nummer, Nr. → TBA
 * I usually see this as "Division Nummer" or "Division Nr.", but most people will never have seen it at all. Should we use "Division No." or "Division #" ? I suppose we could use "157th Division" for Division Nr. 157, but that seems to obscure the semantics. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ost → TBA
 * Is this part of the unit type, or just a flag indicating that the unit contains "Eastern" troops? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Flag. There were a lot of different Ost units, having the designation merely meant they were Eastern troops. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Panzergrenadier → TBA
 * I'd prefer not to translate,, but again I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. If we do translate, I'd go for something like "mechanized infantry" rather than the cringe-inducing "tank grenadier" that you sometimes see. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree on no translation.

 * Reiter → TBA
 * "Horse"? "Mounted"? Was this term ever used for motorized cavalry? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, it wasn't used for motorized cavalry. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What was it used for? The 16th- and 17th-century sword-and-pistol cavalry? In that case, the term seems to be widespread and familiar enough in military history circles that Idon't feel the need to translate it Lay 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reiter (both singular and plural) was a term used for individual cavalrymen, like kanonier(e) for artillerymen and schütze(n) for riflemen. It was not in widespread use as a term for categorizing formations, with a few exceptions when it comes to early SS-units. In any case, I do agree that it probably won't need translation if the term shows up. -- Elisson • Talk 11:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Schatten → TBA
 * "Shadow" or "Ghost" ? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Shadow souns best. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Schützen → TBA
 * See Füsiler above.

 * Volks → see following, but never translate as "People's".
 * I cringe at "People's" because of the association with Communists institutions, which (as I understand it) invoke it as a propagandistic claim of being "of, by, and for the people" rather than the WWII German usage of (as I understand it) "of the Volk", an appeal (as I understand it) to nationalism rather than to a pretense of democratic institutions. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Volksgebirgs → TBA
 * This should probably be translated in accord with the Use English forms precept, but I can't think of a translation that doesn't make me cringe. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Volks-Sturm → do not translate, and take care not to spell it as Volkssturm
 * I think the 78th Division was the only unit to bear this; it appears to be a variant of Volksgrenadier, with the 78th's Sturm grafted in. As I understand it, it did not signify any relation to the Volkssturm. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * z.b.V. → TBA
 * The Use English forms precept suggests translating it as "special purpose", but "Special Purpose Afrika Division" sounds funny... to me. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have run order of battle table from the German article de:Heeresgruppe B and added it to Army Group B. I used Altavista and have then done some hand translation. Most of it is automatic but there were a couple of points I would like to raise: --Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Nachrichten-Regiment 537" I translated as "537th Signals Regiment" although Altavista translated "Nachrichten" to "Message", does anyone have a better tranlation?
 * "Signals Regiment". No doubt.
 * I translated "Panzer-Gruppe Kleist" to "Panzer Group Kliest". The Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist article keeps it as "Panzergruppe von Kleist" what is the best thing to do?
 * Keep it as either Panzer-Gruppe or Panzergruppe, IMO.
 * September 1943: "LI. AK, II. SS, LXXXVII. AK" -- What is AK and what is SS in this context?
 * AK is "Armee-Korps". "II. SS" is the "II. SS-Panzer-Korps".
 * December 1943: "z. Vfg. OKW in Denmark" what is "z. Vfg." ?
 * "zu Verfügung", meaning "at disposal (of)". The unit was an OKW reserve in Denmark.
 * There are several other iffy translations in the translated table which need looking at, but I think they are best fixed on the Army Group B page, or discussed on the Talk page of Army Group B, rather than here.
 * Hope that helps a little. – Elisson • Talk 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union
Early Soviet Union had "bronetankovye voiska". I would suggest the translation "armored and tank" in the case if this term was used in the actual names of mil formations (I am not sure about the latter, but I see this term is often used in Russian texts as a translation for "armoured" and German "Panzer"). Mikkalai 19:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions - Germany
Bob,

I realise what you are attempting to do, however in my experience, ALL scholarly work to do with the German army refers to certain formations by their German titles.
 * The question is, what should an English-language encyclopedia do? We need to maintain reasonable "scholarly" standards, but we're not writing for historians and military buffs. For instance, Matthew Cooper's The German Army 1933-1945 has 16 pages of endnote citations and six pages of "select" bibliography, but skimming him I find "Africa Corps", "90th Light", "Panzergrenadier Regiment Africa", "164th Light Division", "Panzer Army Africa", "5th Panzer Army", "21st Panzer Division", etc. In my experience that's pretty typical of 'reputable' English-language writing about WWII. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main exceptions I have found are: Flieger, Panzer, Panzergrenadier, Fallschirmjäger, Gebirgsjäger, Jäger, FlaK, schwere, Ost, Lehr and Pioniere (If translated, Pioniere should become Pioneer, not Engineers). Also anyting with the prefix Sturm should really remain that way. (e.g. Sturm-Artillery, Sturmpionier etc.). As for the unit terms Abteilung and Kampfgruppe, these have no exact english translation, so should be left as it with an explanation page.
 * Kampfgruppe "battle group" -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, a differentiation needs to be made between Infanterie and Grenadier formations, as to ignore this removes the significance of the 1943 changeover.
 * Could you direct me to more information about this? Was it something more than just another new Art/Typ to stretch resources, such as the one in 1944? — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this englishification is getting a bit extreme. As wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia, people are far more likely to look for Panzergrenadier Division Grossdeutschland than for German Mechanised Infantry Division Greater Germany.
 * I agree, but IMO there's absolutely no reason to use Infanterie in English articles. What's in question is where we draw the line. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at the conventions used with the Panzers themselves. They are still referred to as Panzerkampfwagen, not as armoured fighting vehicle. --Ansbachdragoner 01:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I usually see them referred to as "Panzer IV" or "Pxyz IV" (where 'Pxyz' is one of about five different common abbreviations for Panzerkampfwagen). However, that doesn't tell us much about proper English usage for unit names. We already know that "panzer" and "flak" have been borrowed into English, but certainly Gebirgsjäger hasn't. BTW, FWIW, I was originally going to have the conventions page cover hardware and ranks as well as units, but I decided that it's likely to be big enough as it is. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British Commonwealth during WWII
How should we name articles for units commonly known as e.g. "1st South African Division"? I don't think I've ever seen "South African 1st Division". Should these be an exception to the convention of prefixing the nationality to unit names, or not? — B.Bryant 03:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Australian divisions are commonly referred to simply as the "8th Division" or the "1st Armoured Division" (etc), even though the official name was 8th Australian Infantry Division and 1st Australian Armoured Division. I have a feeling it might be confusing if the official name was used. I can't speak for other Commonwealth countries though. Grant65 (Talk) 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest putting them under Australian 8th Infantry Division as a page name but in the article refer to is as the 8th Division and put in a redirect for Australian 8th Division for use on battle pages.  If after that on the battle page there is only one 8th Division mentioned then it is implied that it is the Australian one. There is not yet a standard across the Commonwealth but I think we should work towards one.
 * List of Australian divisions in WWII
 * List of British divisions in WWII
 * List of Canadian divisions in WWII
 * List of Indian divisions in WWII
 * List of South African Divisions in World War II
 * If Australia also uses what seems to be the de facto Wikipedia format, it makes it much easier to guess what the Wikipedia article name is for Australian divisions when trying to link to them. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Poland
Hello everyone. I've been working on military history of Poland for quite some time and never realized that there is a discussion going on here. Recently someone at Talk:3d Infantry Regiment pointed me here and I thought it would be nice to include Poland in the list. The scheme used by the Polish Army is fairly simple and easy to handle in English, but it certainly needs some explanation. For consistency, I've been using the following names so far:

 * Divisions, Brigades and Regiments - as per normal wiki convention: [Country] [Number] [Type] [Unit].
 * Infantry divisions - 28. Dywizja Piechoty - Polish 28th Infantry Division
 * disambiguate only in the case of Polish Legions and Home Army, cf.:
 * 1. Dywizja Piechoty Legionów - Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division (different from Polish 1st Infantry Division)
 * 27. Dywizja Piechoty Armii Krajowej Polish 27th Home Army Infantry Division
 * Rifle divisions - as per Russian convention on Strelkovaya diviziya: 5. Dywizja Strzelców Polskich - Polish 5th Rifle Division
 * Grenadiers divisions - as per French convention on Division des Grenadiers: 1. Dywizja Grenadierów - Polish 1st Grenadiers Division
 * Armoured divisions - 1. Dywizja Pancerna - Polish 1st Armoured Division (use English spelling for consistency with that unit whose name in English was also official during WWII)
 * Do not add the traditional or honorary names in the title, mentioning them in the lead is enough. Thus 36. pułk piechoty Legii Akademickiej should be described in Polish 36th Infantry Regiment, and not Polish 36th Infantry Regiment of the Academic Legion. Same with Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division (and not Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division of Marshal of Poland Józef Piłsudski), Pierwszy Pułk Strzelców Konnych Jazdy Augustowskiej at Polish 1st Mounted Rifles Regiment and not Polish 1st Augustów Cavalry Mounted Rifles Regiment and so on.
 * Specific types:
 * piechota - infantry
 * pancerny - armoured
 * strzelcy - rifles
 * strzelcy konni - mounted rifles
 * kawaleria - cavalry
 * jazda - cavalry
 * ułani - uhlans

Any other ideas? Halibutt 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian naming conventions
The Canadian formations used a unique naming format, and I notice several editors have gotten this wrong. I'm trying to correct them as I go, namely

 * First Canadian Army is correct, not Canadian First Army. The British and US seem to have used the "Foo First Army" format but Canada did it "First Fooish Army".
 * Likewise divisions; the official history and period documents all use "1st Canadian Infantry Division" rather than "Canadian 1st Infantry Division" despite what the British or Americans did.Michael Dorosh 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The British, US, and many others do not generally call their armies "Foo First Army", they tend to call it "First Army", the reason for putting in the units under "Foo First Army" is a convention (this one) used in Wikipedia for disambiguation. If they all use the same format then when referring to an army one is not familiar with one can make a good guess as to the army name, e.g. Romanian First Army. "Why not use a redirect?" I hear you saying, the major problem is categories (as it always is). Using "Canadian First Army" places it under C for Canada not F for First. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Change it with a wiki pipe - - I don't see a problem. (edit - Kirill beat me to it, below)Michael Dorosh 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The category sort key can be set manually, though, so that's hardly a convincing reason. Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Army "2d" & "3d" or "2nd" & "3rd"?
Some contributors are insisting on "-d" instead of "-nd" or "-rd", e.g. 93d Infantry Division instead of "93rd". This is clearly against present day usage and I am not convinced that "d" was ever a standard/normal abbreviation for "second" and "third" in the U.S. Army. I also haven't seen it in any other national variety of English. Any thoughts? Grant65 | Talk 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure "d" was not the standard period designation? What original documents have you investigated? I thought the "d" was standard US Army practice.Michael Dorosh 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Latest rules according to AR 220-5 Designation, Classification, and Change in Status of Units 2-3d(2)(e) 22 August 2019:
 * "U.S. Army unit designations use the ordinal number abbreviations “2d” and “3d,” not “2nd” or “3rd” (for example, 2d Infantry Division, 703d Support Battalion)." JamesMG107 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The Institute of Heraldry is probably the best official source for unit names.  They only show current units, so the 93rd is not listed.  They do show the 92nd Infantry Division as "92D INFANTRY DIVISION" .  So, yes the US Army does use the d alone instead of nd.

However, The Army Times and Soldiers magazines use the [AP Stylebook|Associated Press Stylebook]. The AP style would be "92nd Infantry Division".

The question here is what standard do we use- TIOH or AP?

Use the U.S. Army Center of Military History Style Guide which stipulates the dropping of the "n" and "r" in "nd" and "rd". USACMH has certain authorities according to AR 220-5.Jeff82 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This may not apply to Army units, but the Air Force officially says to use "-d" by itself. I'm not sure if that goes as far back as the Army Air Corps. It does go back as far as 1987, which is the oldest Tongue and Quill I can find.
 * "Specific Abbreviation Forms and Formats
 * • Write abbreviations “first,” “second,” “third,” “fourth,” etc., as 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, etc."
 * - The Tongue and Quill AFH 33-337, 27 MAY 2015, page 338
 * 132.3.9.78 (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The U.S. Army is inconsistent in this regard. The 82nd Airborne Division uses the 'nd'. Also using 'D' could be confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject matter -- several nations have units with a letter as part of their numerical designation (i.e. NVA 324B Division.) Besides, 'rd' and 'nd' are the proper ordinals in English. JE1977 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, U.S. is not part of the official unit designation. When there is a need to disabiguate an article, you add a descriptor in parentheses. Thus, if there was a possibility of confusing the "93d Infantry Division" with some other unit, it would probably be best to title it as "U.S. 93d Infantry Division (United States Army)". There is no need to do this for every unit, only where the names are the same. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * That recommended unit title ("U.S. 93d Infantry Division (United States Army)") almost sounds like it's from the department of redundancy department.... What about just titling the unit what it's official title is: "93d Infantry Division"), and if it needs a 'disambiguator', just add the suffix at the end without adding the US prefix: "93d Infantry Division (United States)" or "93d Infantry Division (United States Army)"....
 * Just a humble suggestion.... NDCompuGeek 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unit Name (disambiguator) is also the style preferred by the WP Military History task force. See WP:MILHIST for details. Mike f 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. It looks like this particular page is going to be marked as historical, due to the implementation of the new convention; see here. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


text:
Robert Warzycha

Robert Warzycha (born 20 August 1963) is a Polish former professional football manager and former player.

A right winger, Warzycha had a long career in Europe, playing for teams in Poland, Hungary and England with Everton in the Premier League. He won two Polish Ekstraklasa titles and a Polish Super Cup with Górnik Zabrze. Warzycha was also a regular member of the Poland national team throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, amassing 47 caps.

He moved to the United States in 1996 and subsequently spent seven seasons in Major League Soccer with Columbus Crew. He later served as a coach for the team, serving as head coach for five seasons.

Club career
After beginning his career in his native Poland, Warzycha moved to England in March 1991 when Howard Kendall signed him for Everton in a £500,000 deal. He started well, scoring twice in his first eight games for Everton, and missing just five league games in the 1991–92.

He was one of only thirteen players not from the British Isles to play on the opening weekend of the FA Premier League along with Jan Stejskal, Peter Schmeichel, Andrei Kanchelskis, Roland Nilsson, Eric Cantona, Hans Segers, John Jensen, Anders Limpar, Gunnar Halle, Craig Forrest, Michel Vonk and Ronnie Rosenthal and was also the first player from mainland Europe to score in the Premier League, finding the net in Everton's second Premier League game - a 3–0 away win over Manchester United. His goal was the only one scored by a Polish player in the competition until Marcin Wasilewski scored in January 2015, more than 22 years later.

His goal against Manchester United in a 3–0 win at Old Trafford proved to be his last goal for Everton. He fell out of favour later that season and played just seven times in the 1993–94 season, and was clearly not part of new manager Mike Walker's plans when he arrived at Goodison Park in January 1994 following the resignation of Howard Kendall. He went to Hungary at the end of the season to sign for Pécsi Mecsek. A year later, he was sold to Kispest Honvéd FC of Hungary.

In 1996, he joined Columbus Crew for the Major League Soccer's inaugural year. Warzycha became a staple in the lineup for five seasons, and then a bit player in his final two, as he battled injuries. He retired as the Crew's all-time assist leader with 61 and also scored 19 goals in MLS league play. During his playing days in Columbus, Warzycha was known as "The Polish Rifle," in part because of his accuracy from free kicks. On 25 March 2000, Warzycha scored the first-ever regular-season "Golden Goal" in Major League Soccer history to defeat the San Jose Earthquakes 2–1. He played two more years for Columbus Crew before retiring from playing in 2002 at the age of 39.

International career
For Poland, Warzycha was capped 47 times, scoring seven goals between 1987 and 1993.

Managerial career
After retiring as a player, he became an assistant coach with the Crew. After Greg Andrulis was fired in July 2005, Warzycha assumed interim head coaching duty. He went back to assisting after Sigi Schmid was hired for the full-time job.

After spending several years as Schmid's assistant, Warzycha was promoted to the head coach position at Columbus Crew for the 2009 MLS season, in which he coached the team to the Supporter Shield, awarded for the most points during the regular season. Warzycha signed a multi-year contract extension with Columbus on 1 September 2011 that kept him under contract through the 2013 season. He was released from his contract early, on 2 September 2013.

Personal life
Robert is the father of professional soccer player Konrad Warzycha, who played for Columbus Crew under his father.

Player
Górnik Zabrze
 * Ekstraklasa: 1986–87, 1987–88
 * Polish Super Cup: 1988

Budapest Honvéd
 * Magyar Kupa: 1995–96

Columbus Crew
 * U.S. Open Cup: 2002

Individual
 * MLS All-Star: 1997, 1999

Manager
Columbus Crew
 * Supporters' Shield: 2009

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

title: Robert Warzycha


text:
Talk:Budget of NASA

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lensaticflare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clean up
We need to go clean up this page and go back and check all the values because the more I check, the more that seems to be incorrect. --Craigboy (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We also need to change the constant dollar year to 2010, and possible look into only updating the constant dollar year every five years due to low activity on this page. --Craigboy (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I have recently been doing some NASA budget research. I found a link to an Excel spreadsheet on the Office of Management and Budget web site that gives historic annual budget numbers for many agencies, including NASA:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist04z1.xls

Bruce in MN (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page where I found the above link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

Bruce in MN (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm also new to editing on the Wiki but I was doing research for a paper for class and I found an interesting discrepancy between the numbers provided by the OMB (and consequently by the World Almanac book that is the actual reference in the article) and NASA's own historical figures provided in the link below. I unfortunately don't have time now to investigate why this is, so I'll just leave this here for future reference.

 * http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o45128943_1959_1979.pdf

The Romanian Jedi (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

percentage of GDP
It would be useful to also have budget as percentage of US GDP because federal budget has changed over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.121.96 (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * GDP changes from year to year as well. Looking at this site http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ could be a good start.
 * In 2007 it's .1%, In 1966 it's .7% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have data on NASA budget as percentage of GDP for 1960 through today (and estimates through 2016). Also comparisons of NASA budget as percentage of Federal outlays compared to Department of Defense and Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. I think it's pretty interesting. As a reference, see http://www.space-pictures.com/view/pictures-of-planets/planet-mars/evidence-of-life-on-mars/manned-mission-to-mars.php. However, I am new and have not edited an article on Wiki and am a bit nervous about doing this. I've read some of the documentation and tried the Sandbox but am still a bit nervous. For example, I am not sure about the best way to size and load an image. Is there a way to get a coach to help make sure I do a quality job ? Jb2012a (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I feel as if the change to stress the % of GDP, particularly the graph violates NPOV. Stressing percentage of budget as opposed to historical inflation adjusted values is a targeted statistical method to advocate for more funding. The federal budget itself increases yearly as a percentage of GDP. As a result any program that would simply maintain it's same amount of funding (inflation adjusted) would still see an annual reduction in its percentage. Alienfoil (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia now Cites Itself?
Citation #11 is a citation of this very Wikipedia article. My head just about exploded when I saw it. --66.206.187.182 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 * You are quite right; Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, and this has been removed, along with the sentence it was used to cite. Thanks for catching it. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed under "Economic impact of NASA funding"
As is, the quotation from the Midwest Research Institute seems to imply that the return on investment for civilian space R&D was 33% per year.

At this rate, however, a $25 billion investment in 1958 would have ballooned to $7.5 Trillion in only 20 years (and almost $100 Trillion by 1987).

Someone with access to the cited source should clarify exactly how the authors came up with that 33% figure because it's clearly NOT intended

to reflect an annually compounded ROI.

71.100.17.85 (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of data
On april 7, the table of actual funding data was removed from the article by an anonymous user with no reason given. If there's a problem with the article, shouldn't the proper response be to try and fix it? Even if something needs to go, I don't think an immediate gutting of the article with no discussion is the right route. Right now the article is completely useless, since it no longer has any information on its actual subject. Unless someone wants to justify this, I'm going to revert that edit after a few days. 68.43.60.195 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree and have reverted it. That's simply an inexcusable edit and I don't think it even deserved the generous grace period it's had. Fourpointsix (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

New Data
NASA released a new paper about it's budget on March 4, 2014: []. Because I can't edit the page as effectively as I want, it would be perfect if an experienced user adds this new information. Thank you. EmreOsm95 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement
Using the data from this article, I created a new vectorized version of this chart:

Because we don't seem to have the projected federal numbers, I felt it would be WP:OR to try and recreate that section of the chart. I did, however, expand the span to be 1958-2012 rather than 1962-2014. A fairly faithful recreation of the original chart can be found here. However, since these data are really not well-represented using a line graph, I generated instead a bar graph, which looks much nicer:

I used Python and matplotlib to generate these images, so that they can be easily updated, either for stylistic reasons or when later budget reports are released. You can find the code in my userspace here. I'm not sure that's the best place for the code, long-term, but I don't see an easy way to attach image-generation scripts to images on commons. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice in your most recent edit summary you suggest that the budget chart looks better on the right than on the left. I just moved it to the left because in its original form it seemed like it was on the right by default, and had no text-wrapping. That said, even with it inline wrapped on the right, I still think left might look a bit better, because the NASA insignia directly above it is also on the right. That said, when I make my browser window much wider, I find that it looks worse when the image is on the left. I'm fine either way. Let me know if a different version of this image would be better - I'm thinking part of the problem with placement may be that the text labels are rather small compared to the data, so maybe I could prepare a version of the image that has no axis labels or title, and we can arrange to have it link to the version with axis labels and the title when you click on it. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I think the image is fine the way it is. Its appearance must be dependent on the reader's equipment; yesterday on a different computer the axes and labels were looking light and hard to read, but that's not the case on the computer I'm using today (not perfect, but good enough to read.) I don't think you need to bother removing the labels; I think once users have been around a while they should know they can always just click on any image as necessary to see it in greater detail. 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic impact dated stats
The section on economic impact is dated, citing studies from the 1970s.

I'm sure others can find more info, but here are some links to start:
 *
 *

-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Economic impact POV
The economic impact section seems to be promoting the idea that NASA is well worth the economic investment in economic returns. This is a controversial claim. For example, the stats provided only claim $22.1B of benefit from 8 years of spending. It's unclear how or if these are inflation-adjusted, and it's unclear if this is just the amount NASA spent on stuff, or if this is solely the amount due to the multiplier effect. The real crux of the matter is whether or not the multiplier for NASA is greater than everything else we could be spending the billions of dollars on. I'm not taking a position on these questions, but this section needs to take in a wider diversity of viewpoints. Here are some examples not reflected in the article:

Pages that raise criticisms:
 * NASA wasted $20B on canceled programs
 * - Arguing we should cancel manned Mars exploration program
 * A Case For Cutting NASA' Budget (1968)
 * Is NASA A Waste Of Money? - public debate
 * - Was the Space Shuttle program worth the cost? (Says arguments go both ways.)

-- Beland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The "jobs created or saved" thing is something I've only ever heard from politicians. The sources in that section are either opinion pieces or commissioned by NASA, including a little propaganda diagram about what districts NASA is spending money on. That's all highly promotional, biased material. It's definitely got undue weight in the article. I say for now we remove the section. If someone wants to write a more balanced version that's fine, though it's not clear that it belongs here instead of in NASA, or as a subsection of "public perception". I'm not really sure how the scope of the two articles are divided up. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Budget of NASA
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Budget of NASA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lafleur20100308": From Apollo program:  From Skylab: See author's correction in comments section. From Project Mercury:  From Apollo–Soyuz Test Project:  From International Space Station: See author correction in comments.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * ✅ These are essentially identical; I used the Apollo program reference since it looks the best-formatted. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing on table.
You are missing the number of astronauts, which is an important indicator for capital finance single individual ventures.

IE: Approximately how much would an individual require, to be able to put themselves in space. (employees are there, but not the number of astronauts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.82.107 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing section on Employment Statistics
This is a page about the budget of NASA, and while it is mentioned how the budget is spent in some places, is there really a need for a chart of NASA's employment? Not to mention, this chart is based on a dataset referenced in a study that isn't being updated, so a new source would have to be found for this information. Similar pages, like the ones on the DoD budget, don't give an in-depth breakdown of their employment statistics. Maybe have one reference to the current total number of employees in the introduction of the article, but that should be the extent of it.

Lensaticflare (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, and despite there being more recent discourse on this talk page, there has been no opposition to this. I'm going to delete this section. Lensaticflare (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Political edit opens a can of worms
I am moving this recent edit here for discussion. (It was made by an editor coincidentally blocked for promotional username, which some might say justifies its reversion):

There are a couple of problems I see with this:
 * 1) Off-topic: the point of this section (as its title says) is to give actual instances of political opposition to NASA funding, not to accuse political groups of making bogus charges of opposition by the other side.
 * 2) The example given is from a known left-wing commentator (Williams) criticizing Reagan. This is a matter of opinion; the case can be made that Mondale in fact, early in his Senate career, took advantage of the Apollo 1 fire to launch criticism of NASA's handling of the Moon program, attempting to make a scandal out of the North American Aviation vendor selection process, under the guise of concern for astronaut safety.
 * 3) This is unbalanced by counter-examples of the left wing falsely accusing the right of funding criticisms.

I don't think we want to get into this high-potential, inherently non-NPOV area. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who edited this. My previous username was blocked, but my intention with the username is not to promote any business or institution. It's what I, in jest, occasionally refer to a room in my home where I tinker with various electronics and computers, and it was the first thing I thought of when asked to come up with a username. In retrospect, I understand why it went against Wikipedia's username policy, and I have come up with a new one in an effort to comply.

In response to your issues with my revision:

1. I agree. What I originally wrote did not provide actual instances of political opposition and failed to adhere to the section title's namesake.

2. I was unaware that the author of the first article was a known left-wing commentator. I would also agree that Senator Mondale was hyper-critical of NASA after the Apollo 1 incident, and I also seem to remember his attempts to make a scandal out of the situation, blaming North American's sloppy manufacturing practices. This was re-enacted in the second episode of the 1998 HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon". I looked for substantial sources that concisely referenced these same events, but failed. I admit, I should have spent more time looking for those articles.

3. I agree that the segment of the article should stay balanced.

My initial issue with this section of the article is that it uses politically inflammatory language many times. "Welfare", "Safety Nets", "Social Programs", these are all thinly veiled synonyms for "Government Handouts to the Poor". Particularly the word "Welfare". While not the best choice of words, I could understand its inclusion of the cited article from Universe Today, "Experts React to Obama Slash to Planetary Science Exploration", but that terminology is not used in that article.

Furthermore, despite clearly being written from a politically biased viewpoint, the Universe Today article does not touch on the subject of "welfare", "safety nets", or "food-aid programs".

The line "In 2012, the Obama administration made significant cuts to NASA's budget while increasing spending on social programs." for which the Universe Today article is explicitly being cited as a source, is a blatant falsehood. Nothing in that Universe Today article references President Obama "substantially cutting NASA's budget" nor does it include any information about "increasing spending on social programs.

What the Universe Today article says is that NASA's Planetary Sciences funds were being cut from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion, that $300 million being diverted to the James Webb Space Telescope. While I feel the James Webb Space Telescope will contribute greatly to human knowledge and our understanding of the universe, it is a long stretch to claim that the Webb Space Telescope is a "social program".

Even in this very Wikipedia article, the numbers show that NASA's budget went down only 1.4% between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. To claim that a 1.4% decrease in funding is a "siginificant cut" and attribute it to Obama (or the left-wing) is misleading at best, especially if you consider that NASA's budget was increased by 2.5% in FY 2014, increased by 1.9% in FY 2015, and increased by 5.8% in FY 2016.

Rather than completely remove this inaccurate and uncited "left-wing opposition to NASA funding" portion of the text [leaving the section completely unbalanced], I tried to put together something to replace it. I'll admit that in my haste, I failed to equally balance the politics of the section.

I included a new final paragraph to the section which summarized the findings of a 2015 Pew Survey which concluded that Independents, Democrats, and Republicans all have an equal (and surprisingly high) willingness to support and fund NASA and its endevours.

I would be in favor of completely removing this "Political Opposition to NASA Funding" section, since it adds very little benefit or understanding to the topic of Budget of NASA.

I feel that this might be an unreasonable request, but the entire section from "Far-left groups have traditionally..." to the end is completely uncited. The Universe Today article referenced as a citation for that portion of the section contains no information to substantiate what is written in this portion of this Wikipedia article.

It is more unreasonable to make edits/contributions in a Wikipedia article and cite articles that are completely unrelated or do not contain any information supporting the claims made in the Wikipedia article edit/contribution.

I am all for a balanced approach to this portion of the article and I truly am not trying to start a political debate here. I am not affiliated with any political party, and have voted for politicians on both sides of the aisle.

I admit that what I wrote didn't properly balance the section politically.

I am completely open to suggestions, and I do genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism, JustinTime55. I agree with all 3 of your stated problems with my previous edit.

Please forgive the lengthiness of my reply. I was unable to proofread or make edits due to browser glitches on my mobile device.

Thank you. Kevin at the KevCo Laboratories (a Fictional Institution) (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NASA logo
Now that NASA also uses the "worm" logo (as opposed to the "meatball"), should both be on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Link in "Political Opposition to NASA funding" doesn't support text in that section
"Critics have cited more immediate concerns, like social welfare programs, as reasons to cut funding to the agency.[31]"

While possibly accurate, link 31 takes us to a 1968 article that doesn't mention social welfare programs once.

title: Talk:Budget of NASA


text:
Talk:Stroh Brewery Company

Fair use rationale for Image:Strohtour.jpg
Image:Strohtour.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Present tense?
I understand that Stroh Brewery is no longer in the sense that it's no longer independent, but I'm looking at my can of Stroh's right now and it clearly says:
 * THE STROH BREWERY CO.
 * P.O. BOX 739, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201

Is there a reason this article shouldn't be written in the present tense? --Elliskev 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The article should be written in the present tense. The Stroh Brewery Company is still alive.  Although now it's just a dummy name for the Pabst Brewing Company.  All the brands that were bought and that now fall under Pabst retained their original company name.  For instance, Pearl & Country Club still say Pearl Brewing Company, and Lone Star is says the Lone Star Brewing Company.  However, all of this is just a ruse, since every drop of every beer that falls under the Pabst umbrella is produced by a 3rd party contract brewer (usually Miller).  --Brownings 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tigersstrohs.jpg
Image:Tigersstrohs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

McSorley's
I think it is notable that Stroh's Brewery makes the beer for McSorley's Old Ale House, a famous bar in Manhattan Smooth0707 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"After its dissolution in 2000, some Stroh brands were discontinued..."
Why not have a list of the discontinued brands? This would be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Below 39 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

History of company lacks crucial information
The first sentence of the article reads:

"The Stroh Brewery Company was a beer brewery located in Detroit, Michigan."

But the Company history section says that the company originated in Germany. So far, no problem.

But the company history omits any mention of how, why, or when the company moved to Detroit. (Or did it?) This is completely essential information and should not be left out.Daqu (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Brewing claims
I cut the following bolded text from the article since it strikes of a promotional marketing statement and lacks verification. The copper kettle isn't promoting carmelization or flavor since that happens when the wort is heated, regardless of what the wort is in; "fire brewed distilling," which I've never heard applied to making beer, wouldn't have much to do with the lightness of the beer. Pale malt would affect the lightness as well as the amount used, plus clarifying agents such as Isinglass or Irish Moss. Again, this just strikes me as puffy marketing jargon designed to make the Stroh's process seem unique. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this, or provide me with evidence to the contrary.

"Bernhard Stroh's original beer selling operation consisted of a basement brewing operation and was then sold door-to-door in a wheelbarrow. The new beer (Stroh's) sold door-to-door was a lighter-lager beer, brewed in copper kettles; copper kettles enhanced the rich flavor of the beer, promoting carmelization of the wort "while the fire brewed distilling made the beer lighter", thus forming a tradition of "pure water beers" without the heavier mineral content. Making the "new beer" lighter did not reduce the flavor."

Yojimbo1941 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Advertising, Bikini contest
This section was uncited. I did extensive research and could find nothing - except for sites quoting this Wikipedia article - that confirmed the bikini contests. So, I deleted it. If someone can find any useful source, sure, add this section again, fully cited. Here is an article that might have mentioned this but did not! http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2014/07/08/how-the-stroh-family-lost-the-largest-private-beer-fortune-in-the-u-s/#42af35dd1ede

''In the spring of 1983, several local radio stations and Stroh's Beer distributors sponsored bikini contests in 15 local nightclubs around the state of Louisiana to choose representatives to pose as calendar girls for Stroh's 1984 calendar poster. These contests were also preliminaries to the final competition, to be held in New Orleans that summer. The winner of each preliminary would secure her place on the calendar along with $500.00 in cash, and a two night stay for four at the Fairmont Hotel (now known as The Roosevelt Hotel), at 123 Baronne Street in New Orleans, where she would compete for the title of "Stroh's Rose of Louisiana 1984", and also pose for pictures for the calendar on the Natchez Steamboat. Sponsors for the state competition were Stroh's Beer, Ocean Pacific Swimwear, and the New Orleans Steamboat Company. Shreveport native Toy Phillips clinched the title on a Saturday night in June, and was awarded an all-expenses-paid, seven-day trip for two to Lake Tahoe, as well as the title of "Stroh's Rose of Louisiana" on the calendar. The calendar was popular in liquor establishments that carried Stroh's beer in the state, and is a collector's item today. This would be the only Stroh's Rose of Louisiana calendar to be published.'' Peter K Burian (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Winston Salem mismanagement
In the 1980's, the Winston Salem, NC, location was the largest brewery in the USA all under one roof, and where I briefly worked, with the Stroh's. The Stroh's inherited a legacy, a great business, but that generation had zero real interest in doing anything other then spending their royalty checks. The local Stroh family member was so grossly, incompetent as a leader, or even a brewer. To call him full of himself would be an understatement, and he might nearly be responsible for the downfall. While working with the people working the most hours, he would insult them, degrade them, and make it difficult for them to do their job, and people were hiding from him. Meanwhile, he put the beer out in the sun, on the asphalt, to make more room for "tours", because everyone wants to see how great we are. Ruining the beer they were brewing under their own label, and other labels. Speaking of which, it was not unusual to put the wrong beer in the wrong can. He seemed uncaring about this serious error, or the beer. He had a contempt for the customers, for the workers, for the truckers. Shockingly, he built them a plywood shack, containing a toilet, which was likely no better then an outhouse from day 1, for the truckers. They refused, and were insulted, that the customer wanted a lighter beer, instead believing that the customer didnt know they wanted a full calorie Stroh beer, and the customer was in the wrong, for not buying Stroh. The arrogance and nearly lack of enthusiasm for beer was shocking. Expanding by buying other failing brands did not help either. I left. As an example of Mr Stroh's leadership, lol, he went up onto the roof, and both banned a roofer from the property, and also gave him a deadline to finish (lol), both in the same sentence. Looking back, I honestly wonder if he was not on drugs. As the largest brewery under one roof, roofing is never finished. You went from one section to the next. He lacked basic knowledge of the task he was trying to control, and was talking to the man working the productively on his roof, for the best rate. (lol). He was confrontational, without reason. He was far more interested in giving tours, then managing the business, and he had zero people skills, other then as a tour leader. Adding insult to injury, your car was not safe in the parking lot. The entire place lacked basic security. The Stroh family, was out spending their royalty checks, while the business collapsed. After the collapse, funny enough, they are interviewed to describe what happened. The same people whom ran it into the ground, get to tell you why it failed. 162.72.88.128 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stroh Brewery Company


text:
Bitplane

Bitplane is a provider of software for 3D and 4D image analysis for the life sciences. Founded in December 1992, Bitplane operates out of three offices in Zürich, Switzerland, Belfast, United Kingdom, and South Windsor, Connecticut, United States.

Company history
As confocal microscopes were first becoming commercially available, the founders of Bitplane, Marius Messerli, Karl-Hermann Fuchs, and Jürgen Holm, realised that there was no suitable way to visualize and analyze the images provided by this more modern equipment. While pursuing their research at the Institute for cell Biology at the ETH in Zurich the first productive version of Bitplane's core product, Imaris, was developed. A small community of users developed among the scientific collaborators of the founders and the company Bitplane was created.

The name Imaris derives from three words: "image" analysis, the primary function of the software, "Marius" the name of the innovator and Bitplane co-founder, and finally, the "Personal Iris", the name of the hardware that initially enabled interactive 3D imaging.

When Imaris was introduced to the market in 1993 it ran only on Silicon Graphics (SGI) workstations as at the time only these were capable to perform 3D volume rendering at a speed worthy of being deemed "interactive". With the appearance of OpenGL capable graphics boards in personal computers the company decided to port its software to Windows and Macintosh and released a first version for the personal computer in 2001.

By the end of 1994, the software had sold in 30 labs in central Europe. In 1998, the product was introduced to the US market.

From 1994 to 1997, in co-operation with the Maurice E. Muller foundation in Bern, Switzerland, Bitplane launched a second line of software products for the documentation and management of medical information for orthopedic surgeons. In 1997, this part of Bitplane's activity was made independent. Headed by Dr. Holm, this software line operates under the name of Qualidoc AG, Switzerland, and is a vendor of hospital information management systems.

Bitplane was acquired by Andor Technology in December 2009.

Market history
Bitplane raised venture capital in 2000 to accelerate its growth. After an investment with Endeavour, Bitplane started to grow its presence in North America and built a new technology foundation for the software.

After having weathered a slowing in demand caused by the burst of the internet bubble in 2001, Bitplane steadily grew in sales, market share, and profitability.

The development of Imaris is tightly linked to the development of the confocal microscope. The first publication of a confocal microscope appeared in 1957 when Marvin Minsky patented his microscope (Minsky 1957 ). The instrument did not find much attention in the scientific community at the time due to the lack of light collection efficiency. It was only at the end of the 1970s, with the generation of scanning confocal microscopes, that the technique became useful for biological studies (Brakenhoff, 1979 and Choudhury 1977 ).

In order to explore the 3D capabilities of the confocal microscope, the instrument still had to be combined with high-end graphics computers. The first combination of a confocal microscope with specialized computer hardware that enabled digital image processing was presented by Van der Voort et al. (1985). In the late 1980s, Biorad introduced the first commercial laser scanning confocal microscope to the market, followed by Carl Zeiss and Leica soon after. All of these instruments delivered quality 3D images, however, there was no software to properly visualize and analyze the content. The development of Imaris started in 1989, to fulfill the needs of biologists to take full advantage of these high-quality images.

Imaris
Imaris is Bitplane's core product which provides functionality for the visualization, segmentation and interpretation of 3D and 4D microscopy datasets. Imaris allows visualization of original and derived data objects in a real time interactive manner so one can quickly make visual assessments of one's experiments in 3D and 4D to discover relationships that are otherwise hidden. With a large variety of segmentation options, Imaris provides the user with tools to segment large datasets to identify, separate, and visualize individual objects.

title: Bitplane


text:
Clement Coughlan

Clement Coughlan (14 August 1942 – 1 February 1983) was an Irish Fianna Fáil politician and school teacher from County Donegal. He was elected to Dáil Éireann in a 1980 by-election as a Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála (TD) for the Donegal constituency. He only served in public office for two years before his death in a road traffic accident on 1 February 1983.

In a morbid twist his death and the timing of his funeral is considered to be the deciding factor in keeping Charles Haughey as leader of Fianna Fáil, when the support for the campaign to oust him dwindled following the funeral. Coughlan's brother, Cathal Coughlan, was elected in the subsequent by-election. His niece, Mary Coughlan was also a TD and Minister.

He also played at senior level for the Donegal county football team.

title: Clement Coughlan


text:
File:Hugh Blumenfeld - The Strong in Spirit.albumcover.jpg

Summary
Album cover for Hugh Blumenfeld album The Strong in Spirit.


text:
Stewart McKinney (politician)

Stewart Brett McKinney (January 30, 1931 – May 7, 1987) was an American politician of the Republican Party who represented Connecticut's 4th congressional district in the House of Representatives from 1971 until his death. He is perhaps best known for coining the phrase "too big to fail" in regard to large American financial institutions, as well as for his struggle with, and eventual death from, AIDS.

Early life
McKinney was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and raised in Fairfield, Connecticut. He attended Kent School and later Princeton University from 1949 to 1951, but dropped out and enlisted in the United States Air Force. He attained the rank of sergeant and completed his enlistment in 1955. McKinney then returned to college and received a B.A. in history from Yale University in 1958.

He raced cars and was involved in several car-related businesses, including Auto Interior Decorators, Inc. and Fairfield Firestone. In addition, he was president of a chain of tire stores called CMF Tires; he also owned Lantern Point Real Estate Development and other ventures.

Political career
In 1966, McKinney was elected as a Republican to the Connecticut State House of Representatives, where he served two terms between 1967 and 1971. During his second term, he served as minority leader.

In 1970, McKinney ran for the U.S. House and won. The New York Times called him "an independent-minded, liberal Republican". He became known for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1986, which provides federal money for shelter programs. He served on the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee, and is credited with coining the phrase "too big to fail", in connection with large banks. He also served on the House Select Committee on Assassinations. During this time, he was a director of Bridgeport Hospital.

Death and legacy
McKinney died at Washington Hospital Center on May 7, 1987, at the age of 56, from AIDS-related complications. His physician speculated that McKinney became infected with HIV in 1979 as the result of blood transfusions during heart surgery. He was diagnosed with AIDS on April 22, 1987, during his final hospitalization. McKinney was known by friends to be bisexual, though his family said this was not the case, which raised the issue of how he had contracted the disease. Anti-gay prejudice at the time of McKinney's death in 1987 may have promoted a disingenuous approach to speculations on the cause of McKinney's HIV infection. Arnold Denson, the man with whom McKinney had been living in Washington, and to whom McKinney left property in his will, said that he had been McKinney's lover, and that he believed McKinney was already infected when Denson met him.

In 1987, Barney Frank became the first U.S. congressman to come out as gay of his own volition, and was inspired to do so in part by the death of McKinney; Frank told The Washington Post that after McKinney's death there was, "An unfortunate debate about 'Was he or wasn't he? Didn't he or did he?' I said to myself, I don't want that to happen to me."

After McKinney's death, Congress renamed the Salt Meadow National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. Additionally, in 1988, Connecticut's legislature honored McKinney's legacy by naming the Stamford Transportation Center after him.

Family
McKinney married Lucie Cunningham, the daughter of Briggs Cunningham II and Lucie Bedford, the granddaughter of a co-founder of Standard Oil. They had five children. Their son, John McKinney, was minority leader of the Connecticut State Senate until the end of 2014, and was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor in the 2014 elections.

title: Stewart McKinney (politician)


text:
Talk:Rollsign

article name
Why was this page moved? "Destination Display Signs" has 6 google hits. jdb ❋ (talk) 19:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - moved it back. --SPUI (talk) 19:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rollsign


text:
Cathal Coughlan (politician)

Cathal Seán Coughlan (3 October 1937 – 21 June 1986) was an Irish Fianna Fáil politician. He was first elected to Dáil Éireann in a 1983 by-election caused by the death of his brother, Clement Coughlan. His tenure as a Teachta Dála (TD) for Donegal South-West was short as he died suddenly in June 1986.

No by-election was held to fill the vacancy, but his daughter, Mary Coughlan, was elected for the constituency at the 1987 general election.

title: Cathal Coughlan (politician)


text:
1888 in art

The year 1888 in art involved some significant events.

Events

 * January 26 – Paul Gauguin leaves Paris to rejoin the Pont-Aven School of artists in Brittany, where he will remain until October and meet with Émile Bernard
 * February – Fifth annual exhibition of Les XX, at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium in Brussels. Artists invited to show in addition to members of the group include Henri-Edmond Cross, Albert Dubois-Pillet, Odilon Redon, Paul Signac, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and James McNeill Whistler
 * February 21 – Vincent van Gogh moves to Arles where he will be very productive as a painter
 * March – Van Gogh begins his Langlois Bridge at Arles series
 * March 22 – Fourth exhibition by the Société des Artistes Indépendants opens in Paris; it includes three paintings by van Gogh
 * June – Van Gogh visits Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer
 * July 14
 * The Monument à Léon Gambetta, by Jean-Paul Aubé, is inaugurated at the Louvre
 * Critic Emile Hennequin drowns at Samois-sur-Seine before his protégé Odilon Redon
 * August – Van Gogh begins his Décoration for the Yellow House at Arles including the Arles Sunflowers series of paintings
 * August 11 – James McNeill Whistler marries fellow-artist Beatrice ("Trixie") Godwin (née Beatrix Birnie Philip), widow of architect E. W. Godwin, and they spend a working honeymoon in France
 * October 3 – Leeds City Art Gallery in England opens
 * October 23 – Paul Gauguin joins van Gogh in Arles, bringing Émile Bernard's painting Le Pardon de Pont-Aven
 * December 23 – Having quarrelled with Gauguin, van Gogh cuts off the lower part of his own left ear, taking it to a brothel, and is removed to the local hospital
 * Paul Ranson, Paul Sérusier and Maurice Denis become fellow students at the Académie Julian and form Les Nabis
 * The weekly illustrated newspaper The Graphic commissions and exhibits in London 21 paintings of Shakespeare's heroines
 * William De Morgan moves his London art pottery from Merton Abbey to Fulham
 * Publication in English of Irish-born writer George Moore's autobiographical novel Confessions of a Young Man (London) describing bohemian life in 1870s Paris among the Impressionist painters

Exhibitions

 * International Exhibition of Science, Art and Industry, in Glasgow, Scotland

Works

 * Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema – The Roses of Heliogabalus
 * Reinhold Begas – Centaur and Nymph (bronze)
 * Émile Bernard
 * Le Pardon de Pont-Aven ("Breton Women in the Meadow")
 * Brothel Scene, for Vincent (watercolor)
 * Self-portrait with portrait of Paul Gauguin
 * The Yellow Tree
 * Joseph Boehm
 * Equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington (Hyde Park Corner, London)
 * Queen Victoria Statue (College Green, Bristol)
 * William-Adolphe Bouguereau – The First Mourning
 * Edward Burne-Jones – The Nativity
 * Gustave Caillebotte
 * The Plain of Gennevilliers
 * Sailing boats at Argenteuil
 * Charles Calverley - Statue of Robert Burns (Albany, New York)
 * Émile Friant - La Toussaint
 * Philip Hermogenes Calderon – Juliet
 * William Merritt Chase
 * The Blue Kimono
 * Modern Magdalen
 * Portrait of a Lady in Pink
 * Charles Conder – A holiday at Mentone
 * David Edward Cronin – Fugitive Slaves in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia
 * Édouard Detaille – Le Rêve
 * Alexander Doyle – William Jasper Monument
 * James Ensor – The Entry of Christ into Brussels in 1889 (J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu)
 * Akseli Gallen-Kallela – Démasquée
 * Paul Gauguin
 * Madame Ginoux (drawing)
 * The Painter of Sunflowers (December)
 * Self-Portrait with Portrait of Émile Bernard (Les misérables)
 * Vision After the Sermon
 * Alfred Gilbert – Statue of Queen Victoria (Winchester)
 * Antonio Gisbert Pérez - Execution of Torrijos and his Companions on the Beach at Málaga
 * Peder Severin Krøyer – Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
 * Frederic Leighton – Captive Andromache (approximate date)
 * William Logsdail – St Martin-in-the-Fields
 * Cesare Maccari – Cicero Denounces Catiline (fresco in Palazzo Madama, Rome)
 * Albert Joseph Moore – A River Side
 * Philip Richard Morris – Audrey
 * Giovanni Muzzioli – The Funeral of Britannicus
 * Ilya Repin
 * Saint Nicholas of Myra saves three innocents from death
 * They Did Not Expect Him
 * Paul Sérusier – Le Talisman
 * Georges Seurat – completion of Models (Les Poseuses) (Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia)
 * Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec – At the Circus Fernando, Equestrienne
 * Henry Scott Tuke – The Bathers
 * Giovanni Turini – Statue of Giuseppe Garibaldi (bronze, Washington Square Park, New York City)
 * John Henry Twachtman – Landscape, Branchville
 * J. W. Waterhouse – The Lady of Shalott
 * Vincent van Gogh
 * Boats at Saintes-Maries-De-La-Mer (June)
 * Harvest (at La Crau, with Montmajour in the Background) (June)
 * Corn Harvest in Provence
 * Farmhouse in Provence
 * La Mousmé
 * Sunset at Montmajour (August)
 * Cafe Terrace at Night (Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo) (September)
 * The Night Café (September)
 * The Yellow House (September)
 * Bedroom in Arles (first version; October)
 * The Red Vineyard (November)
 * The Sower (Sower with the Setting Sun) (June)
 * Tarascon Diligence (October 12)
 * Vincent's Chair and Gauguin's Armchair (November)
 * Les Arènes (November or December)

Births

 * January 1 – Augustus Dunbier, American painter (died 1977).
 * January 17 – Mohamed Nagy, Egyptian painter (died 1956).
 * February 22 – Horace Pippin, self-taught African-American painter (died 1946).
 * March 12 - Eric Kennington, English sculptor and painter (died 1960).
 * March 14 – Marc-Aurèle Fortin, Canadian painter (died 1970).
 * March 19 – Josef Albers, German artist, mathematician and educator (died 1976).
 * April 6 – Hans Richter, German painter, graphic artist, avant-gardist, film-experimenter and producer (died 1976).
 * June – David Dougal Williams, English painter (died 1944).
 * June 12 – Tom Purvis, English poster artist (died 1959).
 * July 10 – Giorgio de Chirico, Greek-Italian painter (died 1978).
 * August 13 – Gleb W. Derujinsky, Russian-American sculptor (died 1975).
 * August 14 – Sydney Carline, English painter, war artist (died 1929).
 * August 30 – Siri Derkert, Swedish artist, sculptor and political campaigner (died 1973).
 * September 4 – Oskar Schlemmer, German sculptor, painter, designer and choreographer (died 1943).
 * November 1 – George Kenner, German artist (died 1971)
 * November 7 – Mariano Andreu, Spanish painter, enamelling master, sculptor and stage designer (died 1976).
 * November 11 – Johannes Itten, Swiss colour theorist, painter and designer (died 1967).
 * Stanley Royle, English post-impressionist landscape painter (died 1961).

Deaths

 * January 13 – John William Inchbold, pre-Raphaelite painter (born 1830)
 * January 29 – Edward Lear, painter, illustrator and humorous writer (born 1812)
 * February 5 – Anton Mauve, painter (born 1838)
 * March 15 – Léonard Morel-Ladeuil, goldsmith and sculptor (born 1820)
 * May 30 – Louis Buvelot, Swiss-Australian painter (born 1814)
 * June 18 – Luigi Mussini, painter (born 1813)
 * July 31 – Frank Holl, painter (born 1845)
 * August 23 – Philip Henry Gosse, naturalist and illustrator (born 1810)
 * August 30 – George O'Brien, engineer and painter (born 1821)
 * September 28 – Thomas Gambier Parry, artist and art collector (born 1816)
 * October – Frank O'Meara, Irish painter (born 1853)
 * November 20 – Nathaniel Currier, illustrator (born 1813)
 * date unknown
 * Alexander Joseph Daiwaille, Dutch portrait painter (born 1818)
 * Nam Gye-u, Korean painter and government official (born 1811)

title: 1888 in art


text:
List of FIPS region codes

This is a list of FIPS 10-4 region codes, using a standardized name format, and cross-linking to articles. The list is broken up into alphabetical sections.

ABC – DEF – GHI – JKL – MNO – PQR – STU – VWXYZ

On September 2, 2008, FIPS 10-4 was one of ten standards withdrawn by NIST as a Federal Information Processing Standard. It is to be a neutral replacement for ISO 3166.

title: List of FIPS region codes