text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 1

Good stuff, but the series box paragraph comes out of nowhere. Without it, the article is factual and informative. With it, it's just confusing! Howsabout something more general? "When to use categories, lists, and series boxes". Include pros and cons of each and guidelines for use. Also, document using templates for series boxes! I'm loving categories, so I'm all for more policy on it.--Sfoskett 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perfect. As it stands right now, it's totally in tune with what I've been advocating regarding the use of categories. Postdlf 21:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exception Example
>> - for instance, placing Ohio in both Category:Political divisions of the United States and Category:Ohio. <<

Um...Political divisions of the United States was too crowded, so I moved the states to Category:U.S. states. I couldn't think of a good replacement example off the top of my head...--Beland 07:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The example still works - all the better, because it makes clear that one or two intervening categories does not supercede that rule. Snowspinner 12:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Except that Ohio is now in one and only one category, Category:Ohio. I'm in the process of doing that for all the US states, because Political divisions of the United States was too crowded. -- Beland 04:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, for what it's worth, I think that's a terrible idea, and that Category:Political divisions of the United States is tremendously important, and should be restored. Overcrowding is not a reason to delete information. It's a reason to organize it better, but juts because a category is crowded doesn't mean it should be destroyed. Snowspinner 13:14, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't really think any information has been destroyed; I'm just trying to remove redundant information and also make the information that is presented easier to use. It should be clear that the top-level political divisions of the United States include the 50 states, DC, and the Insular Areas. It's just that instead of listing all 60 or 70 of these, mixed in willy-nilly with general articles on cities, counties, states, territories, etc, the easy-to-classify articles have subcategories. -- Beland 05:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That's fine, but surely the state articles should be put in US states then.

 * I agree. I seems a pointless extra step in navigating category space to have to go to the state subcategory to access the state article rather than directly from the U.S. states category. To be clear, the state articles should be in both the specific state category and in the U.S. states category and not only in the specific state category. older ≠ wiser 14:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In "Category:U.S. states", you will find the 50 state categories. I have not added individual state articles for several reasons.

The first reason: It would make it harder to find related information about the state. In a list of 100 things where each thing is listed twice, it's easy to get confused about which one you are clicking on. Also, people not familiar with the category system (I assume that would be most readers) will not really know what to expect out of one link vs. the other. We don't know in advance what information the reader is looking for - for example do they want information *related to* Ohio (of which there are currently 16 subcategories and 8 other top-level articles), or the *main article* about Ohio? We don't want people looking for the former to conclude it doesn't exist because they clicked on the second instance of the word Ohio, which happened to bring them to the main article. But bringing people looking for the latter to the category is OK, because they should be able to find the main article there quite easily.

The second reason: Adding the 50 state articles would make it a lot harder to find the growing list of articles about the US states in general (not associated with a particular state). They would clutter up the article list, obscure the boundary between categories and articles, and make the whole page rather overwhelming in size.

The third reason: For ease of maintenance, it's better to have one place where parent categories are defined (the category), rather than two (the article and the category). Otherwise, the two lists will become out of sync with each other. -- Beland 02:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but one of the reasons for the category system is to link to articles - unless Ohio is in Category:US States or Category:Poltiical Divisions in the United States, then it doesn't navigate to those categories - which is counterintuitive in the extreme. And counterintuitive categorization and organization are both bad things. Snowspinner 02:15, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're talking about navigating *to* the Ohio main article from the category structure, then the series of steps you currently take is quite intuitive, I think. (Category:U.S. states -> Category:Ohio -> Ohio) It's always obvious exactly what you want to click on next.  That's also currently true if you are looking for something related to Ohio, but not the main article (especially if you don't know the information you're looking for is not in the main article).  As I said, I think adding the main article directly would make finding *related* information *less* intuitive. -- Beland 02:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I've started adding the state articles back to Category:U.S. states. Categories classify—Ohio is not only the main article of all topics in Category:Ohio, but one of a series of articles on U.S. states, and so is properly classified under both.  Categories also direct hierarchical topic navigation—it is much better to have the option to either go directly from an article to the series of which it is a member, or the series of which the article is itself a parent.  Articles that define a category should as a general rule (I can't think of any exceptions) be included in both that category and that category's parents.  Postdlf 05:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What example to put in the main article
I notice that the Ohio example has been put back in. If it were a good example, it should say "US states", not "Political divisions of the United States". But currently this example is not true; wouldn't it be better to find a non-disputed one? -- Beland 02:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You could use one of the county articles as an example. —Mike 05:29, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess my problem is that I think the rule is written incorrectly; there are examples where an article should be in a category and a sub-category, but this should not apply to articles with same-subject categories. -- Beland 01:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Linking to lists
''Generally, linking from lists should be one-way. That is to say, lists should link to articles, but articles should generally not link to lists simply because they are included on the list. There may, of course, be other reasons to link to a list from an article, and this should not be construed as a policy against linking to lists. However, the simple fact that an article is on a list does not itself justify a link to the list.''

Is there any precedent or evidence of consensus for this? It seems to be done on a regular basis and I don't think even the watered down "generally not" terminology is appropriate. anthony (see warning) 11:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There may be instances where it's been done. In my experience, these links are generally removed without objection. This seems to me a matter of scale - see also sections would be unmanagable in the extreme if this was not policy. Snowspinner 12:35, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * So if it's only a problem when there are a lot of these links, why not limit them rather than have a semi-rule against them? anthony (see warning) 16:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If I understand you correctly, this would work as "A given article may link to X lists," which only sets up a more absurd situation, as the people who have worked on, say, List of Musicians Whose First Name Begins with B and List of New Jersey People fight it out for the spot on Bruce Springsteen. That requires the far dodgier practice of picking which among multiple articles are "better" articles, instead of just maintaining a basic stadard of eligibility. Snowspinner 20:11, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I'm saying we shouldn't have a rule for it in the first place, but we should instead use common sense. List of Musicians Whose First Name Begins with B would be a stupid list to link to. List of New Jersey People is a little better, but it's not a very well defined list.  In fact, we already have a link to a list of New Jersey Musicians on the Bruce Springsteen page.  It just happens to be a list in the form of a category.  Why should it be any different if it's a list? anthony (see warning) 01:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea of the rule. Maybe it should be noted that there is almost always at least an indirect link back to the list, e.g. from Ian Thorpe through swimmer to list of swimmers. The link (currently) at the bottom of the page "Ian Thorpe" to list of swimmers is probably not needed. For more specific lists, it's debatable if this to be done in one way (left) or the other (right). -- User:Docu

 * Ideally that is what the categories are for. The reader can choose the related category which give him a list of articles.  If the reader really wants a list of all swimmers, he can do a search for "list of swimmers".  So in short I agree that many "see also" types of links to laundry lists aren't really necessary. —Mike 22:28, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wilfried Derksen and Joy talked about this topic in the context of having categorization together with linking to lists. See here and here.

Category topics
We need a rule on whether or not categories can be limited to articles on topics meeting a certain criteria, or whether they need only be related to the topic. For instance, can a category called "Pop Singers" include an article on a magazine about pop singers, or should (can) the category be limited to articles about actual pop singers. I've seen both done, but I'm not sure if this is legitimate or not. anthony (see warning) 01:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This has come up a lot on Wikipedia talk:Categorization - there's no real consensus on whether a category X should be "contains examples of X" or the broader "contains articles related to X". -Sean Curtin 01:59, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Policy criticism
What's with a category having to answer yes to "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" A few paragraphs??? Shouldn't the category simply link to the relevant article explaining it's subject? If there is no such article, the category should be explainable in a single sentence (perhaps with another one or two for clarification of what exactly could go in it) - otherwise, to me it sounds far too complex to be a category. ··gracefool |☺ 22:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the point is to avoid pointless categorization such as Category:Left-handed alcoholics who committed suicide. While there might be a tiny population genuinely interested in such a categorization, having to consider whether there is something more to say in answer to the questions WHY? WHAT FOR? and WHO CARES? than a single sentence is a huge step toward avoiding pointless overcatgorization. older ≠ wiser 00:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems like an awkward way to say "The category should be 'important' to a reasonable number of people". Note that I'm working on a policy on what "importance" means (basically, it clarifies other polices like What Wikipedia is not). ··gracefool |☺ 02:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't such "importance" per se that matters, but whether the category defines a relevant and substantial relationship among the articles to be grouped within it, rather than a trivial fact they happen to share in common. One would hope that such substance and "importance" would correlate, of course.  Postdlf 07:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * True. A "substantial" relationship is an "important" relationship. ··gracefool |☺ 04:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Series boxes / navigational templates
Related to comments posed on Templates for deletion.

I am of the opinion that the "Article series boxes" section of this page goes against Wikipedia consensus, as exemplified by the majority of the entries under Navigational templates. Navigational templates are not generally considered linear, nor do should they be. Examples of currently-in-use nonlinear navigational templates include (to select a random twenty-five):

 * Template:ASEAN
 * Template:Blues
 * Template:Calculus
 * Template:Dalarna County
 * Template:Eye
 * Template:French dialects by continent
 * Template:Gastroenterology
 * Template:Hinduism
 * Template:Interstates
 * Template:Japan
 * Template:Kylie
 * Template:Linguistic_typology_topics
 * Template:MicrostatesE
 * Template:NATO
 * Template:Polish Underground State sidebar
 * Template:Quantum computing
 * Template:Rock
 * Template:SSM
 * Template:Texas
 * Template:University of Cambridge
 * Template:Vowels
 * Template:WWIITheatre
 * Template:Yorkshire
 * Template:Zupanije

In other words, the policy as stated appears to directly contradict current and past Wikipedia practice. The sort of linear, chronological-style "series boxes" which the latest writing of the policy advocates could easily be restricted to the format seen in Margaret Thatcher or Saionji Kinmochi -- or might themselves be better suited to a 'list' style, since I can scarcely imagine that one would generally want to read through the entire list of British Prime Ministers at once! However, many related collections of articles which may not have strict orders (such as the quantum computing, calculus, same-sex marriage, or eye boxes above) should nonetheless be directly crosslinked, and the simplest and most efficient way of doing this is by templatizing the set of links thereto. Wikipedia is not paper, and we should not be pretending that it is by artificially limiting a set of articles to a linear reading: we gain nothing at all by doing so. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:28, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Most, if not all of the boxes listed there predate the implementation of categories, and so were created when there was no alternative to ugly, bulky boxes. Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. Snowspinner 22:20, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. That is your opinion, but there does not seem to be any consensus for this opinion. I, for one, think there are times when a box is more appropriate than a category, or makes a useful addition to a category. Categories are extremely limited at this stage and can't do the things that boxes can do. Take something like Template:Interstates:
 * Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system is the category for this, and its use violates this policy (as "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory").
 * 1) Categories don't handle sorting of numbers properly.
 * 2) There is no way to abbreviate titles within the category pages (thus we list "Interstate X" instead of "X")
 * 3) In general the formatting of categories is extremely limited.
 * 4) Categories can't appear in the articles directly (perhaps not too bad in this situation but still a problem in others).
 * 5) Categories don't contain links to not-yet-created articles, or do so in a separate section.

I don't think this "policy" has consensus support for it. I think the thinktank tag was removed inappropriately (and frankly it was done for suspect reasons, as Snowspinner was arguing with someone over whether or not this was a policy while removing the tag saying it wasn't). anthony (see warning) 14:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. There are many useful applications of non-linear boxes. Shall non-linear templates like or those for each of the states no be converted to categories and removed. I think not. It took me awhile to warm up to the "clutter" introduced by templates, and I was and still am strongly opposed to the inclusion of templates that have minimal direct relevance to an article or having too many templates stacked up at the bottom or an article--but I have come to find these nav boxes very convenient. Shuffling them all into categories forces additional clicking (and the more likely than not multi-second wait while the servers strain to serve up the page). Like Anthony, I was a little surprised by the removal of the think tank tag and the unilateral declaration of this as policy. I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't really see any issues, but I think this recent discussion clearly shows there is not a broad consensus for every aspect of this proposed policy. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks as though the Article series boxes section as currently phrased still contradicts many of the templates listed at Navigational templates and does not reflect actual practice. older ≠ wiser 20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * The practice is what is flawed here. The issue is a general failure to list the hundreds of templates that were rendered obsolete by categories or are souped up categories for vanity purposes for TfD and to then eliminate them all. This is mostly because, I think, nobody wants to go and list 400 templates at once. Snowspinner 20:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Or, it could be that people find the templates useful and that the "policy" as currently phrased simply does not reflect current practice and does not have consensus approval. older ≠ wiser 20:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * The page went live after a public discussion and a lack of objection. If massive eyesore templates have somehow gone back into vogue, I missed it. The transition from templates to categories isn't complete yet. I'll be the first to admit it. Snowspinner 20:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[Back to left margin] I'm not sure what "public discussion" you refer to. It seems there are unanswered objections above, or do those not count? I'm no fan of "massive eyesore templates", but the fact of the matter is that many of the templates on Navigational templates are popular and in wide use, but would be invalid under the policy as currently phrased. older ≠ wiser 21:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Many of the templates also predate the categorization system, and are still in widespread use as relics. The category system was implemented to help cut down on series boxes/navboxes/whatever we're calling them today. Now that it's in place, it follows that there needs to be some restrictive policy. Snowspinner 21:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Many new templates have been added since the category system has been in place; including many which do not follow this proposed guideline. That indicates to me that there is not general consensus for or awareness of the "policy" as currently phrased. older ≠ wiser 21:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * My guess is awareness. However, I'm at least willing to accept that it may not be policy. What we really need is for the "Policies and guidelines" category to become guidelines, since it currently conflicts with official policy. Snowspinner 21:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

This thread seems to have died. Is there a consensus conclusion? I favor changing the wording to permit navigational boxes for at least geographical entities (which seem to be extremely common). IMO, categories don't quite cut it for this since categories are for a single type of article. The geography navigational templates often include, for example, cities AND counties facilitating navigation from a city (in category:cities in x) to a county (in category:counties in x). Using categories this requires traversing from an article, to a category, generally "up" to a supercategory (e.g. from category:cities in x to category:x), "down" to a different subcategory, and (whew) finally to the article of interest. I think this sort of geographical navigational box is essentially an extended "see also" section, with different (more attractive and denser) formatting. -- Rick Block 02:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Critique on Wikipedia's use of Categories
Categories don't come close to replacing a well-annotated list to related articles.

Anybody casually familiar with searching on Wikipedia should know this. I only know what categories are, because I am an editor. New visitors to Wikipedia are most likely to be using the default user skin. With the default skin, categories are listed at the very bottom of the web page. Hence, nobody not currently an editor would ever even be likely to see any of the various categories, let alone know what they are for. Once found by a new visitor to Wikipedia, categories are still extremely confusing and time consuming to use.

I am objecting to this specific category guideline.
 * "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory.",

Take Category:Alternative medicine, for example. Every article on this topic can be put into some type of sub-category that would logically fall under this category. Yet, I see a whole bunch of articles listed in this major category when few if any articles should be listed per this category guideline.

Body work (alternative medicine) is a case in point. Note how alternative medicine is actually included in the title of this article. Yet, you wont find Body work (alternative medicine) in Category:Alternative medicine thanks to the editing efforts of editors following this Wikipedian category guideline.

Homeopathy is another case in point which has its own Category:Homeopathy. There are a number of articles in this category. But, not one of them refers to category:Alternative medicine. The only place category:Alternative medicine is found is within its sub-category Category:Homeopathy. My question is this. Why would a new visitor to Wikipedia reading homeopathy interested in finding other articles on alternative medicine ever click on Category:Homeopathy when they are already in the article on homeopathy? This assumes of course that they could find the link on the very bottom of the page that they are supposed to click on.

As an editor, I am familar with categories. There is a certain amount of logic to them. However, I am concerned only with the likely behavior of a new vistor to Wikipedia who is using the default user skin. Suppose that visitor is trying to find articles on alternative medicine. That new visitor is not likely to find Category:Alternative medicine. And if they manage to find it, they wont find Body work (alternative medicine) on the list, thanks to this category guideline.

Visitors visit Wikipedia in order to obtain knowledge, but using the categories feature assumes that these visitors already have the knowledge that they are searching for.

Now image trying to do something really imagative with categories like creating a category in order to replace a well-annotated list to related articles. It would never work because of this guideline. Categories will therefore NEVER replace the value of a well-annotated list to related articles. -- John Gohde 07:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Have you considered fixing the categorization? I suspect if you spent half the time you're spending railing against the horrors of your infoboxes being deleted on redoing the CAM categorization, the outcome would be more to your liking. Snowspinner 13:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * At least visitors will be able to find a few articles. Once it is fixed, they wont be able to find anything with categories. -- John Gohde 20:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with categories
In addition, categories do not work, unlike lists to related articles, during server problems. Categories are a real time feature that obviously puts a tremendous burden on Wikipedia's limited computer resources. -- John Gohde 05:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture, categories are generally totally botched on all mirror copies of Wikipedia. And the reason is totally obvious. Categories are not a file. The implication is clear. Categories do not exist on mirror copies of Wikipedia, whereas commonsense systems that are based on Lists are totally functional. -- John Gohde 01:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Paradox of Sub-Categorization
So, any and all editors are supposed to assign CAM articles at their own whim to a sub-category, without any advanced planning, guidance, or control from a Wikiproject? The science people like to say that all of alternative medicine is quackery, yet they seem to be failing to put articles in category:Quackery rather than in category:alternative medicine.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Classification Systems has documented that there are at least seven different ways to classify CAM articles.

The WikiProject's infoboxes currently classifies branches of medicine four different ways. That is NOT 4 categories. That is four parallel ways of classifying each of which requires more than one category.

To implement categorization by Classification by Standard of Knowledge and Quality of the Evidence alone requires 5 different categories: Real Science, Protoscience, Pseudoscience, Enlightenment, and the Supernatural. In addition to these 5 categories, two other categories have already been implemented: category:Quackery and category:Fraud.

Kindly, explain the difference between the category:Pseudoscience, category:Quackery and category:Fraud categories? What if someone decides to implement category:Health fraud?

The implications of this is that most branches of alternative medicine articles can be classified 5 different ways and could have up to 5 sub alternative medicine categories alone.

Currently, there are already 11 subcategories in category:alternative medicine. Should we add one on CAM stubs? Medicine already has Category:Medicine stubs. As time goes by, without guidance and more guidelines to follow the number of these subcategories in category:alternative medicine will get a lot bigger.

Now, exactly how does the use of categories enable visitors to find articles on alternative medicine? How do all these sub-categories help visitors find articles?

Time spent categorizing articles is a bottomless pit. Putting infoboxes in articles takes time, but at least the number of articles is finite. The way it is now, you could categorize articles for ever. And, somebody is sure to come along at a later point in time to undo what you have spent time doing.

This does not motivate me to spend any more of my limited time categorizing. -- John Gohde 11:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * Categorization policy is a bold proposal to make WP categorization more consistent and stable.

Commenting out speculation on database operation
Regarding the commenting out of speculation on database operation, I would like the justification for doing so posted here within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, I am likely to re-add them since they are anything but speculation to me. -- John Gohde 03:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I was unaware that you were a developer in any way qualified to make comments on Wikipedia's database load. Snowspinner 03:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Does that mean I will be paid for my services, when I am supported in my positions? -- John Gohde 04:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Developers are volunteers. Snowspinner 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

There happens to be more than one project page on this subject being developed.
 * Categorization policy
 * The major technical problem with categories compared to lists is that categories are horrendously inefficient, requiring hundreds or thousands of times the resources per page view. This extreme cost disparity arises because the contents of category pages isn't cached. Instead, it's generated anew, using a new datbase query and page build with every page view. A normal list page is simply loaded from the Squid cache server closest to the viewer, a very inexpensive operation. At present, 6 or so Squid cache servers handle about 80% of all hits to the sites, with some 40 other machines needed to handle the rest." -- John Gohde 04:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm not sure what to ask - how this is a violation of NPOV, or whether NPOV even applies to guidelines. Snowspinner 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV violation noted - This guideline is pushing for all lists and ASBs to be deleted!
This guideline starts off by stating that Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances.

Then it ends up stating: Frequently redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the relevant category; with strong emphasis on both Frequently and significantly. Let me be perfertly clear here. The word Frequently must go! The word significantly must go!

Attempts to neutralize the last section have been rebuffed with comments that defining redundancy is redundant, qualifications should not be given, and that it is all self-evident. Sorry, but there is nothing self-evident about a written guideline that purports to state that lists are appropriate in different circumstances, yet concludes that is never possible since lists are automatically frequently redundant with categories. That lists must past an extra unspecified burden of being significantly better.

Therefore, I am proposing that both redundancy be defined, how both lists and ASB can demonstrated that they can duplicate categories and yet not be redundant with categories be explicitly explained and expanded upon. This is the entire objective of this guideline and thus must be explicitly pointed out or operationally defined in a separate section. -- John Gohde 17:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have trouble seeing this as NPOV, since this isn't an article. Nor do I think nailing down the nature of redundancy is fruitful - if anything, it will lead to people deleting lists and ASBs because they've found new ways of avoiding redundancy. Snowspinner 18:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, this is a guideline. NPOV does not apply. If you have an objection, you probably should voice it in another fashion. Either that, or you show me a totally neutral guideline that is actually useful! Next, I agree with the guideline: Lists are frequently overkill in an article, but there are times when they could be useful. A properly written article uses the TOC as a list of facts for the topic, and if another list is required, then one is warranted. The word 'frequently' does not mean all lists should be eliminated. Just the opposite, it states that there are exceptions to the rule. Koi 18:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Frequently redundant with categories?
Let us just suppose that Lists are indeed frequently redundant with categories. So, what? That state of being true is simply not a disadvantage of using a list. Thus I will delete this irroneaous listing since it is not a disadvantage any more than being born black is a disadvantage. Is not being black redundant with being white? I don't see any disadvantage, here. Either explain, or I will delete. -- John Gohde 22:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Articles that do not do anything that is not already covered by other articles are generally redirected, merged, and/or deleted. If an article is a simple list of topics that duplicates the category system, the article has no particular reason for existence. Snowspinner 22:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to have this project page all backwards. If the List pre-existed the category then the category is duplicating the list. Ergo the category is redundant with the list. And, the category should go.

 * I repeat the simple question. How is that state of being a disadvantage of being the pre-existing list? -- John Gohde 22:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That doesn't make any sense - the only reason the list would predate the category is that the category wasn't technically possible until about a year ago. Categories were introduced to provide functions that the lists couldn't. That is to say, they were an upgrade to lists. The list is inferior for the same reason that my old 286 is inferior to my current computer. Snowspinner 22:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not policy?
What other project pages are redundant with this? (I thought you meant project in the sense of a wikiproject - my bad. Perhaps had you used a talk page to explain in more detail than the edit summary allows you?) I have trouble with this, as this was one of the earlier guidelines written following the creation of categories, and it's long been used as the operating structure for Templates for Deletion, so I really don't think "not policy" covers it. Snowspinner 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Categories were created to offer functionality that lists lacked?
Just what might this functionality be? I count 6 advantages of a list, plus 1 more pending database operation confirmation to only 3 advantages of categories. Considering the inconvenience that they present to users of Wikipedia, I see no added functionality. What I see is an arbitrary consensus to use categories, even when lists have been historically an acceptable and proven approach. -- John Gohde 22:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I dunno, I've got to assume that when developers coded categories last year, they weren't doing it for their health. Snowspinner 23:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Being different for the sake of being different, is not always progress. -- John Gohde 23:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The implementation of the new feature certainly seemed to carry a mandate to use it. Snowspinner 23:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * The red self-destruct bottom should only be use to self-destruct. -- John Gohde 23:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All categories are linked together, created a web of knowledge
I am challenging the assertion that All categories are linked together, created a web of knowledge is an adantage of categories. List of glossaries was created in 2002. It effectively creates a web of knowledge that potentially covers the entire scope of Wikipedia. All that is needed is a little work, to make sure that all areas are covered. We might need to add a glossary of perverse knowledge. -- John Gohde 23:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps "Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge" would be better?

 * Sounds good. - Pioneer-12 23:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Web of Knowledge should be re-directed to List of glossaries? Perhaps, whoever said that lists are not articles was wrong. Sounds like an article with great potential to me. -- John Gohde 23:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Synergy
Speaking of Synergy, how are categories, lists, and ASBs supposed to exist together on Wikipedia without competing with each other? Shouldn't there be an entire section on this in this guideline in order to avoid unnecessary battles down the line? -- John Gohde 00:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, with all the arguing going on, a seperate section might be a good idea. This isn't supposed to be about "categories are better then lists" or "lists are better then categories". Both are necessary.

 * Categories, lists, and ASBs are *TOOLS*. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job. That, I think, is what this article is supposed to be about. - Pioneer-12 00:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Precisely! Right now this guideline is redundant.  There is a separate project page each for categories, lists, and ASBs.  So, why do we  need this redundant guideline if you are not going to explain precisely how editors are supposed to pick and choose between each of these tools? -- John Gohde 02:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarity needed in writing
Try as I might, I can't see:

 * Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category.

as being clearer or in any way preferable to

 * Lists are often redundant with categories.

I shall assume John thinks of this as a good change. Why is it a good change? - David Gerard 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ??? It is very simple really!

 * disadvantage: "an unfavorable or inferior condition or circumstance"

 * The unfavorable circumstance of lists is that they are subject to being mindlessly deleted by hopelessly confused and biased editors who have not a clue as to what they are doing as a natural biproduct of being on Wikipedia 8 plus hours a day, seven days a weeks, for years on end. -- John Gohde 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category." That is not a "disadvantage"; That is a "usage note". If it is to stay in the article, it needs to be moved to the appropriate section. - Pioneer-12 02:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking of mental vomit! "Not auto-linked, as categories are" is shown as a disadvantage. Sorry, but being white rather than red in not a disadvantage any more than a list is not like a category. Of course they are not.  Lists are better than categories. So, I would say that "Not auto-linked, as categories are" should be shown as an advantage. Of course, we are talking about mental vomit. -- John Gohde 00:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Pornography

Why have this page?
The project page Pornography is designed to track some related issues which some people regard as pornography. It is not designed to create policy.

My personal view is that the "No Censorship, Ever" attitude of some editors will damage Wikipedia, and that a more considered approach is necessary. I would be more than happy with a policy something like: "Wikipedia is not a Pornography Gallery" with debates revolving around whether certain images were pornography and whether the damage they could cause to the encyclopedia exceeded the benefit they might bring. I personally have relatively few problems with "clinical" pictures but I am concerned about images which might appear on "adult" sites, whether "hard" or "soft". But that will not reach consensus yet, so the debate has to revolve around individual items. --Audiovideo 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right. Besides, if we had absolutely "NO censorship, EVER" then we could just put whatever the heck we want on Wikipedia, and it would turn into a directory of random information, essentially just a miniature Internet. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random information dump, and it's also not a porn mag. 170.215.83.212 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

update?
"A proposal to delete a parallel page to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse without photographs of torture, naked and dead bodies and technically kept with the same text as the original article did not reach a clear consensus so the parallel article remains. The last debate was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)."
 * The parallel page seems to be gone now, so this should be updated, I think? Esquizombi 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, please update as needed. On Wikipedia, if you know what needs doing then do it! Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure the parallel page wasn't moved somewhere else under a different name, or why the page had a protection notice on it. But I found the other AfDs so I added them - but maybe someone could make it a little clearer. Esquizombi 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Erotica on main page
I am not 100% sure whether this is the best page on which to make this comment, so feel free to suggest another page if appropriate.

Today, the main page featured article is history of erotic depictions, and some related text and the associated image Image:Pompeii-wall painting.jpg (inlined at thumbnail size) are included on the main page (see Today's featured article/November 30, 2006).

This strikes me as pushing the "wikipedia is not censored" ideology beyond a common-sense limit. That principle may dictate that the information should be available to those who seek it, but to put it on the front page is to give it a really unnecessary degree of prominence, with the possible result that even though Wikipedia is not itself censored, it may become more likely to be censored by others, particularly those who set up child-friendly fitering for use in schools etc — a pyrrhic victory for ideology.

— Alan✉ 14:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd say that if a school or another institution or person blocks Wikipedia for an encyclopaedic discussion of the history erotic art, then we're going to lose no matter what. It's not our job to cater to the lowest common denominator and appeal to those who think that any and all discussion of eroticism, the human body and the like are "dirty" and must never be discussed.

 * In other words: we're writing an *encyclopaedia*; if an article is written in a way that is pornographic or that makes it unsuitable for minors, it needs to be rewritten, anyway, and if it's not, well... then there's simply no problem. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, I wasn't talking about simply having such an article, I was talking about putting it — with image — on the main page. — Alan✉ 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a very old thread but I'd like to note that German Wikipedia ran Labia on the main page, fully explicit. From what I hear they didn't get a single complaint. There are many criteria for what articles should run on the main page, but I'd say that one reasonable criteria is when Wikipedia demonstrates distinct or unique coverage of the subject. The fact that our articles are not censored is definitely distinctive. I find it appropriate for not_censored to occasionally play a positive role in article selection. We are what we are. Displaying who we are can inspire just as much as it can offend. Alsee (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
Would anyone from this project care to weigh in on the content discussion at Talk:Matt Sanchez? Your input would be appreciated. Aleta (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should NOT be a porn site
I know I am an anonymous editor so my opinion does not count for much, but I believe that Wikipedia should NOT contain photographic images of the genitalia of animals of any kind (especially humans). I believe that for certain articles, artistic representations may be needed, but only artistic representations. Certain pages should not get hits because people are aroused by them. I also believe that there should be clear warnings on pages where sexually explicit text and/or art is used and no explicit text/art should be visible when a page is first loaded in an 800x600 resolution. I know this may be hard to implement currently, but I believe it is a step Wikipedia must take at some point. --24.17.53.211 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I realise IP(24.17.53.211) made this remark two years ago, however I think 2 mins or 2 years is totally irrelevant when a remark is valid, as I think this is. If this is not already listed under What wikipedia is not, would I be the only one to wonder why? We know wikipedia is not a lot of things, but they are still worth including in this section. In my view this should be included, with careful clarification and qualification it would most likely help settle a lot of content disputes. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 * So, no illustrations on shoe or panty hose, because someone might get aroused by them? Any respectable educational source needs honest photographs of human and non-human genitalia. It's horribly prudish to hide educational photographs of human genitalia and force users to search porn sites or deal with cryptic diagrams to try and get the information they need.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Advertising campaign?
Would someone with a better sense of what makes things notable in this area please review these edits? My spider sense is tingling. Between all the prior AfD's on categories and articles this editor has made, and the burst of BLP page creation and editing to existing pages, I think I smell an off wiki effort to promote the careers of a big group of pornographic actors and actresses. I'm going to post an inquiry on the editor's talk page, but I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look, to see if I'm over-reacting. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales on obscenity
In a few seconds I'm going to scrap the entire section "Jimbo Wales on obscenity".

In 2010 Jimbo went on a spree deleting images he found objectionable, deleting images that were actively in use in articles, battling other editors over the issue, and ultimately the community ended up revoking most of Jimbo's founder-flag powers. Citing Jimbo as a porn guide isn't good idea. The community's current position on "obscenity" rather more inclusionist than Jimbo's position. The current autofellatio image is substantially identical to the version where Jimbo said "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline". Alsee (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Externally linking to sites with pornographic content
There is a user at the Teahouse who wants to know if it is appropriate to post a link to a non-pornographic documentary that is hosted on a pornographic site (PornHub). What's the protocol for this? Should a disclaimer be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenryuu (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia talk:Pornography


text:
User:Juggalettequeen

[[media:Tornado aircraft.jpg|Image of a Tornado]]

Are you down with the clown?
Welcome to my page!!!

Yes, i am the Juggalettequeen!!!!

Welcome to my page, well there is really nothing to say but have fun!

I guess you can say that this page is like a total awsome page!!!!'''

title: User:Juggalettequeen


text:
David's Midnight Magic

David's Midnight Magic is a pinball simulation video game written by David Snider for the Apple II and published by Broderbund in 1982. The game was published in Europe by Ariolasoft. A port to Atari 8-bit computers was released the same year, then the Commodore 64 in 1983. In 1987 Atari Corporation published a cartridge version in the styling of the then-new Atari XEGS.

Gameplay
David's Midnight Magic is closely modeled after the real-life pinball table Black Knight, released by Williams in 1980.

Reception
Softline stated that David's Midnight Magic "ratifies Bill Budge's extraordinary program as a programming tour de force", as it was only equal to Budge's Raster Blaster despite being released nine months later. The magazine concluded that "the fact that [David is] second should not dull the glitter of this effort". Computer Gaming World stated that Midnight Magic was a better game than Raster Blaster, but lamented the requirement of removing write protection from the floppy, thus voiding the warranty, in order to save high scores. The Commodore 64 Home Companion called the game "extraordinarily realistic ... complete with all the features that make pinball so seductive".

David's Midnight Magic won "Computer Game of the Year" at the 4th annual Arkie Awards, where judges described it as "a program that is both an exciting video game and a fairly faithful evocation of pinball mystique".

Legacy
Atari Corporation released a pinball game called Midnight Magic for the Atari 2600 that plays differently from the similarly named David's Midnight Magic.

Doug Carlston of Broderbund said in 1983 that Snider earned "somewhere in the six figures" in royalties from David's Midnight Magic. Snider's brother Eric later used his first name in the title of Eric's Ultimate Solitaire.

In 2005, a Visual Pinball recreation of David's Midnight Magic was created called David's Midnight Magic 2005 which is rendered with 3D graphics.

title: David's Midnight Magic


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ellsworth

Ellsworth
final (20/0/0) ending 22:57 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Ellsworth, not to be confused with Emsworth, has been around for nearly a year and accumulated over 4000 edits. He has made valuable contributions to articles dealing with financial transactions, taxation, and law, areas where Wikipedia's content still struggles to be adequate. I think with his calm demeanor and open-minded approach to discussion, he would be an excellent administrator. His experience indicates an understanding of Wikipedia policy, and his user page shows that he understands the basic principles that underlie all our policies. --Michael Snow 22:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
 * Accepted, with thanks. Ellsworth 23:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Not that being confused with Lord Emsworth is anything to be ashamed of, either. --Michael Snow 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) RickK 23:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) A very prolific and worthy editor.
 * 3) Support -German based articles looks very good. We need translators.--Jondel 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, I don't know German. I just have looked at some German-language articles that looked like they had good material and were about topics that interested me, and put translation requests up. Then when translations were complete I'd come in and do some light copyediting, only as to grammar and syntax. Ellsworth
 * 1) Sure. --Bjarki 00:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Darwinek 06:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been very impressed with Ellsworth -- we've had some minor disagreements, and he's maintained a positive and constructive attitude throughout. RadicalSubversiv E 08:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 11:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Very valuable contributor. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Cool. JuntungWu 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Fine editor. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support- JCarriker 07:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Of course. Neutralitytalk 16:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Emsworth 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. jni 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - being a banker by profession, I have remained associated with financial matters and relevant law and taxation. I saw some of Ellsworth's edits and found them 'worthy'.--Bhadani 05:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 16:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. He maintains a level head and he deals with articles on politics?  What's his secret? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments
 * Ellsworth currently has 4360 total edits: 3693/487 to articles/talk, 9/80 to User/talk, 78/6 to Wikipedia/talk, 5 to Template, and 1/1 to Category/talk. —Korath (Talk) 23:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Dealing with vandalism and patent nonsense, helping with page moves, perhaps get more involved with votes for deletion.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I haven't kept a "brag list", because mostly I've been doing a lot of editing of typography, punctuation, and grammar. As the nomination notes, I've been mostly contributing substantively to articles about law and finance. Two of the ones I've done most work on have been negotiable instrument and surety bond.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. No edit conflicts over articles that haven't been worked out with a couple of posts to the article talk page. I don't get stressed, because I truly try to adhere to the philosophy set forth on my user page.


text:
Talk:Milton Obote

Untitled
Interesting, i wasn't aware the guy was an ass hole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.51.21.68 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 April 2005.
 * Many Ugandans (especially those in the northern parts of the country who have not seen peace for decades) revere him and consider him the father of the nation.--Ezeu 00:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It was odd not to see the word "socialist". I added some detail from the NT Times obituary. This is odd: "His government replaced the divided state left by British colonialism." Unity, eh? --Wetman 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the part about "..divided state left by British colonialism"--Ezeu 06:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

the assertion "Obote was mentor to all presidents that succeeded him" is questionable. Idi Amin: the notion that anyone was Idi Amin's mentor is bizarre. Amin was certainly used by Obote in 1966 to seize power, but "mentor"? Yusufu Lule. Mr Lule was a cabinet Minister in the protectorate Government in 1957 when Obote entered politics as a Member of the legislature. After independence he became Principal of the national University. He was never in a position to be mentored by Obote. Godfrey Binaisa: Attorney General in the 1960s. He was a successful lawyer in Kampala in 1957 when Obote arrived, and was already an active politician. He never quite mastered Obote's instinct for power. Okello: anyone mentored this dim bulb? Museveni: served in Obote's first govt, but at a low level. Certainly mastered Obote's key philosphy of power via the gun-disguised-by party. But I think he is self-taught.

Similarly bizarre is the characterisation of Obote as "father of the nation". The key qualifications for this title would be a (1)key personal role in the founding of the nation and (2)a broad recognition as such within the nation. Obote came into politics in the late 1950's. By this time the fact that Uganda would become independent was already accepted by the British. He became party leader in 1961, by which time even the independence constitution had already been agreed upon (He did serve as a member of the committee which negotiated the terms of that constitution, but had no leadership role thereon). As to broad recognition, Obote is seen by his supporters as the greatest Ugandan ever, but is seen by at least as many Ugandans as the exact opposite (The elections of 1962 and 1980 both saw the nation roughly evenly split on this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kigongos (talk • contribs).

History of Uganda under Idi Amin
The article Uganda under Idi Amin is in serious need of clean-up. It seems to come from a longer article that was lopped off halfway through to produce this page. As such, it begins abruptly. A breif summary of recent Ugandan history before that point would greatly improve the srticle. Perhaps someone with an understanding of Obote's administration could do this. --205.173.168.1 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth
On his grave, the date of birth specified is 28.12.1925. The article claims he was born 1924. Which is true? Dove t. (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets go with the info on the headstone. Would be weird if it was wrong. --Ezeu (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gravestone spells his first name as "Apollo", article spells it as "Apolo". Which is correct?

Socialist Policies
It is stated that "Obote implemented ostensibly socialist policies" linking to "Move to the Left", in which it describes how socialist policies were routinely discussed but never implemented, I think either we should reconsider stating that he implemented socialist policies, that or the other page is updated to include socialist policies that were implemented. I'm aware that it states "ostensibly socialist" but I fail to see how even that applies Magnús Hjálmarsson (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton Obote. 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/20070313203023/http://www.monitor.co.ug/specialincludes/ugprsd/uhdecide/decide12211.php to http://www.monitor.co.ug/specialincludes/ugprsd/uhdecide/decide12211.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Milton-Obote.jpg

title: Talk:Milton Obote


text:
Open Season (Sea Power album)

Open Season is the second album from the Brighton-based English band, Sea Power, then known as "British Sea Power". It was released on 4 April 2005 to positive reviews. It showcased a more accessible, mainstream sound and reached No. 13 in the UK Albums Chart. Almost all of the songs on the album were recorded with Mads Bjerke, who had previously worked with the band on their 2003 album, The Decline of British Sea Power and also with Primal Scream, Girls Aloud and Spiritualized, and mixed by Bill Price, with the exceptions of "Please Stand Up" and "North Hanging Rock", which were produced and mixed by Graham Sutton and engineered by Phill Brown. "Oh Larsen B" was recorded by George Apsion and Tariq Zaid Al-Nasrawi. Two singles were released from the album, "It Ended on an Oily Stage" (UK No. 18) and "Please Stand Up" (UK No. 34).

When the CD is rewound 2:31 before the first track, an organ version of the song "How Will I Ever Find My Way Home?" is found.

The lyrics and title of "Oh Larsen B" refer to the Antarctic Peninsula ice shelf Larsen B, which collapsed in 2002, a few years before the release of the album.

Track listing

 * 1) "It Ended on an Oily Stage" (Hamilton/Noble/Wood/Yan) – 4:23
 * 2) "Be Gone" (Yan) – 2:52
 * 3) "How Will I Ever Find My Way Home?" (Hamilton) – 3:11
 * 4) "Like a Honeycomb" (Yan) – 4:31
 * 5) "Please Stand Up" (Yan) – 3:07
 * 6) "North Hanging Rock" (Yan) – 4:26
 * 7) "To Get to Sleep" (Hamilton/Noble/Wood/Yan) – 3:16
 * 8) "Victorian Ice" (Yan) – 3:26
 * 9) "Oh Larsen B" (Yan) – 5:30
 * 10) "The Land Beyond" (Hamilton) – 4:01
 * 11) "True Adventures" (Hamilton) – 7:52

Japanese release bonus track

 * 1) "Don't You Want to Be a Bird?" (Hamilton) – 2:55

Personnel

 * Yan – vocals, guitar, piano, organ
 * Hamilton – vocals, bass guitar, guitar, piano, organ, backing vocals
 * Noble – guitar, piano, backing vocals, organ
 * Wood – drums

Additional personnel

 * Abi Fry – viola
 * Phil Sumner – cornet
 * Graham Sutton – string arrangements and additional programming
 * Axl – miniature Italian greyhound

title: Open Season (Sea Power album)


text:
User:Javatyger

JAVA TYGER: Caffeine dependant person who loves Tigers.
Personal Information:
 * Name: Lonnie Hill
 * Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
 * Hometown: Edmonton, but grew up in Edson and Whitecourt, Alberta
 * Favourite hobbies and interests: Cats, Egyptology, Vampires, Current Events, Edmonton Oilers, and Volleyball
 * Favourite Movies, T.V. Shows: Horror, Thriller, Occult, and Sci-Fi Movies. T.V shows include: CSI: Miami, Law & Order, Soul Collector, and others I just can't think of right now! LOL
 * Favourite Authors: Laurell K. Hamilton for her Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series, and Dean R. Koontz.

title: User:Javatyger


text: User talk:24.193.83.198

title: User talk:24.193.83.198


text:
Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2

Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2 (SNMCMG2) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) standing mine countermeasures Immediate Reaction Force. Its role is to provide NATO with an immediate operational response capability.

History
From its activation on 27 May 1999, the unit was initially called Standing Mine Countermeasures Force (in the) Mediterranean (MCMFORMED).

MCMFORMED and her sister force Mine Counter Measures Force North Western Europe (MCMFORNORTH) were tasked in June 1999 to operate in the Adriatic Sea to clear ordnance jettisoned during Operation Allied Force. The combined force comprised 11 minehunters and minesweepers and a support ship. The operation, named Allied Harvest, began on 9 June 1999. Search activities began three days later and lasted 73 days. In total, 93 pieces of ordnance were located and cleared in the nine areas which encompassed 1,041 nmi2.

From 3 September 2001 it was known as the Mine Countermeasures Force South (MCMFORSOUTH) and from 1 January 2005 it became Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2.

Current ships
As of 20 January 2024, the fleet consists of:

 * 🇬🇷 (Flagship) HS ATLAS class AOR – Replenishment oiler, Heracles

 * 🇮🇹 Gaeta class minehunter, Viareggio
 * 🇫🇷 Tripartite-class minehunter, Lyre


text:
Echo Bay Mines

Echo Bay Mines Limited was a Canadian company which was organized in 1964 by Northwest Explorers Limited to develop a silver deposit at Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada, which had been staked in 1930 by The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company (now called Teck Resources). The company leased the old Port Radium settlement from Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and used the old camp and mill to recover silver and copper values from what became known as the Echo Bay Mine. Production in the Echo Bay workings ceased in 1975. The company then reopened the old Eldorado Mine workings and produced more silver and copper until 1981, when low silver prices caused the mine to close permanently.

Echo Bay Mines Limited went on to open a new gold mine, called Lupin Mine, in what was then the Northwest Territories and is today in Nunavut. It entered production in 1982.

Echo Bay Mines Limited developed numerous other properties, mostly in the United States, including two mines in Nevada, McCoy/Cove and Round Mountain gold mine, and the Kettle River mine in Washington. Corporate headquarters were in Englewood, Colorado. In 1986 the company purchased Sunnyside Gold Mine in Silverton, Colorado, and operated it for five years before it closed because of low gold prices.

The company became a subsidiary of Kinross Gold Corporation in 2003 and has been delisted from the stock exchange.

title: Echo Bay Mines


text:
Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution

The relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution (after the 1936 nuclear resonance formula of Gregory Breit and Eugene Wigner) is a continuous probability distribution with the following probability density function,

 * $$ f(E) = \frac{k}{\left(E^2-M^2\right)^2+M^2\Gamma^2}~, $$

where $k$ is a constant of proportionality, equal to
 * $$ k = \frac{2 \sqrt{2} M \Gamma \gamma }{\pi \sqrt{M^2+\gamma}} ~$$   with   $$~ \gamma=\sqrt{M^2\left(M^2+\Gamma^2\right)}  ~.$$

(This equation is written using natural units, ħ = c = 1.)

It is most often used to model resonances (unstable particles) in high-energy physics. In this case, $E$ is the center-of-mass energy that produces the resonance, $M$ is the mass of the resonance, and Γ is the resonance width (or  decay width), related to its mean lifetime according to τ = 1/Γ. (With units included, the formula is τ = ħ/Γ.)

Usage
The probability of producing the resonance at a given energy $E$ is proportional to $f (E)$, so that a plot of the production rate of the unstable particle as a function of energy traces out the shape of the relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution. Note that for values of $E$ off the maximum at $M$ such that $|E^{2} − M^{2}| = MΓ$, (hence $|E − M| = Γ/2$ for $M ≫ Γ$), the distribution $f$ has attenuated to half its maximum value, which justifies the name for Γ, width at half-maximum.

In the limit of vanishing width, Γ → 0, the particle becomes stable as the Lorentzian distribution $f$ sharpens infinitely to $2Mδ(E^{2} − M^{2})$.

In general, Γ can also be a function of $E$; this dependence is typically only important when Γ is not small compared to $M$ and the phase space-dependence of the width needs to be taken into account. (For example, in the decay of the rho meson into a pair of pions.) The factor of $M$2 that multiplies Γ2 should also be replaced with $E$2 (or $E$ 4/$M$2, etc.) when the resonance is wide.

The form of the relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution arises from the propagator of an unstable particle, which has a denominator of the form $p^{2} − M^{2} + iMΓ$. (Here, $p$2 is the square of the four-momentum carried by that particle in the tree Feynman diagram involved.) The propagator in its rest frame then is proportional to the quantum-mechanical amplitude for the decay utilized to reconstruct that resonance,
 * $$\frac{\sqrt{k}}{\left(E^2-M^2\right)+iM\Gamma}~. $$

The resulting probability distribution is proportional to the absolute square of the amplitude, so then the above relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution for the probability density function.

The form of this distribution is similar to the amplitude of the solution to the classical equation of motion for a driven harmonic oscillator damped and driven by a sinusoidal external force. It has the standard resonance form of the Lorentz, or Cauchy distribution, but involves relativistic variables $s$ = $p$2, here = $E$2. The distribution is the solution of the differential equation for the amplitude squared w.r.t. the energy energy (frequency), in such a classical forced oscillator,

f'(\text{E}) \left(\left(\text{E}^2-M^2\right)^2+\Gamma^2  M^2\right)-4 \text{E} f(\text{E}) (M-\text{E}) (\text{E}+M)=0 , $$ with
 * $$ f(M)=\frac{k}{\Gamma^2 M^2}.~$$

Gaussian broadening
In experiment, the incident beam that produces resonance always has some spread of energy around a central value. Usually, that is a Gaussian/normal distribution. The resulting  resonance shape in this case is given by the convolution of the Breit–Wigner and the Gaussian distribution,
 * $$V_{2}(E; M, \Gamma, k, \sigma)= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{k}{(E'^2-M^2)^2+(M\Gamma)^2}\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{(E'-E)^2}{2\sigma^2}}dE'.$$

This function can be simplified by introducing new variables,
 * $$t=\frac{E-E'}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}, \quad u_1=\frac{E-M}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}, \quad u_2=\frac{E+M}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}, \quad a=\frac{k\pi}{2\sigma^2},$$

to obtain
 * $$V_{2}(E;M,\Gamma, k, \sigma)=\frac{H_{2}(a,u_1,u_2)}{\sigma^2 2\sqrt{\pi}},$$

where the relativistic line broadening function has the following definition,
 * $$H_2(a,u_1,u_2)=\frac{a}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-t^2}}{(u_1-t)^2(u_2-t)^2+a^2}dt.$$

$$H_2$$ is the relativistic counterpart of the similar line-broadening function for the Voigt profile used in spectroscopy (see also Section 7.19 of ).

title: Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution


text: User talk:129.2.78.154

title: User talk:129.2.78.154


text:
Moonlite BunnyRanch

The Moonlite BunnyRanch is a legal, licensed brothel in Mound House, Nevada, United States, 6 mi east of Carson City. First opened in 1955, it came to national attention under Dennis Hof, who owned the brothel from 1992 until his death in 2018.

History

The brothel now known as the Moonlite BunnyRanch first opened in 1955 as the Moonlight Ranch. There is a historical marker on the premises, found just inside of the property's original main gate, as the ranch is located near a stop on the original Pony Express. It operated discreetly until 1971, when Nevada began regulation of houses of prostitution. Dennis Hof, a frequent customer, purchased the business in 1992 for $700,000 and invested another $500,000 in upgrading the facilities and decor.

Jesse Ventura, former professional wrestler and Governor of Minnesota, wrote in his 1999 autobiography I Ain't Got Time to Bleed that he visited the BunnyRanch in the 1970s, had sex there, and received $10 in return for a belt he had made of empty rifle shell casings.

In July 2003, Mötley Crüe singer Vince Neil was charged with battery after a sex worker at the ranch alleged that he grabbed her around the throat and threw her against a wall.

In February 2009, a new main entrance to the Moonlite BunnyRanch with direct access to U.S. 50 opened to traffic. Constructed by the Nevada Department of Transportation as a business access road, the new street was officially named BunnyRanch Boulevard by Lyon County.

Dennis Hof subsequently purchased another nearby brothel, then known as Madame Kitty's Fantasy Ranch, located about one mile (1.6 km) away. To better capitalize on the BunnyRanch brand name, he rechristened it BunnyRanch Two in 2004. In June 2008, Hof renamed it again: The Love Ranch.

In early 2009, due to the recession, State Senator Bob Coffin (D) proposed legalizing prostitution statewide for tax purposes. Hof was prominently featured in a number of media reports saying he would expand into Las Vegas given the opportunity. However, the Nevada lawmakers refused to consider the proposal of statewide legal prostitution during that legislative session.

In May 2017, a man backed a stolen semi-trailer truck through the front door of the brothel, causing extensive damage but no injuries.

Hof died on October 16, 2018. As of February 2020, company madam and financial officer Suzette Cole runs the brothel as trustee of Hof's estate.

The State of Nevada shut down all brothels in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sex workers at the BunnyRanch sued Governor Steve Sisolak in October, asking that the brothel be re-opened or that remote work be allowed.

In the media
The Moonlite BunnyRanch was featured on HBO's America Undercover show specials, Cathouse (2002), and Cathouse 2: Back in the Saddle (2003). This led to the series Cathouse: The Series, airing in two seasons in 2005 and 2007. "Air Force Amy" was featured in HBO's documentaries Cathouse, Cathouse 2, and Cathouse: The Series about the ranch. She was called "the all-time top earner" and "the master of the game". The "She's Got Game" episode (2005) included a personal profile of her. She also appeared in the 2004 BBC television program The Brothel on the same subject and the 2005 documentary Pornstar Pets. The ranch was also featured as a supposedly "haunted house" in an episode of Proof Positive and is frequently mentioned on the Howard Stern Show, usually to announce that another porn star has started to work there.

In 2008, Moonlite BunnyRanch sex worker Brooke Taylor was featured in the web series "Who's Sleeping with Your Husband", speaking candidly about the reasons she believes men visit brothels and revealing the most popular menu items.

Virginity auction
In September 2008, a 22-year-old woman calling herself Natalie Dylan announced on The Howard Stern Show that she would auction off her virginity on the BunnyRanch website and that the act would be consummated at the ranch. While Dylan's sister had worked at the BunnyRanch two years prior, Dylan insisted her sibling had nothing to do with her decision, saying "My sister definitely didn't pressure me into doing this". A recent women's studies graduate from Sacramento State, Dylan planned to use the money to finance graduate school and said, "I feel empowered because I am being pro-choice with my body." She retained the right to reject the winner of the auction and pick another bidder, claiming that several bids had exceeded $1 million. Dennis Hof was to receive half of the winning bid. A news report in May 2010 suggested that the episode may have been a hoax, although Hof insisted it was not. Hof later indicated the transaction was never consummated, stating, "It didn't work out, but she still made $250,000 out of the deal."

title: Moonlite BunnyRanch


text: User talk:4.37.64.164

title: User talk:4.37.64.164


text:
Talk:Telecommunications device for the deaf

Fix up
When I get a chance I'll make this into a prettier article. I'll take a photo of my TDD and whack it in there as well.

Righteo, I did the subheadings, the TOC, photo and etiquette section. The other text I did not modify. Let me know what you think, break it is you want :)

The photo is released to the public domain, do anything you like with it.

--Sclozza 11:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of word "Minicom"
In the UK the word "Minicom" is used far more commonly than "textphone" but I'm not too sure how exactly to add it in the page - should I put in something like " In Europe, the term textphone is more commonly used, although in the UK the word "minicom" is widely used despite that this word is named after a brand of a TTD made by Ultratec". There's "proof" as sorts here: http://www.teletec.co.uk/minicoms/

What's your thoughts?

--EnglishDude 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm from the UK, and have never heard the thing referred to as a 'minicom.' I think the statement "In the United Kingdom the usual term is minicom" is misleading. The page you link to refers to "their range of text telephones developed specifically for the UK" and only uses the word 'minicom' in the context of a brand name. Njál 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, we have always called it a minicom, but I think thar "textphone/text phone/text-phone" is the current more common term - definitely by organisations. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 22 December 2007 (GMT).

 * Using a brand name as a generic term is often the practice in sign language communities. One example, at Gallaudet, students often use the abbreviation VAX to mean "to send email". VAX is the brand name of a super computer produced by Digital Equipment Corporation. The use of this abbreviation for "email" is short-lived on the campus to be replaced by the newly coined sign EMAIL. English speakers do the same too in a few examples: TTY is also generic for hearing people for teleprinters produced by other companies, and Xerox is used as a verb to mean "to copy" also on non-Xerox Copiers. For a time "IBM" meant a computer generally, but not any more.

Requested move
move. Although there was only the nominator's opinion in favor of a move and one person's weak opposition for a move, I feel that the singular is a better name. It is singular in the American Heritage Dictionary and comes up with 331,000 Google results vs. 56,700 for the plural (85%). Finally, while not invariable, the singular form is usually preferred for article titles. If anyone opposes my decision, let me know and I will reconsider. You also have my support if you want to just go through the requested move process again in case immediate re-requests are frowned upon. -- Kjkolb 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications devices for the deaf → Telecommunications device for the deaf … Rationale: Per WP:NAME, article titles should be singular. The target name has a redirect to the page which contains trivial edit history (one stub version, then the redirect). If you have any comments, please add them below. Hairy Dude 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The guideline cited is not invariable (see Complex numbers, and the plural probably makes better links. Septentrionalis 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word TDD
The phrase TDD is not considered politically correct in the United States. This is because users with cognitive language impariments, among others, use the TTY devices as well. The article should be modified to use the phrases "TTY/TDD" and "Text Telephone" as a replacement for "TDD" and "Telecommunications device for the deaf" respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.135.206 (talk • contribs)

 * I groaned when TDD was introduced in our language. I found it unneccesary. However, I can see why it was important for Betty Broecker of Philadelphia who coined the term. She as advocate wanted the word "deaf" in the name as part of Deaf Pride and as a public relation gimmick to increase Deaf Awareness to show that we "own" this sort of telecommunication device that was "invented" by a deaf man and distributed by deaf volunteers, etc. all "Deaf made stuff". TTY remains to be used predominantly, because it is easier understood by the hearing than TDD.  Hartmut, 30 April 2012

 * That's interesting. Here in Australia I've never heard them called TDDs, only TTYs or telephone typewriters, and they are certainly used by hearing people (with speech impairments etc) here too. The article suggests that other terms are common in Europe, which leads me to wonder if the term TDD is a North American thing? One (US) website makes the following claim: "Many people use the two terms interchangeably, while others use TTY for mechanical teleprinters and TDD for the modern electronic gadgets which perform the same function in a fraction of the size and weight."

All TDD's are TTYs
Not all TTYs are TDDs. the TTY was invented in the 1930s and became popular in the 50s mostly for military use. The initials TTY stands for TeleTYpe and is a military designation having nothing to do with deafness. I had a model 50 Teletype that was made in the 1940s and it worked fine over the telephone at 50 baud but typed in all upper case. The use of TTYs for deaf communication was practiced by deaf ham radio operators long before the TDD or was conceived. Robert Weitbrecht invented nothing, that is why articles state that he is credited with inventing the TTY. It is known that many TTYs were used for deaf communication prior to 1960. Robert Weitbrecht did successfully popularize and helped standardize the device and deserves credit for that.

 * Comparing a google search for TTY vs one for TDD makes me wonder if the article should not in fact be renamed TTY? ntennis 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Software TTY/TDD and commercial links
I've been struggling with trying to determine who makes TTY/TDD software applications, voice modems, etc. and am wondering if it would go against the scope of Wikipedia to include a list of available resources to this Wikipedia page. Normally links to commercial vendors from the wiki are frowned on which is why I'm proposing the idea here. So far I've found

 * myTTY for Windows manufactured by IDRT. It does not look like the product has been updated since 2004 but that it works with Windows 98 and has a patch available for "all Windows operating systems" though I have no idea if that means it'll work with Vista for example. This is a software-only package meaning you also need to get a voice modem (not a standard modem).
 * NexTalk-VM for Windows manufactured by NXi Communications. NXi sells the software with a voice modem as a package though they say they will sell you the software only if you have a compatible voice modem. They do not have a list of compatible devices though.
 * CallTTY for Windows manufactured by DXsoft. This is aimed at the HAM radio market and entails that you construct an interface circuit. One benefit is that it uses a standard sound card and not the much harder to find voice modem.

Voice Modems - Would any V.253 standard modem qualify or do I need to look for something else?

The following are included for completeness but it looks like the companies offering them are out of business as of 2007.
 * Fulltalk for Windows manufactured by Microflip, Inc. This is an ISA voice modem card meaning it will not work with newer PCI-only computers. The Microflip web site is down and it's assumed this company is no longer in business.
 * Futura-TTY for MS-DOS and maybe Windows manufactured by Phone-TTY, Inc.
 * SoftTTY for the Macintosh.

I've deliberately not linked to the vendor's web sites as to not run afoul of linking policies. The frustration is that with a voice modem it would seem straightforward enough to generate the Baudot signaling codes meaning TTY/TTD software should be common but isn't. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scammer Usage
Could this article use a mention of how this service is rife with scammers using it to fleece people? Operators for this service are not allowed, by law, to say anything other than what is typed by the "user," so they are forced to be complicit in scamming folks. I understand such calls are a high percentage (majority even?) of the usage of this service. OR isn't allowed, of course, but there's bound to be some useful info out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.46 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2007

 * This does not seem to be a problem with TTY but rather Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) which already has a section on the scammers at Telecommunications Relay Service. A google for tty scammers finds articles from 2004. Is this still a current problem? Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * However most scams come through Internet Relay calls, not by TTY users.

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Current status?
I'd be interested in seeing a section on the current status in the deaf community of TTY/TDD vs. things like instant messaging and cell phone texting (SMS). --agr (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe these days TDD is only used to communicate with organizations/businesses and that most personal communication is done via e-mail, text messaging, etc. TDD has an additional barrier in that both users need to be familiar with the protocol (GA, SKSK, etc.) though in an emergency someone not familiar with the protocol could type out things as though it's an e-mail or instant message conversation to explain they have no idea what codes like Q, THX, etc. mean and the other side could then write back explaining at least GA and handling it like an instant message conversation. Unfortunately, that's all my personal understanding and not something that would pass RS/verifiability.
 * I would be curious to know if there are people that use the TDD conversation protocol with instant message systems and/or if there are Internet services that would allow someone to call a TDD line or user with the conversation being entirely text (no voice). --Marc Kupper|talk 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations?
I am an infrequent contributor, so I won't pretend to know all about the authoring and editing process. I encountered this article during the course of research. It would be nice to have some more authoritative sources referenced (if such exist). At first pass, I found no way to validate the historical account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.60.38 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Visual Enunciation Display (VED)
I've deleted a section of the article titled "Controversy". It contained
 * In 1986 the TDD was made obsolete by the VED that did not require a device on the other end of the phone line. The Visual Enunciation Display was difficult to read and never produced commercially. Some of the VED displays are still in use and a not-for-profit organization in Texas hand-assembles units for deaf people who need them for employment.
 * The display's official name is in sign language with no direct English-word translation. The name VED is no longer used, to avoid confusion with the TDD. The sign starts with two fingers pointing at the eyes followed by waving similar to the sign for sound except coming from the eyes not the ear. The Deaf Communicator devices do have an English-model designation starting with Deafcomm1 followed by unique numbers for each model.
 * Several other devices have been developed that work even better but none are available commercially at this time. The TDD and its TTY variants remain the only non-experimental officially recognized device for deaf telecommunications.

My problems with this section are: It would be great if someone could dig up reliable/verifiable sources about the VED so that something could be added back to the article as this does seem to be one of the historical devices used to allow the deaf to communicate over via the telephone system. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A complete lack of citations nor anything that could be used to verify this. "Visual Enunciation Display" and "Deafcomm1" only finds this Wikipedia article or copies of it. It's possible this entire thing was made up and added to the article as a form of vandalism.
 * As stated - it appears to be an experimental device that was never produced commercially.
 * It's a minor point but I'm not sure why the section was named "Controversy" and not "Visual Enunciation Display (VED)".
 * As it "did not require a device on the other end of the phone line" it's not clear that this used TDD signaling at all though as it does seem to qualify as a "Telecommunications device for the deaf".
 * I have a problem with the last sentence as it ignores the availability of devices such as the Captioned Telephone or the Telecommunications Relay Service.

711 and alternatives
The article doesn't seem to mention the following:

 * The use of 711 to call the voice end of a TTY/voice relay. Is that just in Massachusetts or throughout the USA? How about Australia and other countries?

 * Alternatives to TTY, such as voice/ASL interpretation via videophone.

David Spector (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging comment about A.G. Bell
The History section ends with the phrase "A.G. Bell, who is one of the major historical oppressors of the Deaf Community." For one, it seems that such a comment is out of place in the article, regardless of its truth or falsity, considering that this is an encyclopedia. I've read biographies of Alexander Graham Bell, and my recollection is that he worked quite a lot to help the deaf. IIrc, his wife (born Mabel Grosvenor?) was deaf, and it's likely that having a deaf spouse only made his desire to help that much greater.

For the record, I can surely sympathize with deaf people who are treated badly by others; I have typical hearing loss, myself, and am sluggish and stubborn about getting a pair of hearing aids. Regards,Nikevich (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that the clause with "oppressor" is out of place in an encyclopedia. Rather, Bell can be described to have failed to invent a device that deaf people could use over the telephone network or to instruct his company to work on an alternative for deaf people. For example, using his close friend Samuel Morse's code over the telephone was feasible at that time and costs very little money. Electrical dot-dah signals can be converted to light flashes or vibrations in a common door bell. All deaf kids in the early years of telephone would learn Morse Code in deaf schools and then use radio equipment to tele-communicate outside of the telephone network. Bell must have thought of it, I cannot imagine that he did not. He chose not to do it, for he is too obsessed with teaching speech and it encourages seperatism of deaf from hearing people (See his "Memoir on Deaf Variety of Human Race"). Hartmut, 30 April 2012.

Baudot Protocol
Under Baudot Protocol, information on what two frequencies should be included. I used to know them, but unfortunately I forgot them. Hartmut, 30 April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.98 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telecommunications device for the deaf. 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 tag to http://www.cid.edu/home/NEWS%20ROOM/news%20releases/taylors.htm
 * Added tag to http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/31072009/31/link-f-prnewswire-t-receive-james-c-marsters-promotion-award-helping.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704062727/http://cid.edu/home/NEWS%20ROOM/news%20releases/taylors.htm to http://www.cid.edu/home/NEWS%20ROOM/news%20releases/taylors.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telecommunications device for the deaf. 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/20100612122938/http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/POOOone6.html to http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/POOOone6.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Braille TTYs
I once worked for an outreach service which among other things had services for the deaf. They operated a Braille TTY that was helpful to people who were both deaf and blind. It could of course be useful to blind people. Perhaps that should be covered in this article. Ealtram (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * @Ealtram 117.20.113.239 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Unclear
In the text: "Thus as society increasingly moves toward IP based telecommunication, the telecommunication devices used by people who are deaf will not be TDDs. In the US the devices are referred to as TTYs."

It is unclear whether TDDs are known as TTYs in the US; or whether the successor to TDDs are known as TTYs in the US. 2600:4040:5129:B300:C169:5ECC:1E30:4B90 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 12


text:
Rayrock Mine

The Rayrock Mine was a uranium producing venture in the Northwest Territories, Canada. It is located on the south side of Maryleer Lake and the north shore of Fault Lake, 169 kilometers northwest of Yellowknife and 74 kilometres northwest of Rae. Radioactive deposits were originally staked in 1948 and then restaked in 1950. American Yellowknife Mines Limited explored the site with detailed Geiger surveys and extensive trenching in the early 1950s. In 1954 exploration work included over 10000 ft of surface diamond drilling, and the company was reorganized as Rayrock Mines Limited.

Underground development began in 1955 with the driving of a long adit tunnel to intersect the radioactive zones 300 ft below surface. The mine opened in June 1957 with a 150 tons per day leaching mill. Development was expanded and the mine reached depths of 1000 ft by the end of 1957. The failure to locate ore in significant quantity below the 1000 ft level resulted in the cessation of mining on July 31, 1959.

During the operations at Rayrock Mine, an on-site mill facility processed 78,781 short tons of uranium ore yielding 458,020 pounds of uranium concentrate. Rayrock Mine was a fully underground uranium mine with a small townsite built by the company being in operation during this period. The mine employed 135 men in 1958 and the townsite had 20 families as residents. The mining facility and town existed in an abandoned state for over twenty years after the mine closed.

In 1987, the buildings of the mine and town were demolished. Environmental cleanup began in 1996, with the objective being to contain contaminants at the site and limit exposure to persons who visit the area. Remediation activities included sealing mine openings, removing radioactive material from the dump, disposing of this contaminated material on the tailings, and capping the tailings piles with a layer of silty clay, followed by revegetation.

Contamination
The site became contaminated with radioactive tailings that were deposited on land. Some of these dangerous tailing flowed into three small lakes. When the mine closed tailings basins contained 70,903 tonnes of radioactive tailings that had the potential to leach metals. The mine shafts itself also create a source of potential radioactive contamination through radon gas emissions from the mine openings.

The territorial government has agreed to long-term monitoring of the site in order to ensure radiation levels and contamination does not threaten the area. This is to be conducted annually until 2009. After this time followed by once every 10 years for a further 100 years. This may change if results warrant adjustment, such as some minor care and maintenance work completed in summer 2004. Monitoring assesses the integrity of sealed mine openings, water quality and potential risks to humans.

title: Rayrock Mine


text:
Rheinseilbahn

Rheinseilbahn (literally "Rhine Cable Car") may refer to one of two cable cars across the Rhine in Germany:

 * The Cologne Cable Car in Cologne.
 * The Koblenz Cable Car in Koblenz.

title: Rheinseilbahn