text:
Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 2

2005 general election and Parliamentary constituencies
I thought this talk page was as good a place as any to propose this, so here goes.

With an election due within the next year or so, I think it's about time that Wikipedia had articles on the UK constituencies showing, past and present, with a list of the past representatives and election results. There's loads of interesting stuff about pocket boroughs, rotten boroughs and disenfranchisement for fraudulant practices etc.. This would be a big project though, so if we start now we might have something approaching completion by the time fo the election. Mintguy (T) 22:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are now a few articles about the UK constituencies, including Southampton Test. Laurel Bush 10:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC). I am working myself on several articles about constituencies, including my own Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I have little or no history about any of them but I do intend to insert, when known, results of the now anticipated 2005 general election.Laurel Bush 16:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC).

"Official languages"
If a language is not de facto official in the state-wide (highest level or whatever you call it), then it doesn't deserve listing on top of the table. At United States, only English is listed, not Spanish or Hawaiian. Listing these other languages will only mislead and cause havoc at India. --Jiang 04:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well then, don't list them at India - for the specific reason that there's too many! I assume why Spanish is not listed at the US is that only English is official? If there is no official language per-se, then by all means Spanish SHOULD be listed!!!

 * It makes sense for this article to have the languages in use mentioned - as there is no official language overall. Also, note the above remarks about Wales and NI. (Yes, the GFA did make these languages official in NI).

 * Zoney 13:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no official language overall, but there is a de facto official language. That is English, both in the US and the UK. In the state of New Mexico, Spanish is co-official with English. In Hawaii, Hawaiian is co-official with English. In California and a number of other states, English is official. But federally, there is no official language in the US. We're only concerned about what is official on the highest level. In the UK Parliament, only English is spoken. Am I right? We don't want to confuse people and crowd the page by listing languages not official on the country-wide level. --Jiang 03:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, not quite. (:-)) UK legislation, though primarily drafted in English, yes, has aspects of Latin and Norman French.
 * Which just makes life... complicated.
 * James F. (talk) 03:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * How can something be "de facto official" anyways! I mean, English being "de facto" means its simply matter of fact that it is a language used in UK! There's other languages used in UK! Also - there are Welsh-speaking, well, Welsh Council Boards, I believe! I don't know about Scotland. Anyways, I think it is small-mindedness to wish to remove them. How can 3 languages besides English confuse people! Bah! Nach bhfuil aon theangacha eile agat féin? Zoney 10:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We don't care about ordinary folk and local governments using a certain language. What people (as in ordinary people) use is irrelevant. We're for the real thing (hence the word official). Nigeria only has English listed on top. English there is for the elite, but it is nevertheless official. That's how we've standarized things here on wikipedia. Let's not make people think that theyre debating in the UK parliament in Cornish just as they do it in French in Canada.--Jiang 11:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Welsh should not have been relocated, however. This is a language that may be used in government.

 * Not for the entire United Kingdom. Similar, in fact, to Quebecois-French in Canada, no?
 * James F. (talk) 14:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French is used on the federal level (printed on currency, govt publications, and spoken in parliament) in Canada. That's our measure of officialness. Widespread use elsewhere is not a criteria. --Jiang 17:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I meant that as "Not for the Parliament of the entire United Kingdom." -- is it really the case that French is spoken in the federal parliament? Wow.
 * James F. (talk) 18:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ulster Scots is the variety of the Scots language spoken in Ulster in the same way as Ayrshire Scots is the variety of Scots spoken in Ayrshire. It is not a separate language other than Scots.

See: http://ww2.eblul.org:8080/eblul/Public/member_state_committ/british_committee/uk2/view

The european charter from the Council of Europe(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CV=1&NA=&PO=999&CN=999&VL=1&CM=9&CL=ENG) "b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter." NOTE: _a_ regional or minority _language_ not two separate ones.

Good Friday Agreement (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm) "3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Note: Ulster Scots was not referred to as a language.

The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999 describes Scots in Ulster as: "the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland."

Hope that clears things. — 217.225.26.59, 00:33 22 August 2004

 * Ulster-Scots and Ullans are both terms in quite common usage. Whilst it is right and proper that the pages Scots language and Ulster Scots language should make reference to the three being dialects of each other, rather than distinct languages, continually "correcting" articles is inserting POV. I have just — again — reverted some of these edits (pticly to my comments on Talk:European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which is really really irritating; if I'd wanted to say Scots, I would have). Please try to gain consensus before inserting these POV edits yet again.
 * You might also find my comments on User talk:217.225.26.59 of interest. Sorry for being rather grumpy in them, but few things irritate me more than people editing my comments to change what I'd written. — OwenBlacker 00:22, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the poor soul didn't know the references in the treaties quoted were POV. Good that someone makes it clear that there are two Scots languages not one. — 217.225.18.190 17:13:30, Aug 25, 2004

 * Well, that seems to be a point of some contention. But the articles on the two languages/dialect (delete as appropriate) do make it clear that some people consider them to be the same language, which is the most NPOV way of putting things, so I'd be very grateful if he's stop putting in his POV and create an account so we could discuss the issue properly, rather than going all edit war… — OwenBlacker 16:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * But the U.K. does have separate official languages, at least if one accepts the term as referring to languages of government. The Westminster parliament uses only English (apart from when the Queen signifying Royal Assent when Norman French is used - but this can hardly be referred to as an official language, as it can't be used in Parliament). So that's English in the list. The Welsh assembly uses English and Welsh - so that's Welsh done. Also Welsh can be used in Welsh courts, so it definitely qualifies as an official language of Wales. Scottish Gaelic is used, along with English, by the council in the Western Isles - it is also used on most road signs, often taking priority - so it can be said to be an official language of the Western Isles, though probably of nowhere else. In Northern Ireland, as usual, politics intervenes. The Republicans want Irish Gaelic (and get it) so the Unionists ask for Ulster Scots (and get it) and so English, Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots all have quasi-official status in Northern Ireland. Manx Gaelic is used in the Isle of Man (at least, it is used when proclaming Manx laws at the annual Tynwald at St John's), but the Isle of Man is not in the U.K. so Manx can be excluded. Cornish has no official status in Cornwall, and so should also be excluded.User: jongarrettuk 01:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. English is not the official language by statute because it is the uncontested official language of the UK. Try introducing legislation in Chinese and see what happens. I believe Gaelic is official in Scotland (can be spoken in Scotland) but we're talking about the UK here, not Scotland. Dr Zen 08:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Official Name
SND [] gives the following pronounciations (X-SAMPA) for "great" [I., m., s.Sc. grIt grEt; mn., sn.Sc. ‡gr@it, Kcd. + grit]. Seeing that "greet" only occurs in Kcd. "great" may be a better pan-dialect spelling. "Greet" may be confused with "greet" (to weep or cry) though admittedly this is highly unlikely in this context.

Ken Mair 26 Nov.

New Europe footer
Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UK / GB / etc confusion 4
I notice that there are quite a few pages. There is this one United Kingdom and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and there are a few more. There is a lot of confusion out there. If you look at my talk page, you will see long discussion on this topic. It seems that Wikipedia authors/editors and a whole lot of people in the world are either confused, or at best don't care much. I notice that some pages are simply set to redirect, for example Prime Minister of Great Britain redirects to Prime Minister of United Kingdom, similarly with Military of Great Britain. There are others too.

I am engaged in a long debate with Mintguy about whether it is reasonable, for example, to edit references about Churchill and William Pitt from Prime Minister of Great Britain to British Prime Minister and avoiding the redirect that would result from the Prime Minister of Great Britain link. I am sure we will never stop people writing new text that talks about things like the troops of Great Britain serving in Iraq. I have seen debates like this go on in other domains and there is always somebody new cropping up to start it again. In all apart from a few cases, people are referring to the nation, the culture, the people or the nationality and perhaps it hardly matters. I am not sure that I can keep up with some of the weird references like Kingdom of Great Britain.

We rarely worry about the various geopolitical and historical changes to other countries when we describe them. Wouldn't it be far simpler to have it all on one page where it could be all explained, then it wouldn't matter if people got the nuance wrong? Bobblewik 13:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Can you be more clear about what you are proposing? United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already redirects here. Are you suggesting that all articles to do with predecessor states to the UK be merged? Or what?

 * I dispute your claim that "We rarely worry about the various geopolitical and historical changes to other countries when we describe them". I take care to distinguish the Roman Republic from the Roman Empire, the United Provinces from the Netherlands, Castile from Spain, the Soviet Union from Russia, the United States of America from America etc etc and I can see from page histories that plenty of other people take care too. Of course, there may be a few editors who don't care, and many more who are ignorant, but the ones who do care can fix that. Not everyone has what it takes to be a copy-editor.

 * I think that it's good that you are changing "Great Britain", "England", "Britain" to "United Kingdom" when the original usage was lazy or mistaken. However, please be careful to be correct. Gdr 14:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Have a look at the introduction to The Isles A History by Norman Davies. He explains how The British Library Cataloguing system has the same confusion about Great Britain/United Kingdom and England, it doesn't even have a section called 'United Kingdom' (Davies remarking on the peculiarity that the National Library of the United Kingdom does not even have UK as a category) and it also has redirections from Great Britain to England such as <> --Cap 20:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Channel Islands
I notice that the map shows '(UK)' beside the Channel Islands. That gives the false impression that they are part of the UK. Bobblewik (talk) 18:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it just shows that the Channel Isles are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It's custom that maps show (country) after dependancies to the "country".

I am far from convinced by the logic of the above. The Channel Islands (and the Isle of Mann) may be subject to the same head of state as the UK but they are not therefore under the UK. Please see also my question below regarding Crown dependency and Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 12:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Crown Dependencies
"Also under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, though not part of the United Kingdom itself, are the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and a number of overseas territories."

 * The above statement is incorrect. While British Overseas Territories do fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the Channel Islands & the Isle of Man do not. To fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the Channel Islands & the Isle of Man would have to come under the jurisdiction of the Government of the  United Kingdom (which consist of the Crown & the Westminster Parliament), they do not. The   Channel Islands & the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies falling under the  jurisdiction of the Crown only (and as such autonomous states) having their own Parliamentary institutions (which in the case of the Isle of Man pre-dates that at Westminster). The Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster has no legal duty or responsibility with respect to the administration or running of Crown Dependencies except where agreed by treaty. For this reason   Crown Dependencies are not part of the European Union (although they are treated as such for customs purposes). Perhaps Somebody can correct this error?

Peter.T 12:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * While the British Overseas Territories come under the authority of the United Kingdom Government (Her Majesty's Government), the Crown Colonies come under the British Crown directly (in theory at least). Either way they both (the BOTs and Crown Colonies) come under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, via the Sovereign.

Is the UK itself perhaps a Crown dependency? It is subject to Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 11:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Firsts
I believe that GB was the birth place of postage stamp, mechanically powered railway & electric street lights. There seemed to be no natural place for significant facts like this in the article. David Thrale 21:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Little Britain
I thought Little Britain was Ireland, not Brittany? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Little Britain, is television programme, surely ;) Grinner 14:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sub-divisions
I have deleted "the northern regions and" following the referendum in NE England which overwhelmingly rejected regional assemblies  091104

Great Britain / United Kingdom
The articles entitled Great Britain and United Kingdom should be combined into one entry, seeing as how they are pretty much the same thing. Besides, United Kingdom is the proper name, and the Great Britain article contains less information. Just a thought. — 68.9.28.244 23:20, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * "pretty much the same thing"? I doubt the inhabitants of Northern Ireland would agree with you there. Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not! They're not the same thing, either timewise or geographically. It wouldn't be all that different to suggesting that United States and North America should be merged. — OwenBlacker 23:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Correct. They are not in any way the same. GB is a landmass. UK is a kingdom incorporating that landmass and a bit of the island next door.FearÉIREANN 19:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Great Britain is more than just a "landmass" it is also a political entity created by the Act of Union 1707. Peter.T 14:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it is just a landmass, but it was also a political entity which lasted for some 93 years until the Act of Union 1800.
 * James F. (talk) 03:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, correct, but the point I was trying to make is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the Act of Union 1800. This was a union of the territories of two political entities (both referred two in the title) into a single territory/political entity. Thus I think it is safe to say that the Great Britain can be said to be the territory of the political entity created by the Act of Union 1707. Hope that makes sense. Peter.T 18:56 08 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Kingdom of Great Britain is already a separate article from Great Britain. Joestynes 01:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

British Commonwealth
Shouldn't the British Commonwealth be listed at the bottom. It is a very important organisation even though it does not command as much attention as others. HM the Queen is its head and Britain is linked culturally to its Empire and Commonwealth.

 * Probably, yes.
 * James F. (talk) 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That Map
That map should be changed to something more useful. It has a vage place in the orkneys but it dosnt have Leeds, Nottingham and Leicester.

United Kingdom
Term needs disambiguation. There have been several united kingdoms, including that of Norway and Sweden.

 * I think it'd be safe to say UKofGB&NI would be far and away the first thing English speakers would recognise from the name "United Kingdom". A link to a disambig page at the top might be appropriate, though, if we do have any articles about other united kingdoms. --Khendon 11:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll also agree that any use of "UK" to mean UKofGB&NI will usually be correct as the others were (afaiaa) all in the past. We could just as well ask why "United States" heads for those of America rather than any of the others. --Vamp:Willow 11:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean united states in other continents? Which ones then? Or do you mean Mexico, which is officially called (translated) 'the United States of Mexico', and is also on the continent of Ammerica, so it can claim exactly the same title? DirkvdM 08:02, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

 * I agree that UK means UKofGB&I or in a historical context UKofGB&I. There may have been several united kingdoms (lower case) but there has really only been one United Kingdom (capitals), ie, one state internationally known the planet over by that name. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

factual inaccuracies
I've corrected some rather dramatic inaccuracies.
 * 1) Scotland's modern parliament is not in effect a continuation of its ancient one. This one is a home rule assembly. That one was a sovereign parliament. Suggesting one is the successor of the other is like suggesting the modern French parliament is the continuation of the Estates General. It isn't.
 * 2) The distinction between the legislature and the executive was not clear.
 * 3) The role of the Queen in the constitution was not accurately explained.
 * 4) British governments are never elected, either by the electorate or by the House of Commons. They are appointed. However the Queen appoints someone capable of forming a government (which is not, BTW, the same as having a majority, another error. Minority govts for example, need only ensure that a majority doesn't vote against it - by opposition abstentions, for example)
 * 5) The British monarchy has no role in other commonwealth realms. Since the 1920s the Commonwealth has been operating on the principle of 'one wearer, multiple crowns'. So Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc individually and personally. She is not queen of Australia as queen of the United Kingdom, as appeared to be implied. Sometimes the United Kingdom, not its queen, had a role in a particular dominion. On occasion she as UK queen had a role on behalf of the UK. But for decades the role of being queen of a commonwealth realm has been fundamentally different to that of being UK queen. It just so happens that due to an accident of history the same person holds both parallel posts. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the government answerable to the Lords as well as the Commons? --Pauldanon 18:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Country vs kingdom
Discussion moved to /Country, Kingdom or State

"Country" or "state"
Discussion moved to /Country, Kingdom or State

Credibility of UK country/state/argument
Discussion not moved to /Country, Kingdom or State because I don't feel that the credibility of previous contributors has much bearing on the debate at hand (no offense meant to any of the below contributors)

Is it worth noting that there is not one single registered editor with a history backing the "UK is not a country" idea? Aside from User:Considered of course, who registered specifically to comment on this issue.

From this month:
 * User:20.133.0.12
 * User:81.129.12.95
 * User:81.155.110.54
 * User:81.156.0.9
 * User:194.35.219.101 aka laurelbush1952@hotmail.com
 * User:213.202.133.183
 * User:213.202.141.247
 * User:213.202.142.31
 * User:217.44.176.64
 * User:217.44.191.97
 * User:217.44.191.111

AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How dare these anonymous individuals have the absolute audacity to consider themselves as worthy of making informed edits on this website?! Alistair, what do you sound like?!?

And why should the fact that these individuals are not registered users make their contributions any less valid, Alistair? You are right about one thing, though, I did indeed register as a result of your continued disregard of unregistered users' edits. May I remind you that the Wikipedia project is a public forum and not a "private members' club" and our common aim should be unbiased input and fair consideration for all, as opposed to the recent bouts of what can only be described as "playground politics" by individuals like yourself, who really need to reconsider their own aims in this project.

And on the subject of maturity and bullying, I would draw Arwel's (and others') attention to the message AllistairMcMillan left for me on my "User_talk" page. So, what exactly is a "sockpuppet" anyway?

Considered 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system." "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" AlistairMcMillan 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * ^^^^^^^ LOL!! Jooler 12:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Considered whether you like it or not a pattern of anon edits like that is somewhat out of the ordianry. I can think of a few things that could of caused it and not all of them are good.Geni 14:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Alistair is not the only person to have been deeply suspicious of the edit histories of the accounts contributing to this debate. Consider:
 * 20.133.0.12 - Edit history goes back to 29/9/04. IP address originates from CSC, Falls Church, Virginia, USA, but most edits on UK subjects.
 * 81.129.12.95 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 15/1/05, to this article. BT address.
 * 81.155.110.54 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 26/1/05, to this article. BT address.
 * 81.156.0.9 - 3 edits ever made, 1 to this article, 2 to one other; first edit 7/1/05. BT address.
 * 194.35.219.101 - Only 1 edit made prior to 21/1/05 (to Wars of Scottish Independence on 17/11/04). UHI, Inverness.
 * 213.202.133.183 - 2 edits ever made, first on 23/1/05. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
 * 213.202.141.247 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 25/1/05. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
 * 213.202.142.31 - 4 edits ever made, first on 21/1/05 - 2 to UK, 1 each to History of Ireland, Federation. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
 * 217.44.176.64 - 2 edits ever, both to UK, first on 22/1/05. BT address.
 * 217.44.191.97 - 3 edits ever, 1 to UK, 2 to English (people), first on 6/1/05. BT address.
 * 217.44.191.111 - 1 edit ever, on 25/1/05. BT address
 * User:Considered - new account, first edit 21/1/05. Now you may well have edited anonymously before, but this plethora of anonymous users with little or no history of posting to anything but this article is highly suggestive of sockpuppet behaviour, i.e. the creation of anonymous accounts to back up someone's own arguments. -- Arwel 14:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * looks like three people then then. The changes in IP mean proabably dialup connetions. The wide area suggest conicdence or some form of board/mailinglist/blog campain that hasn't been very sucessful. Still it increases the number of wikipedians so the basic idea is no bad thingGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan, I really have no response to the apparently random and frankly, slightly worrying gibberish that you consistently see fit to write in response. It really isn't normal.
 * It's a well-known quotation from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arwel, I take your point in regard to the questionable validity of some of the more recent UK-specific entries and must confess to being slightly disconcerted at the (I'm sure unintentional) suggestion that I have been running round the country, using a plethora of different PCs as a "sockpuppet", as you term it. If that is the case, then there are two points I feel I must make:

 * 1. My issue here is not about absolutes  - I agree the UK is a country of sorts, but am aware that a large number of people would find this view questionable, hence not NPOV.

 * So why do you change it to an incorrect word? Kingdom would be more accuret (if only becuase the word queendom never really caught on). State is very much incorrect. Sovrien state would be closerGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 2. I can assure you that, unlike some of the perpetuators of this 'edit war', I have better things to do with my time than to invest my efforts in sitting by my PC at all hours ... but of course, I forgot, I am, afterall, the source of all the anonymous edits.  Multi-tasking must therefore be a particular strongpoint of mine, given that I actually have a life beyond cyberspace, but seem to find time travelling around Britain, Ireland and the US to force my point of view on others, or perhaps I'm supposed to have been sad enough to have been calling various friends in different countries over such an 'important' matter.
 * The geographical location of ISPs is of little significance thanks to the Internet. I have an "American" alternative net presence, and one of my local correspondents uses a Russian email address. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will waste no further breath on AlistairMcMillan as I do not feel that his conduct merits further engagement, however I would respectfully ask you, Arwel, to brush up on your social skills and avoid making insulting remarks to other users, whom you deem "of questionable validity".
 * Considered, I would respectfully ask you to point out where in this discussion I have said that anyone's contribution is "of questionable validity". I have not, and find your suggestion that I "brush up on your social skills and avoid making insulting remarks to other users" itself insulting - I believe an apology from you is in order. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I do apologise if I have offended you, Arwel. I could not help but take your accusations personally. -- Considered 13:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice that this little "sub-debate" (for want of a better euphemism), seems to have conveniently side-tracked the whole point of this particular discussion. I apologise if I am being overly-suspicious myself now.
 * The point of the discussion should continue to be debated in the preceding section. This particular section is discussing the origin of the disputants. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I'd be most grateful if you could let me know to whom the "local administrators" like yourself are accountable?
 * There's no such thing as a "local administrator". All 400-odd administrators potentially keep an eye on all 460,000 articles on the English Wikipedia. I personally have just short of 2000 articles on my watchlist, covering a wide range of topics. As Geni says, if you have a problem with any user's actions you should follow the dispute resolution procedure. See also Administrators. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the information. -- Considered 13:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The community. See Dispute resolutionGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Considered, stop taking it all so seriously. In this game you can't get too involved emotionally, especially as a casual editor, as there are loads of people on here whose lives seem to revolve around this site so you must realise that sometimes your edits will tread on the toes of those who seem to have nothing else in life worth doing. But these 'stepping on toes' situations and the ensuing reaction from some of the people who need to get out more, makes it a bit more fun for everyone. Don't take it to heart and don't get sucked into making statements that just brings you down to the level of some others in the forum. Happy editing!

"One of the anonymous editors" aka Mark Gudrunsen (there, I'm no longer anonymous ;o) ) 17:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UK-Irish border
The UK is situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean? Somebody seems to have lost the UK's only land border. laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 Jan 25

Why is the UK not considered to have land borders with Spain (via Gibraltar) and, more contentiously, (the rest of) Antartica (via British Antarctic Territory)? Bovlb 20:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

 * Neither Gibralter nor BAT (nor, for that matter, the Falkland Islands, the Channel Islands, or even the Isle of Man) are "part" of the UK. It's all very fuzzy. Doops 02:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 Jan 26th:
 * Gib is a 'dependency' rather than a 'part'.

And more to the point, it's (as I understand it) a dependency of the Crown, rather than anything directly to do with the United Kingdom as such at all. --Khendon 14:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the confusion which exists over everything to do with British constitutional matters, in European Parliament elections Gibraltar votes are counted as part of the South West England region! -- Arwel 17:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cornwall Kernow Cornubia Cornewallia Cerny
Just added some information on the movement for home rule in Cornwall, it is worthy of note however it is often overlooked, hushed up or ignored. However the petition of 50000 signatures calling for devolution to Cornwall was probably the biggest political story out of Cornwall in a very long time. Additionally this sites information on the incorporation of the rump sate of Dumnonia, the Earldom of Cornwall and then the Duchy of Cornwall into the UK is non existent, why? Bretagne 44 26/2/05

So i see that my edit was removed and no reason given, can i ask why or is it that someone owns this board and i have trod on their toes. I will keep replacing the edit, it is just the begining of my edits on Cornwall's history in the UK, rest assured! Bretagne 44 27/2/05

 * I would suggest that you try and work towards a consensus rather than threatening people with edit wars.Geni 20:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geni wrote "I would suggest that you try and work towards a consensus rather than threatening people with edit wars" Thanks you for your words of wisdom and of course you are correct, however i felt forced to make such statements because my edits where removed and even my discussion on this page was removed by persons unknown who failed to provide a reason or engage in debate. My obnoxious statement was meant to provoke engagement and therefore the beginning of consensus building. Laural Bush, i have provided a separate entry for Berwick on Tweed below.

I agree and think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.

 * Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.

 * The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).

 * Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between Anglia and Cornubia. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site Mercators Atlas by walking tree press. I am happy to provide further examples if required?

 * Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a de jure status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.

Bretagne 44 28/2/05
 * I present the following link to support my points.Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site

Claims to be counted as constituent parts
I believe both Berwick-upon-Tweed and Cornwall have some claim to be counted as constituent parts and this should be stated (so creating perhaps the start of a longer 'wish list') somewhere near the top of the article page. Laurel Bush 11:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC). The burgh of Berwick on Tweed is the only remaining Englander gain from the Wars of Scotland, which occurred when Englanders had ambition (contrary to the 1237 Treaty of York) to annex or absorb territory north of the River Tweed and south of the River Forth and River Clyde estuaries. Within a continuing Scotlander perspective the burgh is either occupied or neutral territory. If neutral and UK then it is one of the UK’s constituent parts. Laurel Bush 12:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

 * Berwick on Tweed may have, like Cornwall, a certain disputed constitutional status, i would say however that is where the similarity with Cornwall ends. The Cornish can be considered a constituent peoples of the UK and one of the historic nations. So somewhere perhaps mention can be made of the disputed constitutional nature of Berwick and Cornwall, but i think mention of the national nature of the history of the Cornish, in relation to the creation of the UK and predecessor states, deserves mention. Bretagne 44 1/3/05

I believe Berwick on Tweed has actually been listed, historically, as if a constituent part of the UK in a declaration of war. Also the relevant article paragraph is about the politics of territorial boundaries and I cant see references to 'peoples' and 'Cornish' as very appropriate in this context.

 * That's a hangover from the 11+ times the town changed hands between England and Scotland between 1147 and 1482. There was never a dispute that the town did not belong to either Scotland nor England, just over which one. The Wales and Berwick Act, 1746, specified that when an Act of Parliament refers to "England" it includes Berwick. Until 1885, when the town was included in Northumberland, it was often but not always mentioned separately, such as in the declaration of war on Russia in 1853 which Victoria signed as "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and all British Dominions" - though mention of Berwick was omitted from the Treaty of Paris in 1856 which ended the war, which lead to the signing of a peace treaty in 1966 between the mayor of Berwick and a diplomat from the Soviet embassy, so that the Russians could sleep soundly in their beds! -- Arwel 17:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nation refers to a people ie Jewish nation (spread over many states). The Cornish are one of the constituent peoples of the UK, with a distinct identity and therefore arguably a nation. Or if you prefer a National Minority as the Council of Europe has urged the UK gov to recognise the Cornish. Additionally there is a dispute over the constitutional nature of Cornwall see my posting above. Bretagne 44 2/3/05

Politics
I do not appreciate User:Heimdal calling me a "vandal" for my edits. I have reasons for editing the article. Images should not be 350px (or anything wider than 300px) because it takes up over half the article width in 800x600 browsers. I believe the addition by Heimdal to the politics section was in good faith, but that section is already of sufficient length. Naming the other commonwealth realms is not necessary. Three sentence sections, such as "Head of Government" should not exist. all other subsections under the politics section only had one paragraph at most, again not long enough to make a section. According to summary style and WikiProject Countries, details should be kept in politics of the United Kingdom, not here. Heimdal should also note that in mass reverting my "vandalism", he removed the bn: interwiki link. --Jiang 21:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I've restored a good portion of Heimdal's edits, excluding those mentioned above. Please note that House of Commons is a general page and the page we're interested in is British House of Commons. There's no reason to revert me on that. --Jiang 21:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, please do not just revert me without explanation. I would like my objections addressed. I am very interested in knowing why you would want to keep images at 350px and leave out the bn: interwiki link. --Jiang 10:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no reason for reverting these series of edits. the lead section is too long and discussion of part not in the UK can go elsewhere. images that are too small for thumbing should not be thumbed - the coin image was actually expanded in size and looked hideous. the miscellenous topics section is designed for links not found elsewhere, why list links more than once? Please answer, Heimdal. dont just revert everything i change in this article. --Jiang 12:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had several similar experiences with user Heimdal, when I tried to improve the Germany page. I am sure there are more victims of his behavior about. Such Wikipedia inappropriate behavior can not remain unnoticed forever. Jiang, go ahead and make all necessary improvements to this page. gidonb 19:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for page protection
Page protected after request on Requests for page protection due to an edit war. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * What edit war? Please specify.

 * Err. He did link to Requests for page protection... If you really can't be bothered to click the link, Heimdal's significant edits and Jiang's and others' reversions thereof.
 * James F. (talk) 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * He does ask for discussion on the talk page but fails to initiate same. Laurel Bush 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Changes to Population
I've updated the article with the estimated population 2004. source: CIA World Factbook

--Benbread 17:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continued in...
Discussion continued in Archive 3.

title: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 2


text: User talk:69.208.212.163

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

title: User talk:69.208.212.163


text:
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience.

As a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia serves readers with a wide range in background, preparation, interests, and goals. Even for articles about the most technically demanding subjects, these readers include students and curious laypeople in addition to experts. While upholding the goals of accuracy, neutrality, and full coverage of the most important aspects of a topic, every effort should be made to also render articles accessible and pleasant to read for less-prepared readers. It is especially important to make the lead section understandable using plain language, and it is often helpful to begin with more common and accessible subtopics, then proceed to those requiring advanced knowledge or addressing niche specialties.

Articles should be written in encyclopedic style, but this differs from the spare and technically precise style found in scholarly monographs and peer-reviewed papers aimed at specialists. Articles should stay on topic without twisting the truth or telling "lies-to-children", but they should also be self-contained when possible, and should not take prerequisite knowledge for granted or gratuitously use unexplained jargon or advanced technical notation: shortcuts which save time and effort for experts can be barriers to the uninitiated.

Audience
Wikipedia has a varied audience who can be graded in three ways:

 * On familiarity with the subject.
 * The general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is.
 * The knowledgeable reader has an education in the topic's field but wants to learn about the topic itself.
 * The expert reader knows the topic but wants to learn more or be reminded about some fact, or is curious about Wikipedia's coverage.
 * On reading ability. Various free online tools can automatically grade the readability of text or highlight complex sentence structures, like http://www.hemingwayapp.com (automated readability index) or http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com (Flesch reading ease).
 * By motivation to learn about the topic.

A highly educated, knowledgeable, motivated reader may comfortably read a 5,000-word featured article to the end. Another reader may struggle through the lead and look at the pictures. A good article will grab the interest of all readers and allow them to learn as much about the subject as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive.

While a member of any of the audience groups may stumble upon an article and decide to read it (for example, by clicking on Special:Random), some subjects naturally attract a more limited audience. A topic that requires many years of specialist education or training prior to being studied or discussed is in general likely to have a more limited audience. For example, a topic in advanced mathematics, specialist law, or industrial engineering may contain material that only knowledgeable readers can appreciate or even understand. On the other hand, many subjects studied at an academically advanced level remain of interest to a wider audience. For example, the Sun is of interest to more than just astronomers, and Alzheimer's disease will interest more than just physicians.

Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. Some articles are themselves technical in nature and some articles have technical sections or aspects. Many of these can still be written to be understandable to a wide audience. Some topics are intrinsically complex or require much prior knowledge gained through specialized education or training. It is unreasonable to expect a comprehensive article on such subjects to be understandable to all readers. The effort should still be made to make the article as understandable to as many as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section. The article should be written in simple English that non-experts can understand properly.

Technical content assistance
Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Wikipedia articles. Increasing the understandability of technical content is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less knowledgeable readers, but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background.

Making articles more understandable does not necessarily mean that detailed technical content should be removed. For instance, an encyclopedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader. But often summarizing highly technical details can improve the readability of the text for general readers and experts alike. For example, a long-winded mathematical proof of some result is unlikely to be read by either a general reader or an expert, but a short summary of the proof and its most important points may convey a sense to a general reader without reducing the usefulness to an expert reader. When trying to decide what amount of technical detail is appropriate to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field to which the subject of the article belongs.

Lead section
It is particularly important for the first section (the "lead" section, above the table of contents) to be understandable to a broad readership. Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they don't already know the topic in detail. Those who are only looking for a summary or general definition may stop reading at the end of the lead. An understandable lead encourages readers to continue reading into the body of the article.

For these reasons, the lead should provide an understandable overview of the article. While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and placing the technical details in the body of the article. The lead of the article should tell a general reader the field of study of the topic, the place the topic holds in its field of study, what (if anything) the topic is good for, and what needs to be learned first in order to understand the article.

In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a link to another article. Any link to another article should be a supplement to provide more information, and preferably should not be required for understanding text in the lead. For highly specialized topics where it is difficult to give an overview in terms with which a general audience will be familiar, it may be reasonable to assume some background knowledge in the lead while linking to the prerequisites required to understand it. For reference, the lead for a typical Featured Article includes about 20 links to other articles (with a mean lead length around 300 words).

Rules of thumb
Here are some more ideas for dealing with moderately or highly technical subjects:

Put the least obscure parts of the article up front
It's perfectly fine for later sections to be more technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at a similar technical level so that if the first, easier paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the first part of the section linked to it should also be understandable. Further, even more-technical sections can often be improved upon by summarizing the main ideas in the first paragraph before going into details.

Avoid circular explanations: don't define A in terms of B, and B in terms of A. Check to make sure that technical terms are not used before they are defined.

Write one level down
A general technique for increasing accessibility is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it.

Add a concrete example
Many technical articles are not understandable (and more confusing even to expert readers) only because they are abstract. A concrete example can help many readers to put the abstract content in context. Sometimes a contrasting example (counterexample) can also be helpful. For instance, from the article verb:
 * A verb, from the Latin verbum meaning 'word', is a word (part of speech) that in syntax conveys an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn), an occurrence (happen, become), or a state of being (be, exist, stand).

Examples must still meet the same requirement of no original research that other content is subject to.

Explain formulae in English
When possible, even for experts it can be helpful to explain in English why the formula has certain features or is written a certain way. Explaining the "meaning" of a formula helps readers follow along. At a minimum, make sure all the variables in a formula are defined in the article, or have links to articles that explain them.

Add a picture
Visual depictions enable many people to learn more effectively, and allow technical concepts to be communicated in a more concise and clear manner. Diagrams should be related to symbolic or verbal descriptions where appropriate. Some templates that might be useful:

 * : to overlay one image-symbol + label onto a map/image;
 * : to overlay many image-symbols + labels onto a map/image (up to 9 markers);
 * : has examples for any image as a 100-by-100 overlay grid;
 * : to overlay onto an unbordered image, such as open diagrams.

Avoid overly technical language
Main guideline: Technical language in Manual of Style

 * Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
 * If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.
 * Consider prefacing explanatory sentences with caveats. When a less complete or precise explanation is given to improve clarity, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions..." so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise.
 * Eliminate long strings of adjectives, particularly technical adjectives.
 * Use some short sentences and short paragraphs. Comprehension decreases when sentence length exceeds about 12 words. However, using too many short sentences in a row becomes monotonous and stilted; vary sentence length to maintain reader interest. Similarly, split long paragraphs into smaller ones.
 * Use more verbs to improve readability. You can replace many technical adjectives with verbs.
 * Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation. Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation.
 * Use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms. Avoid far-out analogies. The best analogies can make all the difference between incomprehension and full understanding. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook, so analogies need to be written in an encyclopedic way and be attributable to reliable sources. Extensive explanations without a specific source may constitute original research, or original research by synthesis.

Don't oversimplify
It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.

Labeling articles that are too technical
Various templates are available for labeling articles that do not meet agreed standards of understandability.

For articles that are not sufficiently understandable, the template should be inserted at the top of the corresponding discussion page. You should put an explanation on the talk page with comments on why you believe it is too technical, or suggestions for improvement. Templates added without explanation are likely to be either ignored or removed. Articles containing this template can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical.

This tag should be used only on articles which you feel could be improved by someone following the guidelines listed above.

"Introduction to..." articles
For topics which are unavoidably technical but, at the same time, of significant interest to non-technical readers, one solution may be a separate introductory article. An example is Introduction to viruses. A complete list of current "Introduction to..." articles can be found in Category:Introductory articles, while a list of main articles thus supplemented is Category:Articles with separate introductions.

In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy, WP:LEAD guideline, and guideline on content forking, the number of separate introductory articles should be kept to a minimum. Before you start one, ask yourself You may start an "Introduction to..." article if the answer to these questions is "no".
 * Following the advice given in the preceding sections, can the article be made sufficiently understandable as a whole, without the need for a separate introduction?
 * Given the degree of general interest in the topic at hand, might a well-written lead be sufficient?


text: User talk:68.59.42.156

title: User talk:68.59.42.156


text:
UFCU Disch–Falk Field

UFCU Disch–Falk Field is the baseball stadium of the University of Texas at Austin. It has been home to Texas Longhorns baseball since it opened on February 17, 1975, replacing Clark Field as the home of the Longhorns.

The stadium is named for former Longhorns coaches Billy Disch and Bibb Falk. Beginning August 1, 2006, the name of the stadium was changed to UFCU Disch–Falk Field, following a sponsorship deal with a local credit union, University Federal Credit Union.

Stadium History

 * February 17, 1975 - The Longhorns swept a doubleheader from St. Mary’s, (Texas) 4-0 and 11-0, in their first games on the new field
 * April 19, 1975 - Stadium was dedicated as Disch-Falk Field prior to Texas’ doubleheader sweep of TCU (18-3 and 14-0)
 * Summer 1979 - New AstroTurf was installed on the infield
 * May 19, 1982 - The largest crowd ever to see a collegiate game at Disch-Falk Field – 8,000 fans – saw Texas defeat Oklahoma, 8-0, during the NCAA Central Regional
 * Summer 1985 - New AstroTurf was installed on the entire field
 * Summer 1989 - A new computerized scoreboard was installed in left field
 * Winter 1995 - New AstroTurf was installed on the infield.
 * Winter 1996 - The computerized scoreboard was upgraded
 * Winter 1999 - New AstroTurf was installed on the entire field, the outfield fence was constructed and padded and the clubhouse and team areas were renovated
 * Spring 2005 - New scoreboard with Jumbotron is installed in left field
 * August 1, 2006 - Stadium renamed UFCU Disch-Falk Field
 * Spring 2008 - Work completed on $25.8 million renovation of UFCU Disch–Falk Field
 * Fall 2009 - FieldTurf playing surface was installed
 * Spring 2012 - New videoboard installed in right field
 * Winter 2016 - New FieldTurf playing surface was installed and the fences in the gaps were moved closer
 * Winter 2019 - Replaced left field scoreboard with a new videoboard
 * Fall 2019 - Opened the 21,500-square-foot J. Dan Brown Family Player Development Center

Note: The entire playing surface, excluding the pitcher's mound, is FieldTurf. UFCU Disch-Falk Field has held 28 regionals and held six super regionals.

Attendance
In 2013, the Longhorns ranked 6th among Division I baseball programs in attendance, averaging 5,793 per home game.

In 2012, college baseball writer Eric Sorenson ranked the stadium as the fifth best big game atmosphere in Division I baseball.

2006-2008 Renovation
In July 2005, the University announced an $18 million renovation project for Disch-Falk Field. Construction began in late 2006. The Longhorns played their 2007 season at the stadium during the renovation, although a few early season games and the NCAA Regional tournament were moved to the nearby Dell Diamond. Completed for the 2008 season, the renovated Disch-Falk field was designed by architectural firm DLR Group. The renovations included:

 * 107 premium seats added increasing capacity to 6,756
 * 17 new suites
 * lowering of the seating bowl six feet to field level
 * complete replacement of the seating bowl
 * expanded concourse
 * new team merchandise store
 * new full-service ticket office
 * expanded concessions and restrooms
 * enhanced media services spaces
 * new lighting and sound systems
 * new metal wall cladding and TPO roof
 * dugouts moved closer to the field
 * new bullpens
 * new weight training facility
 * new team training areas
 * new team meeting room
 * new coaches offices
 * replacement of AstroTurf surface with FieldTurf.

Scoreboard
Before the 2019 season the left field videoboard was completely replaced. The right field scoreboard was installed before the 2012 season.

Naming
October 12, 2005, the University announced a $13.1 million gift from University Federal Credit Union as the major gift in the campaign to finance the renovation of the ballpark. In connection with this gift, the name of the stadium changed to UFCU Disch–Falk Field on August 1, 2006.

Attendance records

 * Through February 24, 2024

title: UFCU Disch–Falk Field


text: User talk:68.44.66.98

title: User talk:68.44.66.98


text:
Dassault MD 315 Flamant

The Dassault MD 315 Flamant is a French light twin-engined transport airplane built shortly after World War II by Dassault Aviation for the French Air Force.

Design and development
Design work on a twin-engined light transport started in 1946 with the MD 303, a development of an earlier project for an eight-seat communications aircraft, the Marcel Bloch MB-30. The prototype MD 303 first flew on 26 February 1947 powered by two Béarn 6D engines, designed to meet a French Air Force requirement for a colonial communications aircraft. A re-engined version was ordered into production at the new Dassault factory at Bordeaux-Mérignac. The production aircraft was a low-wing monoplane with twin tail surfaces and a tricycle undercarriage, powered by two Renault 12S piston engines.

Three main versions of the aircraft now named Flamant (Flamingo in French) were produced. The MD 315 ten-seat colonial communication aircraft (first flown on 6 July 1947), the MD 312 six-seat transport aircraft (first flown on 27 April 1950), and the MD 311 navigation trainer (first flown on 23 March 1948). The MD 311 had a distinctive glazed nose for its role as both a bombing and navigation trainer.

Operational history
The first Flamant was delivered to the French Air Force in 1949 and deliveries of all versions were completed by 1953

The aircraft was used for pilot training, navigation training, light transport, maritime surveillance and light ground attack. During the Algerian War of Independence the plane was used for light attack with the Nord SS.11 and AS.11 antitank missiles or with machine guns, bombs, and rockets. The Flamant MD 311s (which were based in Algeria to train pilots and navigators at first) were the first aircraft in history to fire one of the world's first wire-guided antitank missiles in anger, using French Army SS.11 antitank missiles, in a combat experiment to get at fortified caves located in deep mountain gorges, in 1956 from an aircraft based with the special unit of the French Air Force in Algeria, GOM.86. The SS.11 attacks proved extremely successful and the French Army which had provided the missiles, began an experiment which resulted in the world's first attack helicopters firing antitank missiles. The Flamant stayed in service until 1981. In addition to the French air force, the Flamant served in Cambodia, Madagascar, Tunisia, and Vietnam.

Variants

 * MB 30-1:Original proposals for a bombing and navigation trainer.
 * MB 30-2:Original proposals for a medical and colonial roles.
 * MB 30-3:Original proposals for a liaison and training aircraft.
 * MD 303:Dassault MD 311 Flamant.JPG 2007]]
 * Prototype, one built, powered by two 410 hp Béarn 6D engines.

 * MD 311:
 * Bombing, navigation and photography training aircraft, 41 built (1 prototype + 40 production), powered by two 410 hp SNECMA 12S engines.

 * MD 312: Multi-engine pilot trainer and six-seat transport and communications aircraft, 118 built, powered by two 410 hp SNECMA 12S engines.
 * MD 312M: Utility aircraft for French Navy. 25 built.
 * MD 312B:Experimental version with a single fin, rectangular fuselage windows, and a heavier loaded weight. One built, powered by two 410 hp SNECMA 12S engines. Used later for Mirage IV radar development.
 * MD 315:Ten-seat utility transport aircraft, 137 built, powered by two 410 hp SNECMA 12S engines.
 * MD 316T:One prototype fitted with a single-finned tail, and two 800 hp Wright R-1300-CB7A1 Cyclone radial piston engines.
 * MD 316X:One MD 315 aircraft fitted with two 820 hp SNECMA 14X Super Mars radial piston engines.

Operators

 * Cambodian Air Force (MD 315)
 * Cameroon Air Force (MD 315)
 * French Air Force (MD 315, MD 312, MD 311)
 * French Navy (MD 312)
 * Khmer Republic
 * Khmer Air Force
 * Madagascar Aeronaval Force (MD 315, MD 312)
 * Niger Air Force (one MD 312 received in the 1960s)
 * South Vietnam
 * Republic of Vietnam Air Force (MD 312, MD 315)
 * Tunisian Air Force (MD 312)
 * Niger Air Force (one MD 312 received in the 1960s)
 * South Vietnam
 * Republic of Vietnam Air Force (MD 312, MD 315)
 * Tunisian Air Force (MD 312)
 * Tunisian Air Force (MD 312)
 * Tunisian Air Force (MD 312)

title: Dassault MD 315 Flamant


text:
Samoyedic peoples

The Samoyedic peoples (sometimes Samodeic peoples) are a group of closely related peoples who speak Samoyedic languages, which are part of the Uralic family. They are a linguistic, ethnic, and cultural grouping. The name derives from the obsolete term Samoyed used in Russian Empire for some Indigenous people of Siberia, see Samoyedic languages for comments of the etymology.

Extinct

 * Yurats, who spoke Yurats
 * Mators or Motors, who spoke Mator

Comments
Traditionally, Samoyedic languages and peoples have been divided into two major areal groups: Northern Samoyedic (Nenets, Yurats, Enets, Nganasans), and Southern Samoyedic (Selkups) with a further subgroup of Sayan-Samoyedic (Kamasins, Mators) named after the Sayan Mountains. This classification does not reflect linguistic relations, being purely geographical.

The largest of the Samoyedic peoples are the Nenets, who mainly live in two autonomous districts of Russia: Yamalo-Nenetsia and Nenetsia. Some of the Nenets and most of the Enets and Nganasans used to live in the Taymyrsky Dolgano-Nenetsky District. Most of the Selkups live in Yamalo-Nenetsia, but there is also a significant population in Tomsk Oblast.

title: Samoyedic peoples


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Pilcher

 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Pilcher
Vanity biography
 * delete Obvious vanity biography by a student Samw 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. The JPS 08:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 'cos her friend Ben rocks!!! err, on second thoughts Delete as vanity. Rje 00:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. vanity. - Marcika 23:22, 23 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:
User:Oo64eva/Template:preview

Show preview
Hi. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! I have been noticing your editing habits and would like to make a helpful suggestion. It is considered a poor habit to hit the Save page button each time you make a change before you're completely finished editing. If you'll notice to the right of the Save page button there is a Show preview button. This will show you a preview of what your edit will look like above the text box, but will not save your changes. Once you're satisfied with your edits you can then save the article. If you're worried about edit conflicts during your editing process, place at the top of the article before you begin. This will alert other contributors that a major edit is currently in progress and not to make any changes to the article until you're done. Once you finish remember to remove. For more information on how you can improve your editing, consult this guide.

title: User:Oo64eva/Template:preview


text:
User talk:Vanished user sfoi943923kjd94

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

Nomination of American Rare Breed Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Rare Breed Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/American Rare Breed Association (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cavalryman (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of furry role-playing games for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of furry role-playing games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of furry role-playing games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vanished user sfoi943923kjd94


text:
Lima Duarte

Ariclenes Venâncio Martins (born 29 March 1930), known professionally as Lima Duarte, is a Brazilian actor. He played a number of characters in Brazilian telenovelas, such as Zeca Diabo in O Bem-Amado and Sinhozinho Malta in Roque Santeiro. He first appeared on Brazilian television in 1950. Duarte also worked as a voice actor in the 1960s, being the voice of Top Cat ("Manda-Chuva" in Portuguese), Wally Gator and Dum-Dum (Touche Turtle's friend). He has worked with Brazilian and Portuguese directors, such as Fábio Barreto, Paulo Rocha and Manoel de Oliveira.

Filmography

 * Soap Operas
 * 2022 – Além da Ilusão
 * 2017 – O Outro Lado do Paraíso .... Josafá Tavares
 * 2015 – I Love Paraisópolis .... Dom Pepino
 * 2010 – Araguaia .... Max Martinez
 * 2009 – India – A Love Story .... Shankar
 * 2007 – Desejo Proibido .... Mayor Viriato "Condor" Palhares
 * 2007 – Amazônia, de Galvez a Chico Mendes .... Bento
 * 2005 – Belíssima .... Murat Güney
 * 2004 – O Pequeno Alquimista .... Filolal
 * 2004 – Senhora do Destino .... Senator Vitório Vianna (special guest)
 * 2004 – Da Cor do Pecado .... Alfonso Lambertini
 * 2003 – Sítio do Picapau Amarelo .... João Melado
 * 2002 – O Quinto dos Infernos .... Conde dos Arcos
 * 2002 – Sabor da Paixão .... Miguel Maria Coelho
 * 2001 – Porto dos Milagres .... Senator Vitório Vianna
 * 2000 – Uga-Uga .... Nikos Karabastos
 * 1999 – O Auto da Compadecida .... Bishop
 * 1998 – River of Gold
 * 1998 – Pecado Capital .... Tonho Alicate (special guest)
 * 1998 – Corpo Dourado .... Zé Paulo (special guest)
 * 1997 – A Indomada .... Murilo Pontes (special guest)
 * 1996 – O Fim do Mundo .... Coronel Ildásio Junqueira
 * 1995 – A Próxima Vítima .... Zé Bolacha
 * 1993 – Fera Ferida .... Major Emiliano Cerqueira Bentes
 * 1993 – Agosto .... Turco Velho
 * 1993 – O Mapa da Mina .... delegado (participação)
 * 1992 – Pedra sobre Pedra .... Murilo Pontes
 * 1990 – Meu Bem, Meu Mal .... Dom Lázaro Venturini
 * 1990 – Rainha da Sucata .... Onofre Pereira (special guest)
 * 1989 – O Salvador da Pátria .... Sassá Mutema (Salvador da Silva)
 * 1985 – Roque Santeiro .... Sinhozinho Malta
 * 1985 – O Tempo e o Vento .... major Rafael Pinto Bandeira
 * 1984 – Partido Alto .... Cocada (special guest)
 * 1982 – Paraíso .... João das Mortes (special guest)
 * 1980–1984 – O Bem-amado .... Zeca Diabo (in TV series)
 * 1979 – Marron Glacê .... Oscar
 * 1979 – Pai Herói .... Malta Cajarana (special guest)
 * 1977 – Espelho Mágico .... Carijó
 * 1975 – Pecado Capital .... Salviano Lisboa
 * 1974 – O Rebu .... Boneco
 * 1973 – Os Ossos do Barão .... Egisto Ghirotto
 * 1973 – O Bem-Amado .... Zeca Diabo (in telenovela)
 * 1971 – A Fábrica .... Pepê
 * 1961 – Top Cat .... Top Cat / Spook (voices)
 * 1961 – Sua Vida Me Pertence

 * Films
 * 2013 – A Busca
 * 2012 – Colegas
 * 2012 – E a Vida Continua...
 * 2011 – Assalto ao Banco Central
 * 2011 – Família Vende Tudo
 * 2005 – 2 Filhos de Francisco
 * 2003 – O Preço da Paz
 * 2000 – Palavra e Utopia
 * 2000 – O Auto da Compadecida
 * 2000 – Me You Them (Eu Tu Eles)
 * 1998 – Rio de Ouro
 * 1997 – Boleiros – Era uma Vez o Futebol
 * 1997 – A Ostra e o Vento
 * 1988 – Corpo em Delito
 * 1987 – Lua Cheia
 * 1983 – Sargento Getúlio
 * 1979 – Kilas, o Mau da Fita
 * 1979 – O Menino Arco-Íris
 * 1977 – O Crime do Zé Bigorna
 * 1977 – Os Sete Gatinhos
 * 1976 – O Jogo da Vida
 * 1976 – Contos Eróticos
 * 1976 – A Queda
 * 1974 – Guerra Conjugal
 * 1968 – Trilogia do Terror
 * 1963 – Rei Pelé
 * 1958 – Chão Bruto
 * 1957 – O Grande Momento
 * 1957 – Paixão de Gaúcho
 * 1955 – O Sobrado
 * 1949 – Quase no Céu

title: Lima Duarte


text: User talk:66.222.37.58

title: User talk:66.222.37.58


text:
User talk:Frey553

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

Image copyright problem with Image:Heywood-by-J-Simpson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heywood-by-J-Simpson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Madison_Scouts_Picture.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Madison_Scouts_Picture.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Senior Circle.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Senior Circle.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Snoeck
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Kenneth Snoeck, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense of How Many Hippos?
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on How Many Hippos?, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because How Many Hippos? provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting How Many Hippos?, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you have any references?  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1996 show.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1996 show.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:KenS.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:KenS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  08:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Heywood-by-J-Simpson.jpg

The file File:Heywood-by-J-Simpson.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frey553


text:
LearAvia Lear Fan

The LearAvia Lear Fan 2100 was a turboprop business aircraft designed in the 1970s, with an unusual configuration. The Lear Fan never entered production.

Design and development
The Lear Fan was designed by Bill Lear, but not completed before his death in 1978. It was planned for production to be carried out in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in a new factory built with money from the British Government in an effort to boost employment. The aircraft had a pressurized cabin and was designed for a service ceiling of 41,000 ft (12 500 m). It could accommodate two pilots and seven passengers, or one pilot and eight passengers.

It featured a pusher configuration in which two engines powered a single constant-speed three- or four-bladed propeller at the rear of the aircraft. A purpose-built gearbox allowed two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6B turboshaft engines to supply power via two independent driveshafts. The intent of the design was to provide the safety of multi-engine reliability, combined with single-engine handling in case of failure of one of the engines.

The aircraft was made of lightweight composite materials instead of the more common aluminum alloy.

Another distinctive feature was the Y-shaped empennage. Two stabilizers pointed upward at an angle, similar to those on a V-tail aircraft, and a short vertical stabilizer pointed downward. However, unlike conventional V-tails, there was no pitch/yaw control mixing on the Lear Fan. The downward-pointing rudder also served to protect the propeller from ground strikes during takeoff and landing.

Operational history
After the cancellation of a planned test flight on December 31, 1980 due to technical issues, the first prototype made its maiden flight on January 1, 1981, a date officially recorded by sympathetic British government officials as "December 32, 1980" in order to secure funding that expired at the end of 1980.

The Lear Fan, however, did not enter production. Structural problems were discovered during the pressurization of the all-composite fuselage. The US Federal Aviation Administration refused to issue the prototype with an airworthiness certificate because of concerns that, despite having two engines, the combining-gearbox that drove the single propeller was not adequately reliable. Development was abandoned in 1985 after only three aircraft were built.

Surviving aircraft
All three Lear Fan aircraft have been preserved. They are on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington, the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, and on static display in front of the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

title: LearAvia Lear Fan


text:
User talk:Ancheta Wis/Stevens Point

Stevens Point is a city located in Portage County in central Wisconsin. It is the county seat and the largest city of the county. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 24,551. The city was incorporated in 1858.

History
Before statehood in 1848, the Wisconsin Territory, which was part of the Northwest Territories, included Portage County, centered on the portage (now the City of Portage) location of Marquette and Joliet. At that time, the City of Portage was called Fort Winnebago, and the County extended north to Upper Michigan (called the Upper Peninsula in Wisconsin). Counties split off from Portage County, until the present boundaries settled in 1856. The county seat was moved from Fort Winnebago to Plover Portage (1844), and then to Stevens Point.

Natural history
The city is located in the largely flat central plain of the state, on the banks of its major river, the Wisconsin River. This river rises in the north and flows largely south and westward to the Mississippi. It was used by Marquette and Joliet to travel to the Mississippi River by portage from the Fox River (Wisconsin), upriver from Green Bay, on the Great Lakes, during the time of the voyageurs.

At one time, the state was two-thirds forest, consisting partly of white pine in the north woods, and also mixed deciduous trees. These forests were to be largely exploited and logged over by the lumbermen, with Stevens Point at the center of this economy.

Logging
George Stevens was a mill owner in Wausau, twenty-five miles north of the "point", still on the Wisconsin river. It was easiest to move the logs as large rafts on the river to convenient milling locations. Since the waters of the Central Plan were not as turbulent to navigate as the Wisconsin Rapids downriver, it was natural that the rivermen would congregate at the point above the rapids, to which the logs could be guided, on their way downriver from the north woods to the mills. This time would be memorialized by the tall tales of Paul Bunyan, as a form of entertainment.

Lumber milling
Eventually Stevens Point became a milling location.

Papermaking
After the mills, papermaking was a natural industry.

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Stevens Point is home to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), a small university known for (among other things) its graduate program in natural resources, for which Aldo Leopold and John Muir, who are historically associated with the University of Wisconsin.

Each year in April, WWSP, the campus radio station of UW - Stevens Point hosts a trivia contest that bills itself as the largest trivia contest in the world. Usually the contest features over 500 teams and over 10,000 participants. It has been featured in several newspapers, and was reported on by the BBC. It has been held annually since 1969.

Stevens Point was also a major shooting location for the films of Kandrew Ltd, although the headquarters and editing facilities were located in neighboring Plover. Kandrew Ltd, although never celebrated by the citizens of its hometown, remains an enduring success in the minds of its two creators.

Geography
Stevens Point is located at 44°31'23" North, 89°33'37" West (44.523036, -89.560321).

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 42.0 km² (16.2 mi²). 39.7 km² (15.3 mi²) of it is land and 2.4 km² (0.9 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 5.61% water.

Demographics
As of the census of 2000, there are 24,551 people, 9,305 households, and 4,652 families residing in the city. The population density is 619.2/km² (1,603.2/mi²). There are 9,749 housing units at an average density of 245.9/km² (636.6/mi²). The racial makeup of the city is 92.53% White, 0.47% African American, 0.46% Native American, 4.78% Asian, 0.09% Pacific Islander, 0.48% from other races, and 1.19% from two or more races. 1.61% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There are 9,305 households out of which 23.6% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 37.8% are married couples living together, 8.9% have a female householder with no husband present, and 50.0% are non-families. 33.4% of all households are made up of individuals and 11.9% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 2.29 and the average family size is 2.95.

In the city the population is spread out with 18.2% under the age of 18, 30.8% from 18 to 24, 23.8% from 25 to 44, 15.0% from 45 to 64, and 12.1% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 26 years. For every 100 females there are 92.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 90.1 males.

The median income for a household in the city is $33,178, and the median income for a family is $47,176. Males have a median income of $32,894 versus $23,114 for females. The per capita income for the city is $17,510. 17.3% of the population and 6.3% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 11.8% of those under the age of 18 and 8.0% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.

title: User talk:Ancheta Wis/Stevens Point


text:
Free Spirit Alliance

The Free Spirit Alliance (FSA) is a non-profit spiritual networking organization serving the Pagan and pantheist communities. Founded on May 21, 1986 and based in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United States, FSA's focus has been presenting regional and local events where people from diverse backgrounds can learn and share ideas. Its promotional literature and website state that the organization has striven to develop a national reputation for being willing to work with often sensitive and personal issues in a friendly and safe environment.

FSA’s main event is the Free Spirit Gathering, held in June. The gathering is held at a private campground near Darlington, Maryland.

The Free Spirit Gathering is a program-driven outdoor festival which focuses upon magical and spiritual opportunities for the greater Pagan and magical communities. FSG places a strong emphasis on education, training, networking, celebration and fellowship. It attracts people from as far away as Washington, California, Hawaii, Texas, Minnesota and Canada. It is one of the oldest Pagan festivals in the country, celebrating its 35th year in 2020, and in peak years has had an attendance of over 800 people.

title: Free Spirit Alliance


text:
User talk:Thetoch

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Academic Challenger 03:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thetoch


text: User talk:69.158.6.32

title: User talk:69.158.6.32


text:
Talk:Lima Duarte

Untitled
Either the photo or the date of birth is wrong. If the date of birth is correct, he really doesn't look too good for a 34 year old... Jez 03:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can do better than this article. It is embarrassing to even publish it. It does the encyclopedia a great disservice.Vogensen 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lima Duarte


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Numerical categories

Category:Binary digits, Category:Ternary digits, Category:Hexadecimal digit and Category:Roman numeral symbol. Also, Category:Digits, which only exists for this foursome.
 * This is pretty pointless, and better illustrated in the articles on the same name. These aren't categories of related articles, they're long-hand for {0,1}, {-1,0,1}, {0123456789ABCDEF} and {IVXLCDM}. Radiant_* 11:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a very useful categorization.  --Azkar 13:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles should define these terms not categories. And the articles themselves should be in a category called Number bases or whatever the correct terms is. Greg Robson 16:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They are in Category:Numeration. Radiant_* 18:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No possible use. – Smyth\talk 11:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vita Andersen

 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Vita Andersen
This person's only claim to fame is that she is the half sister of Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff and that she wrote some minimalistic autobiographies that are not specified in that article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable Ejrrjs | What? 22:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 21 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:
Category:Microcomputer software

This category, of microcomputer software, pertains to software for microcomputers, as its name indicates. Articles on specific software products are included in this category only if they may be said to be common with several—preferably more than two—microcomputer platforms. Other articles, i.e. articles on software and concepts related to specific platforms (computer models, computer families, and/or OSes) are included in the suitable subcategories.

title: Category:Microcomputer software