text:
Adam Carroll (racing driver)

Adam Norman Carroll (born 26 October 1982 ) is a British professional racing driver. He last raced in the 2016–17 Formula E season for Jaguar Racing. He has also raced for Team Ireland in A1 Grand Prix, winning the series in 2009.

Early career
Carroll, who was born in Portadown, Northern Ireland, started his career in 1993 competing in karting events. He continued in karting until 1998. After winning the Elf LA FILIERE SCHOLARSHIP in 1999 he moved on to British Formula Ford, winning the Winter Series and taking 3rd in the festival. He raced in the British Formula Ford competition in 2001, before successfully making the move to British Formula 3 B-Class in 2002 with the Sweeney team. Despite driving year-old cars, Carroll was always an outright front runner and he dominated the class winning the title with a record points tally.

International racing
In 2003, Carroll moved up to Championship Class British Formula 3, but due to lack of finance, he had little stability and finished the year having driven with three different teams (8 podiums in a row with Menu), before competing in part of the Formula Three Euroseries season, where despite being new to both team, series, track and tyres, he finished in the points in his first race. He also partnered and outperformed future Formula One driver Nico Rosberg in an end of season event in South Korea. He continued in Formula Three throughout 2004, finishing as runner up to Nelson Piquet Jr. before joining the 2005 GP2 Series, replacing Hayanari Shimoda at the Super Nova Racing team just before the start of the season.

Although Carroll's pre-season preparation for GP2 left him at a disadvantage to all the other drivers due to the lateness of his race deal and consequent lack of testing with his new team, he was immediately competitive, briefly challenging for the championship before slipping back as the season progressed due to reliability setbacks and on-track incidents.

Despite continually having trouble raising a budget for his racing, he has still managed to outperform drivers who have had funding readily available to them, including 2005 team-mate, and ex F1 driver, Giorgio Pantano. His undoubted talent caught the eye of Formula One and in 2005 he was signed as a test driver for Formula One team BAR-Honda. For the 2006 GP2 season he surprised many in choosing to join the Racing Engineering team when his previous team had a better chance of picking up the title. It soon became clear that due to Carroll's continued lack of sponsorship, the Racing Engineering deal saved him from having to drop out of top line motorsport altogether. He has since removed himself from the Honda driver program sensing a lack of opportunity as Button and Barrichello would be hard to replace.

The only real high point of the 2006 season was a pole position, third place and second place combo at Silverstone. It was clear throughout the season, however, that Carroll's team was not as strong as the majority of the other teams in the series. This was highlighted many times due to car failures that cost him many points throughout the year. As well as this, the car was distinctly slower and he also had trouble with other drivers hitting him from behind. This coupled with a driver error while leading race two in Hungary cost Carroll a lot of points that, should he have gained them, he would have been in contention for at least third in the championship. As it was though, Carroll's 33 points was enough to give him eighth place (equal points with seventh-placed Gianmaria Bruni with Bruni ahead having scored more wins). Carroll scored all of his team's points, outscoring his old team Super Nova Racing.

DTM, GP2 and A1GP

For the start of the 2007 season, Carroll was driving a two-year-old Audi A4 in the German DTM series for the Futurecom TME team. On 26 June it was announced that he would replace Antônio Pizzonia in the FMS GP2 team for the event supporting the French Grand Prix. Carroll won at the Silverstone round of the GP2 series and scored 4 other points to take a total of 13 in one weekend, only his second back in GP2, in a car that had only scored one point beforehand. It was announced on 13 July that he had left the DTM due to sponsorship problems, and concentrated on GP2 for the rest of 2007. Carroll also went on to claim victory in the first race at the Hungaroring, despite starting sixth and changing all four tires during his mandatory pit stop. The season did not end so well for Carroll, as he scored only 2 points in the last three races despite being in contention for much more. However, he did finish in seventh place, ahead of many drivers who, unlike Carroll, had completed the entire season. During this time, Adam had tested the A1GP car for Ireland, impressing everyone at Silverstone and so for the second event onwards, Adam signed up to race in A1GP. His first weekend demonstrated yet again what a talent he was as he got Ireland's biggest points haul in the history of A1GP by netting a podium in his first race and despite starting 18th on the grid due to being blocked in qualifying, 6th in the feature race. Later in the season, he won the Mexico City feature race, Ireland's first win in A1GP. He also finished on the podium at Brands Hatch, en route to helping Team Ireland finish 6th overall in the championship.

Carroll began the 2008 GP2 Series season without a drive, but when Adrián Vallés was dropped by FMS International after the first round of the season, he took part in four races for his old team. He was then replaced by Marko Asmer.

For 2008/2009, Carroll returned to A1GP and Team Ireland again leading them to victory for the first time, in China. A1 Team Ireland became the fourth A1 Grand Prix champions, after a title battle which went down to the final round in Great Britain. Ireland won with 112 points, all scored by Carroll and included five race victories and three fastest laps.

Carroll announced in April 2009 that he was approached by two F1 teams in negotiation for a driver's seat for 2010. It turned out that the two teams were Campos Meta and Manor GP, both of which were new entries for the 2010 season. Carroll said that he could not raise the 4 million Euros needed to sign for Virgin. He was also in line for a drive with Lola, which was also planning to enter the sport in 2010, but the British marque's entry was turned down.

IndyCar
IndyCar Series team Andretti Autosport announced that Carroll was to take part in some races during the second half of the 2010 season. He ultimately competed in the Watkins Glen Grand Prix and the Honda Indy 200, finishing in 16th and 19th places respectively. He scored 26 points in total and finished the season 34th in the drivers' championship.

2011

On 2 July, Carroll made a one-off appearance in the Formula Renault 3.5 Series at the sixth round of the championship where he finished fourth and third in the two races. This was in place of the injured Austrian driver, Walter Grubmüller. He also drove in the Donington round of the Auto GP series taking pole and finishing 5th and 2nd in the races. He then returned to GP2 with Super Nova Racing for the German round replacing Luca Filippi.

Formula E
Carroll frequented the series during the 2015–16 season as a potential substitute driver for Mahindra and Team Aguri, neither of which came to fruition. On 19 August 2016, Carroll was listed as one of four drivers partaking with Jaguar Racing in the 2016–17 Formula E pre-season test at Donington Park, having tested with the team previously. Carroll was subsequently signed with the team.

In the 2020–21 Formula E season, Carroll was signed as NIO 333's reserve driver.

Sports car racing
In 2023, Carroll joined Team WRT in the GT World Challenge Europe Endurance Cup, driving alongside Lewis Proctor and Tim Whale in the team's #31 entry. He also added a part-time campaign in the GT World Challenge America with Esses Racing.

Complete Formula 3 Euro Series results
(key)

Complete GP2 Series results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap) † Driver did not finish, but was classified as he completed 90% of the winner's race distance.

Complete A1 Grand Prix results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

American open–wheel results
(key)

Complete Auto GP results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete British GT Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

title: Adam Carroll (racing driver)


text:
Talk:Temperateness

Clarify wind direction
"the prevailing winds are to the west" means they blow from east to west? --User:Jidanni 2006-05-09

 * I would read to the west as from the east to the west. It looks like the article has been clarified. A good clarification, too, because a "west wind" means a wind from the west (to the east). — HorsePunchKid →龜  2007-02-26 22:17:02Z

Maritime temperate climate
But why it talks just about the oceans? Many countries in the temperate zone border the Mediterranean sea. --212.68.222.203 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle latitudes merger
It is proposed that the article Middle latitudes should be merged with this article, since the article is small in size and both the article mention very similar ideas. Having these articles merged as one would make the resultant article much better in quantity and quality. What do you think? Set Sail  For The   Seven Seas    286° 45' 00" NET    19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree. The article would benefit from this merge.  FatDaks (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, if this is still under consideration. — anndelion    ※   07:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Population conclusion
While I understand the conclusion talks about the repartion of population in temperate climates, I just cannot see the link between temperate climate and the population of European descent being a majority in temperate zones. Even if true I suppose this is best suited in an article about European colinization rather than climates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.166.204 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed! EngineerFromVega (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The last paragraph of the introduction says "However the population in the temperate zones are somewhat decreasing, due to low birth rates and a growing migration trend from the temperate zone to the tropics." This is one of the worst sentences I have ever seen in a Wikipedia article. The verb doesn't agree in the main clause, but that's the least of its problems. Decreasing population in the temperate zone? Net migration to the tropics? This is so wildly unsubstantiated, it almost sounds like vandalism.Treeemont (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C. isn't temperate?
The map should be changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.221.132 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
This is a continuation of the discussion started on the Project page. I've merged the information in this article into a copy of Temperate climate. The results are available at User:Watchwolf49z/sandbox. All I've done is include the citations and some in-line linkage. I'm proposing this copy be made the main article of Temperate climate and this article be submitted for deletion. I've left Middle latitudes alone as that is part of WikiProject:Geography, and I'm not in a position to say the climatic information there shouldn't be. I'm only trying to serve the merge call, and this should cover it for now. Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am working through the old merges and this is one of the oldest. Since there is no referenced material at Middle latitudes I am just going to go for the redirect option. See this for the version before merging. AIR corn (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I am following now. How about you just copy your sandbox article to the Temperate climate one (I assume you are the only one who has made any changes). Make sure you link to this page in the edoit summary (I usually just say "merged from Temperateness"). you can then turn this into a redirect (add #REDIRECT Temperate climate to the main page and delete everything else. You can't delete this page as it is needed for attribution after a merge is completed (basically we have to keep the edit history so if someone is interested they can find the original editor that added information). It is also a lot easier than going through a deletion discussion and the most likely outcome of one. AIR corn (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I’m not clear on what you’ve done, shouldn’t we merge the articles first, and then set the redirect? I see this was approved, but it was never actually done. I’d like you to undo your revisions and join the on-going discussion.  Your opinion on this situation would be very welcome. The whole notion of “Temperateness” is a little out there, so to speak. It’s notability is in question.  Even Temperate climate is ambiguous enough to most likely wind up as a pipe farm.  I understand it may prove too difficult to have this page fully deleted, perhaps we should just excommunicate it from the meteorology project. Watchwolf49z (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have undid all my edits to these articles. You can't merge and delete for attributition reasons. They are now the oldest articles with merge tags on them Category:Articles to be merged from July 2009 so it is possible some others may come along and try to merge them. Generally I don't like merging content that is unreferenced like the stuff in Middle latitudes, but you might be able to get something out of it. If you do merge the articles you need to at least say where the infommation come from in the edit summary, ideally linking the article (see this for a example). AIR corn (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I've finished moving the articles around and clearing out the merger call. Someone from Geography needs to look at it and see where that can go. Watchwolf49z (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"merge" of the two or more articles consists of two stages: merge the content of the article and merge of history of changes ( and ). This second step: merge of history of changes, the administrator must perform. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone tell me why this talk page is still appearing on the backlog? There's no instances of a mergeto/mergefrom template used on this talk page, that I can find, anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which backlog? - Watchwolf49z (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was showing up on [Category:Articles to be merged] but evidently I was one of the people seeing stale versino of pages; it's gone now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Temperateness


text: User talk:216.229.193.10

title: User talk:216.229.193.10


text:
Nami Miyazaki

Nami Miyazaki (宮崎奈美; born April 13, 1976) is a field hockey international goalkeeper from Japan, who was a member of the national women's team that competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece.

title: Nami Miyazaki


text:
Talk:Computer-aided translation

is that the same as Computer-assisted translation? (clem 18:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

title: Talk:Computer-aided translation


text:
Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 1

Template changes
What do people think about including NAICS industry classification and (insert year) revenue as well? This is pretty critical information for evaluating companies and understanding what they do, both academically and practically. Plus the info is generally easily available. And why include slogan -- it seems irrelevant, and would often change anyway. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent about the slogan. I support including industry codes, but please do it in an internationally-respectful way. I don't know what system, if any, is used in other countries. Rhobite 18:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * For industry codes, NAICS is used for North America, Europe uses the NACE. The NAICS is more common, however, for non-government reports.  I would suggest that we include "industry" in words (software and services, chemicals, steel, etc.), and then allow people to put in a NAICS or NACE code. I would even suggest including industry instead of products, since the products thing only makes sense for a few types of companies -- what are the products of Walmart? Of Goldman Sachs?  And even IBM's "products," like computers, only represent a bit of their actual revenue.

 * And what about revenue? It seems critical to understand how big a company is, and not just in terms of people.  The objection above (that it would get out of date) makes little sense - so does the number of employees, the executive management, and even the slogan.  Revenue is pretty critical.

 * Finally, as for the slogan, I am not sure how it is at all useful to anyone. "Your potential. Our passion."  "I'm lovin' it"?  These are advertising phrases, and do not reflect anything about the company.  Neither does the founding location, by the way, which can be mentioned in the article if relevant but is not useful in info boxes, by and large.

 * Basically, why not remove founding location and slogan (we could also remove products) and include revenue and industry? That information is infinitely more useful as a first glance summary than the slogan and founding location.   Take a look at Dow Chemical Company, for example.  Does "Living. Improved Daily." say anything useful?  And with no revenue figures, there is no way to see how big it is compared to other companies and why it is important.  Any thoughts?

 * --Goodoldpolonius2 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with all of these proposed changes. First of all, the only people who know and understand NAICS or NACE codes are accountants, tax lawyers, and small businesspeople who file their own income tax returns.  Most Wikipedia users (I'm thinking of say, the average 15 to 22-year-old who's only worked as a line worker) would say, what the hell?

 * Next, NAICS codes in general are notorious for encompassing huge industries and sectors, and for lacking specificity. Also, I know from personal experience that NAICS is quite slow in adding codes to cover new industries, which is annoying for people in those industries.

 * Another point is that this is one of the most popular infobox templates and changing it would create a huge mess across many, many WP articles.

 * As for getting rid of the slogan field, I strongly disagree. I like company slogans, empty of meaning as they often are, because they are often unintentionally ironic and thus humorous.  For example, Boeing's slogan is Forever New Frontiers, which is quite ridiculous; everyone knows that Airbus is the true innovator in aviation nowadays (Boeing has specifically refused to even consider making a double-decker jumbo jet while Airbus is already building one).  Also, seeing a slogan reminds me of the company's advertising, which then reminds of what I know about it.

 * As for revenue, I am not sure that is a good idea. It fluctuates way too much (do we use the annual or quarterly numbers?) and would have to be regularly updated (by who?).  Of course, if you can come up with some automatic way to scrape securities reports information and pipe it directly into Wikipedia, I suppose that would make it feasible.  --Coolcaesar 02:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Lets deal with the issues one at a time. First, as for industry -- the point was not to use NAICS or NACE codes (which has the disadvantages you stated), but to use word descriptions supplemented by codes, like "Software," followed by a code if available.  The advantage of using the codes is that they would work as categories to allow companies to be easily compared, but the real point was that industry, rather than products, would be a lot more useful.  Witness Wal-Mart, where the products are listed as "Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Sam's Club, Neighborhood Markets," which makes no sense at all.  Besides, it is already being used for industry in entries like Exxon and ConocoPhillips and others, so why not standardize?

 * Next, slogans. While I appreciate that you find slogans unintentionally ironic, you are admitting that it says nothing about the company.  It may occasionally remind you of advertising, but not in every case, and it carries almost no information.  Plus, many non-US companies do not have slogans, or have different slogans in different countries.  It can still be mentioned in the article, but aside from personal preference and POV about irony, I don't think there is a good reason for the info box.  What does it mean that Target's slogan is "Expect More. Pay Less" and Wal-mart's is "Always Low Prices"?  Or that Budweiser's is "True."? Besides, of the top three companies in the US (Exxon, Wal-mart, GM), only one has a slogan listed.

 * Finally, revenue. Sure, revenue fluctuates, but given a figure and a year gives a much better sense of how big/important/relevant/etc a company is than any other information.  Revenue figures rarely change by orders of magnitude year to year.  Knowing that Wal-mart's revenue was $285.2 Billion and Target's was $46.8B is useful in understanding the size of these companies, even if those figures are a year or two old.  Plus, it would force people to include this info, the current Target entry doesn't have revenue figures anywhere!

 * As for difficulty with changing this, I don't think that it is a compelling reason to not consider changes. They can be phased in over time, but being left with mediocre info boxes because we don't want to consider changes seems silly.  Besides, many companies do not yet have info boxes, and of those that do, many are incomplete (with no slogans, like Berkshire Hathaway, or no founding info, or misused product boxes).

 * --Goodoldpolonius2 06:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose changes
As the initial designer and implementor of this infobox, I oppose the changes proposed by Goodoldpolonius2.

Firstly, the objective of an infobox is to provide simplified major details about a subject. When I designed this infobox, I designed it according to my needs as an entrepreneur and marketing professional. [Obviously, many Wikipedians are pleased with the design.] As such, the adage "don't fix what isn't broken" applies. The changes proposed by Goodoldpolonius2 are neither beneficial to the typical reader nor to me, and are either redundant or proposed ad ignorantium. In addition, significant changes require updating every article which uses this template. As of this writing, there are nearly 300 articles using the company infobox.

 * Notice of industry classification is irrelevant when the Products are properly listed. In business, a "product" can be a tangible good, service, organization, or any resource. See 7-Eleven, Microsoft, Nokia, and Wal-Mart for examples of proper Products values. Moreover, the concept of "industry" is vague and ultimately is ignored for the practice of business.
 * Slogans are an expression of a product's corporate culture, brand identity, and brand essence. Slogans also indicate the direction(s) which a product desires positioning towards. Slogans even reflect the positioning of a product. The value perceived of slogans is directly proportional to how extensive the knowledge of marketing a reader possesses.
 * Notice of revenue data is redundant and subject to the passage of time when readers realize that public companies publish such data through their stock exchange(s) and on their websites (e.g., annual reports). Both the stock exchange(s) and official websites listed in the infobox of public companies are external resource links which contain regularly updated and more accurate data.

Adraeus 07:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Wow, talk about violating No personal attacks right out of the gate. Between calling this an argument from ignorance and attacking my knowledge of the business world, well, I am impressed. Look, if you need me to invoke resumes, I have founded a company that employs over 50 people. I have an MBA from one of the top five business schools. I have done marketing consulting for VCs, government agencies, and technology companies. I have academic articles in a number of the major journals in business academia as well. I say this not to invoke authority, but to demonstrate that I really am not ignorant on this topic. Given the hostility of your responses to other posters, and certainly to me, I realize that this is going to be a losing fight right off the bat, but here goes: I know you feel intensely proprietary about this infobox you designed, and my suggestions were not designed to tear down your work, merely to argue that, as is the philosophy of Wikipedia, that it could be made even better. It would be great if you actually responded to the arguments rather than attacking me. Please make your case, rather than assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Do you really think the infobox is perfect? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Products: You argue that the Wal-mart case is an example of properly-listed product values, but do you really think the Wal-mart product list makes sense? What is the "proper product values" for Dow?  For Goldman-Sachs?  For Boston Consulting Group? Isn't some sort of industry description more useful?  Industry is not ignored in business, it is the first thing you list, and the first thing you use to describe a company:  "Biogen is a biotech company" not "Biogen makes Zevalin."  Industry does not need to be precise: "GE is an industrial conglomorate" or "IBM is a technology and professional services company" is fine.  And your definition of products as including an "organization or any resource" is just plain wrong, resource and organization are vastly different from product.  Find me any major source that uses this as a product description, or that considers the Wal-mart stores a product.
 * Slogans: Slogans do not represent corporate culture, for goodness sake, the previous commenter explained that he liked them for their ironic value. Do you think that the fact that Budweiser's slogan was just changed to "True." changes anything about the company?  What is the slogan for Fortune-20 company Berkshire Hathaway?  Why is the difference between the slogans of Target and Wal-mart significant?  And this is very US-centric in any case, since firms in many other countries do not even have slogans, or use different ones in different countries.
 * Revenue is no more instantly out-of-date than employees or top management. And it is a major way of judging the size and nature of companies.  You do not need to be current to the year, or even the last few years, for revenue to be useful in the infobox.  But how is it redundant?  What other information in the infobox has this data?
 * Practicality: many of the almost 300 articles have large sections of the infobox blank. In any case, I would propose that we create a new infobox with any revisions that we decide on.  People can then transition to the new infobox gradually when they overhaul articles.  Or we can just add lines for industry and revenue and keep slogans and products in as well, and phase them out gradually.  It does not seem like the difficulty of transition is reason enough to not discuss changes.
 * Standards for debate. I think it would be worth making it explicit what the standard you keep citing of an article "beneficial to the typical reader [and] to me" is.  What makes an article beneficial to you, and what do you think makes it useful to a reader?

 * I don't have strong feelings either way about the proposed changes, so I'll just butt in to ask everyone to cool it down. Please keep it on topic. Adraeus, again you are making borderline personal attacks. It's also inappropriate to suggest that you should have more influence over this template because you made the first edit. Change happens.

 * On to the changes. If we are choosing a single financial figure to list in the infobox, are we sure that revenue is the right one? It does give a good idea of the size of established companies. But it says nothing about a company's profitability, and it's meaningless for new companies. I don't know if there's a better figure to use, though. Market cap is extremely volatile.. net profit measures profitability but not size. Maybe revenue is the best choice, but since it's a single click away, does it really need to be added to the template? No single number gives a complete picture of a company's condition. Maybe we should leave the financial data to the external links.

 * Products: Now that I think about it, it's awkward for us to shoehorn services and brands into the "products" field. I agree with Goodoldpolonius2 on this point. As the number (and importance) of service-based companies increases, I think it's inaccurate to imply that every company has "products". I support changing this to some sort of industry box. Rhobite 21:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rhobite, thanks for the cool head. Since I don't want to ruin the chance of making any change by insisting on my full agenda, I will split my proposal and table my suggestion that we remove anything from the current infobox (though I believe I am right about the "slogan" and "founded" information being of little value), if that seems too controversial, and we can discuss it more later. That aside, we should definitely change product to industry, though. And we should have some sort of financial measure as well. All measures are flawed (number of employees being a good example), but revenue is the general number used for ranking companies in the Fortune 500, for determining whether someone is a small, medium, or large business, and for starting any discussion about company size.  I am open to debate, but since people often don't list any financial measure in the articles (see Target Corporation), one financial measure on the infobox would both allow comparisons and provide some consistency, at least within an order of magnitude.  I don't think we need financial data in any sort of investor kind of way, but comparing the even out-of-date revenue of Wal-mart to Target, or GM to Ford, is highly useful to encyclopedia readers in understanding the companies, even though it would not be to investors, and should be viewable at a glance.

 * So, lets discuss: (1) Changing product to industry and (2) Inserting a financial measure, namely revenue, to the infobox. Thoughts?
 * Goodoldpolonius2 21:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Argumentum ad ignorantium is not ad hominem; it's a logical fallacy. The only reason I mentioned that I initially created this infobox was to connect the fact that the infobox works for me with the fact that I designed it to satisfy my needs while retaining simplicity for the casual reader. Assume good faith I know your proposal for change is in good faith, but I don't think your argument for change justifies the increased workload that would result from your changes. If I were to make a significant change, I would remove the number of Employees value since it requires annual research to maintain its accuracy. Considering how many articles use this infobox, such research and maintenance is already a heavy workload. You want to add another value which requires annual research. That's ridiculous.
 * Products: See WordNet: "product"
 * Slogans: If there's no slogan, we use the value "N/A" as an acronym for "not any" or "not available". In CSS, I think there's a way to hide the Slogans row if there's no associated value, but nobody has since introduced that feature. Slogans are an expression of corporate culture and do affect corporate culture. Research memetics and branding.
 * Revenue: Like the number of Employees, I say no. Such data can be found using external resources which are dedicated to producing accurate information annually. If you want to discover the annual revenue of a company for a given year, use the public company's stock exchange link (e.g., NASDAQ/NYSE) or use their official website to find their annual report in the investors section. The infobox should not be used as a repository for easily outdated information.
 * Practicality: Diffusion of responsibility is not a good thing to rely on. For every moment there exists a flaw in the infobox, a reader of an article will see it. Remember: this is web publishing. Any changes made show up on the final product. Any changes made to this infobox cannot be significant unless absolutely necessary.
 * Standards for debate. Since you're proposing significant changes, why don't you elaborate on your needs and why this infobox is not useful to you?

Adraeus 22:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Rhobite, I don't appreciate you lecturing me on personal attacks when I've made none. I have not attacked Goodoldpolonius2 in any way. If I do attack, you will know it and you will feel it. I suggest you modify your attitude. Telling someone they're making "borderline personal attacks" indicates you're not assuming good faith, which isn't a good thing for someone such as you.

 * In business, services are products. Products is defined as "a total bundle of satisfaction; a service, a good, or both—offered to consumers in an exchange transaction." See Wikipedia's article, product, for clarification.

 * We should acknowledge that there aren't many private companies which publish their revenue data. Revenue would be applicable to mostly, if not only, public companies. If Revenue is added, I will defend Slogan to the death. If Revenue is not added, I will support the removal of Slogan. Both Revenue and Slogan are useful information to those that know how to interpret such data; in addition, such data is only readily available from and relevant to public and marketing-oriented companies. Of course, we could diverge and create separate infoboxes for public and private companies, but again, that's a lot of work to implement.

Adraeus 22:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This reminds me of our argument over Template:Nasdaq. In that case you were neglecting the fact that writing "NYSE: YHOO" implies to most people that YHOO trades on the NYSE. In this discussion, you are neglecting the fact that "product" isn't synonymous with "service" for most people. I think you have trouble picking up the connotations of words. Other people may have different interpretations of the words you write. They aren't necessarily wrong, and you aren't necessarily right because your words adhere to broad dictionary definitions. Arguing from dictionaries really isn't a valid tactic, anyway. I understand that "product" has a broad meaning in marketing-speak, but it refers to a tangible good for most laypeople. Rhobite 23:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * You subjectively interpret "NYSE: YHOO" as meaning Yahoo! trades on NYSE. That's your personal interpretation. That is not what is written. What is written is simply a link to a stock exchange's data on a stock with no other meaning attached or implied. Rhobite, you have a serious problem with understanding things objectively. I pointed this out before and you complained I was attacking you, which seems to be your strategy for just about everything. Take this Uncritical Inference Test to see how well you can differentiate facts from inferences.
 * You are neglecting the fact that this infobox is business-related. As such, we use business terminology. Adraeus 01:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am glad we are making progress. I do have to disagree that services are products, however.  In fact, they are almost always differentiated, for example:
 * Academia, these are almost always distinguished, see, for example: "Business-to-business service marketing: How does it differ from business-to-business product marketing?" by Gordon, Geoffrey L, Calantone, Roger J, di Benedetto, C Anthony. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. Santa Barbara: 1993. Vol. 8, Iss. 1; p. 45. There are many, many examples.
 * Common discussion. See here, here, here, and many, many more.
 * News and Media. See here or here or many others.
 * Besides, even just limiting to product and service leaves out a wide range of business types (see business) that are traditionally considered neither: utilities, finance companies, agricultural businesses, mining, education, and even retail and distribution. Industry is definitely the preferred term.
 * I would say that it is worth adding revenue (and keeping slogan, if you want). There is private revenue info on D&B and Hoovers, and even if we can't list every company that doesn't make it any less useful for the majority of companies - we can't always list slogans or founding locations either.
 * --Goodoldpolonius2 23:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The definition of product is set in stone throughout the businessworld and in academia. To correctly refer to tangible products, use the term "goods". Tangible goods, intangible services, organizations of offerings, ideas, etc., are all products. This is understood wherever you go in business.
 * "a total bundle of satisfaction; a service, a good, or both—offered to consumers in an exchange transaction." (Longenecker, Justin G., et al. Small Business Management: An Entrepreneurial Emphasis. 13th ed. N.p.: South-Western College, 2005.)
 * "Product is a term used to describe all goods, services, and knowledge sold. Products are bundles of attributes (features, functions, benefits, and uses) and can be either tangible, as in the case of physical goods, or intangible, as in the case of those associated with service benefits, or can be a combination of the two."
 * "A product can be anything one receives in an exchange, including all tangible and intangible attributes and expected benefits; it may be a good, service, or idea."
 * "A product can be (1) a bundle of attributes (features, functions, benefits, and uses) capable of exchange or use; usually a mix of tangible and intangible forms. Thus a product may be an idea, a service, a physical entity (a good),or any combination of the three. It exists for the purpose of exchange in the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives. (2) Occasional usage today implies a definition of product as that bundle of attributes where the exchange or use primarily concerns the physical or tangible form; in contrast to a service, where the seller, buyer, or user is primarily interested in the intangible. Though to speak of "products and services" is convenient, it leaves us without a term to apply to the set of the two combined. The term for tangible products is goods and it should be used with services to make the tangible/intangible pair, as subsets of the term product. (See services.)" (Calantone, Roger J., C. Merle Crawford, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.)
 * "Services are products, such as a bank loan or home security, that are intangible or at least substantially so. If totally intangible, they are exchanged directly from producer to user, cannot be transported or stored, and are almost instantly perishable. They come into existence at the same time they are bought and consumed. They involve customer participation in some important way, cannot be sold in the sense of ownership transfer, and have no title. Most products are partly tangible and partly intangible, and the dominant form is used to classify them as either goods or services (all are products)." (Calantone, Roger J., C. Merle Crawford, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.)
 * "A product is the end object of a transformation process that includes physical objects, information or services. Result of activities or processes and may include service, hardware, processed materials, software or a combination thereof; can be tangible (e.g. assemblies of processed materials) or intangible (e.g. knowledge or concepts) or a combination thereof; can be either intended (e.g. offering to customers) or unintended (e.g. pollutant or unwanted effects)."

 * "Industry" only refers to the stereotypical categorization of an organization's primary business activity determined by the largest portion of revenue. Classifying organizations by industry is a faulty scheme which yields zero benefit to strategists and inreases the layperson's risk of misunderstanding. For instance, a company that is categorized as a farm equipment provider may actually be transitioning towards providing only telecommunications services. Still, using the "industry" classification scheme, we would categorize that company as a "farm equipment provider". While that's an extreme example, it does happen. (Nokia used to be a wood-pulp mill, a rubber products manufacturer, a telephone/telegraph cable manufacturer, a telecommunications switching equipment developer, a personal computer solutions provider, etc.)

 * By listing an organization's major product offering, readers can more accurately perceive to what category they think an organization belongs without us stating "this organization is this type of company."

 * Adraeus 01:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Since this is a business-related template, we should therefore use impenetrable marketing language? What a convenient rule to completely make up on the spot. Rhobite 03:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * If accounting is the language of business, marketing is the heart and soul. Adraeus 07:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Different contexts
Adraeus, I think it is fair to say that both industry and product are defined differently in different contexts. I also think that you are using far from the most common usages.
 * Industry. There are real problems with your assertions about industry yielding zero benefit to strategists and laypeople.
 * Industry is used by strategists all the time. Michael Porter, for example, the most cited reference point in strategy, talks about the key element of competitive strategy being "the structural analysis of industries."  Industry comparisons are also the key element in understanding company performance.  The list goes on.
 * Industry is used by laypeople and businesspeople all the time. Witness the North American Industrial Classification System.  Or the way industry is used to classify companies informally.  Or your own user page, which starts: ""Adraeus" (pronounced adray-oos) is an alias for an American businessman in the strategic branding and marketing industry."  You don't say that you produce branding products.
 * Your definition is too limited. The definition you use, refering to the "stereotypical categorization of an organization's primary business activity determined by the largest portion of revenue," mischaracterizes the link you gave in support, which says nothing about stereotyping, just that this is how it is typically done in finance. And your own examples don't show any problems, Nokia was once a logging company and is now a telecom company.  Where is the problem?
 * You are right, industry is an inprecise term, to use it, we will want to define it. And if you want to use the word "business" or "major areas of business" or something, that is fine.  But general industry classification is important, I hope you will agree, and it is better than listing individual products.  Again, "Biogen is a biotech company" not "Biogen makes Zevalin."
 * Products vs. Services. I agree with you that there are a number of sources (driven from economics, which uses these definitions) that define goods as physical things, services as intangible things, and products as the superset of both, but this is hardly universal in academia, as my sources above point out (Porter also differentiates, for example).  Given your use of the "common man" standard so often in this argument, however, I think you would agree that this is not the way most people use these definitions, and the links I provided show that in most discussion and business press there is a difference.  We need look no further than the way in which the product line has been filled out so messily in many service companies, and the fact that even the example you gave, Wal-mart, lists the lines of business as product, rather than "retail" or some more reasonable view of the service, to indicate the confusion.
 * Products vs. Industry. The real question is whether to use products or industry/business as the defining characteristic in an info box.  There are strong reasons to use industry.  (1) While both can be inprecise (as the use of the product infobox for many service companies shows), it seems difficult to argue that it is easier for people to identify industry by listing product names (is Zevalin a drug, a Swedish fighter jet or software?) than by seeing a general category.  (2) The product box is causing confusion, as people are using different levels, witness Ford Motor Company vs. General Motors or Microsoft vs. Hewlett-Packard.  (3) It is easier to compare two companies when they are categorized by industry rather than product, and will be easier to categorize them in Wikipedia as well. (4) It is more intuitive, as the fact that your own user page uses industry rather than products to define your business indicates.

And are we agreed on adding revenue? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Industry. To understand why industry classification relies on stereotypes, and is therefore a faulty scheme, you need to understand the cognitive processes behind categorization. Humans are pattern-oriented thinking machines which usually categorize subjects using properties common to other subjects similar to the subject being categorized. The other method of categorization is largely irrational and is common among those not comfortable with "smart shopping": a consumer may perceive a subject as representative of all similar subjects henceforth based on deep impact and/or a first impression. There are several books on the subject of the problem with "industry" and several popular business authors have also elaborated on why "industry" is unimportant, inaccurate, and faulty. (I have a lot to do tomorrow and I have to get to sleep earlier than usual so I can't cite sources for you right now. I think Al Ries in The Origin of Brands talked about the problems with "industry", but I'm uncertain.) I'm not disagreeing that businesspeople use "industry" and that numerous texts are written about it; however, I'm with the "other side" that says that methodology is idiotic. Many people misunderstand brands and branding too, but that doesn't mean we should cater to their ignorance. (A proper, more useful example of your example would be: "Biogen IDEC, formed from two of the world's leading biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, provides ZEVALIN® (Ibritumomab tiuxetan) radioimmunotherapy to...")
 * Definition of product. I guarantee you that if you e-mail an intelligent business academic at any popular business school in the United States that they will respond with a definition, at least, similar to the definitions provided above by academically credible (and popular) sources, including introductory college business textbooks.
 * My profile uses "industry" only because my intent was to retain ambiguity and remain somewhat anonymous. My usage is certainly not a "thumbs up" for industry classification.

 * No, we are not agreed on adding Revenue unless you are willing to take responsibility for researching and implementing the latest and accurate Revenue values for the 300-or-so articles that are using the infobox now. I'm certainly not going to volunteer without having such data beforehand. I suggest you make a list of the Revenue values for each company using the infobox... even if just for you to get a feel for how much work your significant change will cause. By the way, wouldn't it be more useful to have 200X Profit instead of Revenue?

Adraeus 07:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more try

 * Adraeus, you don't yield much ground, do you? I have never denied that there are problems with industry as a measure, but have proven that industry (or business) is in incredibly common use and is commonly applied in all sorts of strategy situations, despite your earlier assertions.  The same problems with use plague all sorts of business terms, as sociologists use terms differently than economists, and product designers from venture capitalists.  It seems foolish to argue that some sort of aggregrate term that indicates that Wal-mart, Target, and K-mart are all in the same "industry" or "business" is useless however.   In fact, strategy cannot be made without comparing within an industry and I would guess that most laypeople would give similar answers when asked what industry Wal-mart, Target, and K-mart are in, even if they cannot name each of their "products." While your example ("Biogen IDEC, formed from two of the world's leading biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, provides ZEVALIN® (Ibritumomab tiuxetan) radioimmunotherapy to...") is a good first sentence, note that it provides industry information - giving the company as in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry - and then uses that to place the product.  Listing only ZEVALIN® (Ibritumomab tiuxetan), which is what the product label currently demands, is almost useless.

 * On product, I spoke to a professor at Harvard Business School about this on Friday, and one at MIT-Sloan today (the first was incidental, the second was in direct response to your inquiry). As I mentioned above, you are certainly right that in many economic definitions, product is a superset of both goods and services, but the term product and service are considered seperate in the study of technology and innovation, as well as in organizational theory and in teaching to MBAs.  Again, this leaves us with an imprecise definition (as one professor said "you have to be really careful with the usage of the terms"), but the vast majority of popular information supports that most people think these terms have different meanings, and even academics using product as a superset of goods and services define this precisely before using the term.  "Product or Service" is the suggested usage.

 * On revenue and how to make changes. The glory of Wikipedia is that the work is distributed over time and authors.  I will not take responsibility for filling in 300 revenue figures.  I will happily fill in some, but not all, nor should I have to.  Just as many infoboxes are missing slogan, to be filled in when people find them, so to will revenue be filled in as pages are updated.  Besides, although you never responded, I demonstrated that many of these infoboxes are filled in differently, or inconsistantly, or not at all.  For the same reason, having some missing revenue or industry at first is not an issue, it is merely a way of ensuring that we develop consistant and better infoboxes in the future.  Again, we do not need to delete anything (despite the fact that I think it is better to do so) to roll out these changes.  So, I propose that we add "Industry" and "Revenue" to the Infobox and either eliminate Product (which is misused in the majority of info boxes) or replace it with "Products/Services," if you want to keep it as is.

 * So, at this point I have both demonstrated my points time and again (with some supporting opinions from Rhobite) and have compromised in response to arguments (dropping my deletion proposal, eliminating NAICS, etc.). Though you have agreed with some of my points, you have yet to budge in even admitting change is valuable.  Is there any point in continuing this discussion, or are you going to resist any possible changes, thinking the infobox is perfect?  If that is the case, since there seems to no one else arguing to establish consensus one way or another, would it be best for me to develop my own alternate company infobox and solicit input that way?  Should we solicit outside opinions?  I am worried that even after consulting professors, providing detailed evidence, and giving convincing arguments there is nothing I could demonstrate, prove, or say that would convince you to change your mind, making this a colossal waste of time.  --Goodoldpolonius2 01:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, my, goodness, that's a lot of text. I'm delighted to see that somebody tried to argue with Adraeus. I tried once.--Jerryseinfeld 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Before your latest response, I carefully (and extensively) considered your proposal. I'm willing to accept the following:
 * Remove Slogan. This data is likely difficult for non-branding engineers to interpret. Since my business is strategic branding, I understand how slogans are useful indicators of corporate/product culture; however, since your business is obviously not strategic branding, you think slogans are useless. One needs to have, at least, expert working knowledge of branding to find slogans useful as data. Because the infobox's objective is to provide a brief overview of quantifiable facts about a business organization to the layperson, and understanding the usefulness of slogans requires expert knowledge, I think Slogan should be removed.
 * Rename Products. Replacing Products with Industry would exchange one problem with another. For instance, all videogame development companies would be classified in the "interactive entertainment" industry; however, that classification is irrelevant to the layperson considering that what's important is what videogames were developed and/or produced. "Products/Services" would require increasing the width of the infobox, which is already wide enough to accomodate Key people names and their primary job titles. We should rename Products to Offering or to another blatantly general term that refers to what a company provides to its customers.
 * Revenue. For me, this remains an iffy subject. I need more convincing to justify the permanence of its existence as infobox data. I didn't want Employees initially because that data, like revenue data, is quickly outdated; however, I compromised (with myself) by adding the year the number of employees was estimated next to the number of employees in the infobox. Perhaps the same can be done with revenue. Still, there are many business organizations whose revenue is kept secret, and by removing Slogan we would advocate against displaying data only relevant to certain organizations.
 * Industry. As stated above, replacing Products with Industry would only exchange one problem with another.
 * Adraeus 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Adraeus, thanks for the feedback, I think you have some good ideas that will let us push this ahead..
 * So, lets eliminate slogan, for the reasons you gave, which make perfect sense.
 * As for the industry/product problems, I agree that "interactive entertainment" would not be useful, but I also think that a list of game titles would be similarly difficult to understand. In fact, video games are a great test case, as there are both developers, who make the games, and publishers, who distribute them.  This causes a problem for any sort of product definition, as both companies would have the same product!  We need to work together to come up with some middle level of aggregation between product and industry so that Bioware is labelled a "game developer" and Electronic Arts a "game publisher."  What are your thoughts?  Some suggestions could be "offering," as you suggested, or "market," or "primary business," or "line of business," but I am open to other ideas as well.  Lets try to come up with something.
 * Revenue. Perhaps we could take your good idea on employees, giving dates, and place those next to revenue figures?  Revenue (or some financial measure) seems pretty critical in understanding company size, otherwise how do you know the relative size of players?  It provides an important comparison with other companies, and an indication of economic clout.  Even if revenue is out-of-date, as long as we give the years it should not be a big problem.  Unlike profit, but like employee numbers, revenue figures generally remain within the same order of magnitude for years at a time.  As far as those where revenue is being kept secret (private companies), there is a generally accepted source of revenue estimates in Dunn and Bradstreet, and usually other general estimates as well.  Also, most large companies are either public or (like McKinsey and Company) have easily available revenue estimates a Google away.  While that doesn't mean that there may not be occasional problems, but the vast majority of significant companies will have easy-to-access revenue figures.  Are you closer to being convinced?  I do think this is an important measure.
 * --Goodoldpolonius2 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You make an interesting point about industry classification; however, I think industry classification is only somewhat useful if complemented by an offering listing.

 * Are we suggesting something like so? Adraeus 05:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent! That looks great to me! --Goodoldpolonius2 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Arthur Holmes

Untitled
Vandalism removed. Vsmith 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * http://www.dur.ac.uk/arthur-holmes.society
 * http://www.dur.ac.uk/arthur-holmes.society/exec.php
 * Who sez geologists can't be glamorous?
 * Cheers, Pete Tillman 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Continental drift
I don't think we need 'now largely accepted'. How many geologists would seriously question it these days? Pterre (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, OK, but Continental Drift has an uneasy history, and Plate Tectonics is the fashionable term. Think of Snider-Pellegrini (fl. 1858), who spoke of Continental Drift caused by Noah's Flood.  Hence my parenthetical note.  But I shan't go to war about it...  Maybe <(now subsumed into the modern idea of Plate Tectonics.)>.John Wheater (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Holmes or Boltwood the first to use uranium-lead radiometric dating?
This article says that in 1911 Holmes was the first to use uranium-lead radiometric dating to determine the age of rocks. However, the article on Bertram Boltwood says that he was the first to meaure the age of rocks by the decay of uranium to lead in 1907. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Both are right, I think. Boltwood compared Uranium to Lead values in a variety of rocks to see if there was a relationship. He found that there was, but the ages were not the point of the analysis. This source says that he used published values from various analysts interested in the chemistry of the minerals. It was Boltwood's results that encouraged Holmes to attempt the "first analysis specifically designed for age dating purposes". You could I suppose say that Boltwood established that dating was possible using U/Pb, but that Holmes was the one who turned into a workable dating technique. Mikenorton (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious upbringing should be noted?
I think that Arthur Holmes religious upbringing should be noted. Consider, "The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth", by Cherry Lewis at p27 it is clear that the account for the age of the Earth presented to him was inspirational in his search. Seems an important point that appears to be excised from most biog/obits that I've found. Indeed no one even mentions his parents, which is normal in a biography or similar work. Pbhj (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arthur Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927000219/http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_holmes.html to http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_holmes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726005053/http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/Gateshead_Plaques/ to http://www.bpears.org.uk/Misc/Gateshead_Plaques/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528132409/http://www.dur.ac.uk/earth.sciences/undergrad/ahs/ to http://www.dur.ac.uk/earth.sciences/undergrad/ahs/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Malaria and World War I
Did the malaria he contracted in Africa disqualify him from military service during World War I? GeoWriter (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arthur Holmes


text:
Talk:Computer-assisted translation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rafalom23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name and classification of this article
is that the same as Computer-aided translation? (clem 18:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

 * I believe it's the same thing.

 * I get 25,200 Google hits for Computer Aided Translation, 16,900 for Computer-Assisted Translation. It think the former is more familiar; barring an objection I'll merge these two articles under the former, with a redirect from this page to Computer Aided Translation.

 * --babbage 08:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the difference between Software Localization Tools and Translation memory packages? 217.83.64.42 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * A lot of these seem to be geared towards translating software. Which, if any, are geared towards more general translations? (like, UN, legal pieces, science/journal articles, even fiction) It would be good to have a more detailed comparison of the open source contenders. 128.250.37.103 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Software Localization Tools' is a very broad name that refers to any tool used in the localization process of software. 'Translation memory packages' is a much narrower term referring to tools that store sentences (pairs) in databases, so that these can be compared (matched) on the fly with the current sentence needing translation. --Galious77 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 * IMO some CAT tools can also be used in software l10n, but most software l10n tools can't be used for regular translation. --leuce 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OmegaT+ status
I don't know who is 216.252.85.232 but OmegaT+ is not what he claims it to be.

OmegaT+ is an obsolete fork of OmegaT and does not support half the formats indicated here. Beside, OmegaT+ is _not_ listed anymore on the FSF free software directory while OmegaT is there, hence, it is arguable that OmegaT is "only" open source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

 * I've added a reference to the page describing the formats supported by OmegaT+. The page does not mention StarOffice, but I assume since OmegaT had supported StarOffice from a long time ago, support for it may also be present in OmegaT+. --leuce 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the systematic positioning of OmegaT+ _over_ OmegaT in the listings at the bottom of the page are clearly misleading. There are 11 members on the OmegaT+ user group and close to 600 on OmegaT. Can't we stop the joke ?

 * I do believe number of members is irrelevant; but IMO "OmegaT" is alphabetically higher than "OmegaT+" anyway, and should therefore be listed higher. --leuce 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jc helary continually sabotages infomration on Wikipedia pages about OmegaT+ and removes it without cause. OmegaT+ is a legitimate fork of OmegaT in existence since 2005. That user is biased due to being a member of the OmegaT project. Further removal of information about OmegaT+ should be dealt with appropriately by sanctions against the perpetrator. A quick search on Google for OmegaT+ will show how much current and relevant information is available for said software. There is a systematic effort by that person and some others associated with OmegaT to discredit OmegaT+ even though it has many thousands of downloads, page links, numnerous users, and is highly functional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.94.226 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

TMX tools added
I've added some TMX tools to the Translation_Memory_eXchange page... please if you know of more such tools, please add them there.--leuce 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: more info in CAT compare table
I suggest we add a column in the CAT compare table in which the nature of the tool is mentioned. For example, ForeignDesk is a l10n tool, Okapi is a TM editing suite (AFAIK), OmegaT is a translation tool with fuzzy matching, etc. Only information that describes the nature of the tool should be mentioned in that column. --leuce 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the table should be on a separate page ("List of Computer-assisted Translation Tools" or some such?) --babbage (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, this table should only present the formats the software handles. I think the following sentennce should be erased from the SDL Trados entry since it contains superflous info: "Includes SDL MultiTerm for terminology management and Project Management Dashboard for automating tasks and tracking."--Daha6439 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

translator
i am looking for a translation - "ha molti talenti" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.230.51 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Beijing China, my mother is Hua Hin District Thailand and my father is from China but was raise in the United state i lost my father when i was 4 years old. Desmond Dave (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

wp:N use on this page
On January 25, Mootros made the following modifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=historysubmit&diff=409843173&oldid=409035754

supposedly based on the wp:N criteria.

The wp:n article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N

The wp:n article specifically says:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Hence, the modifications are without basis and I am considering to revert them unless Mootros considers doing that himself.

If there are issues with some tools indicated in this list their case should be considered based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Since this article is used by a lot of new CAT tool users to determine what tool best suits them it is of the utmost importance that the article is maintained with all the seriousness required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Jc helary and other associates of OmegaT should follow the same advice and refrain from removal of information about OmegaT+. All tools that are available should be listed in an impartial and unbiased manner. Any commentary about the usefulness of one tool over another has no place on this page because that is not the purpose of it. Users can make up their own minds about a tool given an adequate list of them. Removal of information about a specific tool is nothing more than a lack of neutrality. The perpetrators of such should be dealt with appropriately in accord with Wikipedia rules.--216.252.78.212 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I've removed the products without articles, again. The IP editor above is wrong in claiming that "All tools that are available should be listed ...": Wikipedia is not the place to list all such tools – that would make it a directory, which it is not. There's also the issue of advertising, and our guideline on external links to consider (particularly WP:ADV and parts of WP:ELNO). So bearing those restrictions in mind, and assuming that some detailed examples are useful within the article to demonstrate the types of tools that are available (which isn't a foregone conclusion, in my view) the only sensible criterion for inclusion would seem to be notability.
 * If the product you're interested in listing here is notable, you can ask someone to write an article about it, or write it yourself if you're not involved with the company concerned. There's also the Computer Aided Translation category at the Open Directory Project to which submissions can be made – this directory is linked at the bottom of our article. —S MALL  JIM   15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of products without articles
This "removal of products without articles" lacks any common sense. It makes the Wikipedia article on Computer-assisted translation heavily biased. Why are you so eager to withhold information on a whole bunch of proprietary software products, Smalljim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljioshan (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * As it stands, the article includes brief details of a selection of notable products for the purpose of illustrating the variety of what is available. There's no intention or need to list all available products because Wikipedia isn't a directory and it doesn't do advertising – see my posting just above.
 * I can see that looked at from the point of view of someone who's closely involved with a product that isn't included, the article may seem to be "heavily biased", but that's an illusion based on a misconception of what Wikipedia is (it's an encyclopedia). —S MALL  JIM   17:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * S MALLJIM, can you please be a bit more specific on Wikipedia not being a directory: which of the eight points listed under WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? Ljioshan (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." (Introductory paragraph). See, it's the underlying principle that matters - the spirit of the law if you like! If you think about it, it's common sense too: imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we allowed editors to add details of their favoured commercial products to articles - it would turn into a trade or business directory, and - I'll say it again - that's not what Wikipedia is. Now let me ask you a question in return: why are you so concerned about which products are or aren't included as examples here? —S MALL  JIM   00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I see, examples are not intended to be exhaustive, but your arbitrary choice of products to be mentioned or to be banned creates a heavily biased picture of the tools available. Is that what you wish to create by strictly adhering to that underlying principle you quote? Wouldn't you agree that the spirit of the law is better represented by adhering to the core content policy that says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (WP:Neutral_point_of_view)? —Ljioshan (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 * What "arbitrary choice" do you claim that I've made? —S MALL  JIM   21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Smalljim, you continue to ask Ljioshan questions instead of simply allowing the community to post a more complete list of software. To answer one of your questions on her behalf: "why are you so concerned about which products are or aren't included as examples here?" Ljioshan is a professional translator and also a trainer for Wordfast, which is still on your list, so I cannot see that there is any conflict of interest by adding additional types of software she does not professionally represent. If she is taking the time to make the list more complete, she does so for the same reasons that everyone else at material to Wikipedia: to give the community a better understanding of an issue. To answer a second question you asked: "What 'arbitrary choice' do you claim that I've made?" Are you being serious? I run a (small) translation agency, and the range of TM software that I have to deal with in my weekly work is larger than the list you allow here. In fact, the list you allow is even shorter than the list of commonly used software given right below in the same entry. So I have a question for you: why don't you let the list grow? Even if the argument is that competing projects, such as DejaVu and Star Transit, do not have their own entry, allowing them to be on this overview will certainly help produce such dedicated Wikipedia entries. P.S. I have no regular business with Ljioshan and am merely a user of TM software. I have no financial interest. Petiteplanete (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for explaining a few things, Petiteplanete - much appreciated. Although the evidence suggested otherwise, I'll take your word that Ljioshan only added memoQ on a "me too" basis (see below), rather than in an attempt at advertising.

 * So, if I'm actually talking to a couple of professional translators who have no commercial interest in any products, then I apologise for my earlier tone which was aimed at keeping advertising out of Wikipedia. But the principles that I set out above still stand. Let's clear up "arbitrary choice" first: all I did was remove the products (both free and commercial) that do not have articles here, leaving the ones that have already been accepted by our community as notable - hardly arbitrary! Now it's quite likely that we don't yet have articles on all CAT products that would pass our notability criterion, and if there had been some evidence (e.g. discussion on this page) that an attempt had been made to include the most relevant/important ones, with or without articles, then I probably wouldn't have acted at all. But the article history shows that products have been added piecemeal over a period of time with no attempt at selection - a clear sign that the article had fallen into the trap of being used as a directory (the thinking goes: "that product is listed, so why not add my company's/my favourite"). The next step would be removal of competitors' products on dubious grounds, and then we have a real edit war. It happens; we saw the beginnings of it above in relation to OmegaT+.

 * Anyway, that's why we include a link to the Open Directory Project (ODP), and also why we display categories at the bottom of articles to list the related notable topics. So, people coming to Wikipedia wanting to know about CAT can read the article, maybe see a few examples of what's available(*), and if they want more information, follow the ODP link for a directory listing, or look at the Computer-assisted translation category to see details of other programs that have been considered notable enough for inclusion. Not forgetting, which I did till just now, the See also items, the other external links and the link to the surprisingly comprehensive Wikibooks entry.

 * (*) Regarding examples, wouldn't it be an improvement to get rid of the list of tools altogether and include one or two products as examples under each of the listed concepts? As the article says, CAT is a diverse field and there appears to be a wide range of different types of programs. Also - is there a more up-to-date survey of the most popular systems? I guess the field has changed a lot in the last 5 years.

 * Finally, with your experience you could help Wikipedia by improving the text of the article (maybe including actual examples of a CAT translation vs. an MT one - Google translate doesn't do very well on "Les vers verts levèrent le verre vert vers le ver vert", for instance) . Writing articles on other programs that would be notable enough would be good too. I can help with these ideas, if you want. —S MALL  JIM   15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another professional translator and I second Petiteplanete. I also think a list is very helpful. One place where a list can be found is at www.translatorstraining.com. I would add Fluency - I know very little of it, but several translators in the USA have been writing about it recently. I also have no financial interest. Have been using STAR Transit for 14 years now and have found it more sophisticated than Trados. I don't know the latest versions of Trados, though. I only use a CAT tool for my own purposes, not for clients to receive. Transblawg

Answer to Smalljim's question "is there a more up-to-date survey of the most popular systems?": There is one survey with a strong Canadia focus, available at http://www.crtl.ca/display262. But there must be others, too. —Ljioshan (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that survey. As you indicate, only 5% of its respondents were not from Canada so I guess its relevance to a global Wikipedia is limited. I've amended (and corrected) the existing Imperial College survey to make it less prominent, reflecting its age. —S MALL  JIM   18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A CATguru talks about four major CAT tools on www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgvq2s-zymw&feature=youtu.be: "How much freelance translators typically pay for first-tier CAT tools (Déjà Vu, memoQ, Trados, Wordfast) [...]" (to these four, Déjà Vu by Atril should be added). I insist on my initial point: the Wikipedia article on Computer-assisted translation as it stands now is heavily biased. —Ljioshan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Article titles
That survey that Ljioshan found (above) is interesting because it refers to CAT tools (e.g. SDL Trados) as being a separate class from text correction tools, terminology databases, bitext corpora and electronic referencing works, lumping them all together as "language technologies" (pages 7-8), whereas our article says that they are all CAT tools. On the other hand, on the internet generally, end-user tools such as SDL Trados seem to be most often referred to as "translation memory software" - i.e. programs that implement the translation memory concept.

This confusion over terminology is going to make it hard to write a clear article without taking a stance on definitions. What do others here think - are tools like SDL Trados, OmegaT etc. most accurately described as translation memory software? If so, perhaps any details of actual software should be moved to a section in the translation memory article (to which translation memory software already redirects), leaving this article to provide background, history (e.g. how CAT developed from machine translation), and pointers to more specific articles. Comments welcome. —S MALL JIM   18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

They are most commonly called CAT Tools, and there is no reason to change the article. The only reason why some people use "translation memory software" on the internet is for SEO purposes, when new translators who do not know what is a "CAT Tool" go searching for some software. Otherwise, maybe you should let people who have a better sense for this industry manage this page? Terminology databasing, for example, normally happens within the CAT Tool and is just a part of "computer-assisted translation". For example, with glossaries, the technology that runs the CAT and uses a translation memory simply does the same thing it does with the memory with the glossary - and using glossaries in such a manner can only be called "computer-assisted translation". You could write a separate entry on "terminology database" but there is no need to remove the entire CAT thing.

Finally, you come just short of accusing everybody who complained about the removal of tools as being the owners or employees of those companies, but of course I should like to mention that I have no idea who you are, and you could very well be working for or paid by SDL Trados. In fact, you have taken a very useful list, and you have turned it into an advertisement for a handful of companies. But of course you would deny that, whether or not you were working for SDL.

I am a customer of a software called Wordbee, and I will be editing their page to get it relisted. In the meantime, if you knew anything at all, you'd probably take a look at the software being monitored by an organization called "Common Sense Advisory". The companies included in their reports are generally speaking the most important.88.160.190.192 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments in your first para about CAT tools: you're clearly well-versed in this field and I'm sure what you say makes a lot of sense to someone who's actually used these programs. I knew nothing about the topic at all until I came across this article while vandal-fighting in Dec. 2011, so I'd be more than happy if someone with a good knowledge of the subject decided to start improving the text. In that regard, can I ask if you think that the six headings under Concepts are still appropriate; I get the impression that CAT is a rapidly-changing field and wonder if those six concepts are still the best way to divide up the topic. I wonder also if the Range of tools section isn't at least a partial duplicate of Concepts – both sections have headings for "terminology managers/management" and "translation memory", for instance. Both those sections really need some references to show that they reflect what's been written about the topic by reliable sources, so if you're able to help there, that would be great too.
 * Too much time has been wasted in discussing the list of "Some notable CAT tools", and I now think it should be removed from this article altogether as what's in and out is always going to be bone of contention and Wikipedia's purpose is to explain/educate, not to be a list of what's available. However, if consensus is that we should have such a list, I propose that it's moved to a stand-alone comparative list similar to the one at Comparison of machine translation applications, if someone would be prepared to build it.
 * Regarding Wordbee, I've had a quick look on the internet and I still don't think there are enough reliable independent sources to show its notability, but if you can show that it is notable enough and want to re-create it, I'll help if I can. In case you've mislaid it, the deleted version was restored to User:Robert Rogge/sandbox, but you should probably re-read Jimfbleak's helpful comment at User talk:Robert Rogge before working on it, and consider our guidance regarding conflict of interest too.
 * Finally I mentioned the need to assume good faith in the edit comment to my last edit, but you probably ought to read WP:NPA too. —S MALL  JIM   20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some others CAT tool
Can I name some other CAT tools on the market.

- Swordfish http://www.maxprograms.com/products/swordfish.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.54.250.152 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) - Hearsome http://www.heartsome.net/EN/home.html - Memo Q (http://www.kilgray.com) - Wordbee Translator (http://www.wordbee.com) - Lingotek (http://www.lingotek.com/) - XTM international (https://xtm.cloud/)

In the recent years, with the development of cloud-computing, the web-based translation is now the trend of CAT tools, isn't it? I can state some of them developing on the CAT tool market : Lingotek, Wordfast everywhere, Wordbee and SDL... Should they name in the list?

Huy Quoc Nguyen Dang (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

List of CAT tools
I found that "Déjà Vu (http://atril.com/en)" was missing in the list of CAT tools under the "Some notable CAT tools" section. And I normally use "across" (http://www.my-across.net/en/fdb-register.aspx.) How about adding "Déjà Vu" and "across" to the list? Trekkersky (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

and about MemoQ? Why not listed?
http://kilgray.com/products/memoq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.150.26 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer-assisted translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425021222/http://etudiant.uqo.ca/tamacanada2008/documents/Tama_workshop_warburton.pdf to http://etudiant.uqo.ca/tamacanada2008/documents/Tama_workshop_warburton.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

dictorobotary
Current text says, "Electronic dictionaries, either unilingual or bilingual, also known as dictorobotary" I'm removing "dictorobotary" (which just looks like a silly reference from 'Plan 9' or something.)  If a citation to its *serious* use can be provided, then the citation needs to be included with the term. DKEdwards (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year
Happy new year 104.193.1.111 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Computer-assisted translation


text: Category:Kansas State Legislators

title: Category:Kansas State Legislators


text:
S-LINK

S-LINK, for simple link interface, is a high-performance data acquisition standard developed at CERN for collecting information from particle accelerators and other sources. Unlike similar systems, S-LINK is based on the idea that data will be collected and stored by computers at both ends of the link, as opposed to a "dumb" devices collecting data to be stored on a "smart" computer. Having a full computer at both ends allows S-LINK to be very thin, primarily defining the logical standards used to feed data at high speed from the motherboards to the link hardware interfaces.

S-LINK started in 1995 in response to problems collecting data from the new ATLAS experiment at CERN. ATLAS was extensively instrumented with stand-alone computers, which sent data via a variety of methods to be collected on various servers. S-LINK was seen as a way to provide a single mechanism for forwarding the data from the collection to the link hardware with extremely low latency. Generally the S-LINK hardware provided functionality that would normally be provided by networking (or other) drivers running on the host CPU, thereby tying up cycles and introducing delays.

S-LINK used a 32-bit bus running up to 66 MHz, allowing for throughout up to 264 MB/s. The "link side" was typically connected to optical fibre for transmission to the collecting machines, known as the read-out motherboard, or ROMB. Data could also be sent back to the front-end motherboard or FEMB, typically for flow control purposes at a much lower speed.

title: S-LINK


text:
Mount Talang

Mount Talang (Gunung Talang) (2,597 m) is an active stratovolcano in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Talang has two crater lakes on its flanks, the largest of which is 1 x 2 km wide and is called Lake Talang.

According to the Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program, Mount Talang has had eight confirmed eruptions between 1833 and 1968. A minor eruption followed in April 2005, over 25,000 inhabitants of the local area being evacuated due to fears of further volcanic eruptions. Geologists say that the eruption in April 2005 is connected to the devastating December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

The pitcher plant Nepenthes talangensis is named after the mountain and is thought to be endemic to its upper slopes.

title: Mount Talang


text:
User:Violetriga/Templates3

"Classico"

Based on the original style templates, this suggestion introduces a fixed width and subject-related colouring – VFD is tinted red, FA is blue and PR is green, etc..

title: User:Violetriga/Templates3


text: Category:System of a Down songs

title: Category:System of a Down songs


text:
B.Y.O.B. (song)

"B.Y.O.B." ("Bring Your Own Bombs") is a song by American heavy metal band System of a Down. It was released in March 2005 as the lead single from their fourth album Mezmerize. Like their earlier song "Boom!", it was written in protest against the Iraq War. The song reached number 27 on the US Billboard Hot 100, the band's only top 40 hit.

Music video
Directed by Jake Nava, the music video for "B.Y.O.B." shows an army of soldiers marching through the streets, wearing paintball masks with television screens projecting words like "Die", "Truth", "Obey", or "Buy". The band members are playing in the middle of the street. During the chorus, the band is shown playing inside a night club. Midway through the video, co-lead vocalist Daron Malakian is screaming the lyrics when the soldiers storm the night club and force everyone to put on the masks, during which the masks show images of television shows and war. At the end of the video, the band members are shown wearing the masks which are displaying static.

Songwriting legal case
Casey Chaos claimed to have helped write the song in 2002, and Malakian offered to gift him a 2% royalties credit. When Chaos asked for more, the offer was rescinded. Casey Chaos then subsequently sold a 50% interest in the song to Maxwood Music Ltd. However, in 2010 a Manhattan court ruled Malakian and Tankian to be the sole writers of the song.

Accolades

 * B.Y.O.B. won the "Best Hard Rock Performance" category in the 2006 Grammy Awards.

Track listing

 * CD single

 * The live tracks were recorded at the Big Day Out 2005 festival.

 * Digital download [First version]

 * 7" single • digital download [Second version]

Personnel
System of a Down
 * Serj Tankian – vocals, keyboards
 * Daron Malakian – vocals, guitars, bass (uncredited)
 * Shavo Odadjian – bass (credited but does not perform)
 * John Dolmayan – drums, percussion

Production
 * Rick Rubin – production
 * Andy Wallace – mixing
 * David Schiffman – engineering
 * Jason Lader – editing
 * Dana Neilsen – editing
 * Phillip Broussard – engineering assistance
 * John O'Mahony – Pro Tools engineering
 * Steve Sisco – mixing assistance
 * Joe Peluso – mixing assistance

Additional personnel
 * Marc Mann – string arrangements
 * Vartan Malakian – artwork
 * Brandy Flower – graphic design

title: B.Y.O.B. (song)


text:
Park Eun-kyung (field hockey)

Park Eun-Kyung(born January 25, 1975) is a South Korean field hockey player. At the 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics she competed with the Korea women's national field hockey team in the women's tournament.

title: Park Eun-kyung (field hockey)


text: User talk:24.190.150.67

title: User talk:24.190.150.67


text:
Space Empires

Space Empires is a series of 4X turn-based strategy games by Malfador Machinations that allow the player to assume the role of the leader of a space-faring civilization.

Gameplay
In Space Empires, the player assumes the role of the single leader of a race of intelligent beings that has recently acquired the technology required to build large fully space-based ships for interplanetary and interstellar travel.

Starting out with only a few possible hull sizes for their ships, on which they can place any number of components to essentially create a unique ship, the player can research new hull sizes and components to use with them, eventually being able to build ships ten times the size of his original hull size.

The components available to the player can vary greatly, from ship bridges, long-range scanners and shield generators to emergency supply components that, when used, will be destroyed but will allow a ship to continue moving for a longer time, and of course, weapons of various kinds, boarding parties, cloaking devices right up to Dyson sphere construction material and star-destroying devices.

The player can meet extraterrestrial races (which will inevitably happen as the player expands their realm) and conduct diplomacy with them. Treaties can be signed between two empires, varying from the basic trade agreement to full-blown partnerships and even protectorates. The player can also conduct intelligence operations, from simple information gathering missions, to ship bombs, to inciting rebellion on a planet.

Interstellar travel in Space Empires is not faster-than-light drive based, but instead relies on anomalies called "warp points", essentially wormholes between two star systems. Warp points are naturally occurring but a player can open and close these warp points if she or he has the appropriate technologies.

Games

 * Space Empires (1993)
 * Space Empires II (1995)
 * Space Empires III (1997)
 * Space Empires IV (2000)
 * Space Empires: Starfury (2003)
 * Space Empires V (2006)

Later development
In 2006, Strategy First acquired Malfador Machinations and the Space Empires intellectual property prior to publishing Space Empires V. Strategy First still owns the Space Empires intellectual property and has not developed another PC game.

In 2011, Strategy First released a RPG board game named Space Empires: 4X, based on the digital model of the Space Empires computer games, utilizing sprites and mechanics from Space Empires IV.

title: Space Empires


title: User:Violetriga/Templates3/featured


text:
Talk:S.O.S

This article has the page S.O.S (no final period), and judging from its content, has nothing to do with the acronym S.O.S.. Because of it's position as an article with a very misleading name, either someone who understands what's going on in this article needs to elaborate on it, or it should be deleted. -- Toolie 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:S.O.S


text:
Reading station (disambiguation)

Reading station or Reading railway station may refer to:

United Kingdom

 * Reading railway station, Reading, Berkshire, England
 * Reading Green Park railway station, in Reading, Berkshire, England
 * Reading Southern railway station, a former railway station in Reading, Berkshire, England
 * Reading West railway station, Reading, Berkshire, England

Massachusetts

 * Reading station (MBTA), Reading, Massachusetts

Pennsylvania

 * Former Reading Railroad stations may be known as simply Reading Station:
 * Reading Outer station, Reading
 * Franklin Street station (Pennsylvania), Reading
 * Lebanon station (Reading Railroad), Lebanon
 * Reading Terminal, Philadelphia
 * Pottstown station, Pottstown
 * Phoenixville station, Phoenixville
 * Royersford station, Royersford
 * Birdsboro station (Reading Railroad), Birdsboro
 * Pottsville station, Pottsville, Pennsylvania
 * Schuylkill Haven station, Schuylkill Haven

title: Reading station (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/FlexWiki

As the original author, I have addressed at least one of the grounds for deletion, namely, getting rid of the quotes from the Microsoft Shared Source Licensing Program, and putting in an external link to the page where the text came from. I note that I should have done it this way from the jump, but I'm new to Wikipedia and will make mistakes. 198.238.39.239 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


title: User:Violetriga/Templates3/farc