text:
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation

The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), formerly the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), is a United States Department of Defense (DoD) field activity and provides technical and financial assistance to states, territories, and communities that are invested in the defense mission. OLDCC assistance supports the readiness and resiliency of both defense installations and defense communities.

To assist affected communities, OLDCC manages and directs the Defense Economic Adjustment Program and coordinates the involvement of other federal agencies.

History
Founded in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), later the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), was tasked with mitigating the adverse impact on jobs and local economies after a government cost-reduction program closed several military bases. In the late-1960s and early-70s, OEA opened regional offices in major cities nationwide to facilitate federal grant deliveries.

In the 1980s, OEA phased out categorical grants (grants with specific categories upon which they can be spent) in favor of block grants (grants with few or no conditions on spending). Regional assistance waned and all offices not on the West Coast were shuttered. No major military bases were closed during the 1980s. In 1988, a new base closure statute was enacted, which was designed to shield the process from political manipulation (Pork barrel politics, i.e. congresspeople ensuring bases in their states or districts remain open for political gain). The law set up a bipartisan commission that channeled base recommendations to the president; approximately 100 bases were closed and 50 realigned.

As a result of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process developed in the late-1980s and 1990s, OEA provided support to many local communities amidst defense industry cutbacks. OEA's success served as a model for communities within former Soviet States and new Eastern European countries to better cope with reductions in military spending brought about by the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In 2013, military operations partially subsided as a result of budget sequestration (spending cuts) imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, harming Defense Department-dependent states and communities. Seeking to avert similar economic slowdowns, OEA Director O'Brien began issuing the “Defense Spending by State” report to help state and local leaders cope with potential loss of Defense contracts through economic diversification or technological innovation and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta pledged continuing aid to affected communities.

The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA FY2021) included a provision (Section 905) that amended Chapter 4 of Title 10 of the United States Code to rename OEA the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC). The provision took effect upon enactment of the Act on January 1, 2021.

Executive Order 14008, issued by President Joe Biden in early 2021, added addressing climate change to OLDCC's goals.

Operations
The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation provides technical and financial assistance (referred to as economic adjustment assistance) to states and local communities supporting the mission of the Department of Defense. Such aid is intended to enhance the resiliency and readiness of defense installations and their surrounding communities.

Economic adjustment assistance provides a community-based context for assessing economic hardships caused by DoD program changes by identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, identifying resource requirements, and assisting in the preparation of an adjustment strategy or action plan to help communities help themselves. Public and private partnerships are employed in areas such as public infrastructure to help local communities, the residents of which are often employed by or otherwise support military installations, and reduce operating costs.

OLDCC employees have a range of experience in economic and community development, land use planning, real estate redevelopment, federal real property programs, military programs, and worker adjustment. Project managers also bring a working knowledge of other federal agencies and their respective programs to help communities put together an adjustment program combining federal, state, local, and private resources.

Programs
OLDCC operates several programs of assistance aimed at helping local defense-supporting communities:

 * Community Noise Mitigation Program: The Community Noise Mitigation Program is designed to address communities impacted by military fixed wing aviation noise for the purposes of installing noise mitigation at covered facilities.  Covered facilities are hospitals, daycare facilities, schools, facilities serving senior citizens, and private residences. This program is authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-35) Section 8120.
 * Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program (DCIP): Funds community infrastructure to support defense personnel and families.
 * Defense Manufacturing Community Support Program (DMCSP): Supports long-term community investments in national security innovation and defense manufacturing industrial ecosystem capability expansion (i.e. funding research and development in defense-critical technologies).
 * Installation Resilience Program: Funds state and local government improvement of installation sustainability (i.e. resilience against natural disasters or adverse environmental changes such as climate change and pollution). Delivers grants to states, private landowners, and others and drafts plans and provides assistance in finding solutions to light pollution, urban sprawl, endangered species management, energy security threats, etc.
 * Public Schools on Military Installations (PSMI): An invitation only program based on a Deputy Secretary of Defense prioritization ranking for installations; Funds construction, renovation, repair, and expansion of public schools located on military bases. Despite their location, these schools are operated by local education agencies.
 * Mission Realingment Program: After base closures or reductions, deploys project managers to select local redevelopment authorities (LRAs) to represent community members to local, state, and federal agencies. The project manager and LRA develop plans to revitalize the local economy, seek private and public investment, and support affected workers and businesses.

Organization
OLDCC is a Department of Defense field activity under the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); more specifically, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), and under the purview of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment.

While headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, OLDCC retains a Western Regional Office in Sacramento, California headed by the Deputy Director, Western Regional Office.

Director
The Director of OLDCC is, by statute, appointed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and must be a federal civilian employee or private individual with "experience in the interagency in the Executive Branch [and] experience in the administration and management of Federal grants programs." He or she is charged with operating the Office and ensuring appropriate aid is sent to Defense-supporting communities. The director serves ex officio as Executive Director of the Economic Adjustment Committee, a body composed of various federal department heads and other agency leaders or their representatives that coordinates interagency economic assistance in response to Defense program changes.

The current director is Patrick O'Brien, an economic development expert and former HUD employee.

Economic Assistance Committee
The Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) is a body composed of various federal department heads and other agency leaders (or their designees) that coordinates interagency economic assistance in response to Defense program changes. It is not a part of OLDCC, but works closely with the Office. With a membership similar to but greater than that of a typical presidential cabinet, the EAC's current roster of 22 is as follows:

 * Secretary of Agriculture
 * Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice)
 * Secretary of Commerce
 * Secretary of Defense
 * Secretary of Education
 * Secretary of Energy
 * Secretary of Health and Human Services
 * Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
 * Secretary of the Interior
 * Secretary of Labor
 * Secretary of State
 * Secretary of Transportation
 * Secretary of the Treasury
 * Secretary of Veterans Affairs
 * Secretary of Homeland Security
 * Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
 * Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
 * Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
 * Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 * Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA)
 * Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA)
 * Postmaster General (head of USPS)

Additionally, the Director of the Office of the Local Defense Community Cooperation serves as the EAC's Executive Director


text:
Talk:Minister-president

Why a minister-president is not (!) a prime-minister
1) A Prime MInister is the political leader of the government in a monarchic system, while the monarch is formally the head of his government and his minister is the first servant (what is the meaning of minister)! In a republic the minister is servant of the People. 2) The German minister-president is not only the head of the government but the head of state (German federated states are sovereign states). This becomes obvious by three privileges, exclusively being part of a head of state : a) the minister-president holds the right of grace (amnesty) b) the right to bestow decorations and c) to be the representative in- and outside the country. Consequently the Minister-president holds the first place in precedence in its country, while a premier minister doesn't.

Consequence: Sometimes we should form a neologism, a new word instead translating (The Latin dominated languages like English have to do it always, while German can build a compound word (compositum).) This new word has to be spread by dictionaries and encyclopedias

Older
in interpreting we have these discussions all the time, and as for the interpreters "minister-president" seems inadequate, i have to agree on that. As mentioned below, appropriate translations are "state premier" or "premier", a "prime minister" is the head of a federal government, e.g. Tony Blair, and therefore should not be used to describe the head of a state government. I cannot imagine a native speaker outside of Germany would understand the term "minister-president". One has to be careful with using plausible translations like "governor" in a US-context, even though it probably describes best what is meant, but i guess a governor has slightly different functions than a state premier in Germany and thus could add to the confusion. Imagine Henry Kissinger at a meeting asking: "Since when do they have governors??" "The Hessian Minister-President" sounds like if a German native had translated it into English using the Langenscheidt.

Why aren't they called Prime Ministers? I haven't read the term Minister-president anywhere outside Wikipedia in an English language text.

 * to answer your question, actually they are sometimes, which just adds to the confusion. The homepage of the government of Brandenburg clearly states the Ministerpräsident as "Prime Minister of Brandenburg", whereas Bavaria uses "Minister-President". I will try to find out the correct usage..

ps: I have just received an email from the Hessian State Chancellery. I will quote: "Nach nochmalieger Nachfrage in der Abteilung Protokoll in der Hessischen Staatskanzlei wurde mir mitgeteilt, dass die offizielle englische Bezeichnung für Hessischer Ministerpräsident wie folgt lautet: "The Hessian Minister-President"." So I hope this clears some confusion. Gryffindor 21:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

For the German "Ministerpräsident" I really find "Minister-President" in English hard to swallow. It may be acceptable, but to me, "Premier" seems the best translation, as it avoids confusion with "Prime Minister" (often head of a whole country, e.g. the British Prime Minister). "Premier" is also used to describe similar positions in English-speaking countries, e.g. state Premiers in Australia. Is "Premier" okay too? It seems to be common enough in English-language reports about Germany, e.g. at Deutsche Welle. --Geoffrey Miller 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Plural
Shouldn't the plural be "Minister-Presidents", because of the hyphen? EVen if it doesn't, it sounds better and makes more sense than, "Ministers-President"... -Alex 12.220.157.93 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

on plurals
No, I think it should be Ministers-President, just as we have Governors-General and Attorneys-General. "General" is adjectival here. We pluralise the noun (Governor) and do not decline the adjective (General), hence "Governors-General". I would say that "Minister-President" represents a similar grammatical structure, so on this view "president" is adjectival, that is to say it carries the meaning of "presiding" or "first" (prime / premier!).

 * since when exactly is President a adjective? If you are right theres a big need in fixing the english language due to lack of semantic logic. This would totally mess up the rules of word allocation.

German: ONE Minister, TWO Minister English: ONE Minister, TWO Ministers

So taken correctly you would have to call the function Ministers-President(singular) and Ministers-Presidents(plural).

Don't take your language poorer then it actually is.

 * I have to agree that Ministers-President is, if you want to translate the singular with Minister-President in the first place, just wrong as a plural. The word Ministerpräsident is a compound. As such, it is short for Präsident der Minister (president of the [council of] ministers). "Presiding Minister" would be Vorsitzender Minister.

on correct translation of political terms
A number of things complicate the matter of translation of the German term "Ministerpräsident" into English.

One is the difference between the German political system and the political systems extant in the countries of the English speaking world. A second factor is the differences in terminology that exist within English, even when describing roughly the same office (in this case the head of government). Drawing an analogy with US practice, an American would tend to use the term "Governor" when talking about the "Ministerpräsident" of a German (or the "Landeshauptmann" of an Austrian) "Bundesland" whereas an Australian or Canadian would use the term "Premier". (The same problem probably applies in reverse: an Austrian talking about politics in English-speaking countries might naturally refer to the "Landeshauptmann" of an Australian state or Canadian Province, while a German would say "Ministerpräsident"). So the translation depends very much on your target audience. The same problem applies when translating "Bundesland". An Australian or American would probably refer to the "state" of Saxony while a Canadian would probably call it a "province".

In answer to the question of why it's not (always) appropriate to refer to "Minsiterpräsidenten" as "prime ministers" in English: In English speaking federal polities the term "prime minisiter" is really only used to refer to the head of the federal government and not the head of a state/provincial government. To speak of the "prime minsiter" of Saxony, Alberta or Queensland sounds as if you are talking about an independent country when in fact you are referring to a subunit of a country. So I would go for "premier" over "prime minister" when talking about the "Minsiterpräsident" of a "Bundesland" etc. But if you're using "Ministerpräsident" in German to refer to the head of government of a country (eg France, Italy) then you *would* say "prime minister" in English.

My inclination is to say that "Minister-President" is acceptable as a *term of art* in English but for most purposes you would use the word "premier" [or perhaps "governor" if you are talking to a US audience] when describing this office. The term "minister-president" would, however, still be useful in some circumstances. After all we still say "Bundestag" and "Bunderat" in English as terms of art. And although we can translate "Kaiser" as emperor, we often refer to the "Kaiser" as a term of art.

 * Pro: only because a bavarian source calls it Minister-President does not mean that term is applicable somehow. The bavarian government and bavarian politicians are the worst source refering to english correctness. Besides, I think "Presiding Minister" would be a well explaining term.
 * Contra: We do not need to distinguish between English Latin (Prime Minister) and German Latin (Minister-President). This article should be deleted. Ulf-S. 14:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is probably true that we rarely use the term "prime minister" to refer to heads of subnational entities, though certainly historically it's not unknown (e.g. Prime Minister of Northern Ireland). I have no problem with the translation "prime minister"; perhaps it is because I am British.  But "premier" sounds fine too.  I've never known the term "minister-president" be used in English, except when spelt "ministerpräsident" and treated as a borrowing from German.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.65.123 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 * A Ministerpräsident most certainly is no "governor", as a governor is elected by the people while a Ministerpräsident is elected by a majority of the Landtag. In theory, the Landtag can replace the Ministerpräsident at any time. This prevents populists and political outsiders from reaching the highest government office. A Schwarzenegger would never have been possible in Germany. Reibeisen 16:16, 14 May 2008

 * Of course the constitutional paragraphs to the minister-presidents in Germany are somewhat different that those of US governors. Likewise they were different in the case of Reichskanzler Prinz von Baden compared with Reichskanzler Scheidemann. That's no real argument, it'd stop any translation. "Governor" is actually the best translation in my humble opinion. - If it is said "Prime Minister" would make the freestate of Saxony seem independent, the answer is: the better, that's about the general idea of German federalism. The Germans actually (in a hybris?) call every head of government of other (non-presidential) states Ministerpräsidenten, be it Italy, be it the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden or whatever, and only tradition stops them to do the same to the Prime Minister of Great Britain (and, most of the time, to the Prime Minister of France, though I wouldn't be too sure about that). Saxony is not a subdivision of Germany, Germany is a composition of, among others, Saxony. (And here's a Bavarian speaking, i. e. someone of a people that is generally supposed not to like the Saxons, which however doesn't apply to me.) --84.154.99.205 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are basically six choices you have when rendering the German Ministerpräsident (or its equivalent in another foreign language) into English:
 * (1) Use the original foreign language term as a term of art, in which case you would normally italicise it in English (which is the usual practice when using foreign terms in English).
 * (2) Use its anglicised equivalent "minister-president" as a term of art (no need to italicise though since it has been anglicised).
 * (3) Use the English term "prime minister".
 * (4) Use an English term such as "chief minister" or "first minister"
 * (5) Use the English word "governor".
 * (6) Use the English word "premier".

Which you opt for will depend on context.

In ordinary modern English usage the term "prime minister" is not used at the sub-national level. Hence, the UK has a prime minister but Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each have a "first minister"; and similarly Australia and Canada each have a "prime minister" but Queensland and Alberta each have a "premier" and the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory each have a "chief minister". That we do not use "prime minister" below the national level is normal modern English usage (the old use of "prime minister" in respect of Northern Ireland is a historical exception to modern English usage; today Northern Ireland has a "first minister").

I would suggest that in most instances there is no real need to use (1) or (2) (as there are perfectly good English language equivalents for everyday use) unless the context demands the use of the foreign word (or its anglicised equivalent) as a term of art. So if I were a journalist writing an article about the Netherlands I would refer to the country's "prime minister" and not its "minister-president". If I were writing a textbook in English on the government or constitutional law of the Netherlands or of a German Bundesland I might want to use the term "minister-president" (or Ministerpräsident) as a term of art, but even then I would also use more common English terms such as "prime minister" or "premier" in addition to my use of minister-president as a term of art.

When it comes to the Ministerpräsident of a German Bundesland, the situation is complicated by translating these terms for an American audience without paying much attention to the underlying system of government and how that differs from that which prevails in the United States. In the United States, the "top politician" of a state is the "governor", so it is understandable that many Americans would naturally use the word "governor" when talking in English about the Ministerpräsident of a German Land. But I think its use is inaccurate and I don't just say that as an Australian whose "natural" inclination would be to translate Ministerpräsident here as "premier" based on my own country's English usage. I say that, rather, as a constitutional lawyer attuned to the differences between parliamentary and semi-presidential system of government on the one hand and presidential systems on the other hand. There is, after all an underlying reason why American states have "governors" and Australian states and Canadian provinces have "premiers". This is not simply a linguistic difference along the lines of "french fries" versus "chips" where two different terms are used to refer to essentially the same thing; rather, the difference in English terminology is reflective of two different constitutional offices (just as "prime minister" and "president" at the national level are very different offices).

As the German wikipedia article on Ministerpräsident says, "als Ministerpräsidenten oder Premierminister bezeichnet man allgemein das politische Amt des Regierungschefs in parlamentarischen oder semi-präsidentiellen Staaten" -- which translates into English as: "the term Ministerpräsident or Premierminister [prime minister] generally refers to the political office of the head of government in pariamentary or semi-presidential states" (emphasis added; my translation).

In the United States -- both at the federal and state level -- a presidential and not a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government prevails. In a US state, the executive branch (of which the governor of a state is the chief) exists and presides separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible. Under a parliamentary system (which includes the states of Australia, the provinces of Canada as well as the German and Austrian Länder), however, the ministers of the executive branch (which includes the premier or Ministerpräsident) are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. The "governor" of a US state is the constitutional head of the executive branch, quite separate from the legislative branch; he is not a member of the legislature; he does not have to command the support of a majority of the legislature (or its lower house in the case of bicameral legislatures) and cannot be forced from office because he fails to command the support of a majority of the legislature. The "premier" of an Australian state or a Canadian province as well as the Ministerpräsident of a German Land, on the other hand, is a member of the legislature and must secure the support of a majority of the legislature (or its lower house) in order to hold office; he can, furthermore, be forced from office by a simple vote of no confidence on the floor of the legislature.

So while it may be natural to use the term "governor" when talking to an American audience about the Ministerpräsident of a German Bundesland, this English usage does not accurately reflect the underlying differences in the system of government. For all of the foregoing reasons I would therefore suggest that in contexts where accuracy is required (such as an encyclopaedia article or a text book on government), the best English translation for Ministerpräsident (etc) is "prime minister" at the national level and "premier" at the sub-national level. Of course in some contexts the use of "minister-president" or Ministerpräsident (etc) may also be acceptable as a term of art. And similarly in less formal settings where conveying the distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems of government is not so important then the use of the term "governor" for a specifically American audience may also be acceptable (although even here I would avoid it; if Americans can handle the use of the word "premier" in respect of parliamentary systems in English-speaking countries [eg Australian states and Canadian provinces and territories]] I don't see why they can't also handle the more accurate "premier" in respect of parliamentary systems in non-English speaking countries [such as German Bundesländer] rather than resorting to use of the more familiar but less accurate term "governor"). Apodeictic (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Minister-President of the Netherlands
It should be noted, though, that the tilte of "Minister-President" is neither uniquely German nor confined to heads of government of sub-national entities: The Netherlands also have an "Minister-President", and the German terms has its origin in a time where Germany consited of several independent states. – Mind that each of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands have a Minister President, though, indeed it does seem that in the Native English such persons are usually called Prime MinstersThW5 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC).

Minister-President in Germany discussion and vote
A discussion and vote on the topic is going on right now. Kingjeff (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does wiki call all german Ministerpräsidenet minister-president exept the Lower Saxon one ? (who is calld prime minister on wiki)
Is he special? does he have a different title? 95.208.187.120 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minister-president. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629212008/http://www.bundespraesident.de/en/ to http://www.bundespraesident.de/en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research
Much of the section on Germany appears to be unsourced original research of an evaluative nature. This includes the comparisons between German ministers-president and I would suggest all the unsourced stuff be removed. --Boson (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the governor of a U.S. State
 * the premier of an Australian state
 * the premier of a Canadian province
 * the constitutional order of South Africa.
 * the Chancellor of Germany
 * the President of Germany.

Split proposed
This article is more about the term "minister president" than the concept of head of government of a federated state (e.g. Germany) or the different concept of head of government of a sovereign state (e.g. Netherlands).

The section with a list of German state heads of government makes it rather top-heavy and unfocused. I would suggest splitting off the list of the heads of German states (together with some explanation) into a separate article – something like the article List of current United States governors.

Detailled discussion of the differences between the different German states could also be moved there, preferably without the unsourced original research. --Boson (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Good idea! If nobody disagrees over the next days/weeks, I could start with the article. The discussion of the differences has to be sourced by the state constitutions, which I wanted to do anyway, but this will take a bit of time, as these are sixteen different documents. Alektor89 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I had the same thought when I first read this article. Have fun! Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, I started to work on the article in my sandbox. If that's convenient, I will implement the revised article, when finished,...but this will take some time, I guess, complicated business ... Alektor89 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Of course, any discussion of differences based on the constitutions would have to be careful to avoid synthesis. --Boson (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the best way will be, to be strictly descriptive. I have studied the constitutions over the last days and have made the following table, which shows the most important differences between the 16 state constitutions with regard to the Ministers President or their equivalent in Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg. The table should be part of a section "Constitutional roles and powers". Each state has a source-link to a digital copy of the respective state constitution in their current forms.

Alektor89 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Minister-president


text:
Adventure (Television album)

Adventure is the second studio album by American rock band Television, released in April 1978 by Elektra Records.

Musical style
On the album's sound, Mark Deming of AllMusic writes, "Where Marquee Moon was direct and straightforward in its approach, with the subtleties clearly in the performance and not in the production, Adventure is a decidedly softer and less aggressive disc, and while John Jansen's production isn't intrusive, it does round off the edges of the band's sound in a way Andy Johns' work on the first album did not."

Reception
Ken Emerson of Rolling Stone wrote, "By daring to be different, Adventure lives up to its title, but it also comes as something of a disappointment because it lacks the jagged tension and mysterious drama that imbued last year's Marquee Moon with such dark but lucid power." Robert Christgau of The Village Voice was favorable, writing, "I agree that it's not as urgent, or as satisfying, but that's only to say that Marquee Moon was a great album while Adventure is a very good one. The difference is more a function of material than of the new album's relatively clean, calm, reflective mood. The lyrics on Marquee Moon were shot through with visionary surprises that never let up. These are comparatively songlike, their apercus concentrated in hook lines that are surrounded by more quotidian stuff."

Personnel
Television
 * Billy Ficca – drums
 * Richard Lloyd – guitar, vocals
 * Fred Smith – bass, vocals
 * Tom Verlaine – lead vocals, guitar, piano, production

Technical
 * Craig Bishop – engineering
 * Jay Borden – engineering
 * John Jansen – production, engineering
 * Paul Jansen – art direction
 * Gray Russell – engineering
 * Gerrit van der Meer – photography

title: Adventure (Television album)


text:
User talk:Raser011~enwiki

I'm a Peruvian systems engineer. I just finished University, in Universidad Católica, from Lima, Peru. r@ser011 is my programmer's nickname since I begin University. I'm enthusiastic GNU/Linux user, and I have great interest about free Database managers like PostgreSQL and MySQL.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Raser011. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Raser011~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raser011~enwiki


text:
Washington Headquarters Services

Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) is a Department of Defense (DoD) Field Activity, created on October 1, 1977, to provide administrative and management support to multiple DoD components and military departments in the National Capital Region and beyond.

WHS currently has approximately 1,200 civilian and military employees and 2,000 contract employees, performing a wide range of essential administrative and management services in support of DoD operations, allowing WHS customer agencies and offices to focus exclusively on their core military missions.

History
Before the establishment of WHS, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) provided administrative support for several DoD Components, including several outside of OSD purview. The Department's creation of WHS removed these support functions from OSD, allowing the OSD staff to focus on matters involving policy analysis and oversight.

In the following decades, WHS became firmly established as the agency for DoD-wide support functions, including those in metropolitan Washington DC National Capital Region and beyond. Its worldwide mission continues to evolve, as WHS provides consolidated administrative and operational support to several Defense Agencies, DoD Field Activities, DoD headquarters, various military departments, the White House, and, in a limited capacity, Congress.

The WHS mission has had substantial surges over recent years - including the massive program for the Renovation of the Pentagon, the implementation and then decommissioning of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), the implementation of Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC), and the administration of the Mark Center Building. In Fiscal Year 2013, WHS took responsibility for consolidating and implementing the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facilities (DoD CAF), supporting the eligibility for security clearances for DoD personnel, industry personnel, and Congressional and other staff.

In 2010, WHS implemented several remote work initiatives modeled after the General Services Administration's (GSA) program with supporting roles such as the Telework Managing Officer.

Beginning in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a vast majority of WHS' workforce was allowed to work remotely. This led to cost-saving measures and access to a diverse pool of talent.

Organization
Organizationally, WHS is aligned under the Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Divided into several directorates and specialty offices, teams of WHS personnel support the mission of our Defense Department customers by managing DoD-wide programs and operations for the Pentagon Reservation, Mark Center and other DoD-leased facilities in the National Capital Region and beyond.

Acquisition Directorate
The Acquisition Directorate is the Single Enterprise Contracting Office (SECO), providing acquisition services to all OSD components, significantly reducing annual OSD contracting costs. AD plans, coordinates, and manages the procurement programs essential to the mission of WHS, the Office of the Director of Administration and Management, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Programs support Pentagon Renovation, construction, professional and other services, commodities and supplies, effective communication and information technology systems, and special programs totaling over $1.5 billion a year.

Facilities Services Directorate
The WHS Facilities Services Directorate (FSD) supports a customer base of about 64,000 civilian and military personnel, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Agencies, and the military departments in the National Capital Region. FSD provides administrative and operational support to specified DoD activities, including space management, maintenance, repair and alteration of assigned buildings, custodial services, landscape maintenance, trash and debris removal, building operations, construction management, property management, and other support services.

Enterprise Management
The WHS Enterprise Management Office (EM) serves as the corporate integrator of WHS and establishes the framework for bridging functional gaps among WHS directorates to secure mission accomplishment and achieve strategic goals across the Office of the Director of Administration and Management.

Executive Services Directorate
The WHS Executive Services Directorate provides administrative management and graphics services to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and executes federally mandated and regulatory programs, including Freedom of Information Act, Security Review, Privacy Act, Records Management, Directives, Forms, Declassification Review, and Information Collection.

Enterprise Information Technology Services Directorate
The WHS Enterprise Information Technology Services Directorate (EITSD) provides information technology equipment, services, and customer support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Director of Administration and Management, and WHS.

Financial Management Directorate
The WHS Financial Management Directorate (FMD) provides planning, programming, budgeting & execution, and accounting services to WHS and its customers. These services include budget formulation, defense, and execution; financial management, internal audit, and compliance; budgetary accounting; financial reporting; official Representation Funds management; purchase card and travel card program management; and resource management.

Human Resources Directorate
The WHS Human Resources Directorate (HRD) provides human resources services for executive, political, military, and civilian personnel; performs security investigations and clearances; conducts adjudications and appeals; and manages the various voluntary campaign programs, e.g., the annual DoD Combined Federal Campaign.

General Counsel
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) provides legal services for the WHS, as well as for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, and the Office of the Director of Administration & Management handles the operational matters.

title: Washington Headquarters Services


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szilágy (disambiguation)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Szilágy (disambiguation)
There is already a page, Szilágy (with a correct title), which deals with this disambiguation. Szilágy (disambiguation) is unnecessary. --Adam78 21:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Original article looks like the right place for a primary topic disambig. — Asbestos | Talk  22:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. redundant page. Mikkalai 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, duplicate/redundant page. Megan1967 01:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shouldn't such situations be handled by admins. Vfd is overloaded enough. Pavel Vozenilek 00:55, 13 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.


text:
Barbara Pepper

Barbara Pepper (born Marion Pepper; May 31, 1915 – July 18, 1969) was an American stage, television, radio, and film actress. She is best known as the first Doris Ziffel on the sitcom Green Acres.

Early life and career
Marion Pepper was born in New York City, the daughter of actor David Mitchell "Dave" Pepper, and his wife, Harrietta S. Pepper. At age 16 she started life in show business with Goldwyn Girls, a musical stock company where she met Lucille Ball, with whom she would remain friends, during production of Eddie Cantor's Roman Scandals in 1933.

From 1937 to 1943, Pepper was a prolific actress, appearing in 43 movies, mostly in supporting roles or in minor films, with exceptions being main characters in The Rogues' Tavern and Mummy's Boys, both feature films released in 1936. Among her later film parts were small roles in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) and My Fair Lady (1964). She also performed radio parts.

In 1943, she married actor Craig Reynolds (né Harold Hugh Enfield), and the couple later had two sons. After Reynolds died in 1949 in a California motorcycle accident, Pepper was left to raise their children alone. She never remarried.

After gaining weight, her roles were mostly confined to small character parts on television, including several appearances on I Love Lucy, The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, Petticoat Junction, and The Jack Benny Program. She made four appearances on Perry Mason, including the role of Martha Dale, mother of the title character, in the 1957 episode "The Case of the Vagabond Vixen". In 1957, she guest-starred in the episode "The Diet" of the sitcom Mr. Adams and Eve, credited as "Fat Woman." In 1958, she appeared as "Boxcar Annie" on the television western Tales of Wells Fargo in the episode titled "Butch Cassidy". In 1959, she appeared on the TV series The Texan as Mary Devlin in the episode "The Telegraph Story".

A long-time friend of Lucille Ball, Pepper was first considered for the role of Ethel Mertz on I Love Lucy, but was passed over, purportedly due to the fact that she had a drinking problem. William Frawley ("Fred Mertz") did, likewise, and already had been cast. It was felt that having two drinkers in the cast might eventually cause difficulties so another actress was sought.

Pepper may be best remembered as the first Doris Ziffel on Petticoat Junction in 1964, although her character's name on the "Genghis Keane" episode of Petticoat Junction was Ruth Ziffel. Her role as Doris Ziffel continued on Green Acres from 1965 to 1968 until health ailments finally forced her to leave that weekly series. Actress Fran Ryan replaced her on Green Acres, which ran for another three years. Pepper's final performance was in Hook, Line & Sinker (1969), in which she played Jerry Lewis's secretary.

Death
Pepper died of a coronary thrombosis at age 54 on July 18, 1969, in Panorama City, California.

Selected filmography

 * Roman Scandals (1933) - Goldwyn Girl (uncredited)
 * Moulin Rouge (1934) - Show Girl (uncredited)
 * Bottoms Up (1934) - Chorine (uncredited)
 * Strictly Dynamite (1934) - Performer (uncredited)
 * Our Daily Bread (1934) - Sally
 * Kid Millions (1934) - Goldwyn Girl (uncredited)
 * Let 'Em Have It (1935) - Milly
 * Dante's Inferno (1935) - Drunk at Ship's Cafe (uncredited)
 * Anna Karenina (1935) - Party Girl (uncredited)
 * Waterfront Lady (1935) - Gloria Vance
 * The Sagebrush Troubadour (1935) - Joan Martin
 * Forced Landing (1935) - Nancy 'Dusty' Rhodes
 * Frisco Waterfront (1935) - The Blonde Stranger
 * The Fighting Coward (1935) - Marie's Friend (uncredited)
 * The Singing Vagabond (1935) - Honey
 * Taming the Wild (1936) - Hazel White
 * Show Boat (1936) - New Year's Eve Cutie (uncredited)
 * The Rogues Tavern (1936) - Marjorie Burns
 * M'Liss (1936) - Clytie Morpher
 * Mummy's Boys (1936) - Mary Browning
 * The Big Game (1936 film) - Lois - the Drunk's Girl (uncredited)
 * Wanted! Jane Turner (1936) - Marge Sanders - Posing as Jane Turner
 * Winterset (1936) - Girl
 * What Becomes of the Children? (1936) - Elsie Ford
 * Sea Devils (1937) - Spanked Blonde (uncredited)
 * Too Many Wives (1937) - Angela Brown
 * The Outcasts of Poker Flat (1937) - Blonde Saloon Floozie
 * You Can't Buy Luck (1937) - Store Clerk
 * You Can't Beat Love (1937) - May 'Bubbles' Smith
 * The Big Shot (1937) - Mamie
 * Forty Naughty Girls (1937) - Alice
 * Music for Madame (1937) - Blonde on Bus (uncredited)
 * The Westland Case (1937) - Agatha Hogan
 * Portia on Trial (1937) - Evelyn
 * Hollywood Stadium Mystery (1938) - Althea Ames
 * Wide Open Faces (1938) - Belle
 * The Lady in the Morgue (1938) - Kay Renshaw
 * The Chaser (1938) - Mabel the Drunken Girl (uncredited)
 * Army Girl (1938) - Riki Thomas
 * The Strange Case of Dr. Meade (1938) - Mattie
 * Sweethearts (1938) - Telephone Operator (uncredited)
 * The Girl Downstairs (1938) - Woman at the Bar (uncredited)
 * They Made Me a Criminal (1939) - Budgie
 * Off the Record (1939) - Flossie - Telephone Operator (uncredited)
 * Bachelor Mother (1939) - Dance-Hall Hostess (uncredited)
 * The Magnificent Fraud (1939) - June (uncredited)
 * Colorado Sunset (1939) - Ginger Bixby
 * Flight at Midnight (1939) - Mildred
 * The Women (1939) - Tough Girl (uncredited)
 * Three Sons (1939) - Viola
 * Scandal Sheet (1939) - Rena
 * The Amazing Mr. Williams (1939) - Muriel - Wedding Guest (uncredited)
 * Of Mice and Men (1939) - Second Girl (uncredited)
 * Castle on the Hudson (1940) - Goldie
 * Framed (1940) - Goldie Green
 * Forgotten Girls (1940) - Eve Abbott
 * Women in War (1940) - Millie, Irish Nurse
 * Sailor's Lady (1940) - Maude
 * The Return of Frank James (1940) - Nellie Blane
 * Foreign Correspondent (1940) - Dorine
 * Ride, Kelly, Ride (1941) - Trudy (uncredited)
 * The Cowboy and the Blonde (1941) - Chorine in Dressing Room (uncredited)
 * Out of the Fog (1941) - Cuban Room Cigarette Girl (uncredited)
 * Three Sons o' Guns (1941) - Francie
 * Manpower (1941) - Polly
 * We Go Fast (1941) - Southern Belle with Traffic Fine (uncredited)
 * Man at Large (1941) - Myrtle, Hotel Guest
 * South of Tahiti (1941) - Julie (uncredited)
 * Birth of the Blues (1941) - Maizie
 * My Favorite Spy (1942) - Speedy (uncredited)
 * One Thrilling Night (1942) - Lettie
 * Star Spangled Rhythm (1942) - Blonde Who Bruises Too Easy (uncredited)
 * Girls in Chains (1943) - Ruth
 * Let's Face It (1943) - Daisy (uncredited)
 * So This Is Washington (1943) - Betty - Taxi Driver (uncredited)
 * Cover Girl (1944) - Chorus Girl (uncredited)
 * Henry Aldrich Plays Cupid (1944) - Wild Rose (uncredited)
 * Once Upon a Time (1944) - Taxi Girl (uncredited)
 * Since You Went Away (1944) - Bowling Alley Pin Girl (uncredited)
 * I Love a Soldier (1944) - Blonde (uncredited)
 * An American Romance (1944) - Streetwalker (uncredited)
 * Can't Help Singing (1944) - Saloon Girl (uncredited)
 * Brewster's Millions (1945) - Cab Driver (uncredited)
 * Trouble Chasers (1945) - Goldie
 * The Naughty Nineties (1945) - Gilded Cage Hostess (uncredited)
 * Murder, He Says (1945) - Bonnie Fleagle
 * The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry (1945) - Annie (uncredited)
 * Prison Ship (1945) - Winnie De Voe (uncredited)
 * The Hoodlum Saint (1946) - Dance Contestant #1 (uncredited)
 * Terror Trail (1946) - Karen Kemp, the Louisville Lady
 * The Millerson Case (1947) - Eadie Rookstool (uncredited)
 * The Snake Pit (1948) - Patient (uncredited)
 * The Crooked Way (1949) - Shooting Gallery Proprietress (uncredited)
 * The Inspector General (1949) - Buxom Villager (uncredited)
 * Unmasked (1950) - Mrs. Schmidt
 * No Way Out (1950) - Woman (uncredited)
 * The Fuller Brush Girl (1950) - Wife Watching TV (uncredited)
 * My Blue Heaven (1950) - Susan (uncredited)
 * Thunderbirds (1952) - Mrs. Louise Braggart
 * So This Is Love (1953) - Fat Girl with Sailor in Nightclub (uncredited)
 * Inferno (1953) - Waitress (uncredited)
 * The Eddie Cantor Story (1953) - Patron (uncredited)
 * A Star Is Born (1954) - Esther's Neighbor (uncredited)
 * Young at Heart (1954) - Wife (uncredited)
 * The D.I. (1957) - Woman Customer
 * Rock-A-Bye Baby (1958) - Mrs. Oberholt (uncredited)
 * Auntie Mame (1958) - Mrs. Krantz (uncredited)
 * The Bramble Bush (1960) - Polly Welk (uncredited)
 * Sex Kittens Go to College (1960) - Circe - Big Woman with Ripped Dress (uncredited)
 * The Music Man (1962) - Feril Hawkes - Snapping Beans (uncredited)
 * It's Only Money (1962) - Fisherwoman
 * A Child Is Waiting (1963) - Miss Brown (uncredited)
 * It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) - Woman on Phone at Garage (uncredited)
 * Who's Minding the Store? (1963) - Customer at Bargain Sale (uncredited)
 * The Patsy (1964) - Bowler (uncredited)
 * My Fair Lady (1964) - Doolittle's Dance Partner (uncredited)
 * Kiss Me, Stupid (1964) - Big Bertha
 * Hook, Line & Sinker (1969) - Peter's Secretary (uncredited)

title: Barbara Pepper


text: User talk:69.174.200.227

title: User talk:69.174.200.227


text:
Murraylink

Murraylink is an Australian high voltage direct current electricity transmission link between Berri in South Australia and Red Cliffs in Victoria, connecting the two state electricity grids. Murraylink was commissioned in 2002 and is believed to be the world's longest underground transmission system and cost more than A$177 million. It was built by TransEnergie Australia, a subsidiary of Hydro-Québec. It was sold to the Australian Pipeline Trust (APA Group) in March 2006 for A$153 million. In December 2008 ownership of Murraylink (as well as Directlink) was transferred to the newly formed Energy Infrastructure Investments Group, while APA continued as the operator. The ownership of EII is APA with 19.9%, with the balance with Japan-based Marubeni Corporation with 49.9% and Osaka Gas with 30.2%.

Capacity
Murraylink consists of two 180 km long bipolar HVDC cables. The circuit has an operating voltage of 150 kV and a transmission capacity of 220 megawatts. The link operates an "HVDC Light" voltage-source converter system, utilising insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBT), to convert electricity between alternating current and direct current.

While Murraylink is rated at 220MW, it is unable to operate at capacity during periods of high demand due to limitations in the transmission infrastructure at either end. The limitations relate to thermal overload of transformers or transmission lines supplying the Riverland (for South Australia to Victoria transmission) and western Victoria (for Victoria to South Australia transmission).

title: Murraylink


text:
Tyco Toys

Tyco Toys was an American toy manufacturer. It was acquired by Mattel in 1997, becoming one of its brands.

Founding
The company was established as "Mantua Metal Products" in Woodbury Heights, New Jersey, as a metalworks business founded in 1926 by John Tyler and family. In the 1930s Mantua began to manufacture HO scale model trains of die-cast metal and became a leading hobbyist brand.

Wartime business
From 1942 to 1945, the production of model railroad products was suspended as the company participated in the manufacturing of precision measuring and mapping equipment for the U.S. Army and Navy in World War II. The company received the Army-Navy ‘E’ Award for excellence in production in 1945. After the war, they converted the plant back to the production of model railroading equipment.

Advent of the TYCO brand
Launching in 1957, Mantua pioneered HO-scale model railroad “ready-to-run” die-cast locomotives. These products, also available as assembly kits, were sold under the "TYCO" name (for "Tyler Company"). Many TYCO and Mantua die-cast products, such as steam engines, are collector's items today.

1960s to 1980s
In the 1960s, TYCO changed its focus from train kits to ready-to-run trains sold in hobby shops and added HO-scale electric racing sets, or "slot car" sets. A wide range of slot cars and repair parts, track sections, controllers and accessories were also available. The slot car rage started in 1963. By the 1970s, TYCO shifted sales and marketing to a consumer-oriented, mass marketing focus. Eventually, the name changed to "TYCO Industries", under which name the company was sold in 1970 to Consolidated Foods during an era of corporate conglomerates. At this time, Tyco was headquartered at Moorestown NJ, where sets were assembled with imported models. As a division of what became the Sara Lee Corporation, Tyco continued to grow. By the mid-1980s, Tyco dominated the market in electric racing, also producing "slot trucks" known as US-1 Trucks, as well as radio-controlled vehicles.

Expansion
In the late 1980s and early 90s, Tyco expanded and diversified by acquiring several popular toy companies. In 1989, the company purchased the View-Master/Ideal Group, which brought to the company the View-Master line of stereoscopes, the Magna Doodle magnetic drawing toys, and the Ideal Nursery line of dolls. In 1992, Tyco purchased the Illco Toy Company, bringing Illco's extensive line of toys based on the children's show Sesame Street to Tyco. In the mid-1990s, as a bigger toy company, company headquarters was moved to Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. It purchased the Matchbox brand of scale model cars, in 1992.

In 1984 Tyco produced its own interlocking brick product, "Super Blocks". Super Blocks were compatible with Lego, and were made following the basic Lego patent's expiry in 1978. Lego attempted to halt the production of Super Blocks in a lawsuit, which was later won by Tyco in 1987.

Tyco's musical toys of the late 1980s and early 1990s included the Tyco Hot Lixx and Tyco Hot Keyz, an electronic guitar and keytar respectively.

Across the late 1980s and early 1990s, some of Tyco's most popular toys came from their Radio Control division, with over 100 different models manufactured primarily through their partnership with Taiyo RC (Japan). In the 1992 Tyco Catalogue used in industry toy fairs to sell and promote products to major retail buyers, the first 20 pages was consumed by their lineup of radio control toys for the year. These products and their manufacturing deal with Taiyo became so important that they took a significant ownership stake in the company, and began to strongly influence the features and design of the vehicles. This resulted in all Taiyo models, both those sold under the Taiyo brand in Japan and worldwide, and those sold by Tyco changing from predominantly realistic models of actual vehicles (such as the 1988 Lamborghini Countach and 1989 Porsche 962) to less realistic products such as the 1994 Tyco Triple Wheels, 1993 Tyco Python, and 1997 Tyco Tantrum.

In the 1990s, the company also branched out with other toys such as airplanes. It made a hit in 1991 with their Disney's Little Mermaid dolls that were released in conjunction with the movie.

Tyco's Sesame Street line increased dramatically in popularity in 1996, when the plush doll Tickle Me Elmo became the most sought-after toy of the Christmas season.

Purchase by Mattel
When Tyco was purchased by Mattel on March 27, 1997, it was the third-largest toy company in the United States. The brand survived into the 2000s and beyond as the Mattel "Tyco R/C" division, while much of the Sesame Street line, Magna Doodle, and the View-Master were transferred to the Fisher-Price division. On February 23, 2019, Terry Flynn announced that Tyco was now a registered trademark of his Harden Creek Slot Cars, LLC." Flynn also has the Life Like trademark for Slot cars.

Legacy
The Tyco model railroad business was bought back by the Tyler family in 1977, who revived them under the Mantua Industries brand. Tyco left the model railroad business after the 1993 catalog. Many of the Tyco model train products were subsequently manufactured by Mantua and by International Hobby Corporation (IHC). In 2001, Mantua stopped producing its model railroad lines and sold the business to the Model Power company, which continued to sell a few items such as steam engines and freight cars under its Mantua Classics brand. In early 2014, Model Power was acquired by Model Rectifier Corporation (MRC). The company continued to make the Mantua Classics line. (The locomotives are also available with DCC and sound.) In 2018, MRC sold its line of HO model trains to Lionel Corporation who slowly reintroduced the line under their own name.

title: Tyco Toys


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferencs Martyn

 * 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 redirect

Ferencs Martyn
The name of this page is incorrect, and there exists already a page with the correct name, Ferenc Martyn, with the same information, but in a wikified form. This page is completely unnecessary. --Adam78 21:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Case closed. The article created by the same anon, who most probably didn't know about redirects. The content is the same in both. I am turning it into a redirect. Mikkalai 22:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So Redirect it; seems to be a plausible misspelling. If this page is truly entirely superfluous, the VfD process isn't even necessary for this. android↔talk 21:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Russian Winter

Old talk
Who ever said that weather is quoted among the major reasons for german faliure of Barbarossa? It never was quoted as such, the evidence of which is the quote of german officer present in this very article. winter is a well known myth about why Russia won the conflict. No serious historian would ever say that winter had any significant impact on the outcome of conflict, it is just laughable, since it affects both sides of conflict, and during Napoleon invasion it affected russians more, since russians were in the depth of their territory, where winter is more severe. Could we please stop this common stereotype, unconfirmed by ANYTHING other than some people's wish to present winter as the major factor and not russian military strength, national character and military training.

Why does this article exist? The tactic it describes is covered by Scorched earth, and winter in Russia is in no way special compared to climatically similar parts of the world to deserve an article of its own.

 * I agree. This article is very poor. Scorched earth is poor as well, but this article is very poor. It has nothing about the actual Russian winter - when does it begin, when does it end? Is it uniform all over Russia, or is Siberia harsher than Mongolia? What are the extremes of temperature, and has the temperature increased over recent years? The article has a sarcastic tone, no sources or cites, and ends with a chunk of opinionated original research; or rather it did, until I deleted that bit. I believe that there is potential for an article on the Russian winter - it has altered history on at least two occasions - but it needs to be in the form "In his book X, noted history Y argued that the Russian winter was a contributing factor in Z. The (description of battle, campaign, outcome etc)" and so forth. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this article is not about the Scorched earth tactics nor about some unpredictable russian clymatic conditions. It's just about a myth and the disclaimer of those who invade Russia :)) MvR 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge
This article is poor. It should be merged. What with, is the question. Any thoughts? Guinnog 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe your (badly written and badly punctuated) version to be better than mine? Two points:
 * 1) You can't balance POV with more POV
 * 2) It's rude to revert without giving a reason

Guinnog 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm fine about you moving this from your talk page, but I want you to reply as well, please. Guinnog 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Article is good and NO to merge because an article like the one you want to merg it with is big and mergein it will make it even more so and some people dontlike big articles in wiki and therefore will make this article again. Also I like big articles but I know some dont. (Deng 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Oppose merging. It is not related to a single historical accident. The article is not so poor: as it stands now is pure original research. However I am quite sure there are quite a few references discuss this lame excuse. The point is to add them and remove some elements of bullshit. `'mikka (t) 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The content of the article
I have added some temperature data to the article. I'm native russian so sorry for possible grammar or other mistakes - if someone corrects them I would be grateful. I've been to different regions of Russia, so I can speak objectively about the climate. The text may be somewhat grammatically unliterate though..:)

 * Thanks for your contribution. It really needs more work to become worth keeping, but this is a step in the right direction. Guinnog 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

the article describes Soviet forces withdrawing into the interior to draw in German forces in WWII. this is an untrue statement the Soviet forces were killed, captured and beaten back. Their territorial losses were, on the whole, not voluntary. Feel free to check other wikipedia articles and military history sites. by the winter of 1941, the Soviet army of the frontier was almost entirely destroyed. (Jschager 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
 * the nosnense removed. `'mikka 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states, that no one ever won a war with Russia on their territory. " No invader has won a war against Russians on their territory, since the Mongol invasion of Rus in 1223."

But there were many wars fought by Poland on Russian territory, which were successful. The most notable example are the Dimitriads. Although the main goal, the control of the Muscovy throne, was achieved only for a short time, the wars eventualy led to the expansion of Polish territories to the east. The war is also a symbol of the Polish golden age, which occured in the early 17th century.

[]

also the Germans military defeated Russia in WWI.
 * Yes, when half of russian army dropped the riffles because of revolution. (well, not exactly so, but WWI is irrelevant in context of discussing of russian weather). `'mikka 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This a very useful article
This article is very useful...entirely appropriate. I see that someone linked it to my Battle of Krasnoi article. Any Wikipedia articles dealing with foreign invasions of Russia, or wars in Russia, need to be tied-in with the issue of Russia's very unique geographical and climactic situation. No major wars between great world powers have been fought so far to the north except those involving Russia.

As for the article's weaknesses, they can be rectified over time. The criticisms of the article made by others above are a good started point for improving this one.

Kenmore 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Finally
Im a Russian, and Im tired of people saying that the only reason Russia has been able to defeat great invading military powers was because of the climate and geographical location. Finally someone has aknoledged Russia's military capability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.21.158 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

namely, their vast numerical/territorial superiority.

And one thing more: Russians like their winter. When tempreture is below 15, and all around is snow-white, you feel tonus and coolness in your body. A. Pushkin,the greatest Russian poet wrote:

Tanya (profoundly Russian being,    herself not knowing how or why) in Russian winters thrilled at seeing the cold perfection of the sky, hoar-frost and sun in freezing weather, sledges, and tardy dawns together with the pink glow the snows assume and festal evenings in the gloom.

Eugene Onegin Chapter 5

Sorry for my English.

Please add some real data to this page
I notice that the "russian winter" page is classed both as a Russian history page and as a Physics page - but it's all totally qualitative so far with no quantitative detail on it. There are good maps available that show how *dreadfully* cold the winter is in Russia compared to western Europe. One is on Google books at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9W7ofyqW5moC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=winter+%22mean+temperatures%22+europe+map&source=web&ots=YzLK12UKea&sig=aj5Uy4-AN82ZNBU4uU6TTuni9p4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result {click the link and then scroll up one page). A non-altitude corrected one is in every edition of Bartholomew's atlas on the Eurasia page.  Could a Wiki person please find one that is copyright-free, or get a licence, so that the science behind "General Winter" can be made clear on the page?  If one of the contributors to this page would like to email j.pyke@qut.edu.au I can send you a scanned copy of the Bartholomew map.

What the maps show is this - that whereas on every other continent the altitude-corrected mean winter temp isotherms run parallel to the Equator, in east Europe they run north-south - every 1000km or so that you advance into Russia the winter temp falls 10deg F (6.25deg C). People in Europe who think they know what winter is simply have no idea! To train for an invasion of Russia an army would have to train in winter near the top of the Alps - and pretend that their supply lines were 1500+kms long. They don't do that because it would be too hard - and they still think that they could invade Russia.

So, patriotic Russians, stop pretending that the role of your winter had nothing to do with the defeat of napoleon and Hitler. Of course the fact that you fought like mad had a lot to do with it too, but the poor b*ggers from the West really had no idea how to equip an army for a place where the mean July temp is 10deg F (-12deg C). Rejoice in the strength of your army *and* in your winter!

"a place where the mean July temp is 10deg F (-12deg C). " What?! Please, think before you write. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northern_Hemisphere_summer_heat_wave#Russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.206.39 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pykie from sunny Brisbane, Australia (I've never been to Russia but I can read a map)

Language in Introduction
The current introduction for the article reads: "The Russian (or Soviet) Winter is a common excuse for military failures of invaders in Russia. Common nicknames are General Frost, General Winter and General Snow. Another was "General Mud"( see "rasputitsa")."

I am going to change it to: "The Russian (or Soviet) Winter is a common explanation for military failures of invaders in Russia. Common nicknames are General Frost, General Winter and General Snow. Another was "General Mud" (see "rasputitsa")."

To explain myself:
 * 1) I do not see the issue of the responsibility of "General Winter" for military defeats being resolved by any means, especially with a lack of sources stating either way.
 * 2) The word "excuse" seems to be a weasel word. In addition, it does not appear NPOV either.

I have noticed that this change has been made before and later reverted. I do not want an edit war here, so if this continues I plan on requesting some arbitration in the matter (per 3RR). Please discuss any further edits on this topic here before making them. --Noha307 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Excuse" is not a weasel word: it is an opinion about explanations. You are right that "explanation" is a correct neutral word. However many researchers do think this is but an excuse. However opinions must be cited (and BTW the article misses this part). Further, I corrected the intro: not all invasions were unsuccessful (in the sense of not being defeated in the very same military campaign). Most notably tatar-mongol invasion: somehow these peoples from sunny deserts were not stopped by winter. Also Poles invaded Russia several times, and even even in most reccent times grabbed a significant chunk of Russian Empire from Soviets, and were defeated each time not at all because of winter. In other words, 'General Frost' is bullshit: the actual reasons of defeat of French and Deutsch was their arrogance or ignorance: frost as any other natural factor, like swamps and rivers and mountains and what else, must be taken into an account in proper military planning.- Altenmann >t 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistical temperature data
Maybe one should add some statistical data : http://mosoborona.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.jpg

(during the german attack on moscow 41' - temp around -5 - -10 C, during russian counterattack up to -25C) That pretty much beats the myth about -40 C as a cause for germans to stop their attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.47.198 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM discussing the downcasing of "Winter". Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → Winter in Russia – to use a generic naming pattern. "Russian winter" should at any rate not be capitalised as if it was a proper noun; as it happens, Russian Winter is the title of various novels, probably none of which are notable. Although I have not found direct cases to compare this to, there is Autumn in New England. (Category:Autumn also contains Indian summer, which is not about summer in India.) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC) – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I thought it already was moved. What are we waiting for? True, winter shouldn't be capitalized in the old title, but that would seem to be moot, since the new title will be Winter in Russia. Sca (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. Sovereign  / Sentinel 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Russian winter per Altenmann's comments. I realized that this article was distinct from Climate of Russia. However, text in the article uses 'Russian winter' instead of 'Russian Winter'. Sovereign  / Sentinel 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose . Obviously you did not bother to read the article. It is not about weather in Russia.  The article is about Russian Winter Capitalized which has been an excuse for various losers in wars against Russia.-M.Altenmann >t 02:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose seriously, have all above read the article? this article is about General Frost a personification of the Napoleonic and other winter disasters suffered by foreign invaders - it cannot cannot cannot be moved to Winter in Russia. Also in books mentioning the personification and myth the W is often capitalized. However Russian Winter (military history) or something might be better. Russian Winter (Daphne Kalotay novel) should redirect to author. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Russian winter - I can't see any justification for a capital letter. I agree with In ictu oculi that the proposed title doesn't work. Red Slash 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Russian Winter" is a defined concept, and the article is not about winters in Russia.  Funny thing here on capitalization, if English followed its own rules, Winter would always be capitalized.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No prejudice to proposing "General Winter" at another RM. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → Russian winter – Make "Russian" an adjective and "winter" a common noun. I don't think "Russian winter" has ever been a proper noun, is it? And I don't care what sources use either. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not about winter in Russia, it is about the effects on warfare (season of mud followed by season of freeze) General Winter redirects here, that should be used instead -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see previous discussion. And a very interesting argument "I don't care what sources use". Yes, it is a proper noun, a reference to a common excuse of various failed invaders - the subject of the article. Whereas the article "Russian winter" would be correctly named "winter in Russia". But people obviously have no idea what is Russia, if they think that winter is the same over the whole Russia. -M.Altenmann >t 15:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Russian winter" per above. Support move to "General Winter" per 67.70.32.20. Khestwol (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Future requests may want to take a different tack and try a descriptive title, like Winter in Russian military history. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → General Winter – WP:COMMONNAME: "General Winter" is more common than "Russian Winter", "General Frost", or "General Snow", as per Google Ngram. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. See also the yesterday's RM above, where moving to "General Winter" had been supported. Also, the proposed title is unambiguous as compared to the current title. Khestwol (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- less confusing as to the article subject. -M.Altenmann >t 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per previous discussion ; this is not about winter in Russia, this is about the effects of winter in Russia on warfare, and it has some common names, such as "General Winter" -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support to reduce confusion. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Ngram is thoroughly deceptive, which you might guess from thinking about how common these phrases might be in unrelated contexts. For "General Winter", of the first 40 results in Google Books, 29 are not about this topic (i.e., only 11 are) (an actual general named Winter; "general winter pruning"; "General Winter Cleat"; "general winter ecology program" and similar). As for "General Frost" and "General Snow", not even one of the first ten Google books results for either of them are about this topic at all. Russian Winter appears to be the common name in English, or at least we must start with a blank slate, with the understanding that the Ngram results are meaningless.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PTM do not concern this nomination. Your partial title matches are just that, partial. As we don't have an article on a general named Winter, that is also not pertinent. Further, this article isn't about Russian Winter, is is about warfare during winter in Russia, the "Russian Winter" is a much much broader topic, in Russian culture and history, as can be seen in Russian cultural works. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing whatever to do with partial title matches. You apparently misunderstand the basis of the nomination and my criticism of it. A significant calculus in choosing article titles is their commonality in reliable English language sources—how the world refers to a topic and recognizes it. See WP:COMMONNAME. The basis of the nomination is that "General Winter" is a more common title than "Russian Winter" (and the two others) to refer to this topic, and was grounded on an Ngram of usage of the four phrases across English language books. What I have shown is that a large percentage of the results seen in the Ngram are false-positives – while the exact title phrases at issue do appear in the books, those apparent matches are false leads, as large numbers included are not about this topic. We are not here about a disambiguation page and WP:PTM has no bearing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have however not acknowledged that "Russian Winter" also has false positives, and is more ambiguous and less clear than "General Winter". The image in the article uses "General Winter" to refer to the topic for a reason. Khestwol (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, I did not supply an alternative comparison (which is what prompted my last sentences ["starting with a blank slate..."]), but I am not the proponent of the move. Nevertheless, to begin that analysis we need delimiters for any book search comparison to be meaningful. A book search of:
 * <"russian winter" "German invasion"> produces 719 result, versus 150 for <"general winter" "German invasion">; and
 * <"russian winter" "military failure"> produces 127 results, versus 8 for <"general winter" "military failure">.
 * As for ambiguity, there is no other article by this title and we already have a hatnote pointing to the a DAB page which links to Climate of Russia among others. I think this topic is the primary among them – what most people searching would be looking for when typing the phrase into a search here. This article got 13,004 views over the last 90 days. The DAB page was viewed only 25 times over the same period indicating very few people landed here and were looking for something else. As for it being "clear", we don't view titles as being clear or not by what their words might convey to someone not already familiar with the topic. Our chief concern is by what name the world recognizes a topic, titling it by what it is actually called in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, and not astonishing the majority of those navigating to a topic. At this point it does appear this is the common name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If a title is ambiguous or inaccurate, despite how commonly used it is, then we can't use the title. That's what WP:COMMONNAMES says. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Relisting comment - Despite majority, after reading the opposition, I've decided to do this instead. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Fuhghettaboutit per Fuhghettaboutit. Randy Kryn 11:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, for the name "Russian winter" the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is winter in Russia (which is, by far, a more notable topic), and merely the capital W of "Russian Winter" does not differentiate it appropriately from "winter in Russia". Wikipedia's policy is to use recognizable and unambiguous titles that are not easily confused with other topics (especially if the other topics are more notable), and the proposed title "General Winter" is unambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Besides Fuhghettaboutit's (great user name) persuasive case the name "Russian Winter" is one I've heard of for decades when the foolishness of attacking Russia by land near the winter months is a topic, and I'm probably not alone in that experience. "Russian Winter" is almost a meme when discussing that war tactic. "Winter in Russia" is a good name, but it's a redirect to "Climate of Russia", which is an entirely different topic than the war impediment posed by the harsh conditions. Randy Kryn 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: you might still need a hatnote for General August Winter. (Brigadier-general Ormonde Winter less so) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can add that hatnote since "General Winter" already redirects to this article. However, August Winter is a barely known topic while "winter in Russia"/climate of Russia is a very notable topic. If we compare, in the last 90 days, "climate of Russia" has been viewed 2,143 times, while "August Winter" has been viewed only 85 times So, "General Winter" is still not as ambiguous as "Russian Winter"/"Russian winter". Khestwol (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose per the aboves. It seems like time to step away from the horse. Calidum T|C 23:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Above" most editors favor the move so if your !vote was based on that really, you would not be opposing. But apparently you are opposing. Do you support the ambiguous title "Russian Winter"? It differs from "Russian winter" (winter in Russia) (a far more notable topic, with many times more page views for the page where it redirects to) by only a capital W vs small w which is not an enough differentiation. The article is not about Russian winters but only a warfare concept. Please read the article. Khestwol (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The people who favored the move were led down the garden path by your Ngram. Where are you getting the idea that the topic of Winter is Russia is "more notable" other than by assertion it is so? First, the concept of notability, the topic inclusion standard, is a misnomer here – you appear to be calling to a primacy standard, which looks to whether when a particular term is searched for "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Anyway, call it notability or primacy, what is your assertion based upon? We don't need to guess. As I said in a prior post, article traffic for this article over the last 90 days was over 13,000 views. Winter in Russia got 124 views over the same time period, and as I said the DAB page was viewed only 25 times. That latter metric means that almost everyone who typed Russian W inter or Russian w inter into a search and landed here, was looking for this and not the season.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right about this article being viewed more times than Climate of Russia. But still clarity is a parameter which can't be ignored. The only article that the proposed title "General Winter" can be confused with i.e. August Winter is not notable, and has negligible number of views in last 90 days as compared to "Climate of Russia", the article that the current title can be confused with. The main issue here is clarity. Khestwol (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. In English, the subject topic is far more commonly known as "Russian Winter" than "General Winter". Additionally, "Russian Winter" is less ambiguous than "General Winter", which is a phrase that is not just generally unclear/ambiguous, as User:Fuhghettaboutit has shown above, but ambiguous even within military context, as it could refer to a general surnamed Winter, and beyond that, ambiguous even within the context of military strategy, as it could refer to the advantage gained by any cold country, not just Russia, fighting a war against a warmer country rather than the specifically Russian subject content of this article. —Lowellian (reply) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Current title (28 July 2015)
"Russian Winter" is the current title. Even when commonly used, is it an accurate title? Per WP:COMMONNAMES, inaccurate or ambiguous names are discouraged. If not accurate, what is your suggested title? --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Beware. Following titles did not have consensus in past move discussions: "Winter in Russia", "Russian winter" (actually, request was withdrawn when people opposed it), and "General Winter". Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice. Again, beware. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Why don't we just go for a purely descriptive title? Effects of winter in European Russia on warfare-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest move to "Winter warfare in Russia". This is a WP:CONCISE yet totally clear descriptive title, and reflects the scope of the article. Khestwol (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Saying "Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice" flies directly in the face of talkpage guidelines (Talk_page_guidelines). Want to retract that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I'm trying to "change the meaning of someone else's comment"? Prove it. I'll make sure that votes on one of those titles aren't repeated here until the discussion is over. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no right to strike anyone else's vote or comment. That is explicitly against policy at WP:TALK. You flat-out wrote that you intend to remove others' votes and censor others' comments. Hiding someone else's comment is changing their meaning. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment. I'm sure this is well intentioned, but it's nonetheless disruptive to start an RFC that looks and feels like a move request after three successive requests were rejected in less than two months. Why can't we all just move along? Calidum T|C 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a mere RFC. It might lead to title change usually. In this case, it might not with multiple suggestions flying around. This discussion doesn't request changing to one specific title. Instead, it discusses the current title itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a precursor to the RM. If I see enough suggestions, then I'll pick one of them as a suitable proposed title for the next RM. And this is better than RM with "?" indicating you don't have a suggested title. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Winter warfare in Russia. Descriptive, given no accepted proper name, and concise.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close. This discussion is thoroughly tainted by the nomination, which attempts to pre-state and steer what the consensus is and chill discussion of what is supposed to be under discussion, no less with threats. Were this RfC to reach an apparent consensus as to anything, it would not be acceptable because of its corrupted origin. Had I not participated in a prior RM – were I coming here wearing my admin hat to look at the discussion – this would be closed already, and at the least, a trout would be on the nominator's talk page. I intentionally do not address the merits, or lack thereof, of the initial statement because of this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per User:Fuhghettaboutit. This RFC abuses process as a masked attempt at an immediate 4th RM after the first 3, within 2 months, failed. A "spam requested moves until one succeeds" strategy is at work here. It has a non-neutral opening statement that is against WP:RFC rules ("Statement should be neutral and brief"). Even worse, the nomination makes an explicit censorship threat ("Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice. Again, beware.") that is abusive and against Wikipedia policy, and which unduely influences, chills, and slants any resulting discussion, as well as requires constant checking of the page history to ensure that comments have not been removed. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close. Along with the prejudicial wording already mentioned four attempts to move the article in under two months shows a need to WP:DROPTHESTICK by the nominator. MarnetteD|Talk 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note. I suspect this RFC is fatally flawed, but I know the threat to remove others' comments was not acceptable, so I've removed that threat.  If others' comments are removed, I will block the person doing the removing.  This decision was easy, I'll leave the harder decision on whether to shut down or continue the RFC to others.  My personal opinion, if that's worth anything, is that this is a discussion worth having, but a month or two cool down period might be appropriate, to avoid people reacting to the frequency of the requests, rather than the subject matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per Fuhghettaboutit and MarnetteD This is way too soon!  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have to criticize this article. The sources of the article consist of only 3 of which 1 is a dead link, its way to view and doesnt correlate with how much is written. And unlike with most other articles, its lacking a criticism section, criticizing the concept about the role of the Russian winter in the wars.--Crossswords (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Crossswords, I appreciate your concern about an inadequate number of references. However, I don't understand the need for a "criticism section". Are there those, who don't believe that the Russian winter had no role in the various wars? If so, perhaps you could provide some sources on that topic to provide a basis for what you mean? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed the problematic link: Chew, Allen F. Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have supplied a reference to the only unreferenced paragraph. User:HopsonRoad 14:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see a clear justification for why the neutrality of this article was questioned with a tag. The comment about a criticism section appears to be about the completeness of the article, not its neutrality. User:HopsonRoad 14:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi HopsonRoad, with criticism i just mean the over-estimation by historians, about the weather impact in these wars.--Crossswords (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Crossswords. It appears that the main sources cited in the article agree that winter and its aftermath were only a contributing factor, regarding the outcome of the campaigns described. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Basis for title change?
, I don't see the basis for your changing the title of this article from "Russian Winter". There were two germane discussions (above) about moving this page to a new name, including this one. They either resulted in a consensus not to or no consensus. On what basis did you make this move? I don't see a discussion supporting it or even an edit comment explaining it. It happens that I'm OK, but not thrilled with it, because it appears to have been changed without consensus. Now the article title looks like it is about a season in Russia, not about the military impact thereof. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. The move was requested by at WP:RM/TR. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 10:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 * , thanks for your prompt reply. As you can see from the above discussions, it was not an "uncontroversial technical request". I suggest that you open yet another discussion here to determine whether it should be ratified by consensus or whether a clearer name should be identified. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , per your comment above, I'm going to revert the move. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 11:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Russian Winter