text:
Hamburg U-Bahn

The Hamburg U-Bahn is a rapid transit system serving the cities of Hamburg, Norderstedt, and Ahrensburg in Germany. Although referred to by the term U-Bahn (the "U" commonly being understood as standing for Untergrund "underground"), most of the system's track length is above ground. The network is interconnected with the city's S-Bahn system, which also has underground sections. It is operated by Hamburger Hochbahn within the Hamburger Verkehrsverbund (HVV). It was opened in February 1912, and comprises four lines serving 93 stations, with a route length of 106.4 km in 2019.

History
In 1906 the Senate of Hamburg awarded a contract for the Elevated and Underground Railway to Siemens & Halske and AEG of Berlin. The first stretch was completed on 7 October 1906. This was followed in 1911 with the founding of the Hamburger Hochbahn Aktiengesellschaft (HHA). Thus Hamburg became the third German city (after Berlin, 1902 and Schöneberg, 1910) to have a U-Bahn (then known as the Elevated and Underground Railway (Hoch- und Untergrundbahn) as it is largely either elevated or in tunnels – not much at street level).

The construction of such a railway had long been discussed, meanwhile an elevated train was also considered. In 1906 a circular route was begun, connecting Hamburg Hauptbahnhof – Berliner Tor – Barmbek (earlier spelling: Barmbeck) – Kellinghusenstraße – Schlump – Landungsbrücken (earlier designation: Hafentor) – Rathaus – Hauptbahnhof with branches to the quarters of Eimsbüttel, Ohlsdorf and Rothenburgsort. On 15 February 1912 the first stretch of the future Ringbahn (Circle railway) between Rathaus station and Barmbek was inaugurated. The stretch included both underground and elevated sections.

Network development
By 1915 the Ringbahn and the three spurs, from Kellinghusenstraße to Ohlsdorf, from Schlump to Hellkamp (today: disused station between Oster- and Lutterothstraße) and from central station to Rothenburgsort were completed. By 1934 the extensions from Ohlsdorf to Ochsenzoll (Langenhorner Bahn), from Kellinghusenstraße to Jungfernstieg (KellJung line), and the Walddörferbahn (Forestvillages line) from Barmbek to Großhansdorf and Ohlstedt were completed.

In 1943, during the Second World War the subway was badly damaged during 'Operation Gomorrha,' the RAF bombing of Hamburg that summer. The stretch from Hauptbahnhof to Rothenburgsort was not repaired because the district it passed through had been completely destroyed. It was five more years before the remaining network was once more completely intact.

Further additions to the network were made, starting in 1960. The KellJung line was extended via Meßberg to the central station (Hauptbahnhof). Later in 1962 the extension reached Wandsbek Markt and in 1963 Wandsbek-Gartenstadt. The total network length was 67.9 km.

The construction of a Durchmesserstrecke (diameter route) began in 1963. The plan was to connect Billstedt with Stellingen. The Eimsbüttel branch formed the western part of the line. The branch was extended up to Hagenbecks Tierpark in 1966. The existing terminus at Hellkamp was withdrawn from service in 1964 and a new station was built at Lutterothstraße further northwest.

The connection between Berliner Tor and Horner Rennbahn was opened in 1967. In the same year this eastern branch was extended to Legienstraße. Further extensions took place in 1969 to Billstedt and in 1970 towards Merkenstraße. The extension Ochsenzoll – Garstedt came into service in May 1969. Thus, the network total length reached 88.5 km.

A new core stretch of the line U2, between Schlump and Berliner Tor, became a direct connection through the city centre. Next to be brought into service were sections from Hauptbahnhof Nord to Berliner Tor in 1968, and from Schlump (low) to Gänsemarkt in 1970, then the last section, with two new platforms on the lowest level at the station Jungfernstieg under the Binnenalster, in 1973. This station, as well as Hauptbahnhof Nord, was developed as part of the U4 line that was planned at that time.

In 1985 the section to Hagenbecks Tierpark was extended to Niendorf Markt and again in 1991 as far as Niendorf Nord. In 1990 the extension Merkenstraße – Mümmelmannsberg was opened. The line extension opened in 1996 between Garstedt and Norderstedt Mitte, which replaced the southern part of the Alsternordbahn.

In 2005 the Hamburg U-Bahn had a length of some 100.7 km, of which 40 km are underground. It had 89 station stops.

In 2009, the U3, beginning in Barmbek, traversed the complete ring line, thereby taking over the stretch between Berliner Tor and Barmbek, which was formerly served by the U2. In order to realise a problem-free service, a redesign of the current track layout to the west of Berliner Tor was necessary. An originally planned grade separated crossing of the two lines was realised, which was left undone before due to cost. Trains coming from the city centre leave the ring at Barmbek and continue via the viaduct stretch to Wandsbek Gartenstadt. One branch leads via the Walddörferbahn to Wandsbek-Gartenstadt, a stretch formerly served by the U2.

In 2012, the U4 started operations between Billstedt and HafenCity University, sharing most of its route with the U2 and thereby increasing service on the highly used line between Berliner Tor and Billstedt. The U4 was extended further east to Elbbrücken in December 2018, providing a future S-Bahn connection.

Abandoned projects
The eastern branch of the "Walddörferbahn" was originally intended to terminate at the station Beimoor, just to the north of Großhansdorf, in order to connect a proposed housing development to the public transport system. By the time work was abandoned, the station platform had already been finished and tracks had been laid. Today the remains of the station are used as a winter home for bats in the middle of a dry grass biotope.

Plans for a fourth line have been discussed since the 1970s. In those days it was planned for the line to lead from City Nord and Uhlenhorst via the city centre (Hauptbahnhof Nord and Jungfernstieg) and Altona to Lurup and Osdorfer Born. In order to link the green-field housing development at Osdorfer Born to the rest of the city as quickly as possible, a limited service on the stretch between Altona und Osdorfer Born was planned. Until the connection with the rest of the network was ready, it was intended to transport trains to the main service depot in Barmbek by flatbed trucks for maintenance. Platforms and track beds for this stretch were completed in the stations Hauptbahnhof Nord and Jungfernstieg. Preparations for tunnel constructions were made in the area of Hamburg-Altona railway station and under the motorway A 7 in Bahrenfeld. In preparation for the junction with the U1, an extra platform was built at the new station Sengelmannstraße. All these constructions remain unused to this day.

The northern surplus platform area at Hauptbahnhof Nord is currently used for the art installation Sterne by Raimund Kummer and Stefan Huber. Here several concrete stars lie over the whole platform area as if they had fallen from the sky. At the same time the southern surplus platform area is still unused in any kind of way in 2018, displaying the station as it was opened in 1968 since changes in terms of advertising spaces, station signs etc. were never applied there. However, none of those two unused platforms are accessible as they are locked with fences. Today both unused platforms appear deteriorated and large segments of the wall coverings are missing, which is because the complete station already suffered from water damage in the 1970s (and, to a smaller extent, still frequently does so today) and it was necessary to remove those segments in order to fix the leaking ceiling and walls. This also had to be done at the U2 platforms, but as those have been in service, the coverings were mounted to the walls again after all repairs were finished.

Current projects
In 2015 major subway extension plans were published. They include
 * building a new branch from Horner Rennbahn to Horner Geest with two stations, transferring the eastern terminus of the U4 from Billstedt to the new branch terminus
 * building a whole new U5 line running from Osdorfer Born in the west of Hamburg to Bramfeld in the east via Uhlenhorst, representing a modified and extended version of the old U4 plans from the 1970s. The first part of the route is intended to be built between Sengelmannstrasse and Bramfeld between 2022 and 2028.

Original plans also called for the U4 to be extended southward to the S-Bahn station Harburg Rathaus via Wilhelmsburg, in order to provide a second rapid transit line to serve the south of Hamburg and relieve the busy S3/S31 that is - since its opening in 1983 - the only rapid transit service for the complete borough of Harburg and nowadays operates at its capacity limit. These plans are subject of discussions in 2018 still, no actual plans have been made so far. However, the new Elbbrücken station has been constructed in a way that allows a further extension of the line in the future.

Network
The Hamburg U-Bahn consists of four lines:

The line names U1 und U2 were introduced with the timetable change on 22 May 1966, the name U3 followed on 2 January 1967. Until the completion of the direct inner-city stretch, the future U2, on 3 June 1973, the partial services on the already completed eastern (Hauptbahnhof Nord − Berliner Tor (− Barmbek) since 29 September 1968) and western (Schlump − Gänsemarkt since 31 May 1970) sections were known as U21 and U22 respectively.

U4 project
Hamburger Hochbahn opened the new line U4 in November 2012. There had been an ongoing discussion about the costs and the benefit of this line, but the government of Hamburg decided to build it nevertheless. The underground line was dug using the same machinery as for the building of the new tunnel of the Elbe tunnel.

Services
Services operate with a 5 or 10-minute frequency with the exception of the northeastern peripheral branches of U1 that have a 10 or 20-minute frequency. During peak times the frequency is increased to 3/3/4-minute or even 2/3-minute patterns. Since the timetable change in December 2004 the U-Bahn operates an all-night, 20-minute service interval on Friday and Saturday nights. From Sunday to Thursday the U-Bahn operates from 4 am to about 1 am.

Hamburg Hauptbahnhof
Hamburg Hauptbahnhof is a central junction with the mainline railway, and, due to the confluence of all U-Bahn lines and all S-Bahn lines, an important interchange for suburban public transport as well.

Tunnels for the first underground railway were constructed at the same time as the Hauptbahnhof itself. The tunnels run underneath the mainline tracks, which are themselves below street level. The current U3 stops at this station, which, for more clarity, is now known as Hauptbahnhof Süd. There is also an underground pedestrian tunnel parallel to the U3 circle line tunnel, which allowed a quick connection to the mainline platforms until the major part of it was closed off in 1991. The remaining part of the tunnel can still be used today to reach the S-Bahn platforms.

The unusual width of the vaulted station is due to the fact that it originally housed four tracks; the Rothenburgsort branch, which was destroyed in World War II and never rebuilt, used to begin here. The inner tracks remained in service until the 1970s and were used to terminate additional service trains until the trackbeds were covered to create one wide instead of two narrow platforms. The tracks that led up the ramp to the decommissioned line were used as layup tracks during that time. In 1960 the tunnel leading to the ramp was cut off as the then-built U1 tunnel crosses right through it.

The tunnels for the U1 were driven under the mainline railway next to the U3 tunnels in 1959, the platform for the U1 lies directly south to the U3 and is accessible via the same station entrances.

The opening of the line U2 (U21 in 1969) lead to the construction of a further underground station Hauptbahnhof Nord to serve it. The station is 30 m below the surface; in the direction of the Jungfernstieg station, the tunnels pass under the Aussenalster, an artificial lake. The two outer platforms remain unused since their construction and were originally intended for a proposed U-Bahn line between Altona/Lurup and Winterhude/City Nord (see above).

Operating company
The system is owned and operated by the Hamburger Hochbahn (HHA), except the Garstedt – Norderstedt Mitte section, which is owned by the Verkehrsgesellschaft Norderstedt (VGN) but also operated by the Hamburger Hochbahn.

Rolling stock
The Hamburg U-Bahn uses standard gauge electric multiple units that run on third rail with 750 volts DC. The current fleet mostly consists of trains that had been developed from the 1950s to 1980s. In 2012, newly developed trains were introduced. A typical Hamburg U-Bahn train is made up of six (U3 line), eight or nine cars (all other lines). Trains with four cars can also be found during weekends or late nights.

Type DT3
The Type DT3 was introduced in 1968 to shorten the journey time on the U1 line. A total of 127 units were built from 1966 to 1971. 68 units were rebuilt from 1994 to 2001 and received a new front design, they are called DT3E (E = ertüchtigt = rebuilt, in this case). Six units (921–926) kept their original red front designed in the 1960s, they were equipped with LZB for semi-automatic operation between 1981 and 1985. The other 59 units were retired and scrapped due to structural issues and were replaced by new DT4 trains between 1995 and 2003, one unit (909) is being preserved to be restored and used as a museum train once all DT3 are retired. Between 2008 and 2011, most of the 68 remaining units received an interior refurbishing once again.

The prototype unit and the last built unit were converted to induction motors around 1980 (being called DT3-DAT from then), in order to test this new technology for the upcoming order of the new DT4 series. They operated in revenue service until 1989 and were scrapped in 1995 (932) and 2000 (931).

As the DT3 is currently the oldest train type in the system, new DT5 trains are replacing them since 2013 and retirement has started in late 2015. By July 2018 28 of once 127 DT3 trains are still in service, only running on additional rush-hour services as regular service ended in Summer 2017. All six DT3-LZB units were retired in December 2016 because of their rusting bodies and the worn-out interiors (no DT3-LZB received the 2008 redesign), they were scrapped together with several refurbished units in 2017.

10 units are being rebuilt once again at FWM in Hennigsdorf to serve as an operational reserve for about 10 more years. They receive small propulsion modifications, the interior redesign of 2008 (most of those units were not refurbished back then), improved departure signals and structural issues of the wearing car bodies are being fixed. The newly rebuilt cars are called "DT3N", in order to distinguish them from the regular DT3E cars as the technical modifications render electric coupling between both types impossible when running in revenue service.

Type DT4
The Type DT4 was introduced in 1988 to replace the Type DT1, most of the DT2 trains and some DT3 trains. The Type DT4 came with a more futuristic design, reduced noise, increased safety and greater economy than the older trains. A total of 126 units were built in six batches from 1988 to 2005. Due to the long construction span the batches slightly differ from each other in terms of interior and exterior design, propulsion and destination signs. Also the first two batches had doors operated by handles, which were replaced by buttons around 2004.

Since 2011 the older DT4 trains are being refurbished as the oldest units are almost 30 years old already, by July 2018 the first 50 of 126 units have been refurbished. Additionally the electrical equipment (including propulsion) of the units 141 and 143–150 has been replaced by the equipment used in the sixth and youngest batch in order to receive spare parts for the aging first two batches, making mixed usage of these units with any other batch than the sixth impossible as their propulsion is incompatible to the one used in older units.

Type DT5
The Type DT5 was introduced in 2012 to completely renew the current rolling stock. By July 2018, 89 of 118 planned units have been built and delivered. The Type DT5 is the first type of U-Bahn trains in Hamburg with air-conditioning and open gangways between the cars. More DT5 units were ordered than necessary for replacement of all DT2E and DT3E units, in order to enlarge the total number of cars in revenue service to be able to provide additional service in the future.

Type T/TU
The HHA Type T was introduced with the Hamburg U-Bahn itself. Nearly 400 cars were built from 1911 to 1943. Some cars were destroyed in World War II; these cars were rebuilt from 1947 to 1949 and signed as Type TU1. To raise the economy, another 100 cars were rebuilt from 1959 to 1961 and signed as TU2. The passenger service for the T/TU-type ended in 1970, some cars were converted to working service cars and were used until the 1980s. Five cars are preserved for museum rides, four of them in service and one awaiting restoration.

Type DT1
The Type DT1 was used from 1958 to 1991 in revenue service. A total of 100 cars (or 50 units) were produced. The Type DT1 had a much better acceleration than the T-type; however, their high energy consumption caused by their high weight left the Hamburger Hochbahn in dissatisfaction with the new trains, moving them into rush-hour service only in the 1970s. Most units were scrapped after their retirement while some cars were converted into working trains (retired in 2005) and three units were preserved for museum rides: The first one (516) was rebuilt between 1997 and 2000 and is used as a bar train that can be chartered for events. The second unit (512) awaits restoration until today, while the third unit (518) donates spare parts to both the other units. As the restoration of 512 has not begun by July 2018 (it is unknown whether the restoration will actually take place someday), 516 serves as the de facto DT1 museum unit.

Type DT2
The Type DT2 was introduced in 1962 to replace the Type T trains. After the experiences with the heavy DT1 trains they were constructed as light-weight cars with weaker engines to save energy. A total of almost 200 units were built from 1960 to 1966. Most of them also were rebuilt in the 1980s and 1990s as their lifespan was actually only intended to be 20–25 years. The refurbished units were called DT2E, however, only the last two of five batches received a full refurbishment together with a new front design. All cars of the first three batches were retired between 1997 and 2002, with the third batch already been taken out of service in 1994 as they slightly differed from the other units (also as only two of 15 DT2.3 were rebuilt). After the official retirement in 2004, 15 units remained in service as an operational reserve. Those were retired on 28 November 2015 after being replaced by new DT5 trains. One non-refurbished unit is preserved for museum rides but has not been sent into restoration yet (2018).

title: Hamburg U-Bahn


text:
User talk:Jmj1000

Frank Howard Upper Level RFK Home Runs
Good point. I just thought "many" was an overstatement. I changed it from "one" to "a few". That leaves it vague enough to allow further research. So, you were in RFK recently? How does it look? What kind of shape is it in? Is it ready for action? Did they finally figure out how to get the third base stands "un-stuck" from their left field location and reposition them behind 3rd base? Are the distance markers up? Do they still have that old scoreboard in right field? Here's an oddity for this old-timer: I recall 1961, when RFK (or DC) was new. The Polo Grounds (at least its final form) was about 40 years old, and was about to have its last gasp, for the Mets while they awaited the completion of Shea. Now those ballparks are some 40 years old. What will happen to RFK once the Nats are done with it? Will it still be used for soccer, et al? Or will it meet the wrecker's ball, as did the Polo Grounds? If it has been 34 years since you saw a game there, I'm thinking that revisiting it, in its baseball configuration, must be something like going back to your old high school, or maybe to an old house, or maybe even your parents' attic, decades after you last saw it. I always thought the stadium had a degree of elegance in its design, at least from a distance. But I've never been inside it, except through the eyes of the TV lens, years ago, like when the 'Skins played there.

I have also figured out why I don't much like the name "Washington Nationals". Its because each word has an "SH" sound in it, and it gets a little sloppy trying to say it. It might not be long before they get called the "Nats" more often and the "Nationals" less often. Just like the old days. Wahkeenah 12:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

News article Wilkerson's Historic Shot describes the first upper-level home run of 2005, along with some discussion of Frank Howard's accomplishments.

RFK pictures
Yes, I've been in RFK a few times for concerts, and now, twice in two weeks for Nationals games! See my Opening Night Flickr Set for recent photos. Also see the exhibition game Flickr Set. --Jmj1000 04:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opening night
I saw some photos on the Nats' MLB page that indicated some of what they had to go through. It looks like they entirely re-turfed the field, in addition to presumably "un-burying" the tracks that the rotatable seating section was on. I had heard some years ago that those seats were essentially "frozen in place". I gather that they are now "un-frozen".

Since you were actually at the games, can you confirm the outfield markers: 335-380-410-380-335? I thought for sure ESPN would cover last night's game, but NOOOOO, they had to cover yet another Yanks-BoSox clash. So all I got was the highlights. At least the game worked out well, but not all the signposts were visible.

FYI, my wife was an old Montreal Expos fan for whatever reason, and similarly we're hoping that the Nats have a decent year, given the abuse they've had to take from MLB in recent years. Wahkeenah 16:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About 20 years ago we were at a game at Wrigley with the Expos in town, and happened to be in box seats right behind the bullpen. We had some pleasant banter with the "enemy" players (from my standpoint as a Cubs fan). I can't figure out why these so-called fans get into fights with the players. However, we were sober, so that probably figured into it. Wahkeenah 17:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nationals discussion forum
I've been following the development of this team and the RFK renovations since January on ballparkguys.com forum. If you search the archives for "rfk construction", you'll find links to tons of photos of the renovation. The dimensions, from a Nats employee: Left field: 336 feet, Left-Center: 385 feet, Center Field: 410 feet, Right-Center: 385 feet, Right field: 336 feet, Backstop: 55 feet. See this post. I'll confirm the next time I'm in there. --Jmj1000 20:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Pretty cool, there are a lot of sites in Baltimore to take pictures of... and if you take one of the art museum visit the little house to its right, I think it's really cool. gren 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Take pictures of Baltimore for Wikipedia on September 21
Hello there! You are invited to attend Wikipedia Takes Baltimore on Saturday, September 21 at 1 PM. The goal of Wikipedia Takes Baltimore is to take pictures of nationally-recognized historic sites to upload to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have a camera (even a cell phone camera!), meet us on the north side of the Washington Monument on North Charles Street in Baltimore. Feel free to bring a car, too, since some of the sites are spread out. To learn more and sign up, see the event page. You can also RSVP on our Meetup page. I hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:American Visionary Arts Museum, Baltimore (ca. 2005).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Museum hacks and museum edits
 Hello there!

Upcoming events:

 * February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
 * February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
 * February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.hare@undefinedwikimediadc.org.

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more!
 Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:

 * Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
 * Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
 * Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
 * Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.

Regards,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing for Women's History in March
 Hello,

I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

 * Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
 * Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
 * An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
 * Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
 * In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
 * Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
 * Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
 * Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions in DC
 Hello!

Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:

 * Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
 * See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
 * Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
 * Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
 * Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
 * Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
 * Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
 * An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Cheers,

James Hare To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
 * On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
 * On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
 * On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
 * On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.  In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
 * On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
 * On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
 * On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

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

title: User talk:Jmj1000


text:
Dennis Johnson

Dennis Wayne Johnson (September 18, 1954 – February 22, 2007), nicknamed "DJ", was an American professional basketball player for the National Basketball Association's (NBA) Seattle SuperSonics, Phoenix Suns, and Boston Celtics. He was a coach of the Los Angeles Clippers and an alumnus of Dominguez High School, Los Angeles Harbor College and Pepperdine University.

A prototypical late bloomer, Johnson overcame early struggles and had a successful NBA playing career. Drafted 29th overall in 1976 by the Seattle SuperSonics, Johnson began his professional career as a shooting guard. He eventually led the Sonics to their only NBA championship in 1979 winning the Finals MVP Award. After three seasons with the Phoenix Suns, he became the starting point guard for the Boston Celtics, with whom he won two more championships. Johnson was voted into five All-Star Teams, one All-NBA First and one Second Team, and nine consecutive All-Defensive First and Second Teams. Apart from his reputation as a defensive stopper, Johnson was known as a clutch player who made several decisive plays in NBA playoffs history.

The Celtics retired Johnson's No. 3 jersey which hangs from the rafters of the TD Garden, the home arena of the team. The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame officially inducted Johnson to the Hall posthumously in 2010. He is considered by several sports journalists to be one of the most underrated players of all time.

Early life
Dennis Wayne Johnson was born the eighth of sixteen children, to a social worker and a bricklayer who lived in Compton, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Originally a baseball fan and a Little Leaguer, Johnson learned basketball from his father, but seemed to have neither the size nor the talent to compete with his peers: as a teenager at Dominguez High School, Johnson measured just 5'9" and played only "a minute or two each game". After high school, he worked several odd jobs, including a $2.75-per-hour job as a forklift driver, and played with his brothers in summer league games after work. During this period, Johnson grew to a height of 6'3", and developed what some later described as "rocket launcher legs", which enabled him to jump high to grab rebounds against taller opponents.

College career
Jim White, the coach at Los Angeles Harbor College, had watched Johnson play street basketball and felt that Johnson excelled in defense, so White asked him to enroll. Johnson gave up his jobs and developed into a promising young guard, averaging 18.3 points and 12.0 rebounds per game and leading Harbor to a college junior state title. However, the young guard lacked discipline, often clashed with White and was thrown off the team three times in two years.

At the end of his junior college career, two universities offered Johnson scholarships: Azusa Pacific University and Pepperdine University. Johnson chose the latter, and in his only year there, he averaged 15.7 points, 5.8 rebounds and 3.3 assists per game, and developed a reputation for tough defense. After that year, Johnson made himself eligible for the 1976 NBA draft, but was skeptical that any team would take him. NBA teams were wary of drafting a player with character issues, and Johnson was known to be a troublemaker.

Seattle SuperSonics (1976–1980)
The Seattle SuperSonics took Johnson in the second round of the 1976 draft with the 29th pick and gave him a four-year contract; he earned a salary of $45,000 in the first year and $90,000 in the last. In his rookie year, the 1976–77 NBA season, Johnson, playing backup to the experienced Sonics backcourt tandem of Slick Watts and Fred Brown, averaged 9.2 points and 1.5 assists per game. The Sonics finished with a 40–42 record and missed the 1977 NBA Playoffs, leading head coach Bill Russell to resign. In the following season, the team lost 17 of the first 22 games under Russell's replacement Bob Hopkins, who was replaced by Hall of Fame coach Lenny Wilkens, who gave Johnson a starting spot and paired him with Gus Williams. Johnson revelled in this new role, improving his averages to 12.7 points and 2.8 assists per game. During this period Johnson played shooting guard and was known for his aggressive slam dunking, in contrast to the more cerebral roles he played later in his career. It was at this time that Johnson's nickname "DJ" was coined by play-by-play announcer Bob Blackburn, to help distinguish him from teammates, John Johnson and Vinnie Johnson (whom Blackburn referred to as "JJ" and "VJ", respectively).

Finishing strongly, the Sonics ended the regular season with a 47–35 record and made the 1978 NBA Playoffs. After eliminating the Los Angeles Lakers, the defending champion Portland Trail Blazers, and the Denver Nuggets, they almost defeated the Washington Bullets by taking a 3–2 lead in the 1978 NBA Finals. In a 93–92 Game 3 victory, Johnson blocked seven shots—the most blocks in NBA Finals history for a guard. The Sonics lost in seven games, however, partly because of Johnson's Game 7 scoring drought, in which the second-year guard missed all of his 14 field goal attempts. Johnson later acknowledged that he simply "choked"; he vowed never to repeat this again and credited this game as an important lesson to become a better player.

Johnson and the Sonics got their revenge in the 1978–79 season. After clinching the Pacific Division with a 52–30 record, the team met the Bullets again in the 1979 NBA Finals. After losing Game 1, the Sonics won the next four games to take the finals series, helped by Johnson who averaged almost 23 points along with six rebounds and assists per game. He scored 32 points in a Game 4 overtime victory, and was named NBA Finals MVP. It was during this season that Johnson established himself as one of the best guards in the league; he averaged 15.9 points and 3.5 assists per game, and made his first All-Defensive First Team and All-Star Game appearance.

During the following season, Johnson averaged 19.0 points and 4.1 assists, appeared in his second All-Star Game and was named to the All-Defensive First Team and All-NBA Second Team. The Sonics, however, lost in the Western Conference Finals to the Lakers, who had Hall of Famers Jamaal Wilkes, Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Because of the abundance of talent on the Sonics team, Johnson later called this loss one of the worst disappointments of his professional career.

Coach Wilkens grew tired of Johnson, who often clashed with him and was perceived as a growing liability to the team. At the end of the season, Johnson was traded to the Phoenix Suns for Paul Westphal and draft picks. The Sonics' record was 22 games worse the next season despite the addition of Westphal.

Phoenix Suns (1980–1983)
Johnson further established himself as a quality player in Phoenix. In his three years as a Sun, Johnson averaged 14–20 points a game and provided tough defense. He played in two All-Star Games, was voted into three consecutive All-Defensive First Teams and earned his only All-NBA First Team appearance. In this period Johnson, like in Seattle, played shooting guard and became the main scorer on the team, as opposed to being the second or third option as a Sonic.

In the first two years of Johnson's stint, the Suns were fairly successful, reaching the Western Conference Semifinals both seasons. The Suns bowed out in the first round in Johnson's last year. Johnson's situation deteriorated towards the end of his career at Phoenix. Like in Seattle, he often clashed with his coach, John MacLeod, and finally was traded by general manager, Jerry Colangelo, to the Boston Celtics for Rick Robey and draft picks. Like Seattle after Johnson's departure, the Suns finished 12 games worse in the next season despite the addition of Robey.

Later in the height of Johnson's career, he would be one of multiple players implicated in a drug scandal that occurred during his time spent with the Suns, according to a mention by former teammate Johnny High, though Johnson vehemently denied using cocaine or any other illicit drugs during that period of time.

Boston Celtics (1983–1990)
Between the 1979–80 season and the 1981–82 season, the Celtics had lost to the Philadelphia 76ers in the Eastern Conference Finals two out of three times, mainly because physical Sixers guard Andrew Toney routinely caused problems for their defensively fragile backcourt. After subsequently getting swept by the Bucks in the 1982–83 Eastern Conference Semifinals, Celtics general manager Red Auerbach added the perennial All-Defensive Team member Johnson to his squad, hoping that Johnson would help the Celtics fare better in the Eastern Conference playoffs (particularly against the 76ers). Johnson joined a squad that included Hall of Fame forwards Larry Bird and Kevin McHale and Hall of Fame center Robert Parish, a trio that has been described as the best NBA frontcourt of all time. Johnson described joining the Celtics as a "dream come true" and enjoyed the tutelage of highly successful general manager Auerbach, who was "living history" according to Johnson.

With the Celtics Johnson changed his playing style for the third time in his career: after being known as a slam dunking shooting guard with the Sonics, and an all-around scorer with the Suns, he now established himself as a point guard who was defined more by playmaking than scoring. In his first year as a Celtic, he averaged 13.2 points and 4.2 assists and was elected to the All-Defensive Second Team. The Celtics reached the 1984 NBA Finals, where they met the Los Angeles Lakers, their intense rivals since the 1960s. The Celtics won 4–3, and Johnson took credit for playing smothering defense on Hall of Fame Lakers playmaker Earvin Johnson, limiting him to a sub-average 17 points in the last four games, and being at least partly responsible for several of the Laker point guard's game-deciding errors in Games 2, 4 and 7. As a result, Magic Johnson was taunted as "Tragic Johnson" whenever the Lakers and Celtics played against each other.

In the 1984–85 season, Johnson continued playing smothering defense, earning his next All-Defensive Second Team call-up while averaging 16.9 points and 7.3 assists per game. The Celtics met the Lakers in the 1985 NBA Finals again. Johnson's big moment came in Game 4: when the score was tied at 105, teammate Larry Bird had the ball in the last seconds. Being double-teamed by Lakers Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson, Bird passed to the open Johnson, and the guard sank a 19-ft buzzer beater to win the game. The Lakers, however, took their revenge this time, winning the series in six games, powered by venerable 38-year-old Finals MVP Abdul-Jabbar. Johnson described this loss as one of the toughest in his career, because the Celtics were "close [to winning the series]", but "could not get the job done".

In the following season the Celtics made the playoffs, helped by the performance of Johnson, who made the All-Defensive Second Team again while tallying 17.8 points and 6.7 assists per game. After defeating the Milwaukee Bucks in the Eastern Conference Finals, the Celtics reached the 1986 NBA Finals against the up-and-coming Houston Rockets, led by the "Twin Towers" of centers Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon. Led by Finals MVP Larry Bird, the Celtics beat the Rockets 4–2, and Johnson won his third title.

The Celtics were unable to repeat their title in 1987 despite several dramatic playoff victories. Johnson played strong defense again, earning yet another appearance on the All-Defensive First Team, and the Celtics embarked on a nail-biting playoff campaign. In the 1987 Eastern Conference Semifinals, the Celtics split the first six games against the Milwaukee Bucks. In the deciding Game 7, which the Celtics won, Johnson had a spectacular play with 1:30 left in the game: a Celtics ball threatened to fly out of bounds, but Johnson dived for it and whipped it backward in mid-air against Bucks center and former Sonics teammate Jack Sikma. The ball bounced off Sikma before going out of bounds, and the Celtics maintained possession.

In the next round the 1987 Eastern Conference Finals, the Celtics faced the Detroit Pistons. The series was described as a grudge match between two intense rivals, featuring a great level of personal animosity, sharp rhetoric, and several physical altercations. The center of this feud was Pistons pivot Bill Laimbeer, who brawled with Celtics players Bird and Parish. In Game 5 Johnson was involved in a crucial play: down 107–106, Larry Bird stole the in-bounds pass by Pistons point guard Isiah Thomas with 5 seconds left and passed it to a sprinting Johnson, who converted a difficult layup with 1 second left in the game. This play caused Celtics broadcaster Johnny Most to shout out one of his most famous calls: "Now there's a steal by Bird! Underneath to DJ who lays it in! Right at one second left! What a play by Bird! Bird stole the in-bounding pass, laid it up to DJ, and DJ laid it up and in, and Boston has a one-point lead with one second left! Oh my, this place is going crazy!!!"

According to Johnson this was his favorite play of all time. Games 6 and 7 also featured a feud, this time between Pistons forward Dennis Rodman and Johnson. In Game 6, which the Pistons won, Rodman taunted Johnson in the closing seconds by waving his right hand over his head. When the Celtics took Game 7, Johnson went back at Rodman in the last moments of the game and mimicked his taunting gesture. In the 1987 NBA Finals, however, the Celtics succumbed to the Los Angeles Lakers 4–2 as Lakers playmaker and Finals MVP Magic Johnson put up a great performance, averaging 26 points and 13 assists throughout the series.

The next three seasons were disappointing for the aging Celtics. In the 1987–88 season, Johnson averaged 12.6 points and 7.8 assists, but in the 1988 Playoffs, the Celtics were unable to beat the Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals. In the next season, Johnson (who statistically declined to 10.0 points and 6.6 assists per game) and his team made the 1989 NBA Playoffs on a meager 42–40 record (largely due to the absence of star forward Larry Bird for almost the entire season), but were immediately eliminated in the first round (again, largely due to the absence of the injured Larry Bird). The following 1989–90 NBA season was Johnson's last. The now 35-year-old playmaker relinquished his starting point guard role to younger John Bagley, but when Bagley dislocated his shoulder, Johnson returned with a high level of performance and was lovingly called "our glue man" by coach Jimmy Rodgers. In that season, Johnson started in 65 of his 75 games, averaging 7.1 points and 6.5 assists, but the Celtics failed to get past the first round of the 1990 NBA Playoffs.

Johnson retired after the Celtics did not offer him a new contract at the beginning of the 1991 season. During his retirement ceremony, his perennial Los Angeles Lakers opponent Magic Johnson telegraphed him lauding him as "the best backcourt defender of all-time". In addition Celtics colleague and triple NBA Most Valuable Player award winner Larry Bird called Johnson the best teammate he ever had.

Post-player career
After retiring as a player, Johnson worked as a scout for the Celtics. Johnson later worked as a scout for the Portland Trail Blazers.

Boston Celtics (1993–1997)
In 1993, he became an assistant coach for the Celtics, a position he held until 1997.

Los Angeles Clippers (2000–2003)
After spending several years outside the limelight, he returned as an assistant coach for the Los Angeles Clippers in 2000 and spent four seasons there. Johnson served as interim head coach after the departure of Alvin Gentry for 24 games near the end of the 2002–03 season.

Florida Flame (2004–2005)
In 2004, Johnson was named head coach of the NBA Development League's Florida Flame.

Austin Toros (2005–2007)
Johnson became head coach of the NBA Development League's Austin Toros the following season, holding the position until his death two years later.

Legacy
In 1,100 games, Johnson scored 15,535 points, grabbed 4,249 rebounds and gave 5,499 assists, translating to career averages of 14.1 points, 3.9 rebounds and 5.0 assists per game. Known as a defensive stalwart, he was elected into nine straight All-Defensive First or Second Teams. NBA legend George Gervin said in a podcast with journalist Bill Simmons that Johnson was the hardest defender he ever played against. Johnson is also acknowledged by the NBA as a "money player" who was clutch in decisive moments, such as scoring 32 points for his team in a Game 4 overtime victory in the 1979 NBA Finals, playing smothering defense on Magic Johnson in the 1984 NBA Finals, and converting a last-second layup in Game 5 of the 1987 Eastern Conference Finals after a Larry Bird steal.

Furthermore, Johnson is lauded by the NBA as a versatile all-around weapon who played with "contagious competitiveness" and was known for his durability: in 14 NBA seasons, he played in 1,100 of a possible 1,148 games and participated in 180 playoff games, the latter figure the 11th highest number of all time. At his retirement, Johnson was only the 11th NBA player to amass more than 15,000 points and 5,000 assists.

On December 13, 1991, the Celtics franchise retired his number 3 jersey. Johnson said he would always be a Boston Celtic, and remarked that seeing his number in the rafters gave him a "special feeling". However, Johnson did not live to see an induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, a fact that has been a considerable point of debate with sports journalists. Bill Simmons of ESPN called his Hall of Fame snub an "ongoing injustice", stating that according to him, Joe Dumars – a Hall of Famer known for strong defense rather than spectacular scoring, like Johnson – was no better [a basketball player] than him. Colleague Ken Shouler called Johnson "one of the first guys I'd give a Hall [of Fame] pass". Contemporary Boston Celtics Hall of Fame forward Larry Bird gave Johnson ultimate praise, calling him the best teammate he ever had in his autobiography Drive, which is especially significant considering Bird's teammates included Hall of Famers Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Bill Walton, and Tiny Archibald. On April 3, 2010, ESPN Boston reported that Johnson was posthumously elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame. This was officially confirmed two days later when the Hall released the list of 2010 inductees.

On October 26, 2007, a learning center was dedicated in Johnson's name in the Central Branch of the YMCA of Greater Boston. The center was made possible by the donations and effort of Larry Bird and M.L. Carr. Johnson's family, Danny Ainge, Carr, and members of the YMCA and local community were present for the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Donna Johnson said on behalf of her husband, "If Dennis were alive he would really appreciate the thought and love the idea of the Learning Center."

The NBA G League Coach of the Year Award is named after Johnson.

Personal life
Dennis Johnson was married to Donna, his wife of 31 years, and had three children named Dwayne, Denise, and Daniel. Johnson was also known for his appearance: he had freckles and red-tinged hair. Dennis's brother, Joey, is a former Arizona State Sun Devils basketball star. Johnson's nephews are Nick, who appeared in 37 games with the 2014–15 Houston Rockets after being drafted by them in the 2nd Round of the 2014 NBA draft, and Chris, who appeared briefly in four games with the 2013–14 Arizona Wildcats college basketball team.

On October 20, 1997, Johnson was arrested and detained overnight for allegedly holding a knife to his wife's throat and threatening his 17-year-old son. Johnson was later charged with aggravated assault and was ordered to stay away from his family. The prosecutors dropped the case several months later after his wife declined to press charges. Johnson reportedly went to counseling to repair his marriage.

Death
On February 22, 2007, at the Austin Convention Center, Johnson had a heart attack and collapsed at the end of the Austin Toros' practice. After being rushed to a nearby hospital, he could not be revived and was later pronounced dead. Johnson was survived by his wife and his children. Johnson's death was met with shock throughout the NBA. Among others, contemporary Celtics colleague Danny Ainge called him one of "the most underrated players of all time [...] and one of the greatest Celtics acquisitions," and one-time rival Bill Laimbeer called him "a great player on a great ballclub."

title: Dennis Johnson


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dantari

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dantari
Star wars trivia, too fine-grained. If anybody care they can transwiki to the star wars wikicity. Thue | talk 12:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd say to merge it per WP:FICT, but there isn't enough here to bother; it's currently speedyable as a very short article with no context. —Korath (Talk) 12:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to List of Star Wars races. Shimmin 13:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Star Wars races since the WP:FICT says to avoid deletion of fctional characters and races. Way too short for a separate article however. Sjakkalle 13:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Belongs in a list in some other article, not as its own. 11 Apr 2005.
 * Merge, as stated above. 2,240 Google results, but a few are false. Of course, there's really not a lot here to merge.-LtNOWIS 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Star Wars races. Megan1967 10:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dantari


text:
Black Sheep Brewery

The Black Sheep Brewery is a brewery in Masham, North Yorkshire, England.

History
The Black Sheep Brewery was established by Paul Theakston in 1991. Following a successful launch as a Business Expansion Scheme, it became a public limited company (plc) in 1992. Theakston had been managing director of Theakston Brewery, also in Masham, since 1968. He began at the age of 23, taking over from his father, Frank Theakston.

The Theakston Brewery was acquired by Matthew Brown following disagreements between members of the family and other shareholders. Scottish & Newcastle acquired Matthew Brown in 1987. Theakston left in 1988, and after a hiatus of more than a year purchased the North Yorkshire Malt Roasting Company, originally part of the former Lightfoot's brewery site, from an animal feed company, in order to start a new brewery in Masham.

Theakston wanted to use the Lightfoot name to bring back an old brewing tradition, but Scottish and Newcastle had already trademarked the name. The association of Masham with sheep led Theakston to come up with the name "Sheep Brewery" which became "Black Sheep" at his wife's suggestion. Much of the original brewing equipment came from the former Hartley's Brewery in Cumbria, whilst the slate Yorkshire squares and the yeast strain, in use since at least the early 1920s, came from the recently closed Hardys & Hansons brewery in Nottingham.

Production
Black Sheep Best Bitter was first sold at the Bruce Arms in Masham.

The brewery produces a range of well-hopped bitters, to distinguish itself from Theakston's range of fruity and yeasty beers. The brewery quickly became successful, and now produces over 75,000 barrels a year.

In 2008, the brewery launched Draught Golden Sheep, a blonde cask beer with a citrus-hop flavour. It remains a seasonal brew. This, like all Black Sheep beers and indeed the brewing plant itself was created by Paul Ambler, Head Brewer since 1992 and later Operations Director. Paul Ambler has now retired. Comments Paul Theakston, "Over the years, Paul Ambler has been a fierce champion of the quality of our beer, which is the keystone of our success". Nevertheless, a growing share of its sales is in on-cask form.

All bottled beers brewed by the Black Sheep Brewery are suitable for both vegetarians and vegans.

Finance
The brewery has capitalised on its popularity by converting unused parts of the original maltings into a visitors centre from which tours of the brewery are conducted. In 1996, it served as host to an episode of the Two Fat Ladies cooking programme which was broadcast the following year.

For the first 15 years it paid its shareholders, including many real ale enthusiasts, steadily rising dividends. However it has since been forced to retrench, and has paid no dividend for several years. It is one of the largest shareholdings of the CAMRA Members' Investment Club.

On 2 May 2023 the company announced that it was to go into administration as it lacked the cashflow needed to survive increased costs since the COVID pandemic.

On 26 May 2023 Black Sheep was bought out of administration by London based investor Breal Group with an expectation that it would continue to produce Black Sheep beers and protect jobs.

Cask beers

 * Special Ale, 4.4% (Sold as Black Sheep Ale in bottles)
 * Best Bitter, 3.8%. The brewery's best-known product, available at a large number of pubs in the UK.
 * Riggwelter, 5.9%
 * Black Sheep Blonde, 3.7%
 * Respire, Fresh Session IPA, 4.0%

According to the website, "...Riggwelter takes its name from the local Yorkshire Dales dialect – when a sheep is on its back and can't get up without help, local dialect says it is riggwelted. This dialect word comes from the old Viking words: 'rigg'(rygg) meaning back and 'velte' to overturn (the words and their meaning are still largely the same in the modern North Germanic languages). Riggwelter is also popular in Sweden, being in the top 20 of bottled ales sold in that country.

Bottled beers

 * Black Sheep Ale (formerly Special Ale in cask form), 4.4%
 * The Monty Python "Trilogy":
 * Monty Python's Holy Grail Ale, 4.7% – a golden ale
 * Monty Python's Flying Circus, 4.5% – an IPA
 * Brian, 3.9% – a pale ale
 * Riggwelter, 5.7%
 * Golden Sheep, 4.7% – originally produced specially for Tesco, as part of their "Finest" range
 * Yorkshire Square Ale, 5.0% – named after a particular fermentation system originated over 200 years ago using double decked vessels called "squares" made of slate or stone. The brewery stopped using the slate squares 10 years ago and replaced them with modern stainless steel round equivalents. The label's distinctive square sheep icon and sunset background was designed by Middlesbrough born artist Mackenzie Thorpe.
 * Imperial Russian, 8.5% – special brew porter
 * All Creatures "Bright and Beautiful", 4.0% – brewed in celebration of the famous veterinary character James Herriot
 * Velo, 4.2% – Originally brewed in 2014 to celebrate the Grand Départ of the Tour de France in Yorkshire, which passed the gates of the brewery

title: Black Sheep Brewery


text:
Template talk:Structural evolution of the European Union

SEA
I have added Single European Act in 1987.

The Timeline is wrong. The European Union didn't start until the Treaty on European Union or Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1992

Hard to understand
This chart is rather hard to understand. Some squares are unlabelled, some entities appear twice, and it's unclear what entities merged off of or joined with others vs. what jurisdictions they had. -- Beland 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the image cleanup tag. The chart appears to be significantly improved since the tag was placed. Dread Pirate Westley• Aargh  23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Euratom
Euratom didn't come into effect until 1957, unlike the chart shows, but I don't know how exactly to change it. 68.40.190.93 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ECSC
The ECSC lasted until 2002 now it looks like it ended in year 2000.Benkeboy 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New design
Absolutely wonderful. — Nightstallion 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Title bar needed
This table badly needs a title bar to explain what it is. My attempts have failed miserably so I've walked away rather than risk ruining it. --Red King (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This template is mostly used as in-text illustration, and the surrounding text in the various articles should explain and introduce this timeline with a colon, IMO. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement
As somebody introduced the Western European Union I think its' necessary to introduce also the Schengen Agreement! Can somebody do it? Sinigagl (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Schengen is only one part of the cooperation, like the euro. The WEU is a separate organisation. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? The Schengen Agreement has been inserted in the TEC from the Treaty of Amsterdam and called Schengen acquis. It is part of the european integration: before there were separate institutions, then everything is done by the EU institutions.
 * There should be a new bar beginning in 1985 and going into the European Community bloc beginning from 1999.
 * In fact WEU should not be disappearing while going into the EU in the graph: as you told it's still a separate working institution.
 * Sinigagl (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the WEU remains in the timeline! It's just that the Amsterdam Treaty moved some of its elements under the EU's CFSP. The Schengen acquis is not, and has never been an organisation, no matter under which circumstances it was formed. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably I'm not so capable to explain.
 * For sure Schengen was an organization: it had an Executive Committee which has been created under the agreement from 1985 (actually from 1990) to 1999. But even if it was not an organization this is not the point: Schengen is a piece of EU evolvement.
 * Just like the WEU. What I wanted to say was that the Weu bar should not disappear as it does now from 1999: it should remain a (thinner) band, because WEU it's still working, even if some part of it has been taken by the EU's CFSP.
 * Sinigagl (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh.. Are you using Internet Explorer? That browser messes up the table. In Opera and Firefox, the WEU bar is still there after 1999, just thinner. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. But what about Schengen? Sinigagl (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ECSC & Euratom
The recent changes look good, and I think its good the WEU is there, in particular the better grouping of "European Communities". However after that I don't think it makes clear that the other two communities were operated by the EEC - while they were separate, it make it look like they were totally autonomous.- J Logan t: 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the pillar
While it all looks great now, Euratom and ECSC were/are part of the EC pillar,* they may all have their own little area but they are technically all part of the same European Community and this doesn't reflect that. It looks like they are totally detached from the EU and the Community method.- J Logan t: 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Not really. The EU was built on the European (Economic) Community, and expressly not the other two. This can be quite confusing because prior to Maastricht the words "European Community" were commonly used to refer to the European Communities, but Maastricht renamed one of the communities, the European Community and left the other two mostly untouched.

 * This kind of links in with what I'm saying on the European Communities Talk page. Legally speaking the European Communities still exists, in the sense that there are still legally distinct communities (the EC and Euratom) which share the same institutions. Rather than showing the European Communities as ending with Maastricht, I proposed to show them along with the EU pillars as two overlapping semi-squares. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unintelligible
It took me a long time to figure out that this timeline was not saying that the EU does not exist, and even then I could only figure it out because I knew that to be false. A naive reader would think that the EC was founded some time after the Maastricht Treaty, and that the EU is scheduled to come into being perhaps in 2009. The Czech timeline is much clearer. This really needs to be cleaned up. (In the meantime I labeled the dates of the founding of the EC and EU.) kwami (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new version
I realise it a little squashed but this better reflects the time passed between the treaties. It also gives more emphasis to the EU, so that people like the user above won't say we're trying to say the EU doesn't exist. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't say you were trying to say the EU doesn't exist, I was saying that a naive reader will take your chart to state that the EU might be founded in 2009, with the Lisbon treaty. Your version isn't any better. You have "EU pillars" at 1993, but there are two probs: 1. how is the reader supposed to know that means the same thing as "European Union" without first reading the article? (which many people won't do: that's why we have charts!)—I mean, if that's the case, then according to the chart there's also been an organization around since 1967 called "EuroComms"—and 2. the letters are struck out, " EU pillars ", so as to be almost illegible at first glance.

 * IMO what we need for easy comprehension is a continuous area of blue from 1993 that is clearly marked "European Union", with "pillars" parenthetical. kwami (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Could you give me an idea of what you think it shoudl look like? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure, which is why I simply tagged 1993 as "(EU founded)", but here's a suggestion that might be of some use:
 * The "pillars" column should go. It appears to be something other than the EU because it is a separate block of color. (Yes, the same color, but how often have you wondered whether two discontinuous colors on a map are really the same or not?) Also, the vertical text format is bad, unless you can override the underscoring, because each underscore strikes out the letter beneath it. I suppose an EU row above the pillars—something like "European Union (↓pillars↓)", maybe?—that forms a solid blue space with the post-Lisbon era so that it's clear these are the same thing. (For 1967, just overriding the underscoring should be sufficient IMO.)
 * Then of course we'd have the lesser problem (as we have now) of the EU appearing to be distinct from the pillars, but maybe your current solution of arrows and a runner of blue framing the pillars is sufficient to clarify that it's not.
 * And my suggestion would disrupt the continuity of the EEC → EC. Are they currently meant to be the same entity under different names, which graphically they appear to be? I wouldn't want to mess that up, but don't have an idea that would allow us to do both. kwami (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually never mind, I withdraw my proposed changes. What we really need is an image. The table is impossible to edit and really limiting. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 * It looks pretty good to me now. Very clear. I'd only recommend some minor touch ups, such as the eliminating the blank space after coal & steel, adding the missing EU outline under CFSP, and perhaps adding a gap between EURATOM and EEC so that the EU pillars don't take a bite out of the EEC in the transition to the EC (not sure if the latter would be an improvement or not). But even as it stands, I think it's clearly superior to what we now have. kwami (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I made a couple touch ups to your sandbox. Are they an improvement? kwami (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Display issues
Has anyone else noticed how this template looks when it's printed? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well it looks like this:

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Almost two years on and this issue has yet to be addressed. Turning this template into an svg images should seriously be considered. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Years changed

Someone changed the years. The Treaty of Paris (1951) is now listed in the year it came into force (1952). This is irritating. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I realise the Treaty of Paris is the "1951 Treaty of Paris" and not the "1952 Treaty of Paris", but otherwise the date a treaty was signed is of relatively little value. Similarly the EU and its pillars were created in 1993 not 1992. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Who told you this? Just read Wikipedia. Header Maastricht Treaty: "This article is about the European Union treaty of 1992." And can't you remember EU celebrates 50th birthday two years ago? --Kolja21 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

EU founded in 1948?
First the dates have been changed, now the year 1948 (Treaty of Brussels) was added. What's the benefit of destroying the international version of the timeline? It's troublesome that the English-speaking Wikipedia gets its own EU history, different from all other languages/countries. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done
Wow. Impressive use of WikiMedia tables! --Rebroad (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes
Hi, Ssolbergj. There are certain things that don't look good with your latest changes:

 * The text looks crushed in some of the fields: EPC, "Unconsolidated bodies", Pillars.
 * The text spacing is not the same in all fields, which looks strange.
 * The total width of all columns is now 103% (plus the new "shading columns") which some browsers don't render correctly.
 * Removing the cellpadding entirely makes things hard to read, especially since the years and the names of the treaties are squashed straight to the grey lines without any space.
 * The abbreviations in the treaties line are a loss of information. Especially "EU est." is not understandable at all for a first time reader. The height of the whole chart shouldn't be a problem; if there's a 'compactness problem' at all, then in the width of the chart. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem to write out the treaties in full.
 * The grey lines were purposely only drawn to the bodies they are relevant for. E.g. the Treaty of Paris has nothing to do with the "unconsolidated bodies", therefore the line should not extend down to the bottom but only to the ECSC. The same applies to the Treaties of Rome and the Merger Treaty.
 * The background of the template shouldn't be white but transparent. Otherwise it interferes with some users' personal colour settings.
 * While the shading on the right is a nice idea generally, there's a problem with the "pix.gif" image. It leaves an artifact the middle of the field (at least with Internet Explorer). Is there no way to get the shading effect without using an image?

I'd like to fix the above problems or at least find a reasonable compromise. Any objections? --Informatico (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree than spacing, line-height and padding should be uniform where it's appropriate. Nevertheless, I think the overall design should be as compact as reasonably possible.
 * The ideal thing is of course to have width sum of 100%. In this case, the number did perhaps surpass 100 when I was trying to make the shading fields work. Let's fix it if we can, but I don't see what harm it does to the rendering, especially since "width=100%" is specified in the top of the table anyway (doesn't that override the sum of other widths?)
 * I agree, the treaty names should have some padding to their left. The same might go for the years, but I don't think they look bad at all right now.
 * I think most people will understand that "EU est." means "EU established". When you start introducing the long and formal names of the treaties (e.g. "Treaty of European Union" in addition to the short name), it creates an unnecessary inconsistency when you e.g. just as well can write simply "EU est."
 * Ah, alright now I see what you meant by removing some of the gray lines. Originally they were meant as "points in time" marking each treaty on the timeline. I'm not so sure the system of "drawing to the bodies they are relevant for" works very well in practice; especially since it's impossible to do it in the part of the timeline where there is no white space.
 * Could you elaborate on what you said about "some users' personal colour settings"? Isn't the background of wikipedia articles always white?
 * If I knew how to remove the "pix.gif" image successfully, I'd do it. But the table seems fine in my IE.
 * Additionally, I'd like to say that compactness is of course an important aspect. It has to do with accessability (e.g. for smaller screens) above all. There should be as few line-breaks as possible. But one should also take into consideration how this timeline is pasted into tens of articles almost as a "see also" collection of wikilinks, and not for the sake of having a big, centrepiece illustration. The timeline should look nice, but as compact and small as reasonably possible IMO. - SSJ ☎ 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I just saw your latest changes and the 'shading' looks much better now. I found out what the problem was: it wasn't the 1x1 pixel image but rather the "|" after the image. It was just so small (because of the "font-size:0" you also removed) that it wasn't bigger than a pixel or so.

 * What I still think is ugly is that the font lines are so cramped in several fields. Especially the 'PILLARS' field is hardly readable anymore. It would be better to restore the line-height to the original values (1.2em) in all fields and reduce the font-size instead in some fields (for instance the headlines). What I don't understand: if compactness is really such an issue, why did you foil that by increasing the font-size of the headlines?

 * As for your questions:

 * If the sum of the percentages is bigger than 100%, the field that surpasses the 100% will be shortened in some browsers. In IE, you can see that Lisbon is smaller than Amsterdam or Nice although they have the same percentage.

 * The &nbsp; to the left of the years etc. makes the proportions incorrect since now the space to the left is too big. It would be better to use a sensible padding value instead -- since that's what padding is there for typographically. (The same applies to all fields with text inside as even though the text is centered, it may touch the edges of the fields if the browser window is resized to certain values.)

 * I don't insist in using the formal names (I agree with the inconsistency argument) of the treaties but I don't think that abbreviations such as "Agr.", "est." or even "SEA" provide enough information, especially if the chart is printed out and one cannot hover the mouse over it to see where the link would go. It would be better to write out the names in full if there is not just a "Treaty" or "Treaty of" missing (which would not create inconsistencies) and to find another solution for Maastricht. One way to solve the problem might be to write "EU" instead of "PILLARS". This would also tackle the compactness issue you're worried about since it would require less vertical space even with sensible font-size and line-height settings (as I said, the "PILLARS" field is hardly readable at the moment).

 * I don't insist in the grey lines to be drawn only to the relevant bodies, but at least they must be drawn everywhere where there is white space. By removing the " " bits, several of the empty fields don't show the border correctly anymore in some browsers. (I had corrected that in my last version but now it's broken again.)

 * Users can define their own stylesheets for Wikipedia which may use other backgrounds than white.

 * --Informatico (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * If the extra 3% (or something) in width messes up the rendering in some browsers, then we should obviously get rid of them. With that being said, I think it would make enough sense to have a smaller width for Lisbon, as it is the latest treaty, has just come into force, plus the fact that writing "European Union (EU)" requires relatively little space.
 * What do you mean by "headlines"?
 * Yes, I did consider using style="padding-left:2px" instead of, but the latter takes less space (i.e. tidier code) and the difference wouldn't be that big. Perhaps padding-left would be better though.
 * I would have agreed with you if we were talking about some obscure abbreviations. But I think "Paris Agr." and "EU est." simply cannot be misunderstood in this context. "Est." is for instance extremely common. "SEA" should perhaps be replaced with "Single Act" (often used name).
 * What browser are you using? "Pillars" looks good to me both in Opera, Firefox and IE.
 * Please, do write background:none into the code if you want to, but IMHO, transparent vs. white for the wiki users who are using special stylesheets must be one of the least important reasons to write additional code. And I don't see the point if one can't adjust the transparency of the "shading" fields.
 * - SSJ ☎ 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I fixed the widths.
 * Headlines = the first 3 lines (signed, in force, treaty).
 * I'll try and fix (and harmonise) the padding tomorrow.
 * Single Act is OK, but I still don't understand why a second line would be a problem (especially as also the "EU est." breaks onto a new line if the browser window is too small - so it wouldn't really make a difference anyway).
 * I use IE 8 with Windows XP. Strangely, on Vista (also with IE 8) the borders are displayed correctly also if the cell is empty.
 * I don't really mind about the background thing. The font sizes and padding are more important to fix. As for the pillars (and some other fields): if you mark the text, no line should be "overshadowed" by the subsequent line; the same applies to the underlining of the link (if you hover the mouse over it) which shouldn't interfere with the following lines. Otherwise the lines are just too close to each other, which is a typographical nightmare. I'll have a go at fixing that tomorrow where it's wrong.
 * --Informatico (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course "Maastricht (EU est.)" breaks into two lines on a small enough screen, but that could be said of any piece of text in this template. It does make a difference that we choose shorter options: it reduces the number of line breaks on smaller screens. I don't believe anyone thinks that a line break is beautiful per se, and I just wrote why I think compactness (e.g. fewer line breaks) is important with regard to accessibility etc.
 * I don't think potential "overshadowing when marked" and "interfering underlining when the mouse hovers over the link" override what I consider to be the only essential requirement: that the letters themselves don't overlap. There is no Wikipedia policy on this, so please don't write as if something simply "is wrong". Let's discuss it instead. If you think the letters are too close, then that's an honest opinion, but it's not a given rule that  ' text shall not overshadow when marked '  etc.
 * Where do you want "harmonisation"?
 * - SSJ ☎ 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * By "wrong" I didn't mean a specific Wikikedia policy but some simple rules of Typography which existed long before Wikipedia.
 * I do understand your compactness argument, but it just makes no sense to me to remove the padding of the cells and to reduce the line-height, if on the other hand, you foil the gained compactness by other changes such as:
 * increasing the font size of the 3 headlines and making the treaty names bold
 * adding the "shading" rows on the right
 * adding the timeline marks on the bottom
 * Don't get me wrong: I think that the latter two changes make the chart look better. But not if the price for that is that the core information (the cells with the actual text) is made worse.
 * My suggestions for harmonising the layout: First the "must-have"s:
 * changing the line-height to 1.2em in all cells where there is text
 * changing the cell-padding to 1px in all cells where there is text
 * removing the &nbsp; pseudo-padding in the headlines
 * On that basis there would be several possibilities to play with in order to gain compactness, for instance:
 * changing the width of Merger and Single Act (now 12% / 12%, might be 7% / 17% or so) to get the EPC field less high
 * reducing the font-size in the 3 headlines
 * reducing the font-size of "Treaty of Paris expired in 2002" and "Unconsolidated bodies" to 95% so that they require less space if broken onto two lines (this would also better distinguish them from the "real" organisations)
 * or similar. I think there are enough ways to make the chart more compact without crushing the text and making it look typographically bad.
 * --Informatico (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the whole thing if these line-height adjustments can be as they are. I don't think a line-height of 85% in these places give a typographical nightmare. Are you OK with this as a compromise? - SSJ ☎ 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * What kind of "compromise" would that be? It's even more crushed than before! Now the EPC has no space between the lines at all anymore with Internet Explorer 8. What kind of browser or screen are you using? I don't see how 20 pixels height more or less can be a problem. Unless you're trying to squeeze the chart onto an iPhone or something like that.

 * Line-heights shouldn't be percentages at all but always a typographical unit such as "em" or similar.

 * As you seem to try to squeeze the EPC field as much as possible (for some reason I don't understand), I've now abbreviated it. You know I don't like these kinds of abbreviations, but that's still better than having no space at all between the lines . --Informatico (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The abbreviation is bad and inconsistent with the rest, let's drop it.
 * Em is used across the template now. line-height:0.95em for "pillars" looks fine in IE8, Opera and Firefox. There is at least one pixel between the letters. One of the reasons why 0.95em is needed here is because normal line-height stretches out the height of the EPC field drastically (looks terrible in Opera for example).
 * - SSJ ☎ 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Alright, the pillars still look cramped to me in IE 8 but it's on the brink of what's still acceptable. By "having no space between the lines" I didn't mean the pillars but the EPC -- which now finally looks like all the other fields (i.e. OK). In exchange I'll accept the pillars as they are now. --Informatico (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The WEU
I guess the real question is: how important the WEU is to the EU and does it really deserve the same amount of space as it given to the European Economic Community? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Firstly, I'd like to say that if we are to have the WEU in this template, we should definitely not exclude the Treaty of Brussels. The Treaty of Brussels appears to be the entire essence of the WEU today.

 * Trying to decide how much space one element "deserves" in relation to the rest will get us nowhere I think, but I can see what you mean. This template clearly doesn't have a scope that includes all of European integration. The pan-European Council of Europe is for example not included (and nor should it IMO). The WEU did however start off with a more exclusive membership, very similar to the ECSC. The weak beginning of the WEU wouldn't have been included in this template if the organisation and the treaty had disappeared early on. The systematic integration of the WEU into the EU system that began with Amsterdam does however IMO justify the inclusion of the WEU in this template. Even more so considering some drastic further integration into the EU/disintegration of the WEU might happen very soon WEU. - SSJ ☎ 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the WEU should be kept for the above reasons. I wouldn't mind too much if the Brussels Treaty went and the chart started with 1951/2. But I don't think that's essential unless one were worried about the space available in the chart (which I don't think is a problem).

 * But there's another factual error still included in the chart, which should be corrected sometime soon. The first pillar of the Maastricht EU was not just the European Community but the European Communities. Currently, the chart looks like the European Communities ended with Maastricht, which is not true -- they existed until Lisbon entered into force.

 * Article A of the original (1992) version says: "The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by this Treaty."

 * I'm still pondering how to best include that in the chart without making it too cluttered or too big. --Informatico (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all of Maastricht, but your quote doesn't seem to indicate that the "European Communities" was a pillar like the CFSP and JHA were. - SSJ ☎ 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * That's what the Maastricht Treaty says and what was common practice until Lisbon. The first pillar was all three (resp. two after the ECSC expired) communities, not just the EC formerly known as EEC. The European Communities legally existed until two months ago; most institutions, such as the Commission, were officially called "... of the European Communities". The Maastricht Treaty itself also refers to all three communities throughout. Therefore saying that the first pillar was just the European Community rather than the entire European Communities is not correct. --Informatico (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Regarding WEU, it perhaps warrants inclusion above CoE as it is related to the evolution of the system where as CoE has been static and separate. Whether it has the same space as EEC is besides the point, this is a graphical representation, not indicating how important each is. However, it would help to clarify things if we had more data on the current status of the WEU. News as dried up entirely and their own website is dead - can't even find out the interim SG. If it is in there though, I agree Brussels should be mentioned.- J.Logan`t : 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has literally been no news released on the internet regarding the WEU since EUobserver's article on the future of the Brussels Treaty. Our next opportunity to get an update will perhaps be the official statement after the next formal European Council meeting. I'd also like to ask a journalist to find out when Franco Frattini and other leaders will do what they've said and launch enhanced cooperation in defence. - SSJ ☎ 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can now let it go away quietly by having its stripe end on 31 March 2010... — Nightstallion 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New layout
I have updated the chart to correct the first pillar of the Maastricht/Amsterdam/Nice (MAN in the following) EU. The new layout has the following improvements compared to the previous one: --Informatico (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is now visible that the European Communities existed until Lisbon came into force, and that they (as a whole) constituted the first pillar of the MAN EU.
 * Due to the different shades of blue one can see that the MAN EU and the Lisbon EU are two totally different legal constructions (the former was an 'umbrella' for the 3 pillars whereas the latter is an organisation on its own).
 * It is clearly visible now that Maastricht founded the EU, therefore the (EU est.) is no longer needed, which makes the 'treaties line' more consistent.
 * By removing the 'vertically printed' pillars column, we get rid of a lot of problems with font sizes, line heights etc., as well as the problem that the appearance varies significantly in different browsers.
 * The arrows now indicate the individual pillars, at the beginning and at the end of the MAN era.

 * Does this not now show EURATOM being part of the EU until 2009 and then separate from it? If it was part of the EC pillar in 1993, then surely it is as integrated now as it was then?- J.Logan`t : 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 * EURATOM is still an organisation of its own that is legally separate from the EU (although they share the same Commission etc.). The same applied to the MAN era, where EC and EURATOM (and ECSC) were legally separate organisations. The "European Communities" were an umbrella term for EC, ECSC and EURATOM. On top of that, the MAN EU was an umbrella term for the European Communities and the other two pillars (CFSP and JHA/PJCC not being organisations but intergovernmental policies).

 * The Lisbon EU is now an organisation with a legal personality. It is the legal successor of the EC. On top of that, the policies of the 2nd and the 3rd pillar were integrated into the Lisbon EU.

 * Therefore, EURATOM is not part of the EU, just linked to it. There is, however, no umbrella term anymore that would describe both the Lisbon EU and EURATOM. --Informatico (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement
Should we add the Schengen Agreement? It is listed in the Template:EU treaties and declarations. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See also above. Alinor (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * slight error i think. It should been absorbed in the European community, not the CFSP.--217.112.177.211 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite know why I assumed it was incorporated into the CFSP. But I guess you are right; I'll change it. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

 * Try Justice and Home Affairs. In any event the actual Schengen rules originate form 1995 when Schengen was put into effect and not 1985 when the initial agreement was signed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi. Can I suggest that the final column on the right be widened? It now covers a period of 5 years, but appears very narrow compared to a similar column, such as the Single European Act (6 years). Maybe the same width as Maastricht? The way it is now, it looks like it hasn't been updated. Just a suggestion! Thanks. 86.163.28.35 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

JHA to PJCC
Article claims the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar changed to the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) in 2003, however the timeline conversely indicates this happened in 1999. 81.106.49.232 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Border
I don't see why a border should be put around the timeline. It is already big enough as it is, taking screen sizes into account. Adding a border would, for the sake of aesthetics, require some extra margin, which would make the timeline even more cramped. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Any element which isn't part of the article text should be offset somehow. We use borders to separate content from any other type of diagram; there's no reason to make an exception here. Diagrams that use template markup are an inaccessible mess anyway (we should have gotten rid of them a long time ago) and already get a border on mobile, so this is a small readability win until they're converted into a more sensible format. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the notion that "Any element which isn't part of the article text should be offset somehow". It's not true that "We use borders to separate content from any other type of diagram". File:Political System of the European Union.svg is shown in EU without a border, and I think it looks quite nice. In academic literature figures, often with a white background, generally just have a number and a caption, not necessarily a border. The "thumb" is not always necessary or needed IMO. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 * You're using an image with text embedded in it as an example? That's quite obviously wrong. Nonetheless, this is too much of a mess to bother with simple fixes; it'll need a complete rewrite, and I haven't time for that right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

JHA not same as PJCC
Parts of JHA (border controls, visa policy, asylum etc.) turned into EC through the Treaty of Amsterdam. Currently it looks like PJCC contained the same things as JHA, but it didn't. Can someone correct the template? Thanks, --Glentamara (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Referencing errors caused by this template
This template causes referencing errors in Common Security and Defence Policy because that article defines its own footnote with efn. Those definitions get sucked into the notelist produced by this template, then are undefined in the artilcle. This template includes no documentation, so I can't know how the authors of the template intended it to be used without causing problems in including articles.

What is the correct fix? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have created a fix that relieves the issue in the Common Security and Defence Policy. I had hoped that a specially-named group would fix the issue, but groups can only be of a certain set because the group name also influences the visual representation of the footnote. Instead, I've changed the template to use  footnotes, which  seem seldomly used throughout the encyclopedia.  This gives the footnotes here their own namespcae, so the notelist invocation the template generates won't interfere with footnotes in the including article ... as long as that article doesn't itself use   footnotes. This templtae doesn't have any documentation, so I'll add some that explains this limitation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)