text:
Belur, Karnataka

Belur is a town and taluk in Hassan district in the state of Karnataka, India. The town is renowned for its Chennakeshava Temple dedicated to Vishnu, one of the finest examples of Hoysala architecture and the largest Hindu temple complex that has survived from pre-14th-century Karnata-Dravida tradition. A historic site inspired by the teachings of Ramanujacharya, it has been a Vaishnava Hindu pilgrimage center since at least the 12th century. It was also the first capital of the Hoysala dynasty, before they built Dwarasamudra (modern Halebid).

Belur is also Town Municipal Council and taluka. The Hoysala monuments at Belur and Halebidu have been declared as UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 2023.

Geography
Belur is situated on the banks of Yagachi River in the Hassan district of south Karnataka. It is about 40 km northwest of Hassan and about 16 km west from the famous Hindu and Jain temples' town of Halebeedu. The town is about 217 km west of Bengaluru (IATA Code: BLR), about a 3.5 hours drive accessible with a four lane NH75 highway through Hassan. Nearest railway stations to Belur are Hassan Junction and Chikkamagaluru Railway Station. The nearest airport to Belur is Mangalore International Airport at 160 km.

Belur has an elevation of 979 m above mean sea level, making it the highest town in Hassan district. The National Highway 73 (India), its subsidiary, NH-373, State Highway 57 (Karnataka), SH-110 & SH-112 passes through the town of Belur.

There are regular buses to Belur from Bengaluru(222 km), Chikkamagaluru (25 km), Halebeedu (16 km), Hassan (40 km) and Mysuru (160 km), operated by KSRTC. The KSRTC also has a bus depot in Belur under Chikkamagaluru division.

Rainfall
In the year 2022, Belur hobli received 1585 mm of annual rainfall. Meanwhile other hoblis of Belur taluk received rainfall as follows:
 * 1) Arehalli - 2290 mm
 * 2) Bikkodu - 1637 mm
 * 3) Halebeedu - 1208 mm
 * 4) Madihalli - 1185 mm

History
Belur is near the foothills east of the Western Ghats, at an altitude of 3,200 feet. It and the nearby Halebidu are well connected to northern Karnataka, western Andhra Pradesh and northern Tamil Nadu. Around this region, between the 10th and 14th century, the Hoysaḷa dynasty came to power, whose history is unclear. By their own 11th and 12th-century inscriptions, they were descendants of the Krishna-Baladeva-roots and the Yadavas of Maharashtra. They married into the Kalyana Chalukya Hindu dynasty, known for its temple and art tradition. The reliability of these inscriptions have been questioned as potential mythistory by some historians, who propose that the Hoysalas were a local Hindu family – a hill chief from the Western Ghats remembered for having killed a tiger or a lion, and they seized power and over time expanded their territory starting in the 10th century.

Belur was the early capital of the Hoysala Empire in the 11th-century, before they built Dwarasamudra (modern Halebid). According to inscriptions discovered here, it was called Velur or Velapuri during the Hoysala era. Belur remained a laternate capital through the 14th century. The city was esteemed by the Hoysalas, and they referred to it as "earthly Vaikuntha" (Vishnu's abode) and "Dakshina Varanasi" (southern holy city of Hindus) in later inscriptions. In early 12th-century, the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana met the Hindu philosopher Ramanujacharya – famed for his ideas on Sri Vaishnavism. Belur's profile rose thereafter, becoming a Vaishnava temples and monasteries town. It has remained a Vaishnava Hindu pilgrimage center.

Monuments
Belur is home to several monuments:

 * Chennakeshava Temple, Belur – a large Vishnu-related Hoysala Hindu temples complex from the early 12th century. The main temple was originally called the Vijaya-Narayana temple built by the king, which is surrounded by many smaller temples built by a Hoysala queen, generals and merchants of Hoysalas, an attached monastery, Brahmins residences, a simple pushkarini (temple water tank), a pilgrim's choultry, kitchen and grains storage. The towering Belur gopura is visible from a distance.
 * Sankaresvara temple – the oldest temple in Belur, predates the Vishnuvardhana's Chennakeshava temples complex. Also called Shankaralingeshwara temple, dedicated to Shiva, it is about 400 m northwest of the Chennakeshava temple gopura. The temple has a phamsana style shikara, square architectural plan, notable sukhanasi, much simpler artwork, with ruins of its mandapa scattered nearby.
 * Pathaleshwara Temple – a small Hoysala style Shiva temple with fine artwork, about 600 m east of the Chennakeshava temple gopura.
 * Amrutheswara temple ruins – a temple with a large temple tank, it was restored and expanded with a mandapa during the Vijayanagara-Nayaka period, but damaged and its parts scattered after the fall of Vijayanagara. The temple is about 800 m south of the Chennakeshava temple gopura. It provides a contrast between the Hoysala and Vijayanagara architectural styles.

World heritage and tourism
The Belur monuments, along with those at Halebidu are on the pending list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Nearby sites

 * Hoysaleswara Temple, Halebidu: it is 16 km from Belur, was capital of Hoysala and it was formerly called as Dwarasamudra. It has another famed collection of Hindu and Jain temples showing 12th century Hoysala architecture and artwork.
 * Bucesvara Temple, Koravangala – a twin temple near Hassan city that synthesizes the pre-Hoysala traditions of Hindu architecture, includes artwork from all three major Hindu traditions
 * Nageshvara-Chennakeshava Temple complex, Mosale – another major temple complex near Hassan city that presents Shaivism and Vaishnavism traditions together
 * Veera Narayana Temple, Belavadi – a major three sanctum temples complex, about 25 kilometers from Belur, with beautiful carvings, preserved Vesara superstructure and a galaxy of artwork from all Hindu traditions
 * Lakshminarasimha Temple, Javagal – a triple sanctum shrine from the 13th century, with a galaxy of artwork from all Hindu traditions; A Vesara architecture, where the aedicule on the outer walls show many major variants of Dravida and Nagara shikhara (superstructure) styles; it is about 25 km northeast from Belur.
 * Lakshminarasimha Temple, Haranhalli – another triple sanctum 13th-century Hindu temple, with a complex two-storey Vesara-architecture, dedicated to Vishnu avatars, but includes major reliefs of Shaivism and Shaktism; about 45 km northeast from Belur.
 * Ishvara Temple, Arasikere – a Vesara and Hoysala architecture Hindu temple for Shiva that illustrates the dome-style Hindu architecture for mandapa built about a hundred years before the first invasion of Delhi Sultanate and the start of Deccan version of the Indo-Islamic architecture. It is about 60 kilometers east of Belur.
 * Lakshmi Devi Temple, Doddagaddavalli – one of the earliest Hoysala temples, four sanctums and beautifully carved
 * Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna: a major group of many Jain and Hindu monuments; it is about 75 km southeast from Belur on National Highway 75, one of the most important Digambara Jainism pilgrimage site in South India.
 * Nuggehalli group of temples – about 80 kilometers to the east of Belur, with an ingenious structure that makes three sanctums appear as one sanctum from outside; a Vesara architecture from the 13th-century
 * Kesava Temple, Somanathapura: it is about 180 km southeast from Belur, another site of a major 13th century Hoysala temple and arts dedicated to Krishna and other forms of Vishnu.

title: Belur, Karnataka


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gransazer

 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gransazer
Not notable. r3m0t talk 11:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. I disagree with R3m0t's judgement of "not notable" especially as frankly a lot of Wikipedians tend to prejudge Japanese series as not notable without actually knowing anything about whether it is or not (the classic of this tendency, I think, being when an entire 50+ episode TV series was dismissed as a "minor character".)  However, this is an exceptionally uninformative stub, written in poor form, and I have to think that any good article written on Gransazer would be just as easy to write starting from scratch as from this stub.  so, I vote delete, but a cleanup would probably change my mind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 5 Jun 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.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmi song

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirect to Filmi. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filmi song
Listed for deletion by 81.178.101.133. I'm only listing it correctly and not voting. -- Longhair | Talk 11:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Filmi. -- Marcika 13:38, 5 Jun 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:
Belur, West Bengal

Belur is a neighbourhood in northern part of Howrah city in Howrah district, West Bengal, India. It is a part of the area covered by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA). The area is best known for Belur Math, a religious monastery containing a complex of temples. Belur Math is famous for being the headquarters of the Ramakrishna Math, a monastic order, as well as that of the related Ramakrishna Mission, both founded by Swami Vivekananda. On the opposite side of the Hooghly River, opposite to Belur Math is the Dakshineswar Kali Temple.

Belur is under the jurisdiction of Belur Police Station and Bally Police Station of Howrah City Police.

Location
Belur is situated on the west bank of Hooghly River. It is located between Liluah and Bally.

Recreation
Rangoli Mall in Belur (on Girish Ghosh Road) has a gross leasable area of 3.5 lakh square feet. It was opened in 2015 and houses stores of premium brands, including Max Lifestyle, Domino's Pizza, Archies and Spencer's retail among others. There is INOX multiplex also in the mall.

Transport
State Highway 6/Grand Trunk Road passes through the west side of Belur. Girish Ghosh Road runs along the eastern part of Belur. Some Private Buses (51, 54 and 56), Minibuses (Bally Khal-Khidirpur and Belur Math-Esplanade) and CSTC Buses (S32A on Belgharia-Howrah Station and AC50 on Belur Math-Garia) serve the neighbourhood.

Belur is linked to Howrah Station via Belur railway station and Belur Math railway station.

title: Belur, West Bengal


text: User talk:130.216.147.34

title: User talk:130.216.147.34


text:
Mikraot Gedolot

A Mikraot Gedolot (מקראות גדולות), often called a "Rabbinic Bible" in English, is an edition of the Hebrew Bible that generally includes three distinct elements:
 * The Masoretic Text in its letters, niqqud (vocalisation marks), and cantillation marks
 * A Targum or Aramaic translation
 * Jewish commentaries on the Bible; most common and prominent are medieval commentaries in the peshat tradition

Numerous editions of the Mikraot Gedolot have been and continue to be published.

Commentaries
In addition to Targum Onkelos and Rashi's commentary, the standard Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Bible, the Mikraot Gedolot will include numerous other commentaries. For instance, the Romm publishing house edition of the Mikraot Gedolot contains the following additional commentaries:
 * Targum Jonathan
 * Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
 * Rashbam
 * Tosafot on the Torah (Daat Zekenim)
 * Chaim ibn Attar (Or Hachaim)
 * Abraham ibn Ezra
 * David Kimhi
 * Nachmanides
 * Gersonides
 * Jacob ben Asher (Ba'al Haturim)
 * Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno
 * Shabbethai Bass (Siftei Hakhamim)
 * Obadiah of Bertinoro (Emer Neka)
 * Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz (Kli Yakar)
 * Isaac Abarbanel
 * Joseph Kara

Newer editions often include Baruch Epstein's Torah Temimah and other medieval commentaries, or more modern commentaries such as Malbim. Special editions exist of supercommentaries on Rashi or commentaries and targumim not included in older editions. Bomberg also included the Masoretic notes on the biblical text, but no modern edition does.

Editions of the Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot
First published in 1516–17 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by Felix Pratensis. The second edition was edited by the Masoretic scholar Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah in 1525.

All of its elements (Masoretic Text, Targum, and commentaries) were based upon the manuscripts that ben Hayyim had at hand (although he did not always have access to the best ones according to some, Ginsburg and some others argued that it was a good representation of the Aaron ben Moses ben Asher text).

The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim, though hailed as an extraordinary achievement, was riddled with thousands of technical errors. Objections were also raised by the Jewish readership, based on the fact that the very first printing of the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by Felix Pratensis, a Jew converted to Christianity. Furthermore, Bomberg, a Christian, had requested an imprimatur from the Pope. Such facts were not compatible with the supposed Jewish nature of the work; Bomberg had to produce a fresh edition under the direction of acceptable Jewish editors. Nevertheless, this first edition served as the textual model for nearly all later editions until modern times. Concerning the biblical text, many of ben Hayyim's errors were later corrected by Menahem Lonzano and Jedidiah Norzi.

The Mikraot Gedolot of Ben Hayyim served as the source for the Hebrew Bible translation in the King James Version in 1611 and the Spanish Reina Valera translation.

A scholarly reprint of the 1525 Ben-Hayyim Venice edition was published in 1972 by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein.

Recent printed editions
Most editions until the last few decades, and many editions even today, are reprints of or based on late nineteenth century Eastern European editions, which are in turn based more or less on the Ben Hayyim edition described above.

In the last generation fresh editions of the Mikraot Gedolot have been published, based directly on manuscript evidence, principally (for the biblical text and Masoretic notes) the Keter Aram Tzova, the manuscript of the Tanakh kept by the Jews of Aleppo. These also have improved texts of the commentaries based on ancient manuscripts. Three of these editions are:
 * the Bar Ilan Mikraot Gedolot ha-Keter, ed. Menaḥem Cohen (complete in 21 volumes: Genesis (2 vols.), Exodus (2 vols.), Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua & Judges (1 vol.), Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, Psalms (2 vols.), Proverbs, Job, Five Megillot (1 vol.)), Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.
 * Torat Hayim, published by Mosad ha-Rav Kook (15 vols thus far: Torah, Psalms, Proverbs, and five Megillot, plus several non-biblical texts).
 * Chorev Mikraot Gedolot, published by Hotzaat Chorev (now complete).
 * Mikraot Gedolot, published by ArtScroll Mesorah

Wikimedia projects
Wikisource's Mikraot Gedolot is available in Hebrew (has the most content) and English.

Editions available online
digital copy: Yaakov ben Hayyim, 1524: The Second Rabbinic Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy only
 * The Second Rabbinic Bible (Mikra'ot Gdolot)
 * Mikraot Gedolot AlHaTorah – free customizable online edition, including up to 26 different commentators, some newly published or in critical editions
 * The Second Rabbinic Bible (Mikraot Gedolot) (מקראות גדולות) Volume I, Yaakov ben Hayyim, 1524;

title: Mikraot Gedolot


text:
Talk:All Night Long (All Night)

Jamaican Chant
Somebody te testimonia hey jumbo jumbo, when the party always go, woh jambala, somebody te testimonia hey jumbo jumbo...

sounds more African than Jamaican. i'd know. Drmagic 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to belief.net the song is about a celebration of Kwanzaa. Anyone else heard that?BriarPatchWabbit 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/lionel_richie/all_night_long.html (site blacklisted) Mr.  Z- man  23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) "Tam bo li de say de moi ya, Hey Jambo Jumbo. Way to parti o we goin', Oh, jambali. Tam bo li de say de moi ya, Yeah, Jambo, jumbo"

phatboi22

 * The only reference I can find about these lyrics that don't claim they are Swahili (it's not, Swahili makes use of affixes in a way that forms longer words, and commonly has consonant and vowel clusters), is on allexperts.com, which claims that it's made-up. While this isn't a credible source, it seems to make the most sense -- "tam bo li de say de moi ya" looks very much like a creole or pidgin language, or something that would be produced by Richie to make it sound vaguely African (or Caribbean) to English ears.  I'm going to remove the reference to the Jamaican chant because I can't find any references to this.  PatrickNiedzielski (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Motivation for video game testers?
Does anyone have any sources for this claim? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.18.80 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sence?
"According to an episode of Reading Rainbow in which Richie guest-starred, the song's theme is about a party that lasts all night long." - - - - Unbelievable :-) 195.145.245.81 (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:48597~T00C

Music video
Could be more about the music video. It's a compendium of the dance styles which are made fun of on "Dancing with the Stars" (the robot, the worm etc.), and it was parodied in a Simpsons episode... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Night Long (All Night). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161231075129/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=27161&pages=2 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=27161&pages=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Night Long (All Night). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018001701/http://classic.motown.com/artist.aspx?ob=ros&src=lb&aid=37 to http://classic.motown.com/artist.aspx?ob=ros&src=lb&aid=37

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Genre Reggae?
From the source it seems like this is not reggae. How can we test that this is or is not reggae?

title: Talk:All Night Long (All Night)


text:
Cycle polo

Cycle polo, bicycle polo, or bike polo (polo-vélo in French; Radpolo in German) is a team sport, similar to traditional polo, except that bicycles are used instead of horses. There are two versions of the sport: Hardcourt Bike Polo and grass court bike polo. The hardcourt game saw a sharp spike in interest in the first decade of the 21st century and new teams are sprouting up across the world in China, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, France, India, Germany, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Hungary, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, England, Scotland, Argentina, Italy, Spain, United States, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Nepal, Brazil and Cuba.

The grass game
There are two versions of the grass games: the four-player game and the five-player game.

In the four-player game, cycle polo is played in a rectangular grass field, 150x100 metres officially, unofficially whatever field is big enough. Moreover, official dimensions can vary between 120x150 metres in length on 80x100 metres in width. The ball used approximately 2.5 in in diameter and the mallet is of maximum length 1 metre.

Goals are four metres wide and made with two goal posts without any crossbar.

There are six members in a team, of which four are on field at any one time. The other two are used as substitutes. International matches are played for a duration of 30 minutes, divided into periods of 7.5 minutes known as chukkars. Extra time can be used to determine the winner in the event of the scores being tied at normal time.

A player following the ball on its exact line and taking it on his off side will be entitled to the right of way over all other players.

If a deliberate severe foul is committed at the vicinity of the goal, the team that is fouled is automatically given a goal. Less severe fouls are awarded 15-metre and 25-metre free hits. In the event of deliberate fouls or dangerous fouls, the umpire can issue a yellow card (warning) and in case of repeated or severe fouls a red card (ejection). The ejected player can be replaced by a substitute after the end of the current chukkar if the umpire allows it.

In the 5 player game (mostly used in Europe), bicycle polo is played in a rectangular grass field, 100x60 metres officially, such as a football or a rugby field. Moreover, official dimensions can vary between 80-110 metres in length and 40-70 metres in width. The ball shall be round and may not be less than 32 cm (12.6 inches) or greater than 38 cm (15.0 inches) in circumference when inflated and the mallet is of maximum length 1 metre.

Goals are 4 meters wide (5 meters in the national French rules) and made with 2 goal posts and a 2.75 meter (3 yards) high crossbar.

There are eight members in a team of which five are on the field at any one time, including a goalkeeper. The other three are used as substitutes. Matches are played for a duration of 60 minutes divided into 4 periods of 15 minutes each. Extra time can be used to determine the winner in case the scores are tied at normal time.

In order for a player to touch the ball or attack an opponent, the player must be holding the mallet in his right hand, the handlebar in his left hand, and must not be touching the ground with any part of his body.

In order to attack an opponent who is playing the ball on their right side, a player shall attack the opponent on the right side of the opponent with the ball in the middle of both players (i.e. the ball shall be on the left side of the attacking player).

In order to attack an opponent who is playing the ball on their left side, a player shall attack the opponent on the left side of the opponent with the ball in the middle of both players (i.e. the ball shall be on the right side of the attacking player).

The right of way is given to the player who follows or possesses the ball. In the penalty area, the right of way is lost in favour of the goalkeeper.

The hardcourt game

In recent years, an alternate form of the game known as "Hardcourt Bike Polo" has grown in popularity. In this variation, teams composed of three players compete on tennis courts, street hockey rinks, or whatever other surfaces are available. The rules vary slightly by city.

Generally this is a faster game with three members on a team and no substitutions, and with all members on the court at all times. A street hockey ball is used and matches are played until one team scores five points or time has expired, without playing chukkars. During tournament play, a time limit, such as 10 minutes, may be used to maximise the number of tournament rounds possible during the day.

There are three core rules of play:

In the case of a 'foot down' or 'dab' (touching the ground with one's foot) the player must "tap out" by riding to mid-court and hitting a designated area with their mallet. There is usually a tap-out located on either side of the court.

In order to score, the offensive player must hit the ball across the goal line using the narrow end of the mallet, called a "shot" or "hit." Hitting the ball across the goal line with the wide end of the mallet is called a "shuffle".

When a team scores a goal, the opposing team must retreat to their half and wait for the other team (player or ball, whichever comes first) to cross the halfway line before engaging in play again.

The North American Hardcourt Bike Polo Association has created an official ruleset, which has helped standardise rules across the globe.

History
The game was invented in County Wicklow, Ireland, in 1891 by retired champion cyclist Richard J. Mecredy, editor of The Irish Cyclist magazine. In October of that year the first cycle polo match was played at the Scalp (County Wicklow) between Rathclaren Rovers and the Ohne Hast Cycling Club. Towards the end of the 19th century the game reached Great Britain, France, and the United States where the American Star Bicycle was a popular mount. An exhibition match by Hanegan & Hazelton vs. Brady & Murphy, members of "The Original Champion American Bicycle Polo Team", riding Cleveland cycles, was played at the Empire Theatre in London every night during the week of 8 May 1899, claimed in the programme to be the first such exhibition "on any stage". The first international match was played between Ireland and England in 1901. Cycle polo was a demonstration sport at the 1908 London Olympics with Ireland winning, beating Germany.

The sport reached its peak of popularity in Great Britain during the 1930s with the introduction of the regional leagues. Cycle polo also flourished in France during this period with the establishment of the French league. Internationals between France and Great Britain were held regularly. However the Second World War marked the beginning of the demise of cycle polo in Britain. The sport remained in France though, with league championships held regularly until today.

The 1980s saw the rise of two new powers in cycle polo, India and the United States. The Bicycle Polo Association of America was created in 1994. International cycle polo matches staged a comeback in the 1990s with the first world championship organized in 1996 in the USA. Today there is organized cycle polo being played in Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland and USA. Cycle polo was officially recognized by the Union Cycliste Internationale in 2001.

Cycle Polo in India
The Cycle Polo Association of India was officially created in 1966 it has its office in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The first men's nationals were played in 1970 in New Delhi, with the team from Rajasthan emerging victorious.

In the 2016–17 season, the men's nationals were held in Jodhpur, Rajasthan from 13 to 16 January 2017. Indian Air Force was the champion and the Indian Army the runners-up. The 2016-17 women's nationals were held at Dundlod, Rajasthan from 21 to 24 February 2017. Chhattisgarh defeated Karnataka in the finals.

The Calcutta Cricket & Football Club hosted the first Merchant's Cup Cycle Polo tournament in 1973. In 2012, the CC&FC had organised a Cycle Polo Legend's Tournament where great players of yesteryear such as Vijai Singh, Lakshman Singh and Bikram Das participated. Currently, the CC&FC plays host to the March Mug, the Swaroop Bhanjdeo Memorial Tournament and the CC&FC Trophy. Since 2015 onwards, CC&FC has been hosting the CC&FC All India Invitation Cycle Polo Cup which is organised jointly by the CC&FC along with the Cycle Polo Association of Bengal.

In 2017, the CC&FC All India Invitation Cycle Polo Cup had seven teams in the men's section and five in the women's section. Territorial Army were the eventual champions in the men's section. They defeated Indian Air Force 14:6 in the final. In the women section Chhattisgarh defeating in Bengal in the final. 15:3 was the score line.

In 2018, in the men's section, the defending champions Territorial Army successfully defended their title by defeating Bengal 12:10 in the final. In the women's section, Bengal easily overcame their opponents Uttar Pradesh 15:0 in the final.

International Bicycle Polo Championships
The UK based Pukka Chukkas won the 2012 Acumen Energy Bicycle Polo Cup held at Tiger Tops Karnali on the fringes of the Bardia National Park in Nepal, beating EFG Switzerland in a thrilling final in front of a crowd of over 5,000. The bicycles used in the tournament were donated to local schools and social clubs, and money was raised for the prevention and cure of elephant tuberculosis.

European Championships
The European Championships is an annual Bicycle Polo competition for European club teams. It is held over three legs each year in France, Germany, Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain. The competition began in 2007 following the compromise between French and British/Irish traditional rules.

 * 2013: no organization of the European Cup.

title: Cycle polo


text:
Alpino

Alpino may refer to:

 * Alpino, a restaurant in Detroit, Michigan
 * The Alpini, the elite mountain warfare soldiers of the Italian Army
 * Prospero Alpini, and Italian physician and botanist known by the author abbreviation "Alpino"
 * The Alpino parser, a natural language analysis system for Dutch
 * R.N. Alpino, a Destroyer of the Regia Marina

title: Alpino


text:
Bartram

Bartram is an English surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Clint Bartram (born 1988), Australian footballer
 * Ed Bartram (1938–2019), Canadian artist
 * Graham Bartram (born 1963), British vexillologist
 * James Bartram (1827–1905), England-born Australian pioneer
 * Jimmy Bartram (1911–1987), English footballer
 * John Bartram (1699–1777), American botanist
 * John Bartram (athlete) (1925–2014), Australian athlete
 * Kenny Bartram (born 1978), American motocross rider
 * Richard Bartram (1749–1826), English merchant in Rome
 * Sam Bartram (1914–1981), English footballer
 * Tracy Bartram (born 1959), Australian comedian
 * Vince Bartram (born 1968), English footballer
 * William Bartram (1739–1823), American naturalist, son of John

title: Bartram


text:
John Woodnutt

John Edward Arthur Woodnutt (3 March 1924 – 2 January 2006) was an English character actor, often cast in villainous roles.

Early life and education
The younger son of Harold Frederick Woodnutt and brother of the Conservative MP Mark Woodnutt, he was born in London, and at the age of 18 made his acting debut at the Oxford Playhouse.

Career
He had many television roles, including that of Henry VII in the first episode of The Six Wives of Henry VIII (1970); Sir Watkyn Bassett in the television series Jeeves and Wooster (1990 to 1993); and Merlin and Mogdred in the children's adventure game programme Knightmare (1987–1990). One of his earliest television roles was in 1956 in the ITV drama One, broadcast live. He appeared five times in Z-Cars and once in Softly, Softly.

He appeared four times in the BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who:
 * Spearhead from Space (1970) as Hibbert
 * Frontier in Space (1973) as the Draconian Emperor
 * Terror of the Zygons (1975) in the dual roles of Broton and the Duke of Forgill
 * The Keeper of Traken (1981) as Seron

He appeared in The Avengers episode "Quick-Quick Slow Death" in 1966 and played "The Spidron" in the cult science fiction series The Tomorrow People in 1973. He also appeared in the Look and Read educational serial "The Boy From Space" in 1971, as the Thin Spaceman; the BBC children's drama adaptation of The Secret Garden (1975); the 1976 HTV series Children of the Stones as the sinister butler Link; and the 1978 series The Doombolt Chase. In the 1980s, he played various roles in several television movies such as Hitler's SS: Portrait in Evil, starring Bill Nighy and John Shea. In the BBC Scotland television series of The Secret Garden, made in 1975, he played the part of Mr. Archibald Craven. He appeared in producer Barry Letts's classic serials Sense and Sensibility, Stalky & Co., and The Pickwick Papers. He played the Senior Tutor in Porterhouse Blue and also appeared briefly in the comedy sketch show Paul Merton: The Series in the early 1990s. He also appeared in an episode of The Bill, series 7, Episode 11 as Mr Cork.

Radio and television Sherlock Holmes stories in which he appeared included the BBC Radio 4 adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles and, as the fussy banker Mr. Merryweather, in the series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett in the episode entitled The Red-Headed League. He also made an appearance in the 1965 Douglas Wilmer Sherlock Holmes series on the BBC.

His film credits included roles in The Scarlet Blade (1963), Man in the Middle (1964), All Neat in Black Stockings (1968), Connecting Rooms (1970), Who Dares Wins (1982), Champions (1984), Lifeforce (1985), Mack the Knife (1989) and Bullseye! (1990).

Personal life
He was married twice and had two sons and three daughters. The last part of his life was spent at Denville Hall, an actors' retirement home in Northwood.

title: John Woodnutt


text:
Category talk:Philosophy

This Article was the WikiProject Philosophy Collaboration of the Month for September 2005 - Vote for next month's collaboration

Guidelines
These guidelines are intended to help editors in categorising philosophy articles. See Categorization for more general information. the aim of these guidelines is to make the philosophy categories both specific and broad. Categories are there to make it easy for people to find information, and do not need to form a tree, so it is quite accepttable to have an article classified into several categories.

General guidelines

 * Please think twice before adding a new category to the top level. At the least, bring the new category to Category talk:Philosophy to gain support for including it.
 * The precedent has been set that categories for work relating to major philosophers may breach the Eponymous categories for people guidelines. That is, it is quite acceptable to create suitable categories for collecting diverse material relating to a philosopher, as for example in category:Ludwig Wittgenstein or category:Immanuel Kant.

Guidelines for including an article in a category

 * Top level: Category:Philosophy
 * The main article, Philosophy
 * Main philosophical fields: metaphysics, etc.
 * Philosophy of... articles relating to another specific field - eg Philosophy of science
 * Meta-articles that are about philosophy generally, such as Requests for comment/Philosophy
 * Category:Philosophical arguments
 * Arguments which are infamous enough to warrant their own article in the Wiki. An argument should be a discreet set of propositions aimed at reaching a particular conclusion, and so be distinct from philosophical theories.
 * Category:Philosophical articles
 * Journal and magazine articles that warrant their own Wiki article
 * Philosophical journals with their own article in the Wiki
 * Category:Philosophy books
 * Just that.
 * Category:Branches of philosophy
 * The main philosophical fields: metaphysics, etc., re-appear here
 * Philosophy of... articles relating to another specific field - eg Philosophy of science
 * Other approaches to philosophy, especially those that do not fit neatly into other categories
 * Category:Philosophy by era
 * Any article that related to philosophers from some particular period
 * Category:History of philosophy
 * Articles relating to the history of philosophy
 * Not articles that would otherwise appear in Category:Philosophy by era
 * Category:Philosophy-related lists
 * Lists, surprisingly enough
 * Category:Philosophers subcategories
 * Biographies
 * Category:Philosophical schools and traditions
 * Distinct approaches to philosophy that have lasted for a few generations
 * Category:Philosophy by region
 * Philosophy articles relating to specific regions or nation
 * Philosophy articles relating to specific ethnicities
 * Category:Philosophical terminology
 * Big words. This should become a sort of philosophical dictionary
 * Category:Philosophical theories
 * Theories are broader than arguments in that they provide guidelines to approaching an issue, rather than reaching some particular conclusion. They are not as broad as traditions or schools.
 * Especially philosophical ideas that do not sit neatly within one particular branch of philosophy - idealism and realism, for instance; or the principle of charity.
 * Category:Philosophy stubs
 * things that are too short. Create articles here using the template.

Attention tag
There are too many articles in the top-level category; most should be moved to subcategories. See WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 for ideas. -- Beland 04:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

in this whole section the philosophy of existentialism is poorly represented and hard to find...
 * Sounds fine to me... Banno 22:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to move
The tag has not been "noted in Requested moves".

I think such a merge would be a mistake. The portal and the main article have different, distinct and important roles. Banno 22:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * So I removed it... Banno 03:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I put the note on the page originally, but inadvertently didn't list it on WP:RM. I'm not sure why you've got portal content on a category page, and I think it would make much more sense to have a Portal:Philosophy in the correct namespace. Worldtraveller 11:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not about the Portal and the main article, this is about the Portal and the main Category. The Portal and the main category indeed have very different distinct and important roles, and therefore shouldn't be counfounded as they are here. Unless you give some new argument, I will put the Requested for move back on. Jules LT 23:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I just saw the banner as it used to be... it implied that it was the Philosophy article that had to be moved to Portal:Philosophy, but that was obviously a typo: what's wrong here is that Portal material is on a Category page. I'll put up a Split banner. Jules LT 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact the split template is meant for those articles that are to be replaced with a disambiguation page and the move template doesn't see the "Category" Namespace, hence the confusion. I don't think Portals merged with main Categories make any sense, and all of the Portals in Template:Eight portals links are like that, so I encourage you to join me in the discussion on that topic at the Village pump (policy). Jules LT 23:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes
In WikiProject Philosophy/readability I suggested classifying philosophy articles as:
 * General and introductory articles
 * Biographical articles
 * Publications
 * Arguments

I think this sort of classification would go a long way to sorting out the difficulties with the present arrangement.

Both WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 fail in not allowing a place for cataloguing specific arguments and Publications.

Subcategories
I propose using these as the root categories:
 * Arguments
 * Branches of philosophy
 * Epistemology
 * Ethics
 * Logic (to replace Laws of thought)
 * Philosophy of...
 * Causality
 * Philosophical theories
 * Integral theory
 * Modernism
 * Objectivism
 * Philosophers
 * Philosophical terminology
 * Latin philosophical phrases
 * Philosophy by Era
 * Philosophy by region
 * Eastern
 * Western
 * nationalities
 * German
 * ethnic philosophies
 * Jewish

 * Philosophy books
 * Philosophy articles

Banno 22:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "arguments" deserves its own section; it can fit in other sections. Otherwise, looks good to me. Lucidish 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The idea would be to have prominent arguments listed in two places - in the categoryarguments as well as in the appropriate branch, or in philosophers according to their proponents. So Open Question argument would be under Argument, ethics and G.E.Moore. The reason for listing them in argument is simply to provide a convenient place to group them - so, for instance, if someone came across the Open Question argument in a context outside of ethics, they could locate is easily in the argument section. Banno 02:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why does "Eastern/Western" repeat itself?
 * Oops. it doesn't - now. Banno

 * Wouldn't "German" go under "Western", rather than under "nationalities"?
 * No. The distinction between Eastern and Western philosophical "traditions" is a construction of the West; a theory aboutregional differentiation rather than a category. influences transcend such simplistic boundaries. So I'd leave these two as articles, rather than categories, under the heading "Philosophies by region". Banno 08:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)*Schools of thought, like Marxism, Empiricism, etc....they go under "theories"?--goethean ॐ 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Banno

 * If the "Philosophers" category isn't broken down by nationality or school, won't it be ginormous? --goethean ॐ 18:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Banno 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

History, schools and Traditions

 * Oops! I think I was hasty and started recategorizing before reading your ideas here. I added two subcategories - Category:Philosophical schools and Category:History of philosophy. Maybe this was unconsiderate of me, after all I am a physicist, not philosopher or historian, so go ahead and delete them if needed. Karol 01:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Karol, I was wondering about a "Schools" cat myself, although it cuts across Categories:Philosophy by tradition. Which do we keep? But hadn't considered a "history" cat, which is a good addition. Banno 01:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would keep both, but I'm no expert. Just seems to me that there are quite general traditions in philosophy, like stoicism, and specific schools, such as the Cynics. I would hesitate to call the first a school and the second a tradition. Thsi is actually the example that had me create the category. Karol 07:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

So how would you word the distinction in the guidelines? Banno 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured vs. showcase articles
What's the difference between them? Lucidish
 * It's a moot question now; I've eliminated "showcase" and "special topics" sections. Lucidish 23:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Banno 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles in top-levl Category:Philosophy
I picked through alot of articles and recategorized many into subcategories. In the process I created some new categories I think were lacking, including (if I remember right) Category:Realism, Category:Monism, Category:Reductionism, and many others. Now there are less articles and Iremoved the TOC tag. Karol 16:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, Karol. Now I think it is time to take a look at guidelines for what should be in which category. Banno 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean the ones left in the top level, ot the ones in the subcategories? Karol 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I can say my job is done... there are now 24 artcles in Category:Philosophy. Now I am going for a walk :) Karol 11:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A job well done. Thanks. Banno 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

}
I don't know why the following pages are showing up under the top-level Philosophy category (they're at the end). I'm sure it has something to do with my Integral theory templates, but I've looked at the code and can't find the cause. I'd appreciate any help you guys can offer in correcting this. If youre an admin, my subpage can be nuked.
 * User:Goethean/ITP
 * Integralwiki
 * Stanislav Grof

--goethean ॐ 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I puzzled over this, but could not see what was happening. how to we get more technical support? Banno 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I asked at the village pump. You can add to my query if you want. --goethean ॐ 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Schools and traditions
I can't see a way of differentiating these with sufficient clarity. I think there are two courses of action:
 * 1) Merge them into one category
 * 2) Someone else might be able to provide a succinct guideline for determining if an article belongs in Schools or in traditions.

In the absence of such a guideline, I move that we merge the two. Banno 21:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't answer before to your question about guidelines and wording the differences between schools and traditions, because I have no clear answer. Like I mentioned before, I created Category:Philosophical schools because I felt Cynics didn't belong in Category:Philosophy by tradition, as opposed to Stoicism. When categorising other articles, this additional category sometimes helped me out, and sometimes I had problems deciding between the two. This was a naive reason for making a new category, and it may well be that it was unnecessary - more so that both categories have about 10-20 elements each right now (although there are many articles missing still) - so a merger would be fine by me. Nonetheless, it was useful to me when categorizing, and if it were to depend on me, I would keep both categories. I guess Category:Philosophy by tradition should have pages concerning major trends in philosophy that have been revived many times in the history of philosophy or at least have influenced many other philosophies (example: Platonism) - this is really broad, of course. And Category:Philosophical schools, on the other hand, would have pages on particular movements or groups of philosophers in history (counter-example: Cambridge Platonists. All in all, I'm neither a historian nor a philosopher, so You good people should decide and I will obide. If merging would be the consensus, maybe Category:Philosophical schools and traditions would be good idea to put everything into? Karol 22:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think merging is a good idea. Also, I've generated an imperfect list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy, which I'm copying and pasting here (also adding the Cynics):

Agnosticism, African philosophy, Alexandrian school, Analytic philosophy, Anarchism, Atheism, Cambridge Platonists, Coherentism, Contextualism, Continental philosophy, Continental rationalism, Communism, Critical theory, Cynics, Deconstructionism, Deism, Eastern philosophy, Egotism, Empiricism, Epicureanism, Ethical egoism, Existentialism, Frankfurt School, Hermeneutics, Humanism, Integral theory (philosophy), Kyoto School, Marxist philosophy, Modernism, Neoplatonism, Mysticism, Objectivism, Phenomenalism, Postmodernism, Pragmatism, psychological egoism, Rationalism, Relativism, Reliabilism, Religious philosophy and doctrine, Scholasticism, School of Brentano, Scotism, Situated ethics, Situational ethics, Skepticism, Solipsism, Sophism, Stoicism, Transcendentalism, Young Hegelians, Vienna Circle, Western philosophy FranksValli 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, then. The relevant policy seems to be Categories for deletion policies. Let's have at it. Banno 03:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Good consensus. If only everything in Wikipedia were this easy :) Karol 20:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Typo somewhere in this page
Notice this talk page is categorized into Category:Philosophy, which means someone made a typo somewhere above by leaving the ":" out (writing simply ). I can't seem to find that place... Karol 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy Anniversaries!
I've created two new pages to deal with philosophy anniversaries:

List of philosophy anniversaries

Once the raw data is compiled into the above page, it is cleaned up for display at the following page:

Selected philosophy anniversaries

This page uses its subpages (on its separate Template page) as each day of the year, for example:

Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 11

You can automatically add this template to pages with this code:

As long as I can, I'll try my best to make sure the next day's template is ready to go, with a picture and everything, but help would be much appreciated!

Please go through the List of philosophers and see if you can add info for a philosopher or two - it would be much appreciated!

Also, if you see a philosopher listed who isn't actually a philosopher, remove them. It was quite confusing because I included many people who primarily aren't philosophers, but are described as philosophers.

--FranksValli 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

QuickTopic list
I think it should be removed: Banno 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that this is the category page for philosophy the quick list is redundant
 * It presents an ambiguity and is potentially confusing to readers
 * It takes up a lot of space
 * It is not as complete as the category list.
 * It is very unwieldy to edit!

 * Actually, the discussion what to do with this thing is on the TfD page, with a number of suggestions and votes to merge it with and display it on the Philosophy Portal. You seem to be disregarding that entire discussion, and the opinions of all those folks.  And since the voting isn't even done yet, I think it's premature to be removing it.  Besides, didn't you see my edit and comment in the history?  Blank Verse from the TfD suggested how to make the page less cumbersome by transcluding the template from a subpage, which is what I did.  Then you immediately removed it.  My edit was an indication of support, and you totally disregarded that too.

 * In answer to your points:

 * It may be redundant, but it takes fewer clicks and almost no scrolling.
 * It isn't ambiguous because it is "quick". Its name clarifies it quite well as a seperate aid. It is faster and easier to use than the category list.  And it is in a box, which makes it look distinctly different than a category list, and therefore not confusing.  Besides, it is fairly well organized, though I never could tell the difference between an idea and a concept, but oh well, Infinity0 is working on those sections, and he will no doubt improve them over time.  And if the users are familiar with categories, they know exactly where to find the cat listings:  at the bottom of the page.
 * We have plenty of space, with more to spare. This is cyberspace!  There's no lack of real estate here.
 * It crowds the page.

 * It's not supposed to be complete, it is supposed to be a quick summary of useful topics, to help (beginners) navigate. Particularly the major articles, lists, and upper levels of the Philosophy hierarchy (Branches, sub-disciplines, schools).  If the selection is lacking, then we can improve the selection.  And the category list may be more complete, but it takes much longer to navigate.
 * As for editing, Infinity0 and I have been editing it for weeks, and it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. Besides, since the thing is already complete, it doesn't take much to change a topic here or there.  And in comparison to opening articles to change their category tags, it is much easier to edit than the category lists.

 * Some points that you missed:

 * The portal is a centralized location, which makes the Quick Topic Guide easy to find. Just click any of the philosophy portal buttons, and blam! You're there.  I doubt it is of much use to advanced philosophers (and neither is the portal, for that matter, excluding the category list), but beginners seem to like it.  And I thought the portal catered to beginners primarily.
 * Infinity0 has kind of adopted the project, and I'm sure he would be at your disposal if you needed any help changing it.
 * If the Guide has a presence on Wikipedia, then users can copy it to the top of their user or talk page, which gives them instant access to it (that's how I use it, and it's great, especially for getting back to the portal or project, and to the lists). But if it is entirely purged off the 'pedia, then no one will get a chance to even try it.
 * The Guide can be altered to include whatever projects WikiProject Philosophy is working on, to provide hot buttons to get there fast.
 * The Guide provides the easiest access to the Philosophy Lists, which are rapidly becoming more useful than the category list.

 * By the way, this talk page doesn't get much traffic. This is the first time I've checked it in 5 days, and most of my posts have never received answers here and they've been sitting here for weeks.  So to post here for a mere five days and assume there are no objections is rather dubious logic, which is surprising coming from a Philosophy buff such as yourself.  Even AfDs and TfDs provide a week to reach a consensus, which is pretty much the standard on Wikipedia for consensus building.

 * My vote is to....

 * KeepGo for it! 10:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Good, I have your attention. Firstly, congratulations and thanks for your enthusiastic editing of the project pages. Good to have your company.

This is the place to discuss edits to this page, not TfD. The discussion there is to do with whether the template should be kept at all; the discussion here is about if it is appropriate on this particular page. Do you check your watchlist regularly? It is a good idea to do so, and to keep an eye out for comments in the talk pages.

The core problem I have with locating the template here is that it is seen before the cats list, giving it too great a prominence. A user might well mistakenly think that it is the cats list - and that therefore the Wiki has a dearth of philosophy articles. Furthermore the portal will have the Quicklist, the feature articles, the main headings, and the cats - "meaning of life" appears four times on the page - surly this is overkill?

The structure of the list is irrelevant - although I find it far from readable, since it uses a very small font size, and of necessity misses much while including things that are trivial.

And finally, this issue is unlikely to be decided by a vote. Few things on the Wiki are. Banno

 * misses much while including things that are trivial - well, help edit it then? Infinity0 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Infinite, I do appreciate your work on this, but unfortunately the very idea is prone to this problem. There have been other attempts to do similar things in the past, resulting in unending edit wars or uneasy and unsuccessful truces; see of instance the hierarchy drafts at WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft. In Philosophy, one person's triviality is another's essential. Cats get around this by simply including everything; but I hope that you would not propose this as a solution for the template? Banno 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose. Well, in that case, keep it as a draft to work on... Infinity0 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Template: Philosophy topics aka "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide": TfD results
The majority of the vote was to merge the template into the Portal:Philosophy, but delete the template's tag from the rest of Wikipedia. Note that there were two identical templates, each with the same title, differing mainly in the tag name (though the contents did fluctuate also). For the vote on the duplicate template "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" (an exact duplicate), see Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005 Go for it! 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I analyse these results below[] - there is no "majority", and certainly no consensus. The vote was a confused, ill-planned muddle. Banno 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even if this template is not going to be used in articles I think it should be kept to be inserted into Portal:Philosophy rather than embedded within that page itself.Infinity0 11:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Listify, and then delete both Brobdingnagian templates. Blank Verse 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What does Brobdingnagian have to do with this??? Did you post in the wrong section? Template:Philosophy_(navigation) has been through a TfD before, the end result was Keep. Infinity0 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As is said in the article, Brobdingnagian is an adjective describing something of enormous size. Listify and delete both both for this reason. —jiy (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Infinity0, portalfy to a Portal:Philosophy subpage, and then delete. Blank Verse 14:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant Keep this and embed into Portal:Philosophy using Infinity0 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is only going to be used at Portal:Philosophy, then it should be a subpage of the portal page (e.g. Portal:Philosophy/Philosophy topics) and then transcluded from there (e.g. ). There is absolutely no need for it to be in the template namespace. Blank Verse  15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Complete the already partially implemented merge of this effort with work done at Category:Philosophy to create a Portal:Philosophy. And don't put monster templates into articles. --Pjacobi 08:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. — HorsePunchKid →龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
 * Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful.  It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno

 * Comment: "Template:Philosophy" is already taken. That's the first name I tried when I titled it.
 * Keep Izehar 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No way should this template be erased.--Moosh88 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete per banno. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to be keep but merge. As best I can tell, the current Template:Philosophy is blank except for an announcement.  My vote is to put this there. Rick Norwood 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Part of the discussion now archived at Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005. -Splash talk 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on the Philosophy Quick Topic Guide template merge below:
As you can see, the consensus was to merge the template into the Philosophy Portal. Go for it! 03:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Banno seems to think he can single-handedly override the consensus of the TfD forum. Go for it! 03:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * GFI, although you have done much work on the template, if the community decides that it is inappropriate and removes it, that's just the way the Wiki works. This is after all a fairly minor issue.

 * I thought it obvious, but just to be clear, there are at least two distinct issues here. The first is if the template should be kept as a navigation tool on each philosophy page, as it was originally intended. Your failure to talk with Infinity bought on a rather odd TfD vote on this issue. The second, and separate issue, is if the template should be placed on the portal page. The portal page is a navigation tool in itself; and so it is important to get it right. Even if the TfD vote was to keep the template, it does not follow that it should be placed on the portal page.

 * The vote was quite confused, and should really never have occurred. The issue should have been discussed on one of the talk pages rather than going to TfD. The lesson is to talk before you edit.

 * The vote itself is quite ambiguous. The Three possibilities offered are:

 * to keep as a nav tool merged with the other template (5 votes, Izehar, Rick, Pjacobi & Moosh88, horsepunch)
 * to delete altogether (4 clear votes, JIY, Thames, goethean, Banno),
 * to merge into the portal (3 votes, GFI, Infinity, blankverse)
 * Obviously, no consensus was reached - indeed, there is not even a clear majority!. Certainly the vote provided no reason to suppose there is a mandate for including the template here.

 * So, the inclusion or no of the template on this page is up for discussion still. I am interested to hear the views of others who have worked on this page; I maintain that placing the Quick Guide at the start of the template is entirely redundant and confusing, as I argued above. Banno 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Banno that the vote was a confused mess, also due to the fact that the templates (as I recall) were changing pretty constantly throughout the vote. I say we give Infinity0 and Go for it! exactly two weeks to work out their differences, and bring forth to the Wiki community a template that they jointly support, and a plan for where exactly to place it.  If they can't do that, it should just be nuked rather than having this continous edit war that clutters up the Talk pages and detracts from working on the articles themselves.  Or, even better, both should agree to step back and let the community decide if, where,  and how to use it.  (You should never have to argue for something's usefulness -- if it is useful, it will be self-apparent).  They have put in many hours on those templates, but it is not theirs.  Anyone who writes on Wikipedia must understand that their work will be edited mercilessly, or even deleted.  Just my 2c. --Michael (talk)  17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent idea. Banno 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it should be at the top of the portal either. As for appearance on articles, I'm removing the template from all articles which it links to at the moment, so it can be deleted without causing any broken links. Infinity0 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi and horsepunch voted to merge with the portal, then delete. Pjacobi maintained his position from the previous TfD, which together makes his stance crystal clear. That shifts the vote count to:
 * Keep/merge the templates = 3 votes (Izehar, Rick, & Moosh)
 * delete altogether = 4 votes (JIY, Thames, goethean, Banno)
 * to merge into the portal = 5 votes (GFI, Ininity, blankverse, pjacobi, horsepunch)

However, on retrospect just plopping the template into the portal is pretty ugly and detracting compared to the other portals.

So I worked up a new portal, to see what it would look like integrated into the content of the portal. It's missing just a couple components (the aniversaries, for example) which I haven't had time to put in yet. Take a look at it at Portal:Temporary, and let me know what you think.

That's amazing. But the category listings will still be there, right? What I think we should do is have each of those boxes, "Branches of Philosophy", "Featured Western philosophy articles", etc... into subbranches of this page, ie. "Category:Philosophy/Featured Western philosophy article", and then embed that into the page. That will be a lot easier to edit, too. Infinity0 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but get rid of the nasty greenish-blue bgcolor, have it a normal white. ATM it's hurting my eyes. Infinity0 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Don't worry about the categories. Take a close look at the source code. The new portal uses the skeleton method, and already has subpages for easy editing, and edit buttons for every section. It is the same method used to place selected boxes on categories. That is, the main categories have much of their corresponding portals transcluded onto them. We can transclude the parts Banno doesn't have a problem with onto the Category from the Portal page, while keeping everything on the portal (including the template's content which has been integrated, to blend more compatibly with the rest of it). Take a look at the Portal:Geography and Category:Geography to see an example of a category transcluding from a portal. The nice thing is that you can pick and choose components to be transcluded, it's not all or nothing. As for the colors, I'm not overly attached to them -- a color chart is displayed at click here for colors, for anyone who wants to play around with them. Go for it! 18:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Split category from portal
Historically, the philosophy portal was created here amongst the categories, rather than in the correct namespace. This is not standard practice, but I had thought it a rather good idea - apparently in agreement with most of the editors. Hence, I redirected Portal:Philosophy to here. I am not aware of any other major subject area that does this.

But this has led to a conflict in purposes. The cats are intended to be a complete list of philosophy articles, whilst the portal is intended to be a main page for the philosophy project, and to "promote content and encourage contribution" Portal. That is, the portal is selective whilst the cats are inclusive.

Unfortunately, the time may have come to separate the portal from the categories. Banno 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Banno, Splitting portal/cat presents no problem on my end. I am happy to "go with the flow". But I have to admit I have not yet looked at the new layout below. --Ancheta Wis 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Portal Talk:Temporary I document an experiment which shows that it is possible to simply cut the material above the
 * Horizontal Rule and paste it into Portal:Philosophy until the Temporary portal stabilizes. --Ancheta Wis 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

New Portal Almost Ready, See Portal:Temporary
What a coincidence, Banno, I was thinking precisely the same thing!

Take a look at the new portal proposal at Portal:Temporary. It still needs the aniversaries section put in, but is nearly complete.

We can finish it up there, and then I can transfer it pretty easily to Portal:Philosophy.

Go for it! 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope that you have learned to talk about issues before you commit. Please do not implement your new portal yet. Banno 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Except when I see a "Be Bold" sign. ;)   Besides, it still needs some finishing touches.  And even if I had implemented it, it would still have been subject to editing.  But it is operational where it sits, and can be refined there until it's ready.  Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To see how the new portal was constructed, check out Portal Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Discuss New Portal Below
Please list the things that need to be changed, and those that need to be added.

It still needs the aniversaries, but my eyelids are starting to close involuntarily, so I guess that will have to wait until tomorrow. Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it at Portal talk:Temporary? Pages should be discussed on their own talk page Banno 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Philsophy navigation Template Tags
I moved Template:Philosophy (navigation) to Template:Philosophy navigation and now there are quite a lot of redirects. Please help me to fix them.

 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide - change to from the "Quick Topic Guide" to so it can be safely deleted.
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy topics - remove the brackets in those articles so it links to instead of the old

Infinity0 19:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed all the Quick Topic Guide tags to the old PhilNav Tags. Now there is only the problem of redirection in Philosophy (navigation) to Philosophy navigation. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy topics. Infinity0 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme / Style-guide feedback needed
Discuss the colors and the guide at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/style guide.

But see the colors in place on the new portal at Portal:Temporary.

Go for it! 05:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Redundant material
Now that the cats and portal are split, we can remove much of the redundant material from this page and return it to being just a navigation tool. Banno 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation Top 10
Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space: It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the P block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For science!
Any particular reason why this category is in Category:Science? Ziggurat 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of top-level categories
I've finished a bit of a clean-up, moving a large number if articles to sub-cats. The sub-cats themselves still need work. Banno 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

links to philosophers' useless faculty pages
some philosophers articles, like Fred Dretske and Stephen Neale have links to their subjects' personal faculty pages, which are pretty much useless for any reader who doesn't want to send them a fax. do we need these links? trespassers william\danny lost 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we ought not include them - for instance, someone might wish to send them a fax... Banno 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the majority won't. when someone tries start a basic research at wikipedia, she might expect us to value her time, not sending her to such pages, and building an expectation to find there something more. anyway, i read on some reference/external links guide that generally there should be a link to the most formal represntation of whatever an article is about. i don't feel experienced enough to argue with those guides, but maybe we should come up with some kind of warning for this links? trespassers william 11:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

templates
I copied this conversation to this talk page; hopefully it can get some traction and discussion here: (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_major_philosophers")

I just went through the list and added the appropriate template wherever there was none. Is there a way to modify the template so that it automatically adds the page to a category - several other WikiProject Banner templates do this already, and it might be a good idea here... - Sam 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to set up a suitable cat. The cats for philosophy are rather complex - see Category talk:Philosophy for guidelines as to how to use them. This conversation might be a good one for that page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Banno 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

- Sam 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Embarassing admission and new categories suggestion
Someone (I suspect from Wikiproject books) started a new category Category:Books about the philosophy science. The name seemed unnecessarily cumbersome to me, and too restrictive - wouldn't someone interested in notable philosophy books also be interested in notable philosophy articles? Anyway, with this in mind, and in my usual BEBOLD way, I shifted everything into a new cat 'Philosophy of science literature'. It then occurred to me that this was stupid, as 'History and philosophy of science literature' would better fit the material likely to be included, and would fairly represent current thinking about these fields - namely that you can't do phil of science without doing hist of science. I now know that there is a system for renaming cats - stupid of me not to realise this when there is a system for everything else! So, questions:
 * Does it make sense to have cats for different types of phil literature? Please tell me if you think this is a stupid idea.
 * If so, just cats for books or cats for literature in the area?
 * Should any such cats be called, for exsmple, 'Philosophy of art works' or 'Philosophy of art literature'? Anarchia 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and gone with 'literature' - I don't see any need for philosophy to distinguish between books and articles, if wikibooks want to draw finer grained distinctions, that is fine. Anarchia 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Your move is consistent with other existing ones. I would just recommend that we restrict it to the task force areas. There should be one place for all written material (articles, books, etc). I don't care what it's called, but 'literature' makes most sense. We are at a level of organization that we can put these specific categories like this if we want. We just need to keep them connected to other areas so people can find what they want. The Philosophical literature area has an attempt at a comprehensive list of phil lit. Greg Bard 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous categories
I suggest that the categories for major philosophers be listed independently in category:philosophers rather than in a sub-category. SO for example, category:Bertrand Russell should be placed under category:philosophers -Banno 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No - category:philosophers, and its subcats, are for biographies only. Eponymous categories include books, people, concepts etc. Johnbod 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It's pretty clear to me that Johnbod has a good overview of the category situation in general. However, that which Johnbod understands clearly, I just don't agree is working for eponymous cats in philosophy. The people who have discussed these things already, never discussed them with anyone teaching in a philosophy department. Many classes consist solely of "philosopher of the week" curriculum. THERE JUST ISN'T ANY OTHER COMMON SENSE WAY TO ORGANIZE THIS CONTENT. Just biographies? That is not really very close to how things are being done around here. How about we extend that interpretation to written works in response to the eponyms' works at least? Well that's the camel's nose under the tent. The tent is breached. Time for a new tent. Johnbod, I just don't see the philosophy department living under that narrow a view. The policy needs to be reconsidered en toto. Be well, Greg Bard 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to start a new category for CS Peirce? Article relating to him are currently scattered all over the place, but nowhere (that I have found) linked to each other. Anarchia 01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical concepts
When I first started putting things in categories I found this category and cat: philosophical terminology useful because I could put almost anything that I couldn't find a place for in one or both of these two. But, this now seems to me to be a disadvantage of these two categories. Cat: phil concepts has a lot of things in it that are already in much more useful categories. Do you think that articles like Type physicalism need to be in cat:phil concepts as well as phil of mind? The original purpose of this category at Category talk:Fundamental (half way down the page - sorry, haven't worked out how to link to sections) doesn't fit with this categories current contents. Anarchia 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I find your observation to be a facsinating understanding of these categories from one who uses them most. I'm I very "organizational" type of person. I have thousands of index cards, in categories. My desk has files, etc. In my personal organizing of things I always find it useful to have a catch-all catgeory which builds up over time. Most people call this "miscellaneous." I call it "unassimilated" (ala Pirsig's MOQ) This type of space gets filled up, and then patterns develop. Suddenly it becomes clear that we need a certain category because a bunch of them have piled up there. I also keep a "junk" file for the sake of preserving intellectual values.

 * So I see it as advantage as long as we understand what it is. Now that I see it the way you do, I will use these categories similarly. The natural progression of things will have articles move out of these type of categories as more appropriate categories develop to house them.

 * Be well, Greg Bard 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy and society
Just want to note that I have created a new subcat, Category:Philosophy and society, which incorporates all of Category:Philosophy and culture along with (at least) 2 other sub-cats which had been improperly parented. Cgingold (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On what questions are philosophers beginning to gain a consensus? What are the key open questions?
In most fields of study, questions are raised, studied, debated, and a consensus on the answer emerges from the experts. This seems to take much longer in philosophy. But I have to believe there are questions that are moving toward a consensus answer. See, for example: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/ Ideally I would like to see an inventory of important philosophical questions that have been studied over the millennia along with the status of their answers. For example, it seems settled that the earth moves around the sun, but there is still debate on the nature of truth. What are the key philosophical questions that have been settled, and what are the most important open questions that are important topics of ongoing research? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove humans science category
I remove humans science category for prevent the loops between philosophy and science sociales.Zipodu (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"CAT:PHIL" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAT:PHIL&redirect=no CAT:PHIL] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Philosophy


text: File:Prince mountains.jpg

title: File:Prince mountains.jpg


text:
Carrière

Carrière may refer to:

 * Calvin Carrière (1921–2002), U.S. fiddler
 * Élie-Abel Carrière (1818–1896), French botanist
 * Eric Carrière (born 1973), French footballer
 * Eugène Carrière (1849–1906), French lithographer and painter
 * Eva Carrière (1886–?), French spiritualist
 * Jean-Claude Carrière (born 1931), French screenwriter and actor
 * Joseph Carrière (1795–1864), French theologian
 * Joseph Médard Carrière (1902–1970), Canadian folklorist
 * Keumhee Chough Carrière, Korean-Canadian statistician
 * Larry Carriere (born 1952), Canadian ice hockey player
 * Louis-Chrétien Carrière, Baron de Beaumont (1771–1813), French cavalry general
 * Mathieu Carrière (born 1950), German actor
 * Moritz Carrière (1817–1895), German philosopher and historian
 * Serge Carrière, a medical researcher

The Anglicized version, Carriere, may refer to:
 * Elizabeth Carriere, Governor of Montserrat from 2015 to 2018
 * Jeromy Carriere, American architect
 * Stephen Carriere (born 1989), American figure skater

title: Carrière


text: User talk:202.7.190.130

title: User talk:202.7.190.130


text:
Collinson

Collinson is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Angel Collinson (born 1990), American former professional free and big mountain skier
 * Cliff Collinson (1920–1990), English footballer
 * Fred Collinson (1874–1915), English footballer and soldier
 * Geoff Collinson, Australian horn player and Head of Brass at the University of Melbourne
 * Harry Collinson Owen (1882–1956), British journalist and author
 * James Collinson (1825–1881), Victorian painter who was a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
 * John Collinson (cricketer) (1911–1979), English cricketer
 * John Collinson (historian) (c.1757–1793), English cleric and historian of Somerset
 * Laurence Collinson (1925–1986), British and Australian playwright, actor, poet, journalist, and secondary school teacher
 * Les Collinson (born 1935), English professional footballer
 * Madeleine Collinson (1952–2014), Maltese-British model and actress; twin of Mary Collinson
 * Mary Collinson (1952–2021), Maltese model and actress; twin of Madeleine Collinson
 * Patrick Collinson (1929–2011), English historian
 * Peter Collinson (botanist) (1694–1768), English gardener, botanist and horticulturist
 * Peter Collinson (film director) (1936–1980), British film director
 * Phil Collinson (born 1970), British television producer
 * Richard Collinson (1811–1883), English naval officer and explorer of the Arctic
 * Robert Collinson (1875–1963), English cricketer
 * Septimus Collinson (1739–1827), provost of Queen's College, Oxford
 * William Edward Collinson (1889–1969), British linguist
 * William Robert Collinson (1912–1995), American federal judge

title: Collinson


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Placeholder/Archive 1

 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 not easy to work out. There is no consensus to delete. The main question is whether to keep or merge with World of Warcraft. I will call this a keep for now because the World of Warcraft article does not appear to have a space for specific, individual NPCs. If anyone has a better place to merge this article, that will also be acceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Captain Placeholder
Delete - not just a minor character from a game, but a temporary minor character that doesn't even exist any more --Stormie 12:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - However, one that has had a substantial effect on the community and has, on many servers, become a significant part of the culture. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) Merge with World of Warcraft. Alternatively, an article on the WoW community and its related topics (Leeroy Jenkins, for example) would probably be appropriate. Junjk 14:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with World of Warcraft -- I agree that Captain Placeholder seems to have had a substantial effect on the WoW community and as such is notable enough in that context; however, letting the good Captain have an article of his own might be a overdoing it a little, especially as he has passed on. -- Captain Disdain 17:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - what John said. I think that keeping the Captain separate would keep the place tidier; it functions well as a separate article, while in the WoW one it'd make a significant non sequitur, being irrelevant to the description of the game. -- Kizor 00:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above comment ··gracefool |☺ 08:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in that respect. I think articles about the communities of online games is a very good idea. --CGally81 22:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with World of Warcraft --Nova Cygni 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we done now
We're over the 5 days, but not sure of the procedure to declare this VFD period ended. --John Kenneth Fisher 15:59, Jun 17, 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:
Marko Veselica

Marko Veselica (January 9, 1936 – February 17, 2017 in Zagreb) was a Croatian politician, economist and university professor.

During the Croatian Spring, Marko Veselica developed a reputation of being a Croatian nationalist. He was close to Ivan Milas. As a prominent Croatian dissident his Croatian nationalist views brought him into conflict with the Communist authorities of Yugoslavia. In 1981 he was arrested on suspicion of "antistate activities", charged with spreading hostile propaganda in interviews with Western news organizations and maintaining contacts with emigre groups, and after a seven-day trial sentenced by a Zagreb court to eleven years imprisonment. In 1983 he was an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience.

In 1990, he became leader of the newly formed Croatian Democratic Party (HDS). Following the merger of the HDS and the Croatian Christian Democratic Party (HKDS) he became chairman (1992–2001) of the Croatian Christian Democratic Union HKDU.

He died on 17 February 2017 at morning in Fran Mihaljević hospital in Zagreb.

title: Marko Veselica


text: User talk:70.21.125.158

title: User talk:70.21.125.158


text:
Millicent Preston-Stanley

Millicent Preston-Stanley (9 September 1883 – 23 June 1955) was an Australian feminist and politician who served as the first female member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. In 1925, she became the second woman to enter government in Australia. She was also among the first women in New South Wales to become Justices of the Peace and served as president of the Women Justices Association from 1923 to 1926. Throughout her life, Preston-Stanley advocated for women's rights, health reform, and temperance.

Personal life
Millicent Fanny Stanley was born in Sydney in 1883. She was the daughter of Augustine Gregory Stanley, a grocer, and his wife Fanny Ellen Stanley (née Preston) (c. 1859 – 9 September 1934). After her father deserted the family, her mother obtained a divorce and adopted the surname "Preston-Stanley" for herself and her daughter.

She had at least one brother, Victor Charles Preston-Stanley (died 26 June 1919), who was the father of Major Preston-Stanley, and of Betty Preston-Stanley who married Major John Gray, and Joan Preston-Stanley.

Preston-Stanley married Crawford Vaughan, former Premier of South Australia, in 1934. She died on 23 June 1955 in the Sydney suburb of Randwick from cerebrovascular disease.

Political career
By 1906 Preston Stanley was a council member of the N.S.W. Women's Liberal League, when its president/secretary was Mrs Molyneux Parkes.

Her bid in 1922 for one of the four multi-member Eastern Suburbs seats on the New South Wales Legislative Assembly failed (having been placed fifth on the Coalition ticket), but in May 1925 she was successful, winning the seat for the Nationalist Party, one of the historic predecessors of today's Liberal Party. She campaigned for reductions in maternal mortality, reform in child welfare, amendments to the Health Act, and better housing. She delivered her inaugural address to the Legislative Assembly of the New South Wales Parliament on 26 August 1925, using the opportunity to address those of her colleagues who did not believe that women had a role in politics. She said: "Some hon. members have been kind enough to suggest that women should be protected from the hurly-burly of politics. This attitude of mind may do credit to the softness of their hearts, and I think it may also be taken as prima facie evidence of a little softening in their heads. … I believe that women's questions are national questions, and that national questions are women's questions, and it may be shown that woman can take her place amongst the representatives of the people in the Parliament of the country and play her part in the political life of the nation."In addition, her inaugural address argued against reducing the 48 hour workweek to 44 hours, arguing that the Labor Party should first shorten the average woman's workweek, which she claimed was 112 hours. In parliament she campaigned on the issues of women's mortality in childbirth, child welfare, institutional care for the mentally ill, and custody rights in divorce. She personally took up the cause of actress Emélie Polini, whose ex-husband and his mother had custody of their daughter Patricia. In 1924 Emélie sued for the right to take her daughter on a trip to London after they refused her permission. This was denied by Mr Justice Harvey. Though her private member's bill on equal custody rights failed she continued the campaign. She wrote a play Whose Child? based on this case. She also lobbied for family planning and sex education, a focus on maternal and child health, and for a chair of obstetrics at the medical school, sarcastically calling for "'Horses' rights for women" after the University of Sydney instead established a course in veterinary obstetrics.

Preston-Stanley had her detractors: Theo. H. Hill, while conceding her power as an orator, criticised her work ethic — she received £875 per year as a legislator, yet seldom attended sittings. He used her record to support his opposition to appointment of women to the Upper House. The Eastern Suburbs seat was abolished in 1927 and in the fresh elections both Preston-Stanley and H. V. Jaques stood as Nationalist candidates for the single-member seat of Bondi, and Jaques was successful. That was her last attempt at parliamentary honours.

Preston-Stanley was actively involved in women's groups such as the Women's Liberal League. She re-formed the Feminist Club of New South Wales and served as its president from 1920 to 1928 when Ada S. Holman was elected to the position. and from 1952 until her death in 1955. The club was amongst the organisations that successfully lobbied for the introduction of the Women's Legal Status Act 1918, which allowed women to run for office in the Lower House and local government, and to become Justices of the Peace. She was, in 1921, one of the first women in New South Wales to be appointed a Justice of the Peace, and was President of the Women's Justices' Association from 1923 to 1926.

Around 1929 the Feminist Club was in discussion with the Women's League of N.S.W. and the Women Voters' Association to form a unified lobby group, but the Feminist Club, which had developed into a private club for professional women, voted against joining the United Associations, resulting in the resignation of numerous members, including the president, Jessie Street.

A fervent supporter of the United Australia Party (UAP) — a precursor to the Liberal Party — Millicent Preston-Stanley brought the Feminist Club to prominence in the 1930s. Under her leadership the club stood apart from many other women's organisations that existed in the period in that the latter — like the Australian Women's Guild of Empire — concerned themselves with matters revolving around home keeping, family, and religiosity. Their purpose was primarily evangelical, and social, helping to cultivate resources and gatherings for women to attend and exchange information and skills in craftwork like sewing, knitting and so forth. It was precisely the entrenched notion that politics did not form part of "women's concerns" that the feminist movement of the 1930s sought to dislodge, and it was this apolitical focus that distinguished the women's organisations of the period from the Feminist Club of New South Wales. The Feminist Club's objective was "to secure equality of liberty, status and opportunity in all spheres between men and women.’

In 1947 she founded the Australian Women's Movement Against Socialisation in response to the establishment of a national bank by Chifley's Labor Party.

Works

 * Whose Child?, a play by M. Preston-Stanley, produced by George D. Parker at the Criterion Theatre on 26 November 1932, and based on the Emelie Polini case. Actors included Nancye Stewart and Miss Preston-Stanley herself.
 * Husbands on Parade 1935 (musical)
 * The Madonna of Mean Street 1936
 * (with Crawford) The Call of the Magpie 1936
 * Australia Marches On 1938 radio talks on 2GB
 * (with Richard Hans Forst) The Little Brown House (musical) 1940

Recognition

 * A portrait of Preston-Stanley by Reginald Jerrold-Nathan hangs in Parliament House, Sydney
 * A portrait by Mary Edwards hangs in the Dixson Library, Sydney

title: Millicent Preston-Stanley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petticoat Punishment

 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 Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petticoat Punishment
Nonsense and not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 12:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite/Expand: It was put up for vfd when it was only an hour old!  53,900 Google hits suggest that it is more than nonsense.  Sonic Mew 13:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Well, I only find 4,580 Google hits, but it seems to be a valid topic. However, if this stays, then parent topic - the fetish of petticoating - should have an article as well, I think. -- Marcika 13:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with appropriate fetish. --nixie 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be transvestic fetishism then, i guess. -- Marcika 15:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Petaholmes and Marcika. -- Captain Disdain 17:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't merge. This is not a fetish but a very interesting form of discipline that, fortunately, seems to be in relative disuse today.  This article is not very well written but I found a very good description at A Short History of Petticoat Discipline.  DS1953 18:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You have obviously never been in a leather bar. Many fetishes involved being "punished". In this case, the fetish is for an ancient punishment that seems to have beenr revivied. Anyway, this article is just an advertisment for a site the celebrates this fetish. It's amazing all the different ways people can get off, but I don't think every little one rates its own article. Isaac R 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But the point is that this is actually used as a real punishment. It can easily be compared to spanking:  Though it is used in an erotic form, it is also used as real discipline on children.  The question is whether this deserves its own article like spanking, or should be merged as a section of the fetish article. Sonic Mew 20:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many stories of parents punishing a child caught smoking by forcing them to smoke a large amount; likewise with drinking alcohol. Do these all warrant encyclopedia articles?  The interest in this particular case seems to be only due to its fetish associations. --Tabor 20:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this disturbing fetish or punishment or whatever, doesn't seem to need merging anywhere. Kappa 20:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lovely subject but it needs to be NPOV'd a bit.  Petticoat punishment is a prominent feature of transgender erotica and D/S roleplay, and is a lot of fun and an excuse to dress up.  It has probably been attempted in real life also, but I'd like to see references for that. There are plenty of anecdotes by fetishists who claim they were started by being petticoated but this isn't enough because obviously everybody likes to make up fantasies about their fetish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ··gracefool |☺ 08:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this is real fetish redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 8 Jun 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 .