text:
Talk:Sea ice

Re incomprehensible picture
This graph is total nonsense without further explanation or better legends. It might make sense to its creator, but it is hard to imagine anyone else getting any benefit whatsoever from it.

 * 1) It talks about "monthly averages" in the caption, but there's nothing about months in the graph.
 * 2) The x-axis is time, in years, which implicitly includes months as a sub-period.
 * Not when they are scrunched together so much.

 * 1) It looks funny, like it is a series of blue ovals inside black ovals. Spread out more in the horizontal direction, it might be comprehensible.
 * 2) Its effectively two sine waves, 6 months out of phase
 * It's supposed to be that; the problem is, that isn't what it looks like.

 * 1) Nothing identifies what is northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.
 * 2) Its a very minor intelligence/comprehension test. Especially after the most recent edit, its very easy to work it out (or at least I thought it was; tell me if I'm wrong). But you could add the colours in the figure caption, if you like.
 * It's something missing.
 * It is unreasonable to expect readers to go look up the history and pick out a couple of cryptic edit comments and expect them to draw conclusions on that basis. What I might understand or not understand isn't particularly relevant.
 * (William M. Connolley 18:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Sorry. I really didn't realise it was this difficult. You don't need to look up the edit history, just read the text that says that the NH cycle has a smaller amplitude. OK, so I'll add it.

 * 1) The scientific notation legend is will put non-technical people off. Just use square megameters, with numbers 5, 10, 15, and 20.  Or even millions of square kilometers, with the same numbers.
 * 2) Well, sorry. If I ever re-drawn it I will. But it doesn't seem worth re-drawing it just for this.
 * I certainly didn't think this a fatal flaw either; but it obviously needs redoing, so this should be fixed as well.

 * 1) Just what in the world are you trying to show with it? Maybe explaining that will make it make sense.  Gene Nygaard 21:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lots of obvious things: that the interannual variation of the max/min is much smaller than the seasonal variation, for example (William M. Connolley 21:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)).
 * Maybe some other type of graph would be more useful?
 * Or maybe one similar to this over a much shorter time period, so that the wave nature shows through, to show what you were trying to show here, and a second one showing just monthly maxima over time?
 * In other words, play around with it and see what you can do. You are the one with the data.  I don't know exactly what it should be; I just know it should be something different from what it is. This is something only a mother could love. Or "father" in this case. Gene Nygaard 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I also had pointed out the NH/SH ambiguity in Image talk:Sea-ice.area.nh.sh.png. Black is apparently SH, and area is in m².  Making graph wider would allow seeing the sine waves as such rather than as ellipsoids.  Narrower pen would also help. (SEWilco 04:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Missing references
The citations to Serreze and Stroeve are not defined. Pdn 04:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ice Pack Images
The way these were positioned, on top of each other and alongside the page, made it difficult to compare them. I've put them all inside a table and greatly reduced their size, so that they can be "eyeballed" for differences more easily. I tried putting them into a gallery tag, but since the last image is of a different size, the images were scaled completely differently and defeated the purpose of the whole edit. If anyone has a better plan for making these look better (combine them all into one image, or crop them all to the same size, perhaps?) then feel free to change it appropriately.Fourthgeek 19:11, 18 July 2005 (CST)

Sea Ice
I believe the word should have been left as "calve" - a process for pieces of ice to break off in analogy with a cow having calves. The page is so big I cannot find where to edit, though; when I open an edit window - my screen search does not work inside an editing window.

I thought the figures were OK as they were. Pdn 02:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. "Calve" simply looks so similar to "cave", it seemed to be an easy typo. I'll change that back. As for the pictures, however, they are better organized this way. Though as I said, if someone can make a viable improvement, that's fine. If it's decided that it's better the old way, that's fine too. It's more of an aesthetic change than anything, perhaps a matter of opinion. It just seems cleaner this way, side-by-side, instead of them trailing down the page vertically.Fourthgeek 22:16, 18 July 2005 (CST)

Merge proposal
I redirected drift ice here - there was nothing to merge. Except

Treibeis 流氷

which I don't know what to do with William M. Connolley 09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmpf. Drift ice has resurrected itself. I've re-instated the merge proposal William M. Connolley 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. ("resurrection": Didn't you know that drift ice is a seasonal phenomenon in many places? :-) I resurrected it, not it itself. Of course, initially it was a naive 5th-grader level text. But I intend to expand it. It is a huge well-defined subtopic of equally huge topic of sea ice, no reason to merge. In wikipedia big articles are split into smaller ones, not vice versa. Since we are at this, why don't you suggest to merge Iceberg here too? `'mikkanarxi 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because sea ice is simply the same thing as drift ice. Sea ice is seasonal, too. What exactly is the distinction between SI and DI? William M. Connolley 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Seasonal" was a joke in response to your "resurrected". Sea ice is either drift ice or fast ice. Of course, the overwhelming majority of sea ice is Arctic and Antarctic ice packs, but still pack ice is but a type of sea ice. `'mikkanarxi 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. By bizarre co-incidence, just as you were writing this I was restoring the redirect. Fast ice is indeed just another name for sea ice, which is why it redirect to sea ice. Pack ice ditto. They are all the same thing William M. Connolley 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You still fail to understand my poit: "fast ice" is not another name for sea ice. It is another type of sea ice, just as timber is not the same as wood (calling a shovel a spade...). The whole ice topic is somewhat understructured, as I see. For example, do you know where in wikipedia is written what type of ice is iceberg? `'mikkanarxi 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I would agree that from the point of view of formation they are basically the same. But they have differences in many external respects. `'mikkanarxi 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now unfortunately I don't have time to sit and put these ice issues in order. `'mikkanarxi 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a final stroke, I apologize for possibly appearing as a layman asshole to you, since you surely know things here. But we laymen have a bit different perspective. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Animation removed
I removed the animation of sea ice fluctuation around a year.

REASON: it contained at least one severe error. It was not just a bit inaccurate, but coarsely. The animation shows the whole of Norwegian Sea freezing, which simply does not happen. Even during the coldest years of the so-called Little Ice Age the limit of sea ice was around 72 deg North latitude in Barents Sea, and the middle and eastern portions of Norwegian Sea, thus including the coast of Norway, were ice free year-round.

I assume the animation depicts such an ice situation that has most recently happened approximately 10 000 years ago, during the last Ice Age proper. Greetings from Finland (that is near Norway). 80.221.61.8 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

fast ice
The folk etymology given for fast ice as ice that has fastened to land is questionable. Fastland is Swedish for a large land mass, as opposed to a skerry or other small island; modern Swedish lies much closer to Old English (or Old Norse) than does modern English. Swedish fast has other uses and it's nearest equivalent might be the English phrase, hard and fast. — Robert Greer (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Floes and Drift Ice occur in fresh water
Seems incorrect to have ice floes redirect to this article if it implies seawater (salinity). It occurs regularly during the winter months in the fresh water of the Great Lakes...see Spectacle Reef Light. The word "seawater" is at odds with "freshwater" and these forms of ice apply to both. Drift ice can also be freshwater. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I note as well that the definition of Ice Floe on this page, and on Drift Ice differ. Perhaps they should use the same definition? --70.104.253.220 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

bad picture for sea ice
i want to know how far south sea ice goes on the east and west coasts of NA, but it is impossible to tell from the article here (or the picture). [reader criticism] TCO (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

part of the biosphere
sea ice is part of the Earth's cryosphere rather than biosphere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonanimal (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

references getting stale
The most recent reference is dated 2006. I'd like to know what's happened to sea ice in the past four years? Is the trend of retreating northern sea ice continuing, or has it reversed? -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2007 was exciting. 2008 and 9 were on the long term trend and rather dull William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar cycles?
I took out:

 * The subtle climatic effects of the 11-year sunspot cycle can be detected in the ice extent data, as well as longer term solar output cycles like the 88-year Gleisberg cycle (see Solar Variation)which was at it's coolest point in 1986. Because there were no satellites in orbit earlier than 1978, any conclusions regarding long-term trends must take into account natural cycles in solar energy output which may have been at their lowest points at the beginning of satellite reconnaissance technology.  At the warmest part of the 11-year sunspot climate cycles, like the winter of 2005-2006, sea ice is observed to reach a winter maximum extent that is smaller than in the years before or after.  Because first-year sea ice is more prone to melting during the following summer season, there is often a one- or two-year lag observed in the corresponding minimum summer sea ice before the cooling half of the climate cycle can be detected as greater ice extents in the summer seasons.

I don't think it is true; there are no refs; and I couldn't see anything relevant in the solar variation article. Also, it doesn't belong under "monitoring"; it is really talking about long term trends William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Short term solar output cycles exist and their effects are patently obvious
Mr. Connolley, are you PAID to censor? You reverted my contribution within ONE MINUTE of my saving the edits. If you couldn't find that relevant point in in the solar variation article, I suggest you spend a little longer than 28 seconds reading it. The last Gleisberg solar cycle was at it's minimum at about the same time that satellites were put into orbit. The last sunspot maximum was in the early-mid 2000's, and we are currently in the middle of an extended sunspot low, which has had newsworthy effects on northern hemisphere cold weather for at least the past two winters. Whether or not you LIKE the facts, they remain facts. Inconvenient facts, perhaps. Live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregBenson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've no idea who this Mr C to whom you are speaking is; perhaps User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats might help you. As to the substance: it looks very strongly like you are admitting to OR. This revert restores what still looks like OR:

 * During the warmest years, like the winter of 2005-2006, sea ice is observed to reach a winter maximum extent that is smaller than in the years before or after. - this appears to say that warmer years have less ice. This is little other than the obvious. I would be much happier if it were more plainly stated that way. Note also the causality problem: less sea ice exposes comparatively warm sea surface, so less sea ice makes for a warmer year.
 * there is often a one- or two-year lag observed in the corresponding minimum summer sea ice before the cooling half of the climate cycle can be detected as greater ice extents in the summer seasons.  - looks like pure OR, and I'm not even convinced it is true William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Also, was it really necessary to start another section on this? Also, allegations of censorship are rarely fruitful. Also, you "live with it" tone appears pointlessly combative William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Censoring is what ClimateGate was about. is a pointlessly provocative edit comment, as well as wrong. But if you mean Climatic Research Unit email controversy you will, I'm sure, be delighted to know that the latest inquiry has exhonerated the scientists, again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sea ice extent graph wrong- new one?
The data shown is the sea ice extent graph is quite wrong. I'm not sure where it came from but here is the actual sea ice extent and it is nothing like that presented on this page. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg I suggest if there is no a suitable clean graph for use (suggestions anyone) that it should be deleted in the interests of accuracy. MarkC (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The graph you've linked to above is global, not Arctic William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about sea ice not arctic ice isn't it? In any case the blue line in the graph does not even represent actual sea ice... 89.240.53.170 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this then? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png Cheers 89.240.53.170 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a different picture, indeed. I'm not quite sure of your point. BTW, the pic in the article is ice volume, not area or extent William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I though the point was clear. The existing graph is dominated by a hindcast from an unproven computer model (which is not in the given reference so I don't know where it came from anyway so it violated WP:VER). The red measured data covers year or so. Now it is accepted that ice area is most important in terms of radiative balance (an idea I'm sure you know well) so area is the measure of interest for the article and the graph I linked shows the historical data from a reputable source. I'd say this is more valuable than an unproven computer model (unproven because it seems to fit only a few years and quite poorly)... So, do you agree with the value/benefit of putting up actual data? MarkC (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Locations
I think this article should make clear in writing or with maps the regions which are especially prone to sea ice. All the text mentions is the Arctic and Southern seas. Having lived in Estonia and Finland I remember that sea ice occurs every winter and ice breakers have to be used to carve shipping channels. This made me wonder how much of the Baltic sea freezes and how much of other seas freeze and how often. It would be nice if this article went into more detail about these things.-- XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | talk 12:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

List of classifications
Is it possible to have - and thus to develop - a kist of classifications of polar and sea ice, which would show the kinds of knowledge and analyses of that ice?

We see:
 * "Another classification used by scientists to describe sea ice is based on age, that is, on its development stages. These stages are: new ice, nilas, young ice, first-year and old."

That could be a start... MaynardClark (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sea ice. 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/20121115115803/http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/climate_science/climate_dynamics/research_projects/coupled_model_development_echam5_fesom/ to http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/climate_science/climate_dynamics/research_projects/coupled_model_development_echam5_fesom/

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) 08:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Will summer sea ice disappear by 2020?
The section on Monitoring and Observations states:

"The volume of ice hit an all-time low in September 2012, when the ice was determined to cover only 24% of the Arctic Ocean, offsetting the previous low of 29% in 2007. Future predictions cast that summer sea ice might disappear altogether as soon as 2020.[12] "

The reference used dates back to 2012. It is now 2018. Is arctic summer sea ice still predicted to disappear by 2020?

Dermatoglyphics (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 * No, it won't :-). I've hacked the thing around a bit; Arctic_sea_ice_decline is better than here was William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Fast ice" (from "fastened").
Or "fast ice" (from "held fast", adjective: securely fixed in place). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.212.27 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sea ice


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters 101

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monsters 101
Vanity page. Article should be deleted. Mindmatrix 21:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. The JPS 21:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless ISBN and proof of non-vanity publication provided. Amazon does not appear to stock such a book, for one. Average Earthman 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * the author is NN, and therefore the book is also. del. Also, there is a redlink to another book by this author on that page, can we pre-emptively delete that too? BigFatDave 23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, book promo. Megan1967 02:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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


text:
Talk:Juno Award for Children's Album of the Year

did some one delete everything i wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Cee (talk • contribs)


text:
Gee Bee

Gee Bee may refer to:

 * Granville Brothers Aircraft, an aircraft manufacturer
 * Gee Bee R-1, a racing plane built by Granville Brothers Aircraft
 * Gee Bee Sportster, family of sports aircraft built by Granville Brothers Aircraft
 * Gee Bee Model Y Senior Sportster, a sports aircraft built by Granville Brothers Aircraft
 * Gee Bee Model Z, a racing plane built by Granville Brothers Aircraft
 * Gee Bee Department Stores
 * Gee Bee (video game), a 1978 arcade game by Namco
 * the nickname of the Finnish boxer Gunnar Bärlund

title: Gee Bee


text:
Monteregian Hills

The Monteregian Hills (Collines Montérégiennes) is a linear chain of isolated mountains in Montreal and Montérégie, between the Laurentians and the Appalachians.

Etymology
The first definition of the Monteregian Hills came about in 1903 when Montreal geologist Frank Dawson Adams began referring to Mount Royal (Latin, Mons Regius) and mountains of similar geology in the Saint Lawrence Lowlands as the "Royal Mountains" (montagnes royales). Other mountains in the chain included Mont Saint-Bruno, Mont Saint-Hilaire, Mont Saint-Grégoire, Mont Rougemont, Mont Yamaska, Mont Shefford, and Mont Brome.

It was only later that Mont Mégantic, the Oka Hills, as well as the Saint-André and d'Iberville formations, were added to the list.

Geology
Each mountain in the chain consists of an erosional remnant of Cretaceous intrusive igneous rock and associated hornfels, which are more resistant to weathering than the surrounding sedimentary rock. All of the mountains have dark-coloured mafic rock such as gabbro and essexite; some also have large areas of pulaskite, syenite, and other light-coloured rock.

The Monteregian Hills are part of the Great Meteor hotspot track, formed as a result of the North American Plate sliding westward over the long-lived New England hotspot, and are the eroded remnants of intrusive stocks. These intrusive stocks have been variously interpreted as the feeder intrusions of long extinct volcanoes, which would have been active about 125 million years ago, or as intrusives that never breached the surface in volcanic activity. The lack of an obvious track west of the Monteregian Hills may be due either to failure of the plume to penetrate the Canadian Shield, to the lack of recognizable intrusions, or to strengthening of the plume when it approached the Monteregian Hills region. However, there is evidence the hotspot track extends northwestwards, including epeirogenic uplift, mantle velocity anomalies and kimberlitic volcanic features (e.g. the Attawapiskat, Kirkland Lake and Lake Timiskaming kimberlite fields) that become older away from the Monteregian Hills.

The shallow, rocky sandy loam soils of the summits are mostly covered in forest. Where the underlying rock is rich in olivine, as over large areas of Mont Saint-Bruno and Mont Rougemont, these soils are classed as dystric brunisol. Podzol tends to develop over rock which lacks olivine, although many of these podzols lack an eluvial (Ae) horizon. Lower slopes are covered with aprons of gravel or sand. The sandy soils are usually podzols with classic Ae development; they often have subsoil hardpan and are undesirable for agriculture. The free-draining gravels are preferred for apple orchards, which grow in thermal belts where cold air can drain to the valley floor.

title: Monteregian Hills


text: User:Noisy/Templates/featured

title: User:Noisy/Templates/featured


text:
User talk:Senna6094

Hello Senna6094,

I noticed your recent contributions to Toyota/Lexus model articles—I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject Automobiles. We're always looking for new contributors to help organize and expand automotive articles.

Happy editing! --Milkmandan 21:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

JIS power outputs
Why did you revert the power outputs in the Toyota/Lexus articles? The correct way to indicate DIN, JIS or SAE power is always to put the acronym after the HP value, and JIS hp is equivalent to german PS, so 1 kW = 1.36 hp, not 1.34 hp. This is for bhp/SAE hp (using Imperial/US measurements. Not only that, you got the Toyota Altezza power wrong on both kW/hp. The value you gave for the AS200 is for the European market Lexus IS 200, and the RS200 is not available outside Japan. --Pc13 10:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything in the conventions that specifies PS should be turned to hp net (in fact, I just raised the point in ). If you've seen a few additions of yours changed into hp net, it's because you were working on a model that's available in North America and whoever did the changes turned them into what he'd be more familair with. For European models, americans don't usually touch them, unless they're available in NA. On a few occasions, I've seen the article had the correct PS value (Saab, VW and Audi don't convert PS to hp in their american brochures), but a wrong hp to kW conversion. This also occurred with the McLaren F1 and Ferrari Daytona, for example. --Pc13 16:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Disp pic2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Disp pic2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --slowpokeiv 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vzv21es250.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vzv21es250.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hybridharrier.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hybridharrier.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion
Hello! As a WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vgcentury.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vgcentury.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vcv10windom.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vcv10windom.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mcv20windom.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mcv20windom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Y50FugaXVVIP.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Y50FugaXVVIP.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi Senna6094, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Gzgcentury.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gzgcentury.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Senna6094


text:
Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship

The Moroccan–American Treaty of Peace and Friendship, also known as the Treaty of Marrakesh, was a bilateral agreement signed in 1786 that established diplomatic and commercial relations between the United States and Morocco. It was the first treaty between the U.S. and an Arab, African, and Muslim nation, and initiated what remains the longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in U.S. history.

Nearly a decade before the treaty, on 20 December 1777, Moroccan Sultan Mohammed III, decreed that American ships could freely enter his kingdom's ports and enjoy safe passage through its waters; and became one of the first heads of state to publicly recognize U.S. independence during the American Revolutionary War.

Following several overtures by the Sultan, and with the urging of John Adams, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin, in 1785 the U.S. Congress authorized negotiations for a treaty with Morocco. American diplomat Thomas Barclay was chosen to represent the U.S., and with the aid and backing of Spain, met his Moroccan counterpart, Tahir Fannish, in Marrakesh in June 1786. The treaty was finalized within days of Barclay's arrival, sealed by Mohammed III, and signed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams at their respective diplomatic posts in Paris and London; Congress ratified the treaty on 18 July 1787, which was to last fifty years.

Background
Muhammad III, or Sidi Muhammad bin Abdallah, came to power in 1757 and ruled until his death in 1790. Prior to his reign, Morocco had experienced 30 years of internecine battles, instability and turmoil. Sidi Muhammad transformed politics, the economy and society by prioritizing development of international trade and restoring power to the sultanate, which improved Morocco's standing internationally. Central to his pursuit of international trade was the negotiation of agreements with foreign commercial powers. He began seeking one with the United States before the war with Great Britain had ended in 1783, and he welcomed Thomas Barclay's arrival to negotiate in 1786. The treaty signed by Barclay and the sultan and then by Jefferson and Adams was ratified by the Confederation Congress in 1787. It was reaffirmed by the sultan in 1803, when the USS Constitution, Nautilus, New York, and Adams engaged in gunboat diplomacy as part of the First Barbary War. At the time, independent corsairs and pirates were using Morocco's ports as safe harbors between raids on American and European shipping. , the treaty has withstood transatlantic stresses and strains for more than 235 years, which makes it the longest unbroken treaty relationship in United States history.

title: Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship


text:
Category:Cities in New South Wales

This category contains articles about cities in New South Wales, Australia.

title: Category:Cities in New South Wales


text: User:Noisy/Templates/oldvfd

title: User:Noisy/Templates/oldvfd


text:
User:Margospl

My main goal on enwiki is to insert pl: interwiki.

On plwiki (pl:Wikipedysta:Margos) I've inserted interwiki to over 5000 new articles.

title: User:Margospl


text:
Template talk:Chem-stub

 * 1) redirect wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Edit request from 130.237.216.122, 14 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Add sv:Mall:Kemistub

130.237.216.122 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Chem-stub


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquette Radio and MUTV

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marquette Radio and MUTV
These two articles are both non-notable on their own, and (I'd say) borderline in the Marquette University page. The redirect from MUTV to Manchester United made a lot more sense. Smoddy (tgeck) 21:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both, not notable. Megan1967 10:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both, not notable. -- Mwanner 13:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Simpsnut14

Hello. I am Simpsnut14 (named after The Simpsons and my birthday, October 14). I live in a suburb of Denver, Colorado. Feel free to post any comments or questions about my contributions or anything else on your mind on this page. Have a great day. April 15, 2005

title: User talk:Simpsnut14


text:
User:Zerozombie

see: public sociology

title: User:Zerozombie


text:
Category:Cities in the Northern Territory

This category contains articles about cities in the Northern Territory, Australia.


text:
Talk:The Waltons

Character list
User Drew270 continues to try to update the list of Characters by adding in Robert Wightman as a separate line, despite the fact that the actor is already listed (properly in my opinion) along with Richard Thomas under the listing for John Boy. However this is listed, he needs to be listed only once and not twice. Since the list is a list of characters and not a list of actors, I feel that listing both actors in a single entry makes the most sense. Thoughts?Rcarter555 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rcarter,Well i need to see characters and actors,guess so would others as it looks haphazard than being in a column of actors then just puutting in ,sorry but thats how i feel,i feel that both listings in slightly different areas is correct,no point in arueing as admin says he was going ban us both,so we are both right but wrong!

The characters and actors ARE there. I simply fail to understand how you can view listing an actor twice in the same section as the appropriate response. However, no one has been banned, they have just protected the page for two days for us to sort this out. Let’s see if anyone else has anything to say on this talk page. If not, as per the admins, the page must remain as it currently is. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, Wightman's name never appeared in the opening credits, but rather at the closing along with the supporting players and guest stars. However, listing two actors in the same role, both main and supporting, would be confusing, so I'd say that the current listing is the most sensible. WHPratt (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Start Date of Setting
The series setting begins in 1933, confirmed when a report of the Long Beach Earthquake of March 1933 is heard on the radio. SimpsonDG (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Animated spin-off?
I vaguely recall seeing an animated series in the 1970's based on The Waltons or something similar. Was there such a spin off? 16:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Nutster (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Waltons


text:
Murowa diamond mine

The Murowa diamond mine is a diamond mine located in Mazvihwa, south central Zimbabwe, about 40 kilometres from the asbestos mining town of Zvishavane in the Midlands province. The mine is owned and operated by RZM Murowa (Private) Limited, a member of RioZim (a Zimbabwe listed company). The mine is a combination of open pit and underground construction; current estimates put construction costs at $61 million USD and mine reserves are 19 million tonnes of ore, with an ore grade of 0.9 carat per tonne.

Geology of the Deposit
Murowa consists of three north-trending kimberlite pipes, intrusive into the Chivi suite granites of the Zimbabwe Craton. The kimberlites have been dated at 500 Ma.

History
The Murowa site's possibilities were first realized in 1997 when three diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes were discovered; over a period of three years of study, the two larger pipes have been determined to be economically feasible as mines. Construction of mine facilities was completed in late 2004. Preparation for mining included the forced relocation of 926 people living on the mine site to six farms purchased by a government relocation program. Limited mining operations began in Murowa in 2004, with full capacity expected to be reached sometime in 2005, although permitting problems have slowed progress toward this milestone. Full-scale production is expected to process 200,000 tonnes of ore annually, although it is possible to push production to as much as one million tonnes annually through further capital investment.

The mine is a combination of open pit and underground construction; current estimates put construction costs at $61 million USD. Current estimates of mine reserves are 19 million tonnes of ore, with an ore grade of 0.9 carat per tonne. Rio Tinto estimates that over the life of the mine, prices for the Murowa's production will fetch an average price of $65 USD per carat (325 $/g).

In 2023, the owner of the mine, Harpal Randhawa and his son Amer died in a plane crash along with 4 co-passengers.

title: Murowa diamond mine


text: User talk:82.124.34.214

title: User talk:82.124.34.214


text: Template talk:WikiProject Chemistry

title: Template talk:WikiProject Chemistry


text:
Category:Cities in Queensland

This category contains articles about cities in Queensland, Australia.

title: Category:Cities in Queensland


text:
Project 64

Project 64 may refer to:

 * Project64, an open source Nintendo 64 emulator for Windows
 * Project 64 (Mini Cooper), a New Zealand team seeking the land speed record for vehicles with an engine capacity of between 751cc and 1000cc
 * See Design B-65 cruiser for Project 64, a planned Imperial Japanese Navy battlecruiser that was superseded by Project 65

title: Project 64


text:
Category:Cities in South Australia

This category contains articles about cities in South Australia.

title: Category:Cities in South Australia


text:
Category:Asterix

Articles related to the Asterix series.

title: Category:Asterix


text:
KOBR-TV Tower

KOBR-TV Tower (also called KSWS-TV Tower) is a 490.7 m high guy-wired aerial mast supporting the transmission antenna of television station KOBR in Caprock, New Mexico, United States. KOBR-TV Tower was built during 1960. The original KSWS-TV Tower was built during December 1956 and was the same height at 1610 ft. It was the world's tallest structure, surpassing previous record-holder KWTV's tower until the completion of WGME-TV Tower in Maine during 1959 September. During 1960, the original tower reportedly fell in a gale or ice storm.

title: KOBR-TV Tower


text:
Talk:Solid South

Southern strategy
The addition of the information that the Civil Rights Act had Republican support is valid. Nevertheless, in 1968 Nixon did pursue a "Southern strategy" aimed at winning votes from Southerners who were hostile to the Act and to civil rights in general, so I've restored that reference and link. JamesMLane 21:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources/References
Can some of our editors add a References section with the citations for this account and maybe some general bibliographic references on this subject? --Dystopos 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete many of these citations and request new ones, or a deletion of the context altogether. The first citation does not support the claim: "[The Solid South] was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation." whatsoever. The final two references contain no citations at all. This article is not up to standards; I hope this will be fixed soon or else someone will tell me how the current citations convey the facts genuinely. 72.94.162.128 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Southern Strategy
Please keep discussion on this page. I see no difference between the subject of this article and Southern strategy. It appears that their respective contributors are simply ignorant of the other's existence. There is a large duplication of content, although both contain information that the other does not. I do not know which title should be kept. I prefer Solid South, but I could be wrong. If they are not merged, I hope that this discussion will at least lay out a clear deliniation between the subjects of the articles such that there is no overlap in content and that it will be abundantly clear in the future where new content should be added. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These are completely different topics, I believe. Southern Strategy explores the Republican Party's attempt to wrest the south from the Democrats; it's an article about a political strategy. Solid South is a history article. There's noting wrong with what you call "duplication of content" because the articles cover similar ground.Griot 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous editor. They are two separate articles, one dealing with a recent political strategy and the other with a political history that existed from after the Civil War until the 1970s. One could state that the Southern Strategy came ended the Solid South but that doesn't mean they should be one article.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose merger. The Solid South article covers a much longer time period. JamesMLane t c 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose merging to one article, but I support reducing redundant content. Solid South should point to Southern Strategy for detailed information on the organized campaign and Southern Strategy should point back to Solid South for the context and aftermath of that project. --Dystopos 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the content deliniation? Southern strategy starts with reconstruction and Solid South has a section for "Solid South today". I'm fine with the two articles remaining. Wikipedia is not paper so we don't have to merge slightly separate topics, but we need to redistribute some content between these articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not merge these two articles. Their topics, "Solid South" and "Southern strategy", are opposites, the first representing Democratic domination in the southern United States 1877-1964 and the second representing Republican domination 1964-present.  The only similarity between the two concepts is that they are both consequences of white racism.  Yes, the end of the Solid south is essentially the same as the start of the Southern strategy.  Possibly Southern strategy could be shortened. Paul 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph
While the last paragraph is probably largely factually correct as of October 2006, it seems to be both POV and, as far as I can determine, unreferenced. Comments? Rlquall 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The paragraph reads as follows:

 * "As of pre-midterm elections, 2006, the political climate has begun to shift in the 'Solid South' states. Wavering support for an unpopular war and repeated exposures of corruption and mismanagement of the Republican dominated Administration has made many staunch 'Red States' not so 'clearly-colored'. September-October polls reveal larger support for Democratic candidates then in 2004. Much of this is attributed not so much as a shift in political ideology, but more to a growing disilluionment and resentment of the current Republican administration."

 * It wouldn't be hard to find citations for the proposition that most analysts expect the Republican Party to lose seats in 2006, in the South and elsewhere. Nevertheless, that point doesn't add much to the article.  The preceding section (Solid South) notes that the southern states' Congressional delegations are a mix of Democrats and Republicans.  This makes it clear that the solidity of the "Solid South" is most notable in Presidential politics.  The year-to-year fluctuations in the prospects of each party's House and Senate candidates don't need to be detailed.  I'm removing the paragraph. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The "Solid South" as a term for current realities in presidential elections seems rather dubious. The Democrats have won southern electoral votes in just about every election where they haven't been totally blown out, with the exception of the last two elections and 1988.  It's worth noting that the "Solid South" doesn't just refer to presidential elections - other than Tennessee, the states of the Confederacy did not elect any Republican governors between 1896 and 1966, and no Republican senators for a comparable period  (the first was John Tower in 1960).  There is not, and has never been, a "Solid South" for Republicans, in the way that there was for the Democrats between 1880 and 1960. The situation today simply isn't comparable. john k 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The article draws the distinction, noting that the party mix is more balanced at the lower levels (Senator, U.S. House, governor). There certainly is a Republican predominance, though.  In 1992 and 1996, the Democrats, with two Southerners on the ticket, split the South's electoral votes.  In 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, however, they were completely shut out (and virtually shut out in 1980, with Carter carrying only his native Georgia).  You're correct that it's not a complete mirror image of the 1880-1960 situation, but the current Republican advantage is worth mentioning.  The South certainly didn't go from being solidly Democratic to being evenly contested between the parties in Presidential elections. JamesMLane t c 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is certainly true. My main issue was that  I wasn't sure why the article seems so focused on presidential elections, when the Solid South was rather an across the board phenomenon.  The article also focuses rather strongly on the end of the Solid South and the "Southern Strategy," which has its own article, rather than on anything else about it.  Its origins with the end of Reconstruction (and the disenfranchisement of Black voters) are only discussed in the introduction, and only with respect to presidential elections.  There's nothing about the Republican Party in the south before the 1960s (either in its "actually having real members" state in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and the border states, and in its  "entirely existing to receive federal patronage" state in the rest of the South), and nothing really about the political contours of the period in the south - there ought to be some discussion of the Populist challenge to Democratic dominance in the 1890s, for instance, the way the Progressives impacted southern politics (by, for instance, creating primaries that allowed for intra-Democratic party democracy, for white people, at least), and so forth.  And, as I said before, the article is entirely focused on presidential politics, when the Solid South applies more or less across the board. john k 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The information you refer to could indeed be usefully added to the article. I'm not sure you're right in criticizing the emphasis on Presidential politics, though.  My subjective impression of the use of the phrase is that it tended to occur more often in discussions of Presidential races.  (The solidity of the South was indeed top-to-bottom; I'm referring only to how this particular phrase was used.)  At any rate, we don't disagree about the relevance of the other stuff -- so feel free to fix it.  :) JamesMLane t c 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As always, I'm much better at criticizing the flaws of articles than actually fixing them. I'll see about changing them. I would agree that "Solid South" is probably used somewhat more about presidential races than others, but, on the other hand, the Solid  South frayed much sooner in presidential politics than it did elsewhere.  Much of the South voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1928, and the Solid South in presidential elections entirely left in 1948 and never returned, but the former Confederate states didn't elect a Republican senator until 1960 (Tower), or a Republican Governor until 1966 (Rockefeller and Kirk).  Anyway, I'll see what I can do about expanding the article. john k 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph, I'm not sure why the democratic party's results in the north have anything to do with an article on the Southern Strategy/Solid South. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Originated in Reconstruction?
What about the first Republican president's military invasion and conquering of their land? I think it's safe to say that the Solid South was solid well before Reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Northeastern U.S.
Hey all. Just wanted to let you know that I made a small correction of the statement that said that in 2004, Kerry won all nine Northeastern states, from Maryland to Maine. I think whether Maryland can be considered a Northeastern state can be debated; some would class it as a Northern state, some would class it as a Southern state, and others would class it as a border state. Hence, I have changed the wording to state "from Pennsylvania to Maine" rather than from "Maryland to Maine." Also, if one does the math, Maryland plus all the Northeastern states equals ten states instead of nine. However, my correction has rectified this issue as well. Thanks.Gujuguy (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Maryland is too Southern to be considered Northern...if we are judging based on politics, then ND and SD are southern too huh? More Northern people "remind" me that I don't belong to them than Southern people. 69.251.26.101 (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nixon's Grand Strategy
As political grand strategy, Nixon shifted his Republican party's basis to appeal less to liberals and more to conservatives, especially the southern conservatives of the 1960's. Often, these southern conservatives were in the forefront to oppose the many civil rights legislation passed during the 1960's. Although these southern conservatives had traditionally voted as Democrats, many southern conservatives felt alienated from the Democrat Party because of the Democrats strong emphasis on civil rights and desegregation, especially the civil rights of black Amercians. When Mississippi's black delegation to the Democrat National convention was seated in place of the white delegation, Richard Nixon and members of the GOP pursued as their Republican Party's basis a value system that would appeal to southern conservatives. During the 1980's, these southern conservatives became known as "Reagan's Democrats" because these southern conservatives voted solidly for the Republican Party, thus making the Solid South the conservative basis for the Republican Party. 125.162.168.156 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 * A nitpick. "Reagan Democrat" doesn't refer to Southerners who switched as a result of the civil rights era.  It refers to working class people in the Northeast and Midwest who traditionally voted Democrat but went over to Reagan because the crises of the seventies had so thoroughly destroyed the credibility of their old party - inflation, gas lines et al ruined their economic cred (historically their strong point); the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis and revolution in Nicaragua were also blamed on the Democrats; and finally, there was the counterculture of the seventies (antiwar movement, sexual liberalism, rejection of traditional values and institutions) which alienated these Democrats' conservative social values.
 * In 1992 and 1996, Reagan and Bush's failure to fix the economy made it possible for Bill Clinton to target these voters and bring them back to the other side of the aisle. That's why they're called Reagan *Democrats* and not Republicans - they only switched for the duration of the 1980s. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma
Oklahoma, which Congressional Quarterly considers part of the South, belongs in the table. Inclusion of Missouri is more questionable. Recommendation: Keep Missouri in, but add Oklahoma. Rammer (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maryland
Why is this state not included? Missouri is, but Maryland isn't? In these days of the Solid South, when being a Democrat meant conservatism, Maryland was very much a part of the Solid South, on a local and national level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.232.68 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maryland actually wasn't part of the Solid South and most notably didn't have to go through Reconstruction with the Confederate states. Ever since the LBJ days Maryland has remained solidly Democratic with Northeastern voting patterns, while the South has been solidly Republican up until the 2008 election (Sons of the South Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton being exceptions, especially the former). The same applies to Delaware and West Virginia. I don't know why Oklahoma isn't in the table though. Missouri is debatable, especially since its been considered solidly Midwestern since the 1900's.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.224.16 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say, voting patterns mean nothing really. It's about lifestyle. MD is country, plain and simple. It has nothing in common with NY, but everything in common with VA. Just saying. 69.251.26.101 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You must remember, Maryland was also apart of the union, yet still allowed slavery. Maryland is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too kind of state. So they vote democratic? North Dakota votes Republican, does that make it a Southern State? 3x more counties vote Republican in Maryland, they just don't have the population like Baltimore to pull off the victory. I'm tired of this "South/North Maryland" talk. We are a MID-ATLANTIC state and if we choose to be South or North, so be it. That's one thing we have the option to do, unlike any other state. Yall Southerners and Northerners don't want us, but yall gotta deal, period. Chic3z (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Clinton states & LA
Has it been corrected here in Talk that Clinton carried LA twice? I think the section on what BC carried could be made clearer w/ in the Southern Strategy - End of the Solid South section.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html 1992, Clinton, WV, KY, TN, Ark, LA & GA. 1996, WV, KY, TN, Ark, LA, FL.

151.204.190.111 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Solid South based in disfranchisement of blacks
It's astounding that a contemporary article can feature the history of the Solid South and avoid discussing the real reasons, not just resentment by whites of Republicans but the whites' wholesale disfranchisement of blacks after Reconstruction, first through violence, assassination and intimidation at the polls, then by law - through new constitutions and amendments passed from 1890 to 1910 by every southern state in the former Confederacy. This is how the white Democrats excluded the African Americans, who were a majority of the population in some states and in many counties of the Deep South where cotton had been cultivated. It is also the means by which white Southerners exercised outsize power in Congress, as they had seats apportioned by total population, but they had excluded a great proportion of the population from politics. This disfranchisement is well documented, and I will be adding cited material to this article. The disfranchisement was not defeated until after Congressional passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. By that time, 6.5 million African Americans had already left the South in the Great Migration to escape its oppressive society.Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

June 16th edits.
The claim that the south moved to the GOP party due to GOP appeals to racism is NOT at all an established fact. The original entry stated it as such without any citation. I have added a reference which states supports the view and one which refutes the view. I can add several more which refute the view but to avoid giving undue weight I left it at one reference each. If an editor feels this text shouldn't be in the article please justify why.Getoverpops (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 * See the ongoing discussion at Southern Strategy that you are perfectly aware of. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't see how that makes the edits here invalid? Please justify not including that information in this article.  Note that my reference (Johnson and Shafer) and it's claim has been in the article for over two years. Getoverpops (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The problem here is that the edit in question gives undue weight to a marginal point of view. It introduced a false equivalence and contained a weasel word, so was rightly reverted. gobonobo  + c 12:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a disagreement then. The view is not marginal and if you feel that way please prove it.  I can provide a number of sources academic sources that disagree.  Which sources do you have that state otherwise?  I would be happy to provide an extensive list of sources that say the Southern Strategy was not a factor in the move to the GOP.  I would suggest you review WP:BALANCE.Getoverpops (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead section
It is little more than the Census outline of the "Southern United States" administrative region. That does not warrant half the lead. Dustin ( talk ) 06:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Legislative bodies of the former Confederacy
In the "Southern Strategy" today section, it says "Republicans control all 22 of the other legislative bodies in the former Confederacy". 22? That number seems too high. What legislative bodies does this text refer to? Dustin ( talk ) 21:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The 11 full Confederate states all have bicameral legislatures so it presumably means the Republicans control(led?) both houses in all 11 of them. Timrollpickering 14:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Black migration to Democratic Party in 1930's
In the 1930s, black voters outside the South largely switched to the Democrats, and other groups with an interest in civil rights (notably Jews, Catholics, and academic intellectuals) became more powerful in the party.

I'd like to see why this began happening. The following sentence tells what happens afterward, but not what happened before. E.g., was this associated with the growing socialist movement, or maybe the FDR/New Deal, etc.? And how were the Republicans, since the Reconstruction era, changing such that blacks felt this move was necessary, or did this have anything to do with it at all? Also, it would be extremely interesting to understand why blacks (and other minorities) remained with the Democrats even after the FDR years as their rights were still largely limited.

73.90.84.55 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Two big reasons:
 * Lily-white Republicans. During the nadir of American race relations c. 1890-1920, Republicans abandoned the idea of an integrated Republican party, believing that African-Americans' disenfranchisement meant they would not be helpful in building a viable electoral coalition. As a result, most local Republican parties expelled African-Americans in an attempt to win over southern whites.
 * The New Deal won over a lot of poor blacks who benefited from its expansion of welfare programs and from the generally lower unemployment under FDR than Hoover.
 * Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solid South. 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/20120425132518/http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/event/missouri-abolishes-slavery to http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/event/missouri-abolishes-slavery

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) 03:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

jim justice party affliliation
jim justice was elected as a democrat so his box should be half blue hlaf red  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.202.132 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Map at start
This map is a bit deceptive for several reasons:

 * The circumstances of 1876 make it a poor choice for inclusion, both because of the contentious nature of the Republican victories in the South and because the Republican disappearance was in part a consequence of the settlement.
 * 1964 is also a bad end date as it's the election when the Deep South turned to the Republicans. Again including it gives a rather different impression.
 * In 1948 and 1960 certain states that didn't vote for the national Democrat nominee were actually still voting for the Democrat line (as, indeed, was Alabama in 1968) but it was the state Democrat line due to the splits between the national and some of the state parties.

Would it be better to have a map showing 1880-1960 based on the success of the state Democrat line? Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I think that sounds good; hopefully we can fix the color scheme too, which is all over the map (pun fully intended). Why are states with 2-3 defections colored more lightly than those with 4-5?
 * We also might want to exclude West Virginia, as it was not a Confederate state (it split from Virginia specifically to join the Union), and we might want to include Maryland and Missouri (which were border states, much like Kentucky). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you will have to call for a Rfc before changing the map without consensus. First of all, West Virginia was more supportive of the Confederacy than Kentucky, so removing it would not be historically accurate if you are basing it on the Confederacy alone. It is included in "Why the Solid South?" (1890), which was one of the first book on the subject. You would need more input. Dubyavee (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead Sentence Bolding
Is "Southern Bloc" that widely used outside of contemporary sources? It seems like it would have too many modern connotations compared to the much more period-specific "Solid South", in which case the lead sentence should be amended to read "at the time also known as the Southern Bloc" Orchastrattor (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solid South


text:
Talk:Bologna Process

Who died and made Chris Lorenz king?
Seriously people. Why is this guy's opinion so important as to warrant an entire section for it?

I agree and will remove the section, it seems that there was once a section, at first called criticism with the quote followed up by a further description of Lorenz's opinion, most of it deleted after it's relevance and his authority were called into question. Until someone puts together a lengthier section discussing different opinions on the matter, I think it is better to remove his opinion for now, because the relevance of the quote for the article is not at all obvious and does not seem to be more than the dry bones of a once dreamed of exaltation of Lorenz. Smit1937 — Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Section of posts with no section title

 * These posts had previously been located before the Table of Contents. Adavis444 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"These levels are the current model in the UK, Ireland (as well as the US) as distinct from most of Continental Europe" - this isn't quite correct; in the UK one year is standard for the majority of Masters degrees. Actually extending this to two years would effectively be the British side of the Bologna compromise. However, there is no doubt the UK system provides the fundamental model for the new framework so I will reword this slightly to reflect that. VivaEmilyDavies 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * We often hear that the UK was the model template for the Bologna accords. However,

 * Four-year degrees (as opposed to three) are now the standard for undergraduate education in engineering and natural sciences in the UK. Although the awarded degrees are referred to as "Masters" (e.g. MEng, MMath, MPhys, etc.), they are not actually true master's degree either in the American or the Bologna sense, but rather first professional degrees.
 * On the other hand, the old "true" master's degrees in the UK (MSc, MPhil, etc...) can be usually obtained with an additional one year of the studies beyond a BA (3-year bachelor's degree). Again, that is in conflict with the Bologna process. 161.24.19.82 20:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland
Advanced Highers are equivalent to A-levels? In terms of UCAS points, yes, but in terms of content, scope, focus of each subject areas? No.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.14.118 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Situation in Germany
Quote:

''...Bachelor's degrees are seen as roughly equivalent to the old four year first degree Diplom(FH) from polytechnic|college of applied sciences. Bearing in mind that the Fachhochschule level is not comparable to the UK honours degree or to the French DEA (see below) because although the fourth year of the FH is used for a research project, it is a practical project, done on-the-job. Furthermore, the FH is outside the university system. German universities are research universities and include courses in all traditonal departments through the Doktorat level, whereas the FH are teaching colleges for technical, business and applied social science subjects which have offered only one degree, the Diplom (FH)...''

I doubt a person without any knowledge about the German higher education system will actually understand what this part of the article means! It seems to me the author translated the English term "university system" a little bit to literal into German! It literally means "Universitäts-System" in German, and the German word "Universität" is actually only used in the meaning of the English "research university". However, the much better translation is "Hochschul-System". (The very misleading literal translation of this term is "high school system"!) This word is more often used and it includes all German higher education institutions with the authority to grant academic degrees. (These are: Universitäten [(research) universities]; Technische Universitäten/Technische Hochschulen [technical universities]; Pädagogische Hochschulen [teacher training colleges]; Musikhochschulen/Kunsthochschulen [colleges of music/of arts]; Fachhochschulen [Polytechnics, in English often called "universities of applied sciences"!]; and Verwaltungsfachhochschulen [colleges of public administration].)

I think the old Diplom(FH) IS comparable in level to the UK honours degree or to the French DEA, but the structure of the degree course is not comparable. Is here someone, who agree... ? Mintaru 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The old French DEA is a much higher qualification, equivalent to a master's degree. 161.24.19.82 14:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * How to value the Diplom(FH) is a topic of much debate. Some value it equivalent to a bachelor's degree, others equivalent to a master's degree and some value it as something in between. As this is debatable let's stay with the facts:

 * "The Bachelor's degree in engineering can be a BSc or a BEng, with the BEng being awarded by Fachhochschulen/Polytechnics and the BSc by Universities and Engineering schools."
 * This is incomplete. You can get a BSc as well as a MSc from the University of Applied Sciences (Fachhochschule.) The number of old degree courses is declining and they are replaced by bachelor's and master's degree courses.

 * "because although the fourth year of the FH is used for a research project, it is a practical project, done on-the-job."
 * This is wrong. In most courses you will have to do a part-time internship during two semesters. You will attend lectures during this time and do tests as well. All of this has nothing to do with the research project. The research project, where you will write your thesis, is often done in cooperation with a company, but it is not done on-the-job.

 * "FH are teaching colleges for technical, business and applied social science subjects which have offered only one degree, the Diplom (FH)"
 * While it is true that the University of Applied Sciences offeres no Dr. or Ph.D. courses it is also true that a Diplom(FH) enables you for a Dr. or Ph.D. course at the university.
 * Ludwig Weinzierl 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonia
Could someone who speaks English write the section on Estonia?

I obliged.

David WC2 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)David WC2

Criticism??
The Bologna process is heavily criticised by students and universities alike in the countries affected by it (see the corresponding German article for some examples). However the English article fails to mention any criticism at all.

The article is currently a wee bit POV as it seems to focus entirely on the apparent benefits and the anglophone view. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Its a good point - indeed professional bodies and societies have also raised some concerns as to benifits beyond making the masters the gold standard for graduates (certainly this is the case in Ireland where the bachelors was previously honours only and masters was for research and specialised study and also of honours standard). A lot of concerns that its purely window dressing and keeping up with the jones'. Will look for some specific material to cite and get the ball rolling. Djegan 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, for countries where the old German system is used, the Bologna accord simply does not make any sense at all. The 5-year Diplom has always been the standard for professional qualification in Germany. Research-oriented "master's" degrees on the other hand simply did not exist. One would complete a 5-year undergraduate professional course (a Diplom course) and then, either go straight into the job market, or enter a doctoral program to get an advanced research degree. Under the Bologna accords, German universities simply renamed their main undergraduate Diplom a "master's degree" pretending the two are equivalent, notwithstanding the fact that, in reality, unlike a traditional Anglo-American "lower research degree" (e.g. a 2-year M.S with thesis in the US or a one-year research-based MPhil in the UK), the course structure remains, like before, focused on a professional rather than a research qualification (no matter what the Germans say or claim, a Diplom graduation thesis or "Diplomarbeit" is not equivalent to a master's thesis for example). 161.24.19.82 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Started section - every article needs balance and not slavish adherence. Djegan 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the criticism section is too Greece-centric, even seeming partisan in some ways.

"the Greek government (New Democracy) with the consent of PASOK" While PASOK often has similar views with New Democracy in the debate, it did not vote for the changes, and in many cases it was against them, particularly when the situation turned violent. The writer doesn't explain what PASOK is and doesn't provide links to the party entries. I would have corrected it, but I think the line almost needs deletion all together.

"tried to implement the declaration of Bologna through massive reforms aiming at the university system" I don't see where the declaration of Bologna was implemented in the reforms. The heavy majority of them was completely unrelated. This article is around the 3+2 (years) system, and the law changed nothing about the current 4+2 system in Greece. I also don't see the "tried" part. The plan (in a sad way) has become a law. "These reactions led to the failure of the constitutional change of the article 16 that prohibits the founding of private universities" The article above doesn't provide any link of Bologna and privatization, so this entry needs clarification. "and also blocked the reform in the laws regarding the internal workings of universities" It did not. "In general, the Bologna process is denied" wrong verb use "by the majorities of the university students and teachers syndicates[verification needed]" indeed, I think the Bologna process in Greece is, as usual, mixed in a bag with countless irrelevant things, and it is difficult to see when an educational reform actually has anything to do with the Bologna process. Tec-goblin 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I don't really see this as an "Americanising" process, as the United States has nothing to do with it. You perhaps could call it an Anglicisation, but I don't think that would be appropriate either - it's just a change in systems to one resembling the Commonwealth/US system. I think the statement "The process aims to Americanize European higher education, because all programmes are divided into Anglo-Saxon "undergraduate" and "graduate" degrees, where the undergraduate degree is the "basic degree" " should be deleted and replaced with something that isn't a point of view. This sentence: "In some countries, such as Ireland,[2] the pre-Bologna structure is nearer to the United States and this is a perceived benefit. " also raises the US, which again is completely irrelevant. Tozznok 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that the economic factors, for example as described here are actually part of the Bologna process rather than another European process? What is more I've split the "Criticism" section into two parts to take into account both academic (which I don't agree with) and economic (which I do agree with) criticism. - Francis Tyers · 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all a load of baloney --EvilFred (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland
This section is quite unclear: "The Polish equivalent of an Associate's degree or a Bachelor's of Arts is a licencjat. The Polish equivalent of a Bachelor's of Science degree (given by a University) is licencjat, ...". So what exactly is the licencjat now, and how can it be equivalent to both an Associate's and a Bachelor's degree? --Brindt 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

France
As far as I understood there is Master1 and Master2 it's not DEA anymore..and the page is really outdated\

Criticism
The Bologna process is highly relevant to many students, and this page could be a valuable resource. Sentences like "The Bologna Declaration can be said to be a deal done in a smoke-filled room, by governmental officials, without any participation of the European parliament. Also the involvement of the national parliaments has been limited." are so much POV that bunny rabbits are coming out of my dog's butt -- and some have started blogs of their own. Also, why should the Parliaments have a word in a protocol between voluntary universities that enjoy (most of them) autonomous management? -- Jorge

Vatican
I think the Vatican is a semi-official member, this should be checked for verification. ADM (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorbonne declaration
Currently, I note that the link for the "Sorbonne declaration" in the main article redirects to the Bologna process article. I am of the opinion that this is not a good use. The "Sorbonne declaration" is currently available externally at
 * Sorbonne declaration

Hence I propose to add the latter as an important External resource and to footnote a reference to it from the Bologna process body. — Михал Орела (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is ECTS?
I do not see a definition in the article. (or did I manage to miss it somehow?) --Nricardo (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Found it. I have expanded the acronym on its first occurrence. --Nricardo (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This sentence sounds pretty POV to me: The Bologna Declaration can be said to be a deal done in a smoke-filled room, by governmental officials, without any participation of the European parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.49.125 (talk • contribs)

It is criticism, which should of course be attributed, not given in Wikipedia's voice. While the "smoke-filled room" is a metaphor, of course, the remainder is factual. Like most of the "European integration" stunts of the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was unburdened by any pretense of democratic process.

Sourcing criticism to this effect is extremely easy, and a decent summary of its gist should be in the WP:LEAD.

E.g. Matthias Daum, Die Zeit, 19 December 2012
 * What the Euro is for economy, Bologna is supposed to be for science. The great wave of European integration has also affected the education system.
 * It is an irony of history that it is precisely a reform that was set up to dismantle the archaic structures in the universities, that now leads to a technologization and ossification of the universities. The implementation of Bologna is a mixture of neo-liberalism and planned economy. In the name of increased competition, the central regulatory power of the rectorates and deaneries is strengthened.

--dab (𒁳) 07:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A Citation to include
I am recently learning about the Bologna Process. I would like to add a citation for an article. I'm not sure how or where it would best fit, but I have the citation information in bibtex. The entry looks like this: @ARTICLE{west10ripple, author = {Charlotte West}, title = , journal = {International Educator}, year = {2010}, volume = {19}, pages = {24-32}, number = {6}, month = {Nov-Dec}, timestamp = {2011.02.05}, url = {http://www.nafsa.org/publications/default.aspx?id=22989} }

As you can see, the information on the article is all there, along with the website where a pdf of the original article can be had. If anyone could help me figure out how to best integrate this reference, that would be great. I am new to article editing, and don't want to mess things up. I think this reference could add something to the article, since it at least represents a published view of the affects of Bologna outside Europe. DocEdit (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"New Bulgarian University" edit
While, to be honest, I'm almost certain that the accusations about how "New Bulgarian University" carries out the "Bologna Process" are true, their tone didn't quite fit an encyclopaedia article, so I removed them. Zahical (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejected countries/entities
the section "Rejected countries/entities Four countries or entities applied to be included in the Bologna Process, but have been rejected so far..." should direct the reader to a relieble resource. I believe this section is misleading. example, as far as I know, Israel (which is mentioned under this section) never applied to be included in the Bologna Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.190.124 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy
The "Laurea Magistrale" degree can also be a six-year degree if the subject is Medicine. These may be noteworthy, given the exceptional length of the degree. This type of degree is in some instances called "Laurea Specialistica a ciclo unico", but this should more properly be addressed in the page on Italian education system.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bologna Process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220143934/http://www.felvi.hu:80/szavazas/eredmeny.ofi?mfa_id=1 to http://www.felvi.hu/szavazas/eredmeny.ofi?mfa_id=1

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔ No available captures of the poll being referred to are available. The site uses the same url to post online polls on a regular basis. It's essentially ephemera that's been lost, but I've left it in place tagging it for 'cbignore' on the assumption that it was cited and verified at the time. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Belgium - effects?
Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

France
Prior to LMD reform - what, when?Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I can't make head or tail of much of what editors are trying to convey throughout the article. I've tagged it for copyediting as it's in a terrible state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bologna Process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Sorbonne_declaration.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327102818/http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/ces/Home/Resources/Michigan%20Paper%20Series/Lorenz_Will_Universities_Survive.pdf to http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/ces/Home/Resources/Michigan%20Paper%20Series/Lorenz_Will_Universities_Survive.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tkk.fi/fi/opinnot/opintohallinto/kieliversiot/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't wanna know how the sausage is made...
Maybe this article should have a content warning or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsxnv (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bologna Process


text:
Wikipedia:Dashboard/Deletion debates needing votes

Deletion debates requiring votes
The following articles, categories, templates, images and redirects have been listed on their relevant deletion page for at least three days but have so far either attracted no votes, or only a small number of votes (less than 5) with no obvious consensus.

The purpose here is to help consensus to form, not to promote inclusionism, deletionism, mergism or any other point of view. To this end please read and give your opinions on the article/category/template, etc in question - copying and pasting votes helps no one.

This list is manually updated, so please add new debates if they meet the criteria above. The aim is keep this fairly lightly trafficked so if you find any that have received 10 or more votes since its inclusion here please remove it from the list. Entries can be removed sooner if consensus looks likely. When adding, please link to the page nominated for deletion and the page where that nomination is being discussed. Entries should be sorted by the date of the nomination, with newer entries at the bottom of the list.

Articles (from WP:VFD)

 * Example - Votes for deletion/Example (15 April 2005)

Undeletion (from WP:VFU)

 * Example - Votes for undeletion (15 April 2005)


text: Category:Cities in Western Australia

title: Category:Cities in Western Australia


text:
User:Academicintegrity

Now I'm Tony Marvin

title: User:Academicintegrity