text:
Leon Kozłowski

Leon Tadeusz Kozłowski (6 June 1892 – 11 May 1944) was a Polish archaeologist, freemason, and politician who served as Prime Minister of Poland from 1934 to 1935.

Life
Leon Kozłowski was born in 1892 in the village of Rembieszyce near Małogoszcz. Prior to 1914 he moved with his family to Lwów in Galicia (now Lviv, Ukraine), where he joined the local university. He also joined the Riflemen Union and Association of Progressive Youth. After the outbreak of the Great War he joined Józef Piłsudski's Polish Legions, where he served in the 1st Uhlans Regiment. After the Oath Crisis of 1917 he joined the Polish Military Organization and organized the cadres of the future Polish Army.

When Poland regained her independence in 1918, Kozłowski volunteered for the Polish Army and served with distinction during the Polish-Bolshevik War. Afterwards he was demobilized and returned to Lwów, where he completed his studies at the University of Jan Kazimierz. In 1921 he became a professor there and the head of the Faculty of Pre-history. He held that post between 1921 and 1931 and then again between 1935 and 1939. He was also active in various social and political organizations, including the Society for the Repair of the Republic. As such, following a military coup in 1928 he got involved in the BBWR movement and the same year he was elected to the Sejm. He held the post of a Member of Parliament until 1935, when he was chosen to the Senate of Poland.

During his political career he held various posts in several governments led by the Sanacja movement. He was responsible for the establishment of the prison camp at Bereza Kartuska. Between 1930 and 1935 he was the minister of agrarian reforms. At the same time, between 1932 and 1933 he was a sub-secretary of state in the Ministry of Treasury. Finally, on 15 May 1934, Kozłowski became the Prime Minister of Poland. He held that post until 28 March 1935, when he was replaced by Walery Sławek. On the insistence of Piłsudski, all of the ministers of Kozłowski's government were included in the new government. After death of Marshal of Poland Józef Piłsudski, Kozłowski remained an active politician for some time. He was seen as a representative of the leftist part of the Sanacja movement and a supporter of Walery Sławek. However, the latter lost the race to Piłsudski's heritage and Kozłowski returned to Lwów, where he reassumed his posts at the university. In 1937 he also briefly got involved in the Obóz Zjednoczenia Narodowego movement, but without much success.

After the Polish Defensive War of 1939 and the outbreak of the World War II, Leon Kozłowski remained in Lwów, where he was arrested by the NKVD. He spent almost two years in various Soviet prisons, and finally was sentenced to death for "anti-Soviet behaviour". However, after the Sikorski–Mayski agreement of 1941 he was released and travelled to Buzuluk, where he tried joined up with the Polish Army formed there by general Władysław Anders. Due to his political past, he was refused. He then left the military camp and started his 1000-mile long trip westwards, accompanied by one officer, intending to join the Germans. He crossed the Soviet-German frontline, for which he was sentenced to death by a Polish court.

German authorities sent him on to Berlin. Whilst there he took part in talks with the Nazi authorities, which saw him as a possible collaborationist, and an ally in winning the Poles over to the German cause. It is certain however, that in May 1943 he was sent to the site of the Katyn Massacre as one of the experts brought to the site by the German authorities. Though he had expressed doubts of the version of the events as presented by the Reich Ministry for Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels, he became convinced of the Soviet guilt after having seen the mass graves and conversed with the members of the expert commission of the Polish Red Cross under forensic doctor Marian Wodziński The pro-German Polish language daily Goniec Krakowski cited Kozłowski as saying that he had recognized acquaintances among the dead bodies, among them professors from Lwów and ministerial officials from Warsaw.

Interned in Berlin (at the Hotel Alemannia), Leon Kozłowski found work at an ethnographic museum and could pursue scientific research. He was also awarded a considerable monthly pension. He was wounded in an Allied air raid on the German capital and died of his wounds on 11 May 1944.

title: Leon Kozłowski


text:
510 Spadina

510 Spadina (310 Spadina during overnight periods) is a Toronto streetcar route in Ontario, Canada, operated by the Toronto Transit Commission.

Earlier routes
Streetcar service on Spadina Avenue began in 1878 as a horsecar line operated by the Toronto Street Railway. In 1891, the Toronto Railway Company created a route called the Belt Line that ran as a loop along Spadina Avenue, Bloor Street, Sherbourne Street, and King Street. In 1923, the Toronto Transportation Commission reconfigured the streetcar network, discontinuing the Belt Line and creating Spadina as a separate streetcar route. The Spadina route operated until 1948, when it was replaced by buses. The tracks on Spadina between Dundas Street and Harbord Street were used by the Harbord streetcar route until its discontinuation in 1966, after which, only the tracks between King and College streets were retained for diversions along Spadina Avenue.

Modern route
The modern 510 Spadina route began as the 604 Harbourfront LRT route along Queens Quay in 1990, using CLRV and ALRV streetcars. The route was later renamed the 510 Harbourfront. It became the 510 Spadina and replaced the 77 Spadina bus when a new dedicated right-of-way was opened in 1997. The right-of-way extended the track north along Spadina Avenue from Queens Quay to Spadina station on Line 2 Bloor–Danforth.

The term "light-rail transit" (LRT), which had been adopted to project an image of modernity, was dropped when it led to residents and newspaper reporters imagining elevated guideways like those of the Scarborough RT running through their streets. It was found that the project was much easier to sell to the public and politicians when it was described as an improvement to the speed and reliability of traditional streetcar service.

In 2000, when the Queens Quay streetcar tracks were extended west to Bathurst and Fleet Streets, the name Harbourfront reappeared for a 509 Harbourfront route between Union station and Exhibition Loop. The 509 and 510 routes share the trackage that had been used by the 604.

In 2005, The Globe and Mail newspaper published an article that criticized the switch to a dedicated right-of-way streetcar as being less beneficial than promised. Based on TTC documents, the author argued that service is about one minute slower (from Queens Quay to Bloor) during afternoon rush hour than in 1990. The author also cited TTC documents which show that the cost-to-revenue ratio of the route has fallen with the switch from buses to streetcars. Mitch Stambler, the TTC's manager of service planning, responded by pointing out that streetcars offer a smoother and quieter ride, zero emissions, and economic development.

Ridership increased from 26,000 per day on the 77 bus route to 35,000 per day on the Spadina streetcar in 2004 and to over 45,000 per day between 2005 and 2006. Streetcars on the Spadina portion run every 2 to 3 minutes every day.

On December 15, 2008, the next vehicle arrival notification system was installed for the 510 streetcar in Spadina and Union stations. The next vehicle arrival notification system includes a display screen that shows the location of the streetcars in "real" time with a delay of one minute.

On June 18, 2012, all streetcar service on the line was suspended and replaced by buses. This was to allow major track work to be completed in preparation for the TTC's new low-floor Bombardier Transportation custom-made Flexity Outlook streetcars which were scheduled to enter service on the Spadina line in 2014. The upgrades were completed and full streetcar service was restored two years later on August 31, 2014, including a ceremony at 10:00am when the first two accessible low-floor Flexity vehicles officially entered revenue service.

On September 6, 2015, after a 13-year absence, the TTC reinstated its overnight service on this route. The night service was designated first as 317 Spadina (based on the overnight equivalent from the 77 Spadina bus era) before being renumbered 310 Spadina on September 3, 2017 (to better align with the current overnight equivalent of the 510 Spadina line), and was part of the expanded Blue Night Network streetcar services resulting from a $95 million investment from Toronto City Council. During overnight periods, streetcars operate approximately every 30 minutes. The TTC had operated an overnight service using buses on Spadina from 1987 until 1992 when it was discontinued due to a series of cutbacks in TTC service.

On May 14, 2018, 510 Spadina became the second streetcar route in Toronto (after 509 Harbourfront) to use a pantograph instead of the trolley pole for electrical pickup.

On May 10, 2021, service was shortened to operate along Spadina Avenue from Spadina station to Queens Quay and Spadina only, to allow for an increase of service along the line. However, the 310 Spadina Blue Night service remains unchanged and continues to operate from Spadina station to Union station. On September 5, 2021, service to Union station resumed.

Route
510 streetcars operate entirely within dedicated streetcar rights-of-way, along Spadina Avenue, Queens Quay Boulevard and in a tunnel under Bay Street. Most stops along the routes are surface stops, with islands separating the regular traffic from the streetcar tracks, and have streetcar traffic signals, partial shelters, and railings to protect patrons from the traffic. Streetcars serve Union and Spadina subway stations from underground streetcar stations, and an additional underground streetcar station exists at Queens Quay on the approach to Union station.

As of November 21, 2021, the 510 Spadina route operates as three branches:

 * 510A Spadina: Spadina station to Union station
 * 510B Spadina: Spadina station to Queens Quay and Spadina Loop
 * 510C Spadina: Spadina station to Spadina Ave and King St.

Route 310 Spadina runs overnight between Spadina and Union stations, replacing the 510 Spadina service. It is part of the TTC's Blue Night Network, operating from approximately 1am to 5am.

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

title: 510 Spadina


text:
User:Miss Double U

Miss Double U is a new wikipedian. She creates and edits Wikipedia pages when she is bored and/or procrastinating. She will complete this about page when she has time.

title: User:Miss Double U


text:
Aleksander Prystor

Aleksander Błażej Prystor (2 January 1874 – 1941) was a Polish politician, activist, soldier and freemason, who served as 23rd Prime Minister of Poland from 1931 to 1933. He was a member of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party and in 1908 took part in the Bezdany raid. Between 1912 and 1917 he spent in Russian prisons before being released in 1917. In March 1917 he joined Polish Military Organisation. After independence, he became secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. He fought as a volunteer in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1920. He worked for a few ministries (Labour, Industry and Commerce). Between 1931 and 1933 he served as Prime Minister of Poland. After that, he became the Marshal of the Polish Senate 1935–1938.

After the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, he fled to neutral Lithuania. After Lithuania was annexed by the USSR he was arrested in June 1940 by the NKVD; he died probably in 1941 (the date is not known) in the prison hospital of the Butyrka prison in Moscow.

Early life
Aleksander Prystor was born in Vilnius, now the capital of Lithuania and then called Vilna under the Russian Empire, to a railroad worker Feliks Prystor and Maria (née Olejnik). In 1894 he graduated from the Second High School in Vilna and began studying mathematics and physics at Imperial Moscow University. Lacking financial support from his family, Prystor lived in poverty. After graduation in 1900, he decided to study medicine at the University of Tartu. In the summer of 1902, he returned to Vilna, taking a job in a bank. Between November 1903 and September 1904, Prystor served in the 16th Sapper Battalion of the Imperial Russian Army.

Sometime in the early 20th century, Prystor joined Polish Socialist Party, and became a close associate of Józef Piłsudski. In September 1903, he left Vilna, and went to Switzerland, to undergo military training, together with Pilsudski and other activists. In 1904 Prystor, together with Jozef Kwiatek, Walery Sławek and Boleslaw Jedrzejowski, organized public protests against the forcible draft of ethnic Poles into the Russian Army to fight in the Russo-Japanese War. Also, he constructed bombs which damaged the monument of Tsar Alexander III of Russia.

In early 1905, Prystor became one of the leaders of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party. Using the pseudonym Katajama, he organized groups of activists in Warsaw, and in March of that year, he carried out the assassination of Russian Police Officer Karl Nolken. Later on, he participated in a number of raids of the Combat Organization, including bank robberies, terrorist attacks on soldiers and police officers and acts of sabotage. After the split in the party, he joined Polish Socialist Party – Revolutionary Faction, and in 1906 left Congress Poland for Kraków, located at that time in Austrian Galicia. On June 18, 1906, Prystor married Janina Bakun, a fellow member of the Combat Organization.

On September 26, 1908, Prystor was one of the participants of the legendary Bezdany raid. At the same time, he was actively involved in the activities of the Union of Active Struggle. On March 28, 1912, in Warsaw, Prystor was arrested by the Okhrana. After two years of imprisonment in Warsaw Citadel, he was in 1914 sentenced to 7 years of exile, and sent to prison in Oryol. Released after the February Revolution (March 17, 1917), he continued working for the Polish Socialist Party.

After the capture of Minsk by the Imperial German Army (May 1918), Prystor came to Warsaw, to join Polish Military Organisation. Together with other activists, he prepared the assassination of General Hans Hartwig von Beseler, but the attack was cancelled. On November 10, 1918, Prystor was among the officials who welcomed Józef Piłsudski at Warszawa Główna railway station.

Prystor was the godfather of Pilsudski's first daughter, Wanda, born on 7 February 1918.

Second Polish Republic
From 1918 to 1919, Prystor worked in the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. In April 1919, he was the aide of General Lucjan Zeligowski and participated in the Vilna offensive.

In June 1920, he volunteered for the army, to fight in the Polish–Soviet War. In July he was named company leader in the 201st Infantry Regiment of the Volunteer Division, commanded by Adam Koc (see Volunteer Army (Poland)). Prystor distinguished himself during the fighting, and was awarded the Cross of Valour. Before the Battle of Warsaw (1920), he was recalled from the frontline by Józef Piłsudski and became the personal assistant of the Polish Marshal.

Prystor remained in the Polish Army until 1925. Promoted to major, he was transferred to head the local office of Wojskowa Komenda Uzupelnien (Army Recruiting Office) in Wilno, and together with his family, settled in the real estate at the village of Borki near Wilno (May 1925). Even though he remained a close associate of Pilsudski, he did not come to Warsaw for the 1926 May Coup, remaining in Wilno, together with Edward Śmigły-Rydz. After the coup, Prystor was moved by Pilsudski to the office of the Minister of Military Affairs, and for the next three years, he followed Pilsudski, attending all meetings and military councils, including those marked as top secret.

On April 30, 1927, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel (Podpolkovnik), and began working at the Main Office of the General Inspector of the Armed Forces, where he was responsible for the removal of those officers who opposed the Sanacja regime.

Prystor was one of the few men in Poland with direct access to Pilsudski, at any time of the day and night. He lived in the Belweder, together with the Marshal. In 1929, he was briefly manager of the Personal Officer of the Ministry of Military Affairs. On April 26, 1929, he was named the Minister of Labour and Social Services in the government of Kazimierz Bartel. Working under very difficult conditions, as Poland was affected by the Great Depression, Prystor managed to increase unemployment benefits and increase the program of Public works. Furthermore, he dissolved the structures of the government health insurance program, which were in the hands of oppositional Polish Socialist Party. Among others, Prystor introduced government commissars into local offices of health insurance.

After the collapse of the government of Kazimierz Świtalski, Prystor once again became the Minister of Labour and Social Services, in the fifth government of Kazimierz Bartel. He remained in this post in the governments of Walery Sławek and Józef Piłsudski. In 1931, he was elected to the Sejm, as a member of the pro-government Nonpartisan Bloc for Cooperation with the Government (BBWR), remaining in the Polish Parliament until 1935.

In December 1930, Prystor was appointed the Minister of Trade and Industry, and on May 27, 1931, he became the Prime Minister of Poland. He was regarded as a poor premier, avoiding any reforms. His policies resulted in decrease of investment and deepened recession. Prystor remained in his post until May 1933, when Józef Piłsudski demanded his dismissal. The reason for this most likely was a personal conflict between Prystor's wife Janina, and Pilsudski's wife Aleksandra Pilsudska.

In 1934, Prystor went on a private trip to Lithuania, during which he talked with main Lithuanian politicians, including President Antanas Smetona. The talks were unsuccessful.

After the death of Pilsudski in May 1935, he was associated with the group of Walery Sławek. Prystor took part in the works on the 1935 Polish legislative election, after which he became a senator. On October 4, 1935, he was appointed the speaker of the Polish Senate and remained in this post until November 27, 1938, when President Ignacy Mościcki dissolved Polish parliament.

Following the 1938 parliamentary election, he again was elected to the Senate. On March 9, 1939, he gave a speech, harshly criticizing the policies of the government and the Camp of National Unity. Among others, he claimed that a parliament, elected in undemocratic vote, has no moral right to elect a new president in 1940.

Invasion of Poland and death
On September 18, 1939, Prystor fled to neutral Lithuania, where he helped Polish refugees. After the annexation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union (see Soviet annexation of the Baltic states (1940)), he was arrested by the NKVD (June 1940). Despite his age of 66, Prystor was taken to the infamous Lubyanka Building. He was in July 1940 sentenced to death, and in July 1941, his sentence was changed to 10 years in prison. Soon afterwards he fell ill with dysentery, and died in a hospital at Butyrka prison. The exact date of his death is unknown. According to former Polish Prime Minister Leon Kozłowski, who was also kept in Lubyanka, Prystor most likely died in August 1941, while Polish historian Władysław Pobóg-Malinowski claims that the death took place in October 1941. His symbolic grave is located at Powązki Cemetery in Warsaw.

Honours and awards

 * Silver Cross of the Virtuti Militari
 * Grand Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, previously awarded the Commander's Cross
 * Cross of Independence with Swords
 * Cross of Valour
 * Grand Cross of the Order of Christ (Portugal, 1931)

title: Aleksander Prystor


text: User:Inky/Test

title: User:Inky/Test


text:
Talk:Ed Templeton

Untitled
when was ed templeton first on the cover of transworld skateboarding magazine

Plagiarism etc.
A lot of the article had been lifted directly from another website, so I have corrected those sections, in addition to undertaking a complete overhaul of the page. Templeton is an influential figure in global skateboarding and art, so I think a much improved page is warranted.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ed Templeton


text:
Mavis Wilson

Mavis Wilson (born c. 1949) is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. She was a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1987 to 1990 who represented the riding of Dufferin—Peel. She served as a cabinet minister in the government of David Peterson.

Background
Wilson and her husband Bruce manage a potato farm in the Orangeville, Ontario region. Together they raised three children Vanessa Wilson, Taylor Wilson and Hunter Wilson.

Politics
Wilson began her political career as a school trustee, served on the Dufferin County Board of Education for eleven years (including three as chair).

She was elected to the Ontario legislature in the 1987 provincial election, defeating her Progressive Conservative opponent by almost 6,000 votes in the riding of Dufferin—Peel. David Peterson's Liberals won a landslide majority in this election, and Wilson was appointed as a Minister without Portfolio responsible for Senior Citizen's Affairs on September 10, 1987. On August 2, 1989, she was appointed Minister responsible for Women's Issues, a post she held until her defeat in the September 1990 election.

The Liberals were defeated by the New Democratic Party in the 1990 provincial election. Wilson lost her seat by 572 votes to David Tilson of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. She attempted to regain the seat in the 1995 provincial election, but lost by almost 15,000 votes amid a Progressive Conservative majority government victory.

title: Mavis Wilson


text: User talk:69.250.113.24

title: User talk:69.250.113.24


text: User talk:216.126.128.52

title: User talk:216.126.128.52


text: User talk:207.151.38.163

title: User talk:207.151.38.163


text: Category:Schools in Northern Ireland

title: Category:Schools in Northern Ireland


text:
Fort Eustis

Fort Eustis is a United States Army installation in Newport News, Virginia. In 2010, it was combined with nearby Langley Air Force Base to form Joint Base Langley–Eustis.

The post is the home to the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, the U.S. Army Aviation Logistics School, the 7th Transportation Brigade, and Joint Task Force - Civil Support.

Other significant tenants include the Army Center for Initial Military Training (USACIMT), Army Training Support Center (ATSC), the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) and Enterprise Multimedia Center (EMC). At Fort Eustis and Fort Story, officers and enlisted soldiers receive education and on-the-job training in all modes of transportation, aviation maintenance, logistics and deployment doctrine and research.

The headquarters of the Army Transportation Corps was at Fort Eustis until 2010 when it moved to Fort Lee, now Fort Gregg-Adams.

In accordance with the 2005 BRAC legislation, the administration of Fort Eustis was passed to the 633d Air Base Wing (USAF). The 733d Mission Support Group manages the installation's garrison operations.

Mulberry Island
Much of the low-lying land along the James River which now constitutes Fort Eustis was known in colonial times as Mulberry Island, and was first settled by English colonists shortly after Jamestown was established in 1607. An important event in Virginia's history occurred in the James River off Mulberry Island in the summer of 1610. Survivors of the ill-fated Third Supply mission from England and the Starving Time in the Colony had boarded ships intent on abandoning the floundering Colony of Virginia and were met off Mulberry Point by Lord Delaware with a fleet of ships headed upriver bringing supplies from England and a fresh determination to stay. He literally turned the situation around by convincing the colonists, who had just abandoned Jamestown, to turn their ships around and go back to colonizing in the area, rather than return to England.

Phettiplace (Peter) Clouse was one of the early colonists. Born in Bremen, Germany in 1593, he came to Jamestown, Virginia in 1608 at the age of 15. He sailed upon the English ship Starr from London working as an indentured servant for his passage to the English Colony in America. In 1619, he was granted 100 acres of land on the east bank of the Warwick River (Warwicksqueake River) on Mulberry Island by Sir George Yardley, Colonial Governor of Virginia. Part of his land grant today is presumed to be land occupied by military housing, a golf course and firing ranges at Fort Eustis. Phettiplace Clouse survived the Indian Massacre of 22 March 1622, as he was listed among the living on the Jamestown Colony muster of 16 February 1623. As a landowner, he was a member of the House of Burgess, Jamestown, Virginia Colony and recorded in attendance 16 October 1629, representing Mulberry Island along with another owner, Thomas Harwood.

Among those who almost left was John Rolfe, who had departed England with his wife and child in 1609, with some very promising seeds for a different strain of tobacco which he hoped would prove more favorable to export from Virginia than had been the experience to date. He had been shipwrecked on Bermuda in the Sea Venture, lost his wife and child by this time, but still had the untried seeds. The turning point at Mulberry Island delivered Lord Delaware and businessman-farmer John Rolfe, two very different men, back to Jamestown, where they and the others were to find new success.

Lord Delaware's skills and resources combined with Rolfe's new strain of tobacco to provide the colony with effective leadership structure as the new cash crop began financial stabilization by 1612. By 1614, Rolfe owned an interest in a tobacco plantation. That same year, he became the husband of Pocahontas. For the next 300 years, Mulberry Island remained very rural, until it was bought by the Federal Government in 1918.

American Civil War: The Warwick Line
During the Peninsula Campaign of the American Civil War in 1862, Fort Crafford on Mulberry Island anchored the southern end of the Warwick Line, a line of Confederate defensive works across the Virginia Peninsula extending to Yorktown on the north at the York River.

World War I: Camp Abraham Eustis
On 7 March 1918, the Army bought Mulberry Island and the surrounding land for $538,000 as part of the military build-up for World War I. Approximately 200 residents were relocated, many to the Jefferson Park area nearby in Warwick County. Camp Abraham Eustis was established as a coast artillery replacement center for Fort Monroe and a balloon observation school. It was named for Brevet Brigadier General Abraham Eustis, a 19th-century U.S. military leader who had been the first commanding officer of Fort Monroe, a defensive fortification at the mouth of Hampton Roads about 15 mi east at Old Point Comfort in what is now the city of Hampton.

Camp Wallace
A few miles upstream along the James River, a satellite facility, Camp Wallace, was established in 1918 as the Upper Firing Range of for artillery training. Consisting of 30 barracks, six storehouses, and eight mess halls.

Camp Wallace included some rugged terrain and bluffs overlooking the river. It was the site of anti-aircraft warfare training during World War II. Many years later, the Army's aerial tramway was first erected at Camp Wallace and later moved to Fort Eustis near the Reserve Fleet for further testing. The purpose of the tramway was to provide cargo movement from ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, and overland. The tramway supplemented beach and pier operations, used unloading points deemed unusable due to inadequate or non-navigable waters, or to traverse land that was otherwise impassable.

In 1971, the U.S. Army agreed to a land swap with Anheuser-Busch in return for a larger parcel which is located directly across Skiffe's Creek from Fort Eustis. Along with land previously owned by Colonial Williamsburg, the former Camp Wallace land became part of a massive development.

1923: Camp becomes Fort Eustis
Camp Abraham Eustis became Fort Eustis and a permanent military installation in 1923. In 1925 Eustis National Forest was established on the installation. The post was garrisoned by artillery and infantry units until 1931, when it became a federal prison, primarily for bootleggers during Prohibition. The repeal of Prohibition resulted in a prisoner decline and the post was taken over by various other military and non-military activities including a WPA camp that utilized some of the barracks on the post during the Great Depression.

World War II, modern times
Fort Eustis was reopened as a military installation in August 1940 as the Coast Artillery Replacement Training Center. In 1943, the Caribbean Regiment of the British Army was formed there. In 1946, Fort Eustis became home to the newly formed Transportation School which moved from New Orleans. Training in rail, marine, amphibious operations and other modes of transportation was consolidated at Fort Eustis.

The Base Realignment and Closure directives from the U.S. Congress, resulted in the U.S. Army Transportation School and Center moving to Fort Lee, Va. In 2010, Fort Eustis was merged with nearby Langley Air Force Base as Joint Base Langley-Eustis and its former sub-installation Fort Story was re-aligned as a Naval installation. Joint Base Langley Eustis gained the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command after the closure of Fort Monroe.

Ghost Fleet
A portion of the U.S. Maritime Administration's National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) is anchored in the James River adjacent to Mulberry Island. Known locally as the Ghost Fleet, some of these inactive ships have become too old and deteriorated to ever be reactivated and have become environmental hazards, as they still hold fuel oil and other hazardous substances. Since the start of the 21st century many of these ships, some dating back to the World War II era have been removed under contracts with scrapping companies.

Transportation Corps Regiment
On 31 July 1986, the Transportation Corps celebrated its 44th anniversary. This was also the day the Transportation Corps was inducted into the U.S. Army Regimental System. The activation of the Regiment marked the redesignation of several Transportation Corps training commands. The redesignation provided a link with renowned transportation units of the past. The Training Brigade was reflagged the 8th Transportation Brigade, honoring the 8th Transportation Group in Vietnam. The 8th Transportation Group enjoyed an outstanding reputation in Vietnam for its support of numerous tactical operations and for the development of the "gun truck," a highly armored 5-ton truck usually sporting multiple M2 .50 caliber machine guns. The 2nd Battalion, Training Brigade, was reflagged as the 71st Transportation Battalion. The 2nd Battalion, 5th Training Brigade, Fort Dix, was reflagged as the 36th Transportation Battalion. The 5th Battalion, 4th Training Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood was reflagged as the 58th Transportation Battalion. These units were reflagged as part of the Army's parent regiment system.

The regimental crest is inscribed with the Corps motto—Spearhead of Logistics—to symbolize a soldier's affiliation with the Transportation Corps. Upon completion of the Transportation Officer Basic Course, officers are automatically inducted into the Corps, Warrant Officers' are inducted upon completion of the Warrant Officer Candidate Course and enlisted soldiers are inducted upon completion of Advanced Individual Training.

Major General Fred E. Elam, the first Regimental Commander, named General Frank S. Besson, Jr. as the first honorary Colonel of the Regiment (posthumously) in honor of his lifelong service to the Transportation Corps.

U.S. Army transportation museum
The U.S. Army Transportation Museum, a museum of U.S. Army vehicles and other transportation related equipment, and memorabilia, is located on the grounds of Fort Eustis.

Current units
The following units are stationed at Fort Eustis:
 * U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
 * 128th Aviation Brigade (US Army Aviation Logistics School)
 * 7th Transportation Brigade
 * 53rd Transportation Battalion (Movement Control)
 * 567th Transportation Company (Inland Cargo Transfer)
 * Installation Management Command, Atlantic
 * Army Center for Initial Military Training
 * Army Training Support Center
 * Enterprise Multimedia Center
 * Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate
 * 597th Transportation Brigade
 * U.S. Army Transportation Museum
 * 12th Military Police Detachment (CID)
 * 93rd Signal Brigade (Strategic)
 * 362nd Training Squadron, Detachment 1 Air Force Helicopter Technical School
 * Joint Deployment Training Center
 * NCO Academy (Aviation Branch ALC)
 * US Army Flight Concepts Division
 * McDonald Army Community Hospital
 * 221st Military Police Detachment
 * 3rd Military Police Detachment (K9)
 * 74th Engineer Detachment (Dive)
 * 86th Engineer Detachment (Dive)
 * 511th Engineer Detachment (Dive)
 * 569th Engineer Detachment (Dive)
 * Port Security Unit 305

title: Fort Eustis


text:
Tenison

Tenison or Tennison is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Thomas Tenison (1636–1715), Archbishop of Canterbury
 * Renee Tenison (born 1968), American model and actress
 * Rosie Tenison (born 1968), American model and actress, identical twin sister of Renee Tenison
 * Jeni Tennison, OBE Technical Director of the Open Data Institute
 * Thomas Tenison, built Castle Tenison in 1820s, Keadue, Co. Roscommon, landowner, father of E.K. Tenison
 * Edward King-Tenison (1805–1878), lived at Kilronan Castle, Keadue, Co. Roscommon, Irish photographer, landowner
 * Lady Louisa Tenison, wife of E.K. Tenison, travel writer, and artist
 * Henry King-Tenison, 8th Earl of Kingston (1848–1896), Irish peer and Conservative politician
 * Eva Tenison (1880–1961), British historian and novelist
 * Robin Hanbury-Tenison (born 1936), English explorer

Fictional characters:
 * Jane Tennison, chief character in the British TV series Prime Suspect

Media:
 * Prime Suspect 1973, a British TV show also known as Prime Suspect: Tennison or just Tennison

title: Tenison


text:
Talk:ATLiens

Verification
Can someone verify the performers on the chart that I made as the tracklisting. I put Andre 3000 and Big Boi as performers of all songs because my sources list the performers as Outkast on every track.

Andre "3000"?
The album sleeve to this album makes no reference that I'm aware of to Andre as Andre 3000. It refers to him as Bin, Binhamin(i), and Dre, in addition to other aliases, but (I'm pretty sure) not as Andre 3000. Would this mean the album was released before he had adopted his primary stage name? And shouldn't that be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.217.126 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andre changed his stage name at the whole Y2K thing because he was "tired of all that Y2K bullshit", as I remember. The brave celery (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Murray, Sonia. C4. September 5, 1996) review of ATLiens (1996):

"Having squarely placed its talents on the national map with its 1993 million-selling debut, "Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik," Atlanta's Outkast ups the stakes with the more thoughtful "ATLiens." What the second album lacks in adventurous arrangements it more than makes up for in lyrical dominance. The infectiously comical first release, "Elevators (Me and You)," is the exception. "Mainstream," "13th Floor/Growing Old" and "Jazzy Belle" set new rules for rappers out to illustrate a young black man's evolution into a sociopolitical force."

- Sonia Murray

Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hartford Courant review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. The Hartford Courant (Comer, Andrea. 4. November 7, 1996) review of ATLiens (1996):

"POP / ROCK. ATLIENS. Outkast. LaFace/Arista Records. Outkast's Big Boi and Andre originally had 35 tracks for their sophomore effort. But the album was released with 14 songs, the ones they decided were the best. The final result is "Atliens," which uses music with an extraterrestrial feel, as well as a space story insert involving the two performers. "Atliens" also revisits Organized Noize's planet. Noize produced "Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik," Outkast's debut album. The duo's lyrical acumen shines through on "Atliens," particularly on "Elevators (Me and You)," their first single off the album. "Wheelz of Steel" and the title track are also worth a listen. Outkast can be difficult to understand, with their Heltah-Skeltah mumbling and Southern slang. But once you decipher the words, you'll find that the pair's message is often quite personal. "Elevators" is a good example of this, detailing their rise after the success of "Player's Ball," which put Outkast's name in on the hip-hop map. "Atliens" may seem foreign to some, but after a few rotations, the alien feeling wears away, and it's just out of this world."

- Anrea Comer

Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. The Washington Post (Harrington, Richard. October 11, 1996) review of ATLiens (1996):

"TWO YEARS ago, OutKast introduced its Southern-fried meld of soul and hip-hop with a mouthful of an album titled "Southernplayalisticaddilacmusic" and built on hypnotically relaxed grooves and a fast-paced lyrical drawl that perfectly captured the regional character of this Atlanta-based duo. On "ATLiens," Big Boi and Dre (no, not that one or the other one -- a third one, without a doctorate) may not be the brothers from another planet the album's title, songs and videos occasionally suggest, but it's clear the Mothership did touch down in Georgia. With the help of ace producers Organized Noize (TLC, Goodie Mob), OutKast revisits the sprawling funk sound that propelled their debut to platinum status, but with a more serious and focused lyrical sensibility.

The first single, "Elevators," offers a sing-song meditation on the cyclical ups and downs of success (and of hip-hop itself) cast against common experience. As Dre puts it, "True, I got more fans than the average man but not enough loot to last me/ till the end of the week I live by the beat like you live check to check/ If it don't move your feet then I don't eat/ so we like neck to neck." But rather than accentuating differences, the group reinforces connections and cultural momentum. Other fine tracks include the churchy "U May Die," "Wheelz of Steel" (with a nod to "Planet Rock"), "Decatur Psalm" and "Mainstream," muddied with a little help from Goodie Mob. The raps are generally inventive, clever without being cloying, more proof (if any were needed) that hip-hop innovation isn't just an East-West thang."

- Richard Harrington

Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how Wikipedia works exactly, but the first part of the Legacy section is strange. Who decided they weren't mainstream until Stankonia? The link is simply to an article about the popularity of Stankonia. And even if that were true, what is the purpose of noting it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.29.68 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:ATLiens


text:
Talk:Je t'aime... moi non plus

Moi non plus
My French is very rusty, but doesn't "non plus" mean "not anymore"/"not any longer", rather than "neither"? In addiction, I actually talked with a native French speaker about this song at some point and he said it wasn't even correct syntax. That the "je t'aime... moi non plus" didn't even make syntactic sense. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Despite an interview with Serge Gainsbourg I read somewhere just now: http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858542056/ I had gathered that "moi non plus" may be idiomatic French for "not half" - i.e. "The same to you doubled" or "My sentiments entirely" or "you took the words right out of my mouth" ... can anyone whose French is better than mine confirm or deny this? --Matt Westwood 10:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No this is completely wrong. The title is a joke: "I love you - neither do I" which shows up the vacuity of love-talk. Mezigue (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is totally wrong. And the French person who said the syntax wasn't correct wasn't allowing for wit. The one issue I have with the cited lyrics is the part that is quoted as: "L'amour physique EST sans issue." I could very well be wrong, but it made more sense to me that the male part would say, "L'amour physique ET sans issue", not "est". Basically, "love, physical and without commitments (or 'problems/concerns/aftermaths')". I think the woman is loving and the man is just likes having sex with her. Non? 24.63.54.9 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is or And?
One line cited was, "L'amour physique est sans issue", which you translated as, "Physical love goes nowhere." I don't know if you got these words from an official transcript, but I speak French and always thought it, "L'amour physique ET sans issue" (not "est"), which would translate [inelegantly and for meaning] to, "Physical love, without concern/repercussions/further thought/problems", which seems to fit better with the feel of the song, both from its lyrics otherwise and interviews with SG. But "est" could be right and could translate the same way, just with "is" between "love" and "without". Your translation has some type of approbation, or back thought to it, which is out of place.

And the Cage, "Nor do I" is funky; like John Donne wrote it or something. It's just, "me neither". 68.56.248.192 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The words are definitely "L'amour physique est sans issue". Mezigue (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication
Vatican excommunicated the record executive who released it in Italy.[8] The source doesn't give the executive's name nor can I find it though a search as many sources cite this fact but I can find none that actually give a name. Does anyone know? Shouldn't this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.135.70 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you find the name, you can add it, but since you don't... Personally I suspect the story is an  urban myth; it takes rather more than that to get excommunicated.Mezigue (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is an urban myth, it shouldn't be in the article; if it's true, it needs a name. Someone needs to research this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.135.70 (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Kidneys
Loins, more like.89.168.181.120 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reins" translates as kidneys[1], and in 70's idiomatic French "entre tes reins" is an euphemism for anal sex[2], so the "et/est sans issue" makes sense as "and without issue" where "issue" has the meaning "children"? Being a keen practitioner in the 70's, I remember anal sex being referred to as "the French method" of contraception.. Just my ha'pennorth!

[1] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-french/kidney? [2] French girlfriend, studying to be (and now successful as) a translator - hello Beatrice, if you remember dancing and singing along :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.64.59 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Je t'aime... moi non plus. 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/20120918050429/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2003/01/29/style/29iht-zwer29_ed3_.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/style/29iht-zwer29_ed3_.html

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 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Je t'aime... moi non plus. 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/20090528081900/http://www.rfimusique.com:80/siteen/biographie/biographie_6305.asp to http://www.rfimusique.com/siteEn/biographie/biographie_6305.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Je t'aime... moi non plus


text:
Category talk:Actors

Category:Male Actors
This only had one entry, which has now moved to Category:Male actors. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This category was listed for deletion on April 4, 2005. It was deleted as categories should generally be gender neutral. The following discussion took place and should not be modified.
 * Comment: In fact is it necessary to have separate categories for male actors and female actress? — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not — but as it was already there, I thought that at least it should be properly capitalised. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not, actually. AFAICT most people-categories are gender-neutral. Radiant_* 12:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, categories should be gender-neutral. Merge Category:Male Actors and Category:Male actors into Category:Actors.  --Azkar 18:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and move content to Category:Actors, based on the gender-neutral argument. Courtland 05:40, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Delete, under the gender-neutral principle. If we ever are going to gender-tag people (and the desirability of that is questionable, anyway), we should do it in a way that cross-cuts other categories, not by doubling up on every single other category. -- The Anome 09:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of professions by nationality
The following discussion has been moved from Wikipedia talk:Categorization; see that page for how we got to this point.

Action item(s)
Possible general action items if the consensus statement is accepted:
 * Is there cause to update Categorization/Categories and subcategories section on "Reasons for duplication"? Is our "desire to browse articles at the topic article level" a distinct reason from those already mentioned? --LiniShu 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There have been a relatively small number of editors involved in the discussion to this point, although it is in a central location as far as categorization is concerned. I would recommend that, after leaving the discussion open a little longer, we then proceed with the effort of making the categorization of individuals in the film, television and theatrical professions consistent. I would not be surprised, though, if the general topic was revisited in other times/places. Hopefully, though, the current discussion may be good groundwork for any future discussions. Thanks, Samuel, for all of your due diligence on the issue of category size. --LiniShu 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good plan to me--wait a bit, and if there are no further objections, use the actors category as an experiment to see how well a more-or-less fully populated category tree works. Then, if it seems like a good idea, we can meet back here and use it as an example of why the recommendation maybe should be changed. I'm kind of new around here; does that sound wikikosher?

 * I would argue for consistency in dealing with categories up to Actors. (I could see including a populated category of People, for a guide to all biographies in Wikipedia, but that would be outside the scope of doing one branch as a test case.)  I would say that Actors should be fully populated, as well as Film actors, American actors and American film actors.  That's a minimum of four categories for every actor--that does not seem like too many to me. Thus: Category:Actors; Category:NATIONALITY actors; Category:FIELD actors; Category NATIONALITY FIELD actors.

 * Is there another kind of category that every actor should have? If we want to fully populate the tree, adding another category would mean adding four more categories to every actor (e.g., DECADE actors, NATIONALITY DECADE actors, DECADE FIELD actors, DECADE NATIONALITY FIELD actors).  But we don't have to be strict about this: If we wanted to do the decade thing, for instance, we could say we'll only do it for a few specific types, like American film actors and British film actors.  Then only those selected types would get an extra category, and those only one (DECADE NATIONALITY FIELD actors).
 * Nareek 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but keep in mind that most actors aren't simply "American film actors"--they're also "Jewish American actors", "American film directors", "Entertainers who died in their fifties", and "People from New Jersey". I'm not saying this is the end of the world, but let's keep in mind we're not always talking about four categories. NickelShoe 05:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very true, many will have more than four categories. But for purposes of this project, there should be a set of categories that should be given to every actor.  Are those four it, or is there some other grouping that everyone should have?
 * Nareek 06:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Assume that every topic level category is broken into subcategories by nationality. According to this proposal, each article ends up in two categories.  If it is also broken by another attribute, that puts the article in 4 categories.  3 attributes yields 8 categories, etc... with the result that N attributes yield 2^N categories.  For this reason, restraint is necessary.  Eventually, hopefully, the software will be modified to tag articles with these attributes in a better system, or allow database searches.  Until that day arrives (and if it arrives) we cannot expect this system to handle multiple attributes.  For this reason, I'd like to propose the following.  That duplication of categorization does not go above the lowest possible topic category (for example Film actors), and that subcategorization of that lowest level should only be done with parallel subcategories, which means that they would all be subcategories of the topic category and no attributes would be combined.  So for example, if the topic level category is Category:Film actors, then Category:Film actors by decade it should not be combined with Category:Film actors by nationality to create Category:American film actors of the 60's.  The point of this proposal started with trying to make it possible to browse through topic level categories, not to create and populate every possible subcategory.  Let's do this a small step at a time and see how it goes.  For now, let's just re-populate Category:Film actors and Category:Film directors and take it from there... -- Samuel Wantman 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the task involved is going to the articles in a category and making sure they're all in one or more other categories, it's not really harder to do four at once than two. If you go to "Category: American film actors" you'd open each article and paste in the following:

 * "Category: Actors Category:Film actors Category:American actors"

 * All these articles would already be in Category:American film actors. You might have to then delete some categories if there's duplication.

 * Since it's pretty much the same amount of work to paste in one category as three, it seems like we ought to do this the way we want it to turn out. Am I wrong in thinking that the consensus here is in favor of a fully populated tree?
 * Nareek 13:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm attempting to kind of "redirect" the discussion on the specifics of the acting and directing professions to the section below :) Thanks, --LiniShu 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Application to film, television and theatrical professions
Regarding the scope of the original discussion (and the area for which we have editors willing to work on consistency of categorization at this time): If the consensus statement proposed above is accepted, we have already established in the discussion that the following "grandparent" categories should be populated with all of the articles in their descendant "by nationality" categories: Category:Film actors, Category:Film directors, Category:Television actors, Category:Television directors, Category:Stage actors, Category:Theatre directors Are there any other similair "fooers" categories to add to this list at this time? --LiniShu 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Other "ancestor" categories in question- We have Category:Actors, Category:Directors, and "Actors by nationality" categories such as Category:American actors. Should any of these be populated with individual articles? If no one has a strong opinion, we could go with the status quo for now; current general usage based on numbers of articles, is to not have "Actors" and "Directors" populated with individual articles, but we do have the "Actors by nationality" categories populated with individual articles. --LiniShu 03:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm taking the liberty of pulling out a couple of comments from the section above, relevant to what we do here and now with the film, television, and theatrical professions (--LiniShu 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)):

 * From Nareek 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC) - Populate Category:Actors; Category:NATIONALITY actors; Category:FIELD actors; Category NATIONALITY FIELD actors with individual actor articles.
 * From Samuel Wantman 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC) - Let's do this a small step at a time and see how it goes. For now, let's just re-populate Category:Film actors and Category:Film directors and take it from there...
 * My preference - My "pet question" :P I really want to know what to do with Category:American actors - because that's the avenue by which I became involved in this discussion. I can go through the category making sure each actor is in the appropriate Category:FIELD actors and Category NATIONALITY FIELD actors, but do I then remove them from "American actors" or leave them in?  And do I add back those I had removed before this discussion began?  I'd like to make the usage consistent, one way or another.  Status quo and lesser amount of edits required would probably be to populate rather than depopulate. --LiniShu 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actors by time period
A wild and crazy idea - for those who prefer smaller subcategories for browsing - for American actors, even the most precise subcategories that we have now Category:American film actors, Category:American stage actors, and Category:American television actors are not small categories. "American film actors" at the time of this writing has 1331 entries; more will be added in the effort to consistently categorize "American actors", and the category will only keep growing with time. With the above discussions about the disadvantages of "over-subcategorizing", I'm not in a hurry to create these new subcategories, and I would not want anyone reading this to rush out and create them, but... what about the idea of actor subcategories by time period, as we have for musical groups? Some actors like George Burns, of course, would have quite a few decades of activity, but others would have only one or two. Advantages would be: a.) we'd have subcategories that at some point stop growing very much b.) we could see people grouped with their contemporaries c.) an actor's time period implies something about the cultural climate in which they worked. What do you all think?  (If you are tired of more and more subcategorization, "please don't shoot me" for suggesting this :) - just an idea) Thanks, --LiniShu 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proceeding from here
At this time, among this group we have clear consensus on: do re-populate Category:Film actors and Category:Film directors, do not re-populate up the heirarchy tree above Category:Actors. There is less clear agreement on "Actors" itself, and the NATIONALITY actors categories. We also have the "cousin" categories of the Film categories - Stage and Television. I've been thinking this over the past couple days - I think that those who are interested in helping with the repopulation effort for the "MEDIUM(Film,Stage,Television) Actors" (or directors) categories should go ahead and begin, maybe focusing on the film category first (one has to choose somewhere to start), but at the same time, as we "touch" any articles to add in MEDIUM Actors category tags, why not make sure, at the same time, as Nareek suggested, that the NATIONALITY Actors and Actors category tags are there also? Of the group that has given consensus on populating categories farther up the heirarchy tree than the NATIONALITY MEDIUM Actors categories, no one showed significant opposition to populating NATIONALITY Actors or Actors, and our "populate to the level of notability" criterion could be applied either at the MEDIUM Actors or Actors level, and, interest has been expressed in having Category:Actors populated for browsing.

As we begin this work, it would be good to incorporate Samuel's new "Allincluded" template on the appropriate category pages.

I am planning to proceed as I have described above, if there is strong objection, or a different consensus is reached, my changes can always be undone.

NickelShoe, you were part of this discussion at the beginning; I know that the repopulation of the higher level categories is a new direction from the way we were going before, hopefully, after the discussions above, and the checking of whether categories can be too large (from a technical standpoint), this conclusion is something that you can live with? Your opinion is valued; you do a lot of work improving the quality of Wikipedia, and you had already put in a lot of effort in organizing the Actors categories according to the generally held application of WP:MOS prior to this discussion.

Feedback from all is appreciated, as always. Thanks,Lini 13:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Lini, could you spell out exactly what you're doing in case others want to give you a hand? Nareek 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick answer for now - See the history for any of the four articles in Category:Argentine film actors. I've added in Category:Actors and Category:Film actors for each of them. So, the articles in "Argentine Film actors" are done. I have not yet done anything with a note on the talk page yet, which I'd like to do when I get a chance. To avoid duplication of effort, it might also be helpful to have a subpage to one of these talk pages (this one, or Film actors?), where we break the task into chunks - individual nationalities, or individual letters of the alphabet within nationalities with lots of articles - to keep track of who is working on what, and what has been looked at already. In the meantime, we could just make notes here.

Hope this helps for now; I hope to do more after work today. --Lini 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please see the "note box" that I have "hard-coded" on Category talk:Argentine film actors. I would suggest putting something like this on the relevant talk pages as a guideline for editors, regarding usage of the Actors category heirarchy. Please feel free to adjust the wording if it is awkward or inaccurate. Also, someone with more experience with templates (Samuel?) could maybe advise whether this is a candidate for a template.  Thanks, Lini 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a different (also hard-coded) note box to Category talk:Film actors which explains the consensus that we reached, and that the category is in the process of being repopulated with articles that had been "moved out" of Film actors into NATIONALITY Film actors --Lini 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[I moved up the "Actors by Time Period" discussion--to facilitate this ongoing conversation.]

Actors categories worked on following discussion
Articles in Category:Argentine film actors repopulated into Category:Actors, Category:Argentine actors, and Category:Film actors --Lini 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved all the articles in Category:Venezuelan actors to Category:Actors. It doesn't take very long to do a bunch--just copy the category, repaste it and edit out the nationality. Add capital A. If you write one explanation that can explain all the edits, that saves time--you just type in the first few letters. Nareek 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Good work on the Venezuelan actors. So, what is this about writing one edit summary that fits multiple edits and then you just type in the first few letters on subsequent edits?  Is this something like the AutoComplete in Excel?  If so, I was not aware of that feature - "Kewl" :)--Lini 13:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah. At least the way it works on my computer, when you type in the Edit Summary box it offers you the choices of what you've written before with the same beginning characters. Nareek 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Category:Ukrainian actors into Category:Actors--there weren't a lot of them. Question: If the category listing has only the last name, does it show up that way in the category, or is the first name automatically supplied somehow? I've been adding in first names, and I'm not sure it's necessary. Nareek 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles in Category:Greek actors have been both sorted into the appropriate Greek actors by medium category (without moving from parent) and populated into Category:Actors and the appropriate Actors by medium category. --Lini 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding Actors category heirarchy - February 2006
(I've taking the liberty of rearranging the organization of recent comments on this page without changing content - for clarity's sake.) --Lini 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been subcategorising category:Television actors by nationality, but have only just seen this debate. If I have seen an article in for example "American actors" and "television actors", I have been replacing both by the single "American television actors". I don't really see the point of putting things up in Actors at all, but please comment or I'll carry on doing it my way Tim! (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The point is that some people will be interested in actors, some people will be interested in television actors, some people will be interested in American actors and some people will be interested in American television actors. Given that space is not really an issue in categorization, it makes more sense to put articles in each category that they belong to, rather than assuming that people will only be interested in the most specific category. Nareek 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be incredibly annoyed and disaffected if parent categories were repopulated. I have spent hours placing articles into their correct subcats (film, TV directors and producers), and removing the parent cats. Parent cats obviously provide a useful navigational tool (Film directors --> British film directors, for example). The parent cat would become far too large that it would be unuseable. The JPS 12:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The subcategories will still be on top of the category, no matter how large the category gets, so the navigational use will be unaffected. As for categories being so large as to be unusable, that's a subjective judgement.  People interested in directors may well find a category broken up into dozens of national categories to be unusable.  Why not organize them both ways and allow people to use the one they find most helpful? Nareek 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, another example. I recently created a nationality subcategory. I wouldn't have noticed them if they had been buried in the large category. I'm not sure how end-users are going to "use" the parent cat anyway. Seems a lot of effort for not much point. The JPS 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One would "use" the parent category if one were interested in actors in general, rather than actors from a specific nationality--just as one would use any other category if you were interested in members of that category. If we're going to organize the categories to make it easy to organize them, that would seem to leave the user out entirely. Nareek 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Nareek, but I fail to see this happening. So the end user wants to read an article about 'an' actor, so picks a random one from the cat? This might be true of the smaller, specialist categories, but not from the parent. Human time can be much better spent on improving the articles themselves, rather than on pointless remedial tasks like this. There are many articles about actors in an appalling state, and improving them would be much more beneficial to the end user. Ensuring references to the IMDB or eqivalent are inlcuded, for example, would greatly help. Another user has commented, on his talk page, that overcategorisation is a worry. This means that some articles will have a larger category section than text. The JPS 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Turkish actors to Category:Actors. Nareek 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with The JPS. I'm also worried about over-categorisation; the comment that a short article on a minor article can have more categories than text was mine, I think. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why someone would find a Category:Actors useful--the same reasons someone might want to own a book called "Actors of the World." Say they're writing a piece about great actors of the world. Or maybe they want to know if any actors names start with the letter "X". Users put things to all sorts of uses, most of which you won't imagine beforehand. The point is we've got an category called Category:Actors, and it ought to contain what the label describes--unless we want to empty it of everything but subcategories, which seems like the only other intellectually plausible thing to do. Having actors in the category means adding two words to every actor's article, which doesn't seem like a terrible burden to put on an article.

I appreciate your concern for my time, but I assure you that I spend most of my Wikiing hours working on content other than categorization issues. I got drawn into the discussion because the way that musicians, actually, were being categorized seemed so illogical--Category:American musicians is a listing of all the American musicians who are not subcategorized into a particular state, which seems like a perfectly useless category. Checking into Wikipedia talk:Categorization, I discovered that other people found the current system equally illogical, which I found reassuring. Having participated in a discussion that reached a consensus (among the people participating, I know) that fully populated categories were more sensible, I felt like I ought to do my part in the ensuing call to action--see above. So every once in a while I add some nationality of actors into the main Category:Actors.

It may not be the ideal use of my time, but I would suggest that it's more useful than spending time taking people out of categories that they obviously belong to, thereby making those categories less useful. Wikipedia is not a closet--it doesn't become more organized as you stuff things into fewer boxes. Ideally, things ought to be everywhere where people might look for them. If that means that the category box is the longest part of some stubs, I fail to see why that's a problem. Nareek 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * But that's just how categories work; many categories have no articles as members, only sub-categories. And I don't think that we ought to be second-guessing the research needs of readers, nor doing their work for them.  In fact I doubt, to be honest, that many people look at categories at all (no-one I've ever spoken to about Wikipedia has admitted doing so). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης )

 * But it's not how Category:Actors works (or Category:American musicians, either)--both of them have articles in them, but just a small subset of the articles that their names imply.

 * It seems to me that to delete articles from categories where they logically belong is second-guessing the research needs of the users. My feeling is that categories ought to contain what they say they contain; if they're useful they'll be used.  You can always ignore categories that aren't personally useful to you; you can't use a category that exists but has been depopulated because somebody else didn't think it would be useful.

 * I have to say, if you don't think anyone uses categories, why do you care about them? Personally, I'm doing this because I find the subject intellectually interesting. Nareek 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Most top-level parent cats that have members have them because inexperienced editors made mistakes (which is why they have relatively few). I care about them, though, because they're useful for editors; that udefulness declines the fuller they are.

If this discussion is meant to change Wikipedia usage of categories, though, I think that it should be taking place somewhere rather more public. Would anyone object if I (or someone else) copied this to somewhere relevant (Wikipedia talk:Category, or somewhere)? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorization is where this conversation started--it would be great to have your viewpoint(s) there. Nareek 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've restored all of the text that had been on this page prior to this section. I believe it must have been cleared accidentally yesterday, because there was no archive page created and no explanatory note of it being removed.  --Lini 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - as Nareek stated above, the discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and remained open from 21 January 2006 through 29 January 2006 before any action was taken. A proposed consensus statement was also published on 26 January with two days wait for objections.

During the initial discussion, the following editors expressed the opinion that having articles appear in a category such as Category:Film actors, rather than just in the Film actor by nationality categories, would be more useful to them: User:Samuel Wantman, User:Bkonrad, User:Will Beback, and User:Cacophony. The following editors expressed opinions early in the discussion against large categories (such as Film actors would be) - User:NickelShoe and User:CalJW. I facilitated drawing the discussion to a conclusion that would give some editors what they were asking for; would not take away anything that other editors wished to preserve, and was not out of line with recent updates to Categorization. My personal preference is actually on the side of only populating the smaller descendant categories, but I think what is most vital is to have an agreed upon standard which can be documented on talk pages and applied when creating new articles or checking the categorization of existing articles. I believe that the conclusion arrived at and the method used were in line with the spirt of Wikipedia, as is the encouragement of continued discussion as others become acquainted with the consensus reached in January. Thanks, Lini 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(Simultaneous comment)

This has been a controversial topic ever since categorization began about two years ago. The original reason for small subcategories was that there was no easy way to navigate categories with a few hundred members. Many categories, such as Category:Film directors got depopulated into subcategories by nationality. This made it very difficult to browse through film directors. When category table of contents (TOC) arrived, it became easy to navigate categories with several thousand members. It became possible to repopulate categories such as film directors to make them more useful for browsing. The key question, I think, is at what level will people want to browse through the articles about any given topic? After discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization there was a clear consensus that categories should be populated at least up to the topic article level. There is no article about Polish film directors and there is an article about Film director, so it makes sense to be able to browse through all film directors.

With Actors, the decisions are not as clear cut, and there should be discussion here about what makes the most sense. From the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization it would follow that acting categories be populated up to Category:Actors. If not that high, it should at least be up to the level of the subcategories of Category:Actors by medium, as these all could have reasonable articles about what it means to be an actor in each medium. There seem to be people who have commented above that think that it would be useful to browse through all actors. So the question to be answered is why not? One argument put forth has been that it leads to "overcategorization". I don't see this as being a problem. If all actors were also categorized as entertainers, that would probably be excessive. Another problem is that it is harder to see which articles have not been put into the subcategories.

I think it is useful to consider other real-world examples of categories. If you do a web-search on actors you get all of them. You don't get a message saying that you have to add the actors nationality of medium to get the listings. Likewise for the index of books. An encyclopedia of plants doesn't require that you know the genus of the plant. Indexing and tables of contents is about giving people a way to browse and find things when they have incomplete information. We should keep this in mind as we categorize. -- Samuel Wantman 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

On further examination, it would appear to make sense to fully populate the 'Actors by medium' categories at the same time as populating his one. Or poputate those BEFORE doing this one. It seems odd to skip a level in the hierarchy. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed, regarding populating Actors by medium categories at the same time as Actors, and have been doing so - actually have been consistently populating both 'up' and 'down', as needed, for whatever is missing from: Actors, Actors by Nationality, Actors by Medium, Actors by Medium by Nationality. --Lini 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Female actors
I plan to create a sub-category Category:Female actors. Entries listed in the female actoes category will also be listed in Category:Actors, hence it will be duplicate categorization. We already have the female categories for the following occupations, but don't have one yet for actors (see Category:Women by occupation) : Architects, Artists, Aviators, Composers, Sportspeople (sportswomen), Film directors, Models, Musicians, Poets (poetesses), Rulers, Scientists, Singers, Lawyers, and Writers. Jay 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that, despite the exceptions you've found, the WP convention is to avoid making gender-based categories. Nareek 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did go through Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality and the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Gender%2C_race_and_sexuality/Archive_1. Among the many arguments there I found these impressive :
 * In favour: "... If the person's field of endeavor separates the sexes, then it makes sense for us to recognize that."
 * Against: "... since about half of all actors are female, it's not very useful to split out a cat:actresses."

 * Unlike what the project page says, what I found from the discussions is that there is no problem with categorizing based on gender. However for the specific case of actors, categorization is a problem because of the 50:50 ratio of male to female. But as I mentioned earlier, the female category is not expected to be a subset but a sub-category that will involve duplication with the main category. Jay 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * There's a whole lot of actor categories, all of which would have to be duplicated for consistency's sake. Given that it's usually not too difficult to distinguish between male and female names by looking at them, I'm not sure why this would be worthwhile. Nareek 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think that the separate categories for actresses and (male) actors should be brought back. Generally, an actor can't do an actresses job and vice versa meaning there is a clear semantic difference between the two (reflected by there being the word, actress).
 * The duplication thing is only a problem if there aren't editors (like me) willing to do the duplication (not a reason against it in principle) and wouldn't be a problem if the categories hadn't been merged without more discussion in the first place. ::::Regarding your second argument, it isn't that unusual for actors to have unusual or gender-neutral names, and it's usually possible to tell what categories people are in from reading their articles and sometimes the article titles (but categories are more for automatons than people).
 * —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Actors


text:
Talk:Free Association

Should we have example/definitions? Dpr 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Free Association


text:
Talk:Buick Century

Untitled
The 2003 picture, I'm afraid, is a LeSabre, not a Century. Compare to the vehicle in the 2003 Century review in the External Links section. It's admittedly not much of a tribute to Buick styling of late years that such a mistake can be made. RivGuySC 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Dang, you got me! Yum, crow...  --SFoskett 13:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to provide engine options for the '30s, '50s, & '70s Cents? Trekphiler 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1936 Century
The latest edit has added some very good information on the first Century. However, I think the article is now overbalanced to that one year, at the expense of the rest of the models. Also, are we sure that Mr. Breeze would be OK with his writing being used here? (The edit was by an IP address.) Some pruning, at least, is probably in order. RivGuySC 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Was this published elsewhere? If so, it more than likely is copyrighted material, and should be removed. Owen×  ☎  03:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete the cost of the fender-mount spares as unnecessary. Comment? Also, are there no public domain photos? No rodder or customizer with a '36 Cent that can upload a good one? Trekphiler 03:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Centuries produced between 1936 and 1942 were powered by the 320-cubic-inch producing 165 hp"

While the prewar Century was always powered by Buick's larger 320-cubic-inch eight, the power levels increased several times in the period. In 1936 it produced 120 hp, in 1937 130 hp (carburetion improvements, I think), from 1938-40 141 hp (thanks to domed pistons), and in 1941-42 the "Compound Carburetion" version (two two-barrel carburetors with a progressive linkage that made them work like a four-barrel unit) got to 165 hp. Compound carburetion was finicky to tune and Buick was beginning to tread on Cadillac's toes (partly because the big Buick Limiteds were encroaching on Cadillac's markets, and also because the Cadillac V-8 in this period was rated at 150 hp), so after the war it was gone and the 320 (in Roadmasters only after the Century and Limited were not resumed) was back to a single two-barrel carburetor and a 144 hp rating.

This information exists in many sources, "The Standard Catalog of Buick" would be one I can think of off hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.172.132 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Updates, 1936-1958
I have attempted to update the 1936-1942 and 1954-1958 Century narratives. In doing so I have removed a great deal information regarding wood framing, doors, spare tire options, etc. I also reworked the intro paragraph. I'd like to see this article streamlined and sourced, and I think these changes are agood first step. Stude62 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Generation Engine Discrepency
The side bar infobox for the fourth generation shows for enging type only the LH0 T-code for production models 1997-2005. The linked section states that engine ceased production 1996, and doesn't list the Centuryas a model it was used in. Scrolling down to the section for the LG8 "J-code" engine, it states use in 1999-2005 Buick Century. Something I noticed while looking up info on my car. Can someone more knowledgeable on the topic confirm which is right? --Reverend Loki (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest this sentence is removed
Since the Century was sold in Asia, it should not be confused with the Japanese-market Toyota Century. It doesn't add anything to the article --Tundu (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

82-96
It would be interesting to know if the requirement for 1997 for dual front airbags forced GM to finally produce a new Century after 15 years of only fairly minor cosmetic alterations. They'd used the exact same dash from 1982, only changing the instrument cluster partway through 1994. To fit a front passenger airbag would have required designing pretty much an entirely new dash and HVAC system. The dash always had the issue of a ridiculously tiny glovebox (living up to the name by being barely large enough for a couple pairs of gloves) behind a quite large glovebox door. Bizzybody (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
All of the GM FWD A-body cars except the Buick Century lasted one generation. This would clearly reduce redundancy by merging, and since the Century was the only one built longer than one generation, they should all be merged here. Jgera5 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose. This article covers a wide time period. Burying the information on the three other '82-'96 cars here will be immensely confusing for those looking for information on any one of the four, and it gives undue weight to the Buick by implying that it was the most notable/common of them. --Sable232 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose - I don't see how that would help anyone.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃   (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, would merging the three respective articles with Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera be a compromise? Either way, it's still badge-engineering. Jgera5 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One person's opinion, but I don't think merging the three articles is such a good idea. Unlike many of the other badge-engineered cars, their production years were not identical with the Celebrity ending in 1990, the 6000 in 1991, and the Ciera in 1996. Additionally, there is already a GM A platform article; if the article gets merged anyplace, that should be the place because it doesn't "favor" any particular nameplate. But on the whole I don't think these articles should be merged; these cars had some significant differences from each other. ObtuseAngle (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Mashing four distinct models (with varying features) together merely because they shared a chassis at one point in time is just, pardon the expression, an accident waiting to happen. And, as ObtuseAngle points out, would result in one section of an existing article suddenly ballooning in size three or four fold. IMHO, no further clarification or condensation is needed. JimScott (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 *  Alternative - While I can appreciate a car "techie" wanting to be consistent regarding the chassis, I would better appreciate some reference within each car article citing the similarites of the specific models involved. In fact I came here looking to see if my 1994 Buick Century was a GM "twinned" car (see also Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/twinned-vehicles-same-cars-different-brands.html#chart) for the sole purpose of working on mine. KyTourist (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment You'll find that information in the "related" field of the infobox. IFCAR (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Alternative - If anything, they should be merged at Chevrolet Celebrity, precisely because it's a nameplate that lasted one generation and typically the Chevy version of any given GM car is better remembered than the other divisions. First choice would still be keeping things as they are, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.0.220 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Distinct models. They might have shared the same platform, but each GM division had their own set of interiors, layouts, options, prices, distribution networks and probably a lot more differences I can't think of.  I should also point out that each one of these vehicles have extensive write-up and reviews from many car magazines, books and newspapers, all individually, thus all individually passing WP:GNG with flying colors.  I don't ever recall a review of "GM's A platform cars." --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why so many edits and unedits?
I was trying to update the engine list/engine list in info box but the 60-degree v6 page and other A body cars have conflicting years for engines so I just reverted all my edits. Sorry for the inconvenience.74.218.82.179 (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, you can't depend on WP as a source. It could have been reverted more elegantly, but no one minds. Cheers,  Mr.choppers |   ✎  16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A “ a mid-size car”?
I just came here after watching an episode of Kojak, and wondering at (what seemed to me) *huge* dimensions of the car he drove in a chase, and just how impractical it seemed for any sort of pursuit work, and indeed even for urban driving. It was a bit of a surprise to discover that the intro then talks about the Century as being a “a mid-size car”! Does “mid-size” mean something other than physical dimensions (engine capacity, for example)? If it is a physical size thing, then what was a small car, and what was a large? If “mid-size” is part of some recognized definition of car size, could such information be included in this or another article - that would be helpful. Jock123 (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1973 Luxus Station Wagon
How Many Liters Were There in The 1973 Buick Century Luxus Station Wagon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.215.160 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 * A 1973 Luxus station wagon was with a 350 V8 cubic inch displacement engine, which is 5.7 liters in Metric. Personally, owned a 73 Buick Century Luxus station Wagon. No 455 V8 c.i.d. were installed in wagons. 74.88.107.15 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content
I have been consistently removing this section which claims the Buick Century was marketed a certain way, or was viewed a certain way, without any reliable sources.

"Buick tried to position the Century as a lower-priced alternative to Japanese family sedans such as the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, since at a similar price point to the Japanese sedans' inline-4 cylinder trims, the Century offered a more powerful V6 engine, undercutting the Camry & Accord's V6 engine configurations by several thousand dollars. However, the Century failed to compete with them and was instead widely viewed as a car designed for an elderly target audience, an image not helped by the Century's assortment of senior citizen-friendly features such as extra-large dashboard buttons and an extremely soft suspension."

We should not have original research on this page. Other unsourced content is no reason to keep it here either. --Vossanova o< 15:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 * It doesn't look too contentious from what I remember of the Buick Century when I used to visit the States in the 1990s, which I sense is the period that your paragraph writer has in mind.  But in principal you are more than entitled to require a source, especially if there is stuff in it that you find questionable.   Then again, you could make he same case for quite a lot of the paras in this entry.   And in plenty of other entries.

 * Maybe there is someone reading this with a stack of old "Car and Driver" magazines in the loft including an article (or several articles) saying most the same same things about the Century.  That - or maybe equivalent stuff already accessible online - could be added as a source to an appropriately adapted version of the para that troubles you.  That's probably a more efficient use of people's time than going to war over the matter IM(H)O.   Success Charles01 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Agreed the material is unsourced and would need a reference before it could stay in the article. Springee (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree. The claims of being intended to compete with X, Y, or Z need some sort of sourcing. One can just as easily say "Buick tried to position the Century as a lower-priced alternative to the Regal." The rest of it is similarly bad - if it was "widely viewed" as that, then I'm sure there's no shortage of reputable publications with a host of remarks on that aspect so those need to be cited. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is no space for original research, thus the sentence definitely needs a reference. Otherwise it ought to be removed. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Reference named "kimes1996": From Buick Limited:  From Pontiac Torpedo:  From Buick Model B:  From Oldsmobile Series 70:  From Buick Straight-6 engine:  From Pontiac Streamliner:  From LaSalle (automobile):

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Buick Century on Television
The Buick Century sedan has been neglected as being an iconic television car until "Kojak" used a 1973 Buick Century and 1974 Buick Century 455 in brown color. Personally owned the model and color. The 73 Century has a side marker light straight lined to the front bumper, whereas the 74 Century is above the front bumper. Toy manufacturers confused the 74 Century with the 74 Regal. The 74 Regal was introduced as a sedan in 1974 as an upscaled Century Luxus and there was a special badge on the fender opposed to the Century or 455 nameplate on a 1973 or 1974 Century.

In the "Kojak" television series, the main character would drive a unmarked police car. This sedan model, was a 1973 Buick Century Police detective car [*] with full wheel covers and a 1974 Buick Century 455 badged sedan with small wheel covers. Both cars were in dark brown colors (GM Nutmeg Poly color.) The "1973 grille (section above the bumper) has 3 horizontal bars while the 1974 has 5 horizontal bars." [*] A blue 1974 Century sedan was also driven. "Later in the series, the brown Century was replaced by a 1975 (copper color). "[*] In 1976, the "Kojak" TV series became popular in the UK, that Corgi Toys introduced a diecast 1:36 scale replica of the 74 Century car and indicated it as a 74 Regal.[*] In 2020, another toy manufacturer, Goldvarg Collection, created a 1:43 scale of the "Kojak" car described as "1974 Buick Century colour Nutmeg Poly."[*] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio cruz wiki (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Television appearances are generally not notable for inclusion per our project guidelines. --Sable232 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos update for 73-77 third Generation
Suggest to replace the two images of 73 Century Gran Sports coupes in the article. Both of these car images are used in the Gran Sport article. A suitable replacement would be to use a 73 Century sedan that had the same body style for completely five years. The article focuses on 73-77 and only the sedan and the station wagon were same body styles all those years. The coupes were same body style for 73-75 and different body style design for 76-77. The next suitable replacement is to use a 74 Regal coupe to show how the front styling is different than the Century. Having the 74 Regal coupe would be good as that is the same front design for the 74 Regal sedan, which was introduced in 74. In the article, there already exists pictures of a 75 Century Free Spirit coupe and a 76 Century Free Spirit coupe. Recommend to keep both as they were totally different body style designs and uniquely graphics designs per specific year. In the article, a 1976 Buick Century station wagon should be kept to show what a wagon body style from 73-77 looks. Although, those graphics and decals were custom by an owner, there is no other picture that could be suggested as a replacement. Lastly, to completely have a car from every year shown, a 1977 Regal coupe should be included in the article to show how the front is different than the 76-77 Century. The 77 Regal coupe had just a styling cue on having more chrome trim on top of the grill than the 76 Regal coupe. Having the existing 76 Century Free Spirit coupe body style image shows what a 77 Century coupe looks like. Plan to include the 77 Regal image and move the article information about 1977 cars to be chronological after 75 and 76 years.74.88.107.15 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Buick Century


text:
User:Groucholenin

Go Groucho

title: User:Groucholenin


text: Category:Tourist attractions in Northern Ireland


text:
User talk:Letfreedomring

One of the 20-plus Oliver North sockpuppets. Blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Letfreedomring