text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical space

 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. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physical space
This article has waited more than 18 months for cleanup and NPOVing, but I'll judge nobody volunteered, because the article is a dead end and should be deleted. It's somewhere between original research and an essay, free from knowledge about physics and mathematics. Citing a comedian in the intro sentence very much sets the context for this article. --Pjacobi 20:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

 * There might be an article on something called physical space, however, this isn't, and never will be, it. Delete. humblefool® 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't understand why this perfectly good article on an encyclopedic topic has been listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is far from ideally written, but it is an honest attempt at defining an obviously encyclopedic concept. Back to Cleanup, I say. Xoloz 04:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We are not in the business of honoring honest attempts if the result is unencyclopedic and misleading. --Pjacobi 15:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Delete - most of this article is patent nonsense. For example, this quote,
 * "The concept of a 'curved space' is somewhat logically flawed because space can be defined by the distance between two objects, which is usually by definition always given as a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships.

 * However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual space."

totally ignores the work of Riemann, Lobachevsky, Einstein, and all the research since them on curved spacetimes. It is a piece of bad luck in one way that you can envision most 2-spaces pretty well (exception: the Klein bottle ) by imbedding them in 3-space. It does help elementary teaching, but it gives the false impression that curved geometries can "always" be regarded as artifacts of selecting a lower dimensional space out of a higher one. That approach has not been useful. I once asked a mathematician how many dimensions of Euclidean space you would have to use to imbed a curved 4 dimensional space and I do not remember the answer, but it was large - I believe 8 or more. So it "helps" you to think of curved 3-surfaces as imbedded in Euclidean 3-space (so long as you do not try to detour across the unoccupied part of that 3-space) but it does not help to envision 3 and 4 dimensional curved spaces stuck in higher-dimensional flat spaces.

I realize that this is supposed to be an elementary discussion and evidently from the "save" votes it has made some sense to some people, but Wikipedia ought to provide a jumping off place for the more serious student, and the idea of using a straight line to connect two points on a 2-sphere and use it as the shortest path is very misleading. The shortest path is the arc of a great circle. Spherical triangles have interior angles that almost never total to two right angles, and you can find that in high school level texts on solid geometry. So it should be reasonable to expect readers of Wikipedia to understand that on the surface of a sphere, the "straight lines" are arcs of great circles, and in higher-dimensional spaces the geodesics will not be related to any Euclidean metric. Pdn 17:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) What can I do but repeat: It is very misleading to speak of a straight line cutting between two points on a sphere (as a chord) when one is describing the curved geometry of the sphere. You are jumping out of the space you are talking about, and in 3 and 4 dimensions this may require adjoining many more. The point of studying curves spaces and spacetimes is to describe ways to measure that curvature and deal with its physical effects without adjoining all sorts of additional dimensions so we can feel happier thinking of the curved space as a subset of a larger flat space. Pdn 03:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't find this "misleading," only incomplete and a bit rough. Wikis are all about honest attempts.  I can't imagine a good article arising ex nihilo Xoloz 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This topic is encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (changed to Abstain). The article in its current state is seriously wrong; I can't understand why anybody would call it a "perfectly good article". I do not see what kind of article can be written about physical space, but if there is, starting all over again is much simpler than cleaning up the article (which would leave two or three sentences). -- Jitse Niesen 11:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the article is so radically wrong, give it a major rewrite. Throwing our hands up and saying the entire thing must be deleted seems a bit drastic.  What bits are so horrible anyway?  The Euclidean approximation, the curvature of space-time?  I think the author loses the plot around the last three paragraphs, but this problem can be solved by deleting or rewriting the las6t three paragraphs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't want to rewrite it, because I do not know what to write about physical space. Apparently, nobody else wanted to rewrite it for more than a year. Of course, if somebody were to rewrite it and show me that there is a decent article, I'll happily change my vote, but if not, it's better to start all over again. The only part of the article that is good is the second paragraph (In everyday experience ... 180 degrees). The next two paragraphs are passable, I don't know what the section titled Space-time wants to say, the start of the section titled Curved space-time is misleading in several aspects ("[time and space] are the same thing", "[flat spacetime] is a strange intermediate state"), and the part from "The concept of a 'curved space' is logically flawed" is wrong (all IMHO, of course). -- Jitse Niesen 12:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. So you're saying the article has content problems but you can't or won't rewrite it.  Then stick a cleanup template on it.  Content problems are not valid reasons for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am saying that the article is not encyclopaedic, which is a valid reason for deletion. I even think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but I am not so certain about that. -- Jitse Niesen 19:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must say I find the idea that the concepts of space, space-time, relativity and whatnot are not encyclopedic...well, rather novel. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree Tony. I don't know enough about the article to rewrite it, but I do know enough from college physics and history of science classes to declare almost absolutely that the topic is a cornerstone of all the physical sciences.  A stub is better than nothing here. Xoloz 02:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did not say that space is not an encyclopaedic topic, what I said is that I think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic. After the 14 June rewrite by Hiding, I still do not like the article very much for the reasons given by Splash below, but I am not so keen anymore to see it deleted, so I'm changing my vote to abstain. However, I do think that the article should be moved to space (what does the adjective physical mean in physical space?). The current article at space can then either be moved to space (disambiguation) or merged in. Jitse Niesen 12:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Hiding 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I've had a go at a clean up, but I'm not sure it's any better off. Hiding 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Wonderful Wikification, Hiding! Xoloz 08:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote Keep. Its true that this article is not the model of encyclopaedic, but it is hardly terrible. There are a lot of far more prejudicial/un-encyclopaedic articles out there.  There seems to be little reason to delete this.  Tombride 21:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is quite good imo, just a little on the abstract side. needs a bit of clearing up and expanding, wkifiying, sunja 22:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — Seems fine as an article topic. There's always room for improvement, but I don't believe delete is at all justified. — RJH 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think anyone's saying space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but this article is definitely not 'perfectly good'; it's seriously misleading in places and has quite an anti-relativity slant. In addition, articles available via Space discuss the relevant issues in a neutral and encyclopaedic way.  This article is pretty much a POV fork, gives us nothing that we don't already have, and has major factual problems, so it should be deleted. Worldtraveller 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment What you're describing above appears to me to be, at best, a case for a redirect to Space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, wouldn't see any harm in that - as long as the content is not merged anywhere, that often seems to be the implication of redirect votes. Worldtraveller 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or, if that fails, redirect to space. William M. Connolley 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * Delete. This is redundent with space. --EMS | Talk 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I've had a further go if anyone wants to have a look and see if it changes their mind? Hiding 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, could people not remove the vfd template please. Hiding 21:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong delete. This includes such loopy phrases as: "physical space can be characterized (in western ideology) by being three-dimensional" - I'll check with my friends with Eastern ideologies, but I reckon they'd go with 3D space too. Also, that entire para is filled with gibberish. The other sections amount to little more than brief summaries of areas that have their own articles, and this article contributes nothing to any of them - so there's not even a case for Merge. Save the physical space on Wikipedia's servers. -Splash 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no main article on the psychology of space, so that section would best be saved somewhere. I also think it is useful to have a page on space which is similar to that of Time because I for one don't understand half of what is written on all the other very complicated space pages.  I would have gone further and moved the space (philosophy) and space (astronomy) across, but felt that was too important a change to pull willy nilly. Hiding 06:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll grant that the first two sentences of the 'Psychology of Space' could be kept, and merged into psychology, but that's all. All the rest of that section is a wordy list to other articles to which it really doens't contribute anything. Moreover, there is already an article on Space (physics) which is stubby but adequate and it links to Space (philosophy) which this article appears wish it was. -Splash 11:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm. By that definition, any article which only offers up an overview of a topic and provides pointers to better understanding might as well be deleted then.  Obviously that section is a wordy list of links, outlining their relevance to the topic, and is meant to serve as a pointer to readers.  Also note that one of those links will be orphaned if this page is deleted.  As for the article on Space (physics), I don't think that serves any purpose that this page would.  Nowhere on wikipedia is an overview of the subject of physical space given, all the information seems to be herded into seperate pools, where it stagnates. I couldn't find an area which addressed the use of space in terms of buildings and farmning, given an overview of the situation, which is something I believe is encyclopaedic. Hiding 12:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. In terms of the specific topics you mention, architecture links to space syntax, and farming lists a whole bunch of methods which are implicitly means of using space in farming. Of course, the space where Splash lives, space where Splash is sitting and space where Splash keeps his books articles could be merged into this one - along with every other object, philosophy, activity...that impinges on space. This article has no standalone value since everything it wishes it had said is already dealt with, implcitly or explicitly elsewhere. The Wikipedia should beware articles that attempt to say that there is a topic of standalone encylopaedic value when plainly all its value is held elsewhere - particulaly when the existence of the article implies that there is a topic such as 'physical space' that has such encyclopaedic value. As for the space (physics) page - this page starts off trying cackhandedly to deal with space in a physics sense but doesn't have a clue - see the first comment above by PDN. If those separate pools you mention are stagnating, then they need bringing to life - but not by linkages from inane articles like this. Should just say that I don't seek a fight here, just a robust discussion. -Splash 16:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The trouble I have is that, okay, the information is held elsewhere, but it's in so many different places that it's impossible to find. I mean, Spatial syntax is just gobbledygook to me.  Yet if I look up an article on spce, if that info was presented in a clear manner, I might learn something.  I'll be honest here, my formal education finished when I was sixteen, and that's over half a life time ago, so I am a layman in every sense, and it just makes sense to me to have a standalone article which draws all the meanings of space together, even if it points outwards for further information.  I'd broadly agree that maybe it would be better located at space rather than physical space, but that's another discussion.  As for PDN's comments, I'm sorry, but he lost me at spacetime.  I don't even understand the gist of it, as words like geodisc and the like make no sense to me, and I can't quite grasp why a straight line isn't an arc of a circle.  Yes, I think it's great that wikipedia be a tool for the serious student, but it should also be a tool for those with less ability in areas who could learn more if they weren't treated like they were idiots for not grasping a concept they were taught maybe up to fifty years ago.  However, I'm also a little at sea in the physics part of the page, as well, and it would be great if someone with an academic understanding of the topic could write a layman's guide on space that didn't offend their sensibilities and made sense to a layman, because nothing on Space (physics) makes sense to me.  Like I say, I'd rather see the space page be something better than a disambiguation page, more like the time page, which seems to offer up nothing new.  As for linking to space where Splash is sitting and so on, I doubt those pages would get through a VfD, and no, it probably isn't wise to cover every aspect of space, but surely some effort should be made to present information to readers in a manner better that a disambig when all the articles the disambig links to are related.  Oh, and there's a link in that psychology part that'll be orphaned if it's deleted, so best keep an eye on that, and I'm well aware of when I'm in a fight as to a friendly chat, but ta. Hiding 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, I see what you mean. But my concern is that, with this kind of article on the Wikipedia, what readers will take away is the impression that there is a subject, physical space, which is of sufficient concern to people to justify its own article - standing alone from all the other entries on space-related topics. If people wanted to find out what the Wiki knows about 'space', they've got a search function that'll tell them everything it finds without creating misleading impressions (proviso: as long as this page isn't allowed to turn up!). What should probably happen is that the space page is worked on considerably — but only as a pedogogically expanded disambig page — and this one still deleted. The time article makes my skin crawl marginally less than this article as a result - at least it doesn't refer to a non-existent topic. Incidentally, in trying to find an equivalent article, e.g. physical time, I found Time: physical and eternal, which looks highly suspect to me, which is a pity since it might contain some useful contributions. Maybe. -Splash 20:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. It might be best to replace the current article with a stub and eventually it might expand into a decent article. IMHO its a lot easier to add to an article than it is to cleanup an article. Falphin 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Whatever actually needs to be said about space is already in space (physics), space (philosophy) and space (mathematics). The purpose of even having a separate article called physical space is obscure. Bambaiah 12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is mostly nonsense.  The parts that aren't nonsense aren't worth keeping.  It's unsourced.  The inclusionists say it must be kept but haven't demonstrated that it's possible to make an encyclopedic article out of this mess.  Even if it is, it would be better to start from scratch. Quale 20:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or merge This article, as presently written, has real content. Space (mathmetics) is vacuous, and ought to be a category; Space (physics) is a stub, which spends most of its time noting that statements about space in general tend to be disputed. Space (philosophy) is two reasonable paragraphs. The correct response to an article which needs fixing is to do it, to ask for help, or to leave it alone, not VfD. Septentrionalis 01:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment But if space (mathematics) is vacuous, you wouldn't have recommended making it a category. It's not great, I'll admit, but it does the job, and is technically accurate to boot. Space (physics) only mentions disputation in a single word — there genuinely are different ways of doing maths/physics with space. An article is not in need of fixing if everything that would go in it is already handled perfectly well elsewhere - the correct response is to expand those pages up to standard - not to create another poor attempt at them. EDIT: I'm not a deletionist, incidentally, I think that many things that appear wacky will have value in the end, but that is no excuse for allowing the rubbish to pile up.-Splash 01:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Okay, howsabout this. I've mocked up on my user page what the space page could look like if all stubby space disambigs and info from physical space were merged into one.  If that went on Space, with the computer and cultural uses moved to a Space (disambiguation) page, we could then delete physical space and have our cake and eat it, no? Hiding 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That persuades me — good idea. (Although personally, I'd unwikify amount, or we'll finish up on a VfD for that :-) )-Splash 21:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a really good job. I have some minor comments, but they are on the content of your rewrite and have nothing to do with this vfd. So I'll reserve it for the time when this goes into the right space :-). Bambaiah 05:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done then. Should Physical space then be a redirect to preserve page history, or deleted?  And what happens with Space (astronomy, space (physics), space (philosophy) and space (mathematics), do they become redirects to Space or CfDs? Hiding 09:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * These other space pages should become redirects under this new scheme I think. But on the vfd under discussion, my opinion remains unchanged: delete. Bambaiah 08:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the material has been merged into space, doesn't the gfdl licence require the page is kept to preserve the history? If so, I vote keep, if not I vote delete. Hiding 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be what has happened on other similar VfDs as a result of the GFDL, which is a pity, although I suppose there's no too much harm in an unlikely-to-be-searched-for redirect lying around on this basis. -Splash 15:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
User:Ed-E

Ed-E is a fan of the Xenosaga video game series and contributes additions and rewrites to the already-excellent Xenosaga section. He also finds it odd talking about himself in the third-person like this.

Xenosaga is, at it's heart, a very confusing web of facts, so if you disagree with anything I've written please do correct it and let me know, or invite discussion upon the topic.

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

title: User:Ed-E


text:
Talk:Humanist Canada

Untitled
I believe that the Humanist Association of Canada page should not be deleted. It provideds information on a major Canadian Secular Humanist organization, which is influences much of Canada's secular community. Originally, the page was small, with only one, uninformative word on it. However, now it has a brief descriptions of the Associations history. It is very inportant to keep.

title: Talk:Humanist Canada


text:
User talk:Mtad~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 20:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Augusto Pinochet
Hi Mtad, glad you decided to create an account. The preferred way to mark an article that you believe not to be written from a neutral point of view is :

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page.

The tag is more for articles which are suspected to contain factual inaccuracies rather than POV inaccuracies (read the articles on NPOV and accuracy for more detail on the distinction; also, I suggest you look at the list of pages with the disputed tag). I think this is why Cantus has been reverting your edits.

I noticed on Talk:Augusto Pinochet that you mentioned that you think the article is missing a lot of information. I suggest that if you want to contribute, the best way to start out is to add some of that information. Adding to Wikipedia is less controversial than removing from it, and in particular, a new editor removing large blocks of text from a well-established article doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

Read some of SqueakBox's links from above, contribute to some articles, and be bold. Eliot 14:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too biased
Mtad, I think that if you find Wikipedia to be "too biased", you need to examine whether what you think of as bias is actually facts and truth. No Catholics or Opus Dei members were barred from contributing to those articles. Everyone is welcomed to edit. The only people who seem bothered by this are the ones who think that people who don't agree with them _should_ be silenced. (I assume that's what you meant in your comment about being sued, eh?)

We'll still be here if you decide to grow up. Your contributions are welcome. Eliot 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mtad~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Blauvelt Marshall

 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Blauvelt Marshall
Non-notable person MarkS 20:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If person is notable, there's nothing to show it. You 20:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. King Nine 20:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --FCYTravis 00:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:35, 12 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:
Puerto El Carmen de Putumayo

Puerto El Carmen de Putumayo is a town in Sucumbíos Province in Ecuador. It is also known as Puerto Carmen de Putumayo and is the seat of canton of Putumayo. The town is located on the San Miguel River and also has an airstrip. With a population of 2,012 (2022 census) Puerto Putumayo, as it is sometimes called in the town, has nearly one fourth of the population of the Putumayo Canton and it is famous for being the easternmost city/town access by road. The national route E10 terminates here nearly 450 km from San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas. Even though it is the easternmost city/town reachable by road, the title as the easternmost town goes to the town of Nuevo Rocafuerte in neighbouring Orellana Province. This town is only reachable by boat similar to the cases in the amazonian towns of Neighbour Peru. It is also known to be in the same longitude as Tarapoto, Peru at 75W longitude.

title: Puerto El Carmen de Putumayo


text:
Talk:Romani ite domum

Romani ite domum
From WP:RfD:

 * Romani ite domum → Monty Python's Life of Brian - "Romani ite domum" is a Latin phrase that occurs in a hilarious sketch in the film. That said, I really don't think people would look it up. Well, I did, but that's because I'm a strange guy who likes to look up weird stuff. (If an article about this were to be created, it should probably be created at Romanes eunt domus instead, which is the incorrect Latin that Brian had written before the centurion corrected his grammar.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely if you did, someone else will! So, please throw together a stub! Noel (talk) 15:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Furrykef. The phrase originally used in the film should be the header. Such Latin phrases are quite common in pupils´ papers. As a Latin teacher (ret.) I know what I am talking about. The article should also end differently. As soon as Brian had finished writing the correct phrase a hundred times, another Roman patrol appears and arrest him for writing the phrase in correct Latin. Ontologix (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It has occurred that someone did look up this phrase and found a use for this Wiki article in the context of discussing the word "domum": http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/08/my-view-for-while-domum/#comment-510659 . --Elizdelphi (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Monty Python script appears to be using the theme of Mark Gospel chapter 5 where the Roman Legion is told to "go home". -- 92.24.112.238 26 May 2019
 * Legion in Mark 5 is not the name of a Roman military formation, but of a group of evil spirits... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The imperative is a mood, not a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.109.125 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just so pleased this article exists --there's hope. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Case of domus
''Students of Latin often note that domi is the locative of domus in literary classical Latin. The (allative) case construction used in the final formulation is accusative of motion towards''
 * it could also be noted that "ite domi" is a litteral translation of "go home", and could also be interpreted as simply "go to the house" . A more correct phrase to convey the meaning of "Romans go home!" would be "Romani, ad vestras domus abite!". Though it would probably kill the joke.Purgebandit (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Some might claim that strictly literally, "ite domi" would mean "go at the home" (i.e. do your going there, rather than going to there) -- see Locative case... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Misses the point a bit
To me, the dialogue is also meant to

 * 1) satirise the then-common experience of strict, grammar-based Latin learning
 * 2) contrast the idea of Classics as Latin grammar with the actualite of Roman rule

Also, John Cleese was a former Latin teacher, so he is sending himself up in this scene. Jim Killock (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I assume that the first item refers to didacticism. This may have been mentioned in one of the sources that I cited for the error section, but if so I overlooked it.  Doubtless Romans learned to speak Latin without first learning its grammar, but it's difficult to imagine how anyone could do so now—although that could simply be an effect of the prevalence of didactic methods in language instruction in recent times.  If you can find a source that discusses this, I'm sure it would make a good addition to the article.

 * The article already makes the point of contrasting the centurion's attention to correcting Brian's bad grammar with what we would expect a Roman soldier apprehending an insurrectionist to do, and Jack Halberstam made a comparison between classroom discourse as a distraction from the actualitas of Roman rule with contemporary political rhetoric, although I don't believe he or any of the other sources I consulted suggested that the scene's focus on grammar was intended to satirize the reduction of classics to Latin grammar. This could nonetheless be the case, but again you would need to find a source that says so—if you can, or if you can find it in something that's already cited but overlooked for this purpose, please add it in the appropriate place!

 * I'm not sure that John Cleese could be described as satirizing himself in the scene, even if he based his performance loosely on his brief experience teaching several subjects, including Latin, simply because few if any members of the film's intended audience would have known that he had ever done so. I suppose it is not impossible that he was making a joke only for the very small number of people who were "in the know", but it seems highly improbable.  That it may have given him or those closest to him a laugh to see his ridiculous take on a Latin instructor doesn't necessarily mean that his earlier teaching experience was intended as a target of the joke.  That said, I'm sure the fact that he actually taught Latin (among other subjects) at one point in time is relevant and citable in this article—it may simply be that it will have to be described as ironic, rather than that one purpose of the scene was to make light of it.

 * If you can find sources to cite for any of these ideas—and it certainly looks like there are sources, at least for John Cleese having taught Latin briefly—please add them to the article, and help make it better! P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) On the first point, it's more that people who had to learn Latin, learnt it in such a dry manner, that it was almost always an awful experience:
 * “Latin is a language
 * As dead as dead can be.
 * It killed the ancient Romans
 * And now it’s killing me.”
 * for example. There's a whole lot more one could find on this, eg Churchill on Latin at school; in a sense this is the most recent well known example of this kind of humour.
 * I'll see if I can find something on Cleese having taught Latin, as this does seem like something that can be found and referenced. Someone ought to write something on the wider subject of Latin in humour and satire I feel! Jim Killock (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Saw your additions; they look fine—I just moved them out of the lead, since that should just summarize the article. I thought that the sections describing the sketch should probably precede commentary and sources of inspiration, so I put your paragraphs at the end; but as I put in the edit summary, this isn't absolutely the only way to do it, and this section could possibly go elsewhere in the article.
 * I believe there are some articles that touch on Latin humour, and perhaps they could be linked to one another better. There's probably room for much more than we have now!  My own experience with Latin was no worse than trying to learn French, and I felt better about my pronunciation, plus I was more inspired to learn it.  I still failed to learn enough of it, but I pull my books out from time to time and have made progress.  At least I can usually make sense of most (transcribed) funerary inscriptions given time and effort, and that serves me well!  P Aculeius (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Yes, some other links between things would make sense. Jim Killock (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Vocative
are crossing my mind just now, indeed. Tuvalkin (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Unnatural phrasing
Latin Wikipedia points out that the more natural phrasing would be Romani auferte vos domum, even if Romani ite domum is technically correct. Is there a source for this? Should this be mentioned here? שונרא (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 * It might be how you would say it if you were an actual Roman, but the point is that Brian was in a Jewish resistance cell and using a slogan derived anachronistically from 20th century protests in a particular phrasing. In Latin Wikipedia it might make sense to distinguish between what was written for the film, and what a native Latin speaker might have written instead.  In English Wikipedia it seems like an unnecessary detail that would require too much effort to explain, given that it's neither part of the grammar actually discussed in the film, nor part of works of literature describing the scene.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Documenting persistent vandalism
Over the last year, a variety of edits have deleted or, in one instance, recast the same paragraph of text, usually with edit summaries that allege bias or irrelevance or make no sense at all; for instance the first reason given referred to "self-promotion/advertisement", although there is no evidence that the author cited is a contributor to the article. All of these edits were undertaken by users who were not logged in, using various IP addresses, with little or no history of constructive edits to other articles. Given the narrow focus of the changes, I believe that one person is responsible for this disruption, which has constituted a significant portion of the activity for this article since the end of 2023's deletion discussion. Constructive edits have also occurred during this period, but usually by editors who are logged in, and who have a history of constructive edits to other articles.

The relevant paragraph currently reads:"The film's satirical use of classroom discourse as a technical exercise to distract from the realities of Roman imperialism has also been compared with the contemporary political phenomenon of diverting attention from serious social issues by focusing attention on details, such as argument over the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a means of distracting attention from discriminatory practices, harassment, and legal disabilities affecting transgender persons."

Note: this section was originally created on January 9, 2024 for the purpose of documenting persistent single-purpose vandalism over the course of several months, and requesting page protection, which was subsequently granted. I've updated it following a substantially similar series of edits on April 6, 2024, and may do so again if this cycle repeats. I do not know whether the author of the April 6 edits is the same as any of the IP editors who performed the same edits in the past, but given the timing, it seems to be the same person who commented on this section as an IP editor shortly before the first edit on April 6. The times given in this table are those shown in the edit history when I view it in the Eastern U.S., and so are four to five hours earlier than UTC, which appears automatically in signature lines. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * 8:25, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 repeated the previous deletion; edit summary: "Activist vandalism".
 * 8:20, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 deleted most of the paragraph; edit summary: "thinly veiled activism".
 * 6:58, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "Irrelevant information to the subject used as a tangent for LGBT activism in the disguise of "cultural significance"."
 * 13:08, January 9, 2024 Special:Contributions/167.88.21.51, deleted the entire paragraph; no edit summary; no other contributions by this IP.
 * 13:28, December 25, 2023 Special:Contributions/74.64.100.109, replaced the words "The film's... has been compared with" "Queer activists have compared the", and "social issues" with "LGBT issues"; edit summary: "Fixed sentence order"; fewer than 50 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of them were by the same person.
 * 10:46, December 13, 2023 Special:Contributions/90.242.218.182, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: ""Far fetched, ludicrous, and completely non-notable"; no other contributions by this IP.
 * 2:22, November 26, 2023 Special:Contributions/82.129.98.131, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "Duplication"; three other edits attributed to this IP, all between November 26 and December 1, 2023; one of these was to delete a reference to the Quran, which I've just reverted, after checking that the mention was correct.
 * 8:42, August 11, 2023 Special:Contributions/146.198.82.243, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "removed paragraph of irrelevant pseudoscience"; no other contributions by this IP.
 * 7:16, June 9, 2023 Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:4A8A:5601:8CE1:33BC:B9B1:8484, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "Biased POV, irrelevant to article"; no other contributions by this IP.
 * 8:22, May 25, 2023 Special:Contributions/170.148.215.161, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "removed irrelevant content"; fewer than 30 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of the others were by the same person.
 * 16:15, May 14, 2023 Special:Contributions/79.13.155.198, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "Fixed informations"; no other contributions by this IP.
 * 13:09, April 22, 2023 Special:Contributions/23.149.32.47, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "removed paragraph of dubious relevance/significance"; fewer than 20 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of the others were by the same person.
 * 10:43, April 11, 2023 Special:Contributions/51.52.8.226, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "What?! This has nothing to do with Romani ite domum, and is rubbish in the first place"; fewer than 50 edits attributed to this IP; one of them on April 21, 2023 removed a footnote about a singer having come out as transgender, without an edit summary; another on May 26, 2023 left a rude message on the talk page of a user who's been inactive since 2007; another left a sarcastic comment in an article about the background of someone appointed to address racism (which the user changed to "inequity").
 * 4:46, April 4, 2023 Special:Contributions/78.35.147.78, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: "Remove unrelated self-promotion/advertisment"; no other contributions by this IP.

It's not clear whether this vandal's target is Jack Halberstam and anything written by him, or queer or transgender issues (there may be such a pattern here, but I'm not sure, since it's hard to know who was responsible for some of the loosely-related edits to other articles or a retired editor's talk page), or social justice generally. The fact that the reasons given keep changing, and never include a clear explanation or lead to a talk page discussion, seems to demonstrate that there is no concrete basis for the editor's objection to this paragraph. It's frustrating to see the same act of vandalism repeated every few weeks with another unclear or nonsensical edit summary. P Aculeius (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't know anything about the anonymous IP editor, but the paragraph certainly seems to have an extremely tangential relationship to the article's subject, and could violate WP:COATRACK... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 * The paragraph concerns a discussion of the scene as a parallel for a recent sociopolitical phenomenon: using the minutiae of a situation as a distraction from a deeper social issue that goes unaddressed because of misplaced focus on details that are ultimately unimportant. The discussion may not be of intrinsically great importance, but then the film itself isn't very serious either.  Yet it reached--and continues to reach--a vast audience, because it portrays historical fiction in an eminently relateable way, and so in Halberstam's book, this scene is used to demonstrate a peculiar rhetorical trap that, unlike the events of the film, has great cultural significance today.

 * But that's not what this discussion was started for. It's here to document repeated vandalism so that the article could be presented for either pending-changes protection or semiprotection.  The guidelines for protection requests suggested that extended discussion of the request could be placed on the article's talk page, so that's what I did.  Documenting the occurrences and pattern of repetition would have been too lengthy and detailed to post on the article protection request page.  Since the request was granted, this section remains largely to explain why the request was made and granted.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 * If what is being deleted is only very tangential at best to this article's subject matter, then it's extremely relevant to a discussion as to whether or not deleting it is indeed vandalism... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd say it's not at all tangential for a scene demonstrating how relevant social commentary is diverted into a grammar lesson, that does nothing to resolve the underlying social issues, to be used as an example of a rhetorical device being employed in current sociological debates. The argument that it's not vandalism if you don't think that the point is important enough to make, even though multiple editors tell you that it is, is a bit like saying that Brian didn't vandalize the building because the Romans shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Here the vandal doesn't even seem to be able to make a coherent argument on the talk page, and keeps changing the reason provided, or giving none at all.

 * The fact that one of the edits attempted to recast the discussion by saying that it was only queer activists who would make such a comparison, and that it wasn't a social issue, but merely an LGBT issue, combined with the fact that some of the IP's also removed a reference to someone being transsexual in another article, changed "racism" to "inequity" in another, and deleted a reference to the Quran in a third--despite some uncertainty over which of the edits by each IP were by the same person who was vandalizing this article--strongly suggests that the vandal is a reactionary, whose real problem is with the statement that transgender people face harassment or discrimination, and that all of the complaints about "nonsense", "duplication", and "pseudoscience" are arguments with Jack Halberstam and his book, not with the relationship of the paragraph to the article.

 * Repeatedly deleting material from an article under false pretenses, because you disagree with the opinion of the source being cited, while concealing one's identity and refusing to engage in any detailed or meaningful conversation, seems to be the very definition of "vandalism". P Aculeius (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't know or really care about the anonymous IP, but I see material with a more direct connection to an article's topic than what's at issue here deleted from "In popular culture" sections of an article all the time. See Talk:Carol of the Bells in just the past day or so -- and of course, the song "Carol of the Bells" apparently actually does occur in the Dr. Who episode, while the "Romani ite domum" section of the Life of Brian movie does not refer or allude to transgender issues in any way (whatever the movie has to say about such issues -- not referred to with the word "transgender" at the time, of course -- is contained in the Stan/Loretta segment).   Again, consult WP:COATRACK... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an "in popular culture" section listing dozens of passing mentions without any significance. I have tried to explain on multiple occasions that this scene appears as a teaching tool in the work selected—which itself is not a mere collection of trivia or TV episode with no cultural relevance beside its own fanbase.  The particular relevance of this scene is not to popular culture, but to didacticism and rhetoric specifically, and it has been described and included in various works not merely to say, "hey, I watched this too!", but to make comparisons between the actions and dialogue of this particular scene and modern social and political movements and debates.  I'm not sure what's so confusing about this.
 * The fact that the scene itself makes no mention of transgender issues seems completely irrelevant to the comparison being made in the Halberstam book. Many things have cultural relevance to other topics, persons, or events that were completely unknown at the time they occurred.  It would be an extreme position to argue that even detailed discussion of a thing for illustrative purposes is no more than "fancruft" illustrating the author's familiarity with something.  That's what a passing mention is; this isn't that.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then use a different comparison. 2001:14BB:AB:C759:50E0:CE3B:404D:48FE (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the timing, you seem to be the same person as User:Takeshi357. This article is not the place to pursue a vendetta against "LGBT activism".  This article has nothing to do with activism, and despite your accusations, I am not an activist.  The subject of this persistent edit war was included in the article because it's a discussion of this article's topic in a contemporary context, and the only reason for the edit war seems to be an unreasoning demand that because Brian isn't gay or transgender, nothing to do with LGBT issues can be mentioned here.
 * But that's not why it's here: it's here because a notable author has made use of a widely-known scene in which an insignificant issue (grammar) is used to distract from the underlying issues (anti-Roman sentiment, vandalism) to compare with how the furor over the use of unconventional pronouns (grammar) has been used as a distraction from the underlying issues (transphobia, legal disabilities imposed upon transgender persons). The fact that Halberstam makes this comparison in his book is relevant to the topic, whether or not on thinks his comparison is apt, or whether one agrees with his point, and irrespective of one's position on LGBT issues.  You can think he's way off base, making something out of nothing, or hold any other opinion—but that doesn't change the fact that a notable author has made this comparison, or that making it is relevant to this topic's significance in a contemporary cultural context.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Whatever -- You're quite adept at attributing evil motives to others, and daring other people to knock the chip off your shoulder, but rather poor at demonstrating why the whole thing has any particular relevance to this article beyond the most tangential... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Not sure where you're getting either of those from, other than repeating what I already responded to three months ago. I just explained why it's here again, and don't think it could or needs to be made any clearer—the fact that this is the only thing anybody seems to have a problem with or wants to do anything about seems to indicate some animus against Jack Halberstam or his book or the point he was making—I can't tell which.  I'm not the one who charged in here accusing me of being an activist writing thinly-veiled activism, neither of which is true.  I have no particular interest in or connection to LGBT activism, besides wanting everyone to be treated fairly and with dignity.  My point about Halberstam using this scene to illustrate a point about contemporary issues stands.  It was not a passing mention, but a clear and nuanced comparison between what occurs during the scene and a current political debate, and that makes it relevant to this article, because it illustrates the ongoing influence of this article's subject in contemporary culture.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Personally while I can speak from personal experience that the misdirection tactic described here definitely exists, it is not one limited to the sphere of politics, and there's definitely no reason whatsoever why it needs to be a specific, not to mention obviously controversial, example - and I still do not think it ultimately has any real relevance to the subject (apart from it being part of the joke), so I would still vote for just deleting the whole paragraph. Takeshi357 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * What's controversial about it? The fact that some people might disagree with Halberstam's comparison?  That doesn't affect the fact that he made it, or whether it shows that the subject of this article continues to have some cultural relevance.  He could be completely mistaken, but the fact that the argument is made is relevant to this article, irrespective of whether you or I agree with it.  Or is it that some people might mistakenly assume that Halberstam is saying that Brian or some of the other characters are gay or transgender, or that Monty Python was saying something about LGBT issues?  Other people's mistaken understanding of what a scene is used to illustrate doesn't make the argument irrelevant.

 * I don't understand what you're getting at with "apart from it being part of the joke". Halberstam isn't saying that LGBT issues are part of a joke in The Life of Brian, he's saying the use of didacticism as a distraction from the underlying issue in Brian is similar to how serious discussion of LGBT issues today are ignored when someone brings up "zhe", "hir", or "them", or (and this isn't in Halberstam, as far as I know) litter boxes in school bathrooms for "students who identify as cats", a non-issue that everyone's heard of and has an opinion about despite no evidence that such things ever happened.  But again, you don't have to agree that Halberstam's comparison is correct.  The fact that he makes it is what's relevant to this article: it shows the ongoing relevance of the subject in contemporary culture (and it might be cited for completely opposite reasons—against LGBT issues, or why the internet is broken; those would also be relevant, provided there's a serious point being made, and not just a passing mention, as if to say (and I said this earlier in the discussion), "I saw this movie too!"  P Aculeius (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Play on "Yankee go home!" / "Ami go home!"
It is strange that there is nothing said about this obvious context. There is not even a "Yankee go home!" page on Wikipedia. It only forwards to Anti-Americanism. I'll leave the rest to Billy Wilder:

"When the Southern belle is confronted about her foolishness in the matter of helping him blow up anti-American "Yankee Go Home" balloons (how the couple met) she simply replies with, "Why, that ain't anti-American, it's anti-Yankee... And where I come from, everybody's against the Yankees ...""

2A01:C23:B96D:1D00:1CBB:CB92:B2C6:A24A (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 * That certainly comes to mind, and it could have been omitted because to the article's original authors, it seemed too obvious to require explation. However, I'm not aware of any published source that makes the connection, and without even a proper history of the phrase, I can't feel certain that similar phrases weren't used of other peoples.  That would make it hard to connect the phrase to this article without a reliable source.  If you can find a published source that does so, it might be worth including here.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romani ite domum


text:
Drew Fuller

Andrew Alan "Drew" Fuller (born May 19, 1980) is an American actor and former model. He is best known for his portrayal of Chris Halliwell in the television series Charmed and for playing soldier Trevor LeBlanc on Lifetime's Army Wives.

Early life
Fuller was born in Atherton, California, and grew up in Newport Beach; he has a younger sister, Hilary.

Career
Fuller got his start in modeling after a family friend put him on the cover of UCLA Magazine. Deciding to wait a few years, Fuller eventually entered the modeling world at age sixteen and quickly became a top model for such companies as Prada, Club Med, and Tommy Hilfiger. He has appeared in many commercials including J.Crew, Subway, Toyota and Pepsi opposite Britney Spears. He took part in the music video for The Calling's "Wherever You Will Go", playing the new boyfriend of the betrayed teenage girl whose relationship is the subject of the video. He also featured in Jennifer Love Hewitt's 2002 music video "BareNaked".

Fuller became known for playing Chris Halliwell on Charmed, a starring and guest star role from seasons 5-8 of the show. In the series, his character is the second son of Piper (Holly Marie Combs) and Leo (Brian Krause) and engages in time travel to save his older brother Wyatt (Wes Ramsey). Fuller's most recent roles are in The Ultimate Gift, a drama released on March 9, 2007, and in the series Army Wives which airs on Lifetime. He also co-starred in ABC Family's television movie The Circuit.

Fuller has finished filming for an independent feature film, The Kane Files: Life Of Trial.

Fuller made a cameo in the music video "Tired of Being Sorry" for Balthazar Getty's band Ringside. He also made an appearance in the film Loaded.

Other works: TV commercial for Subway (2003), appears in the pro-WGA strike video on YouTube "Writer Boi" (2007), writer - Bowlerman Begins (short) (2010).

title: Drew Fuller


text:
Callistratus

Callistratus or Kalistrat, Kallistratos is a given name of Greek origin .It may refer to:

 * Callistratus of Aphidnae (died c. 350 BC), Athenian politician of the 4th century BC
 * Callistratus (grammarian), Alexandrian writer of the 2nd century BC
 * Callistratus (jurist), Roman legal writer active in the 3rd century AD
 * Callistratus (sophist), Greek writer of the 3rd or 4th century AD
 * Callistratus, an Athenian poet, known only as the author of a drinking song in honor of Harmodius and Aristogeiton (c. 500 BC)
 * Callistratus, producer of some of Aristophanes' plays and his sometime collaborator
 * , a historian of perhaps the 1st century BC, author of local histories of Heraclea Pontica and Samothrace
 * Callistratus of Carthage, a Christian saint who is said to have inspired forty-nine soldiers to martyrdom in Carthage in the 4th century
 * Callistratus of Georgia (1866–1952), catholicos-patriarch of All Georgia from 1932

title: Callistratus


text:
Talk:List of mountain ranges

Should we add this as an external link?
"Regions, Ranges, and SubRanges" http://www.peakware.com/areas.html?a=440

 * only if you add bivouac.com and peakbagger.com and other sites, which are in fact more thorough and, I'll wager, more accurate.Skookum1 07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Blue Ridge Runs through Georgia and along the Border of South Carolina as well.

This list needs serious revision
Too much work for tonight; the Caribous and moose are NOT part of the Rocky Mountains, they're part of the Columbia Mountains; the Coast Mountains need to be broken down and it's a big hierarchy, see Coast Mountains, which maybe could simply be referred to here, or replicated. Same with the Ceasar Mountains and Columbias and others in Canada; this reminds me of the fudging of the US meaning of the Cascade Range to mean the same thing as the Cascade Volcanoes, which are not the same; I'll be back as I'm not in the mood for three-four hours of fixing this right now....Skookum1 07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to SOUTH America? The Andys. Etc. Am I missing some critical link to another page? I cannot believe the omission! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im veritas photo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The omission of La Cordillera de los Andys is almost offending!!!! I wonder if we should include here the Tepui system of the Guyanan Shield also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.144.167.204 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally I added Los Andes!!!! Colombian and Brazilian mountain Ranges, have you checked Category:Mountain ranges by continent??? Should we merge this page with that???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustov (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that earlier on Apr 08 someone added South America to the list including the Andes, Chilean and Argentinian Mountain ranges, however someone deleted this addition, regarding it as unconstructive. Sincerely I do not understand why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustov (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

'''Why isn't there a SINGLE mountain range from Europe in the list???? Stunning!!!!''' guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.104.145 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Europe
Honestly, who did this and removed European Mountains? We're missing a whole continent here, and one of the most obvious ones. Hello, Everybody!

Antarctica?
No section? --Greatestrowerever (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm very disappointed. I just reverted vandalism that's been sitting in this article since November.  Enigma  message 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes on tidying of North American section
I did quite a bit of rearranging and consolidating in the North American section tonight, on the heels of discussion and edits to Western Cordillera (North America). This section is vast; and note that the Rocky Mountains subranges listed are really only those in the American Rockies; there are dozens more in the Canadian Rockies and a particular hierarchy of range-groupings there. Vavious groupings which are teh "fault" of bivouac.com and other non-professional/archival sites were amended based on the only available official systems - those of USGS/GNIS, Canadian Geonames Database, the Atlas of Canada Online, and BCGNIS/S. Holland Landforms of British Columbia, or were otherwise consolidated and grouped according to the content of various parent articles such as Peninsular Ranges, California Coast Ranges, Alaska Range etc. Some require further resolutions and I have yet to find an official source for Yukon Ranges, though it's likely to be in S. Holland's book, unless a similar volume exists for Yukon; Alaska Ranges is a term come up with by Holland, I'll have to find his page ref, it doesn't occur in USGS/GNIS. BEcause of discrepancies between official sources adn waht bivouac.com has turned into the latter is no more of a reliable source anymore (as it once was) than peakbagger or other unsourced sites; geology and ecology papers tend to muddy terminology - Pacific Ranges, Pacific Cordillera, Coast Range(s), Pacific Coast Ranges, all get muddle and have differing meanings depending on who's fudging them, and shuffling of "Selwyn Mountains" with "Selwyn Ranges" is typical in terms of "casual confusion" in academic sources which do not properly source their toponyms in USGS or in CGNDB/BCGNIS or the Atlas of Canada. etc. I'm also thinking due to the size of the North American listing that breaking it up into Western Cordillera, Eastern Cordillera (?), Interior Plains, Canadian Shield etc would be worth doing; and/or making it a sortable list....(or making the whole page a sortable list....). Anyway g'nite, it's been a long several hours; there's still some anomalies and I don't like mixing the eco-geological terms like Basin and Range province in with topographic classification systems but I'm done for the night.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Continents
What's up with the order of the list of the continents themselves? Shouldn't they be alphabetical order so Africa / Asia / Australia / Europe / North America / South America with probably ocean ranges at the end before lunar ranges? If not - what basis are they ordered by? NickPriceNZ (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) NickPriceNZ

Mexico is not on Central America
Listing the Mexican mountain ranges in that category is inadequate.

 * ✅ I fixed it. Thanks for bringing that to out attention. In the future please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~) and also the way we do it here on article talk pages is the most recent posts go at the bottom of the page. Take care. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

desde que o mexico foi promovido a america do norte via nafta como fazem questão do titulo mesmo mais parecidos com o meio do mainland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.154.75.80 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

List style broken
The list style of this article is broken – mixed numbered/unnumbered lists with markup errors. Not sure which way it's meant to be. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetic
Should or shouldn't words like 'sierra' and 'cordillera' be taken into account for the alphabetic order of the ranges in Latin America? It is a mess now anyway. The English names in the rest of the world this problem do not have this problem because the words like 'Mountains' are usually on the end, not at the start of the name. Bever (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

By Orogenic Age
Why is there no list of mountain ranges by how old they are? Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ozark Mountains
Any reason the Ozarks are not listed under United States? Just an oversight? Or is there some criterion by which they do not qualify? Davidhof (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of mountain ranges


text:
Niccolò di Pitigliano

Niccolò di Pitigliano (1442–1510) was an Italian condottiero best known as the Captain-General of the Venetians during the Most Serene Republic's war against the League of Cambrai. He was a member of the powerful feudal family of the Orsini, belonging to its Pitigliano line.

Early years
Niccolò di Pitigliano was born in Pitigliano, in the Maremma, the son of Aldobrandino Paioletti ll, Count of Pitigliano and his wife Bartolomea. He was the descendant of a Romano ["Romanello"] Orsini, Count of Nola, who had acquired the Signoria of the tiny Tuscan citystate of Pitigliano in 1293 by marrying Anastasia de Montfort, heiress of the Aldobrandeschi Lords of the city. His parents both came from different branches of the Orsini clan.

Equipped with the reputation that comes from a famous name, the connections and dynastic links with many of the ruling families of Italy, and with their own private fief as a base, both Niccolò Paioletti, and his father Aldobrandino Paioletti made careers as mercenaries taking Condotte (mercenary contracts) with Florence, Siena, the Pope, and the Kingdom of Naples at various times.

Career as a condottiero
A chronological list of Niccolò di Pitigliano's early contracts shows him moving among the same employers and taking service with the same State more than once.

Niccolò di Pitigliano's significant Condotte were as follows:

 * 1458 – Papacy
 * 1463 – Kingdom of Naples
 * 1473 – Florence, with the rank of Field Marshal of the Republic
 * 1481 – Kingdom of Naples
 * 1482 – Papacy
 * 1485 – Florence, with the rank of Captain General of the Republic (Florence's highest military rank)
 * 1489 – Papacy, as Captain General of the Church
 * 1495 – Venice

In Venetian service and the War of the League of Cambrai
From 1495 until the end of his life, Niccolò di Pitigliano remained in Venetian service as Governatore Generale delle Milizie Veneziane (Governor General of Venetian Forces). The high point of his career was the role that he played in the War between the Venetian Republic and the League of Cambrai.

In the first decade of the sixteenth century, Pope Julius II planned to curb the power of Venice in northern Italy and had, to this end, created the League of Cambrai (named after Cambrai, where the negotiations took place), an alliance against the Republic that included, besides himself, Louis XII of France, Emperor Maximilian I, and Ferdinand I of Spain.

On 15 April 1509, King Louis XII of France left Milan at the head of a French army and moved rapidly into Venetian territory. To oppose him, Venice fielded an army under the command of Niccolò di Pitigliano and his cousin Bartolomeo d'Alviano (also a scion of the Orsini clan).

Disagreements between Pitigliano and Alviano as the best way to stop the French advance prevented the two from uniting their forces to oppose the French. Consequently, when Louis crossed the Adda River in early May and Alviano advanced to meet him, Pitigliano moved away to the south, believing it best to avoid a pitched battle.

On 14 May, Alviano confronted the French at the Battle of Agnadello; outnumbered, he sent requests for reinforcements to his cousin, who replied with orders to break off the battle and continued on his way. Alviano, disregarding the new orders, continued the engagement; his army was eventually surrounded and destroyed.

Pitigliano managed to avoid encountering Louis; but his mercenary troops, hearing of Alviano's defeat, had deserted in large numbers by the next morning, forcing him to retreat to Treviso with the remnants of the Venetian army.

The Venetian collapse was complete; Louis proceeded to occupy Venetian territory as far east as Brescia without encountering any significant resistance. The major cities that had not been occupied by the French—Padua, Verona, and Vicenza—were left undefended by Pitigliano's withdrawal, and quickly surrendered to Maximilian when Imperial emissaries arrived in the Veneto. Julius, having in the meantime issued an interdict against Venice that excommunicated every citizen of the Republic, invaded the Romagna and seized Ravenna with the assistance of the Duke of Ferrara, who had joined the League and seized the Polesine for himself.

The newly arrived Imperial governors, however, quickly proved to be unpopular. In mid-July, the citizens of Padua, aided by detachments of Venetian cavalry under the command of the proveditor Andrea Gritti, revolted; the landsknechts garrisoning the city were too few in number to mount effective resistance and Padua was restored to Venetian control on 17 July.

The success of the revolt finally pushed Maximilian into action. In early August, a massive Imperial army, accompanied by bodies of French and Spanish troops, set out from Trento into the Veneto. Because of a lack of horses, as well as general disorganization, Maximilian's forces would not reach Padua until September, giving Pitigliano the time to concentrate such troops as were still available to him in the city. The Siege of Padua began on 15 September; although French and Imperial artillery successfully breached Padua's walls, the defenders managed to hold the city until Maximilian, growing impatient, lifted the siege on 30 September and withdrew to Tyrol with the main part of his army.

In mid-November, Pitigliano returned to the offensive; Venetian troops easily defeated the remaining Imperial forces, capturing Vicenza, Este, Feltre, and Belluno. Although a subsequent attack on Verona failed, Pitigliano managed to destroy a Papal army under Francesco II of Gonzaga in the process.

A river attack on Ferrara by the Venetian galley fleet under Angelo Trevisan failed, however, when the Venetian ships, anchored in the Po River, were sunk by Ferrarese artillery; and a new French advance soon forced Pitigliano to withdraw to Padua once again.

The War of the League of Cambrai continued, but in January 1510, Niccolò di Pitigliano died in Lonigo. He was interred in the Basilica di San Giovanni e Paolo, a traditional burial place of the doges.

Family
Niccolò di Pitigliano was married twice.

Firstly, in 1467, to Elena dei Conti Montalcino (died in Nola in 1504), with nine children including:

 * Francesca (born 1469, died 1562), who married Don Sigismondo Carafa, Prince of Aliano in 1500
 * Ludovico (died 1534) who succeeded him as Count of Pitigliano.

His connection with the Carafa family is shown by his presence in the Dispute of St. Thomas painted by Filippino Lippi in the Carafa Chapel, in the basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome.

Secondly to Guglielmina, a commoner of humble birth, last attested to in a will of 1529.

title: Niccolò di Pitigliano


text:
Pitigliano

Pitigliano is a town in the province of Grosseto, located about 80 km south-east of the city of Grosseto, Tuscany, Italy. It is one of I Borghi più belli d'Italia ("The most beautiful villages of Italy").

The quaint old town is known as the little Jerusalem, for the historical presence of a Jewish community that has always been well integrated into the social context and that has its own synagogue.

History
Pitigliano and its area were inhabited in Etruscan times but the first extant written mention of it dates only to 1061. In the early 13th century it belonged to the Aldobrandeschi family and by the middle of the century it had become the capital of the surrounding county. In 1293 the county passed to the Orsini family, signalling the start of 150 years of intermittent wars with Siena, at the end of which, in 1455, a compromise of sorts was reached: Siena acknowledged the status of county to Pitigliano, which in exchange placed herself under the sovereignty of Siena. From then onwards the history of Pitigliano resorbs into the gradually wider ambit first of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1562) then of the united Kingdom of Italy.

Climate
The municipality area of Pitigliano, while presenting different local situations on the basis of 'topography is characterized by rather low winter temperatures, which can occur during prolonged periods, despite the daily maximum values are often pleasing. On the contrary, in summer the heat can be very intense, though usually accompanied by low relative humidity.

Consequently, the town has been classified in zone E with a sum of 2195 degree days, allowing the power of heating between October 15 and April 15, up to a maximum of 14 hours per day.

According to data available for the 30-year average 1951–80 for the only weather station located within the municipal area and in the table below, the average annual temperature is about 14.1 C at 313 m above sea level in Pitigliano, while the average annual rainfall is 926 mm.

 * Climate classification: E Zone, 2195 GG
 * Atmospheric diffusion: high, Ibimet CNR 2002

Synagogue and Jewish community
For several hundred years Pitigliano was a frontier town between the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and, to the south, the Papal States. For this reason, the town was home to a flourishing and long-lived Jewish community, mostly made up by people fleeing from Rome during the Counterreformation persecutions. Jews of the town used one of the caves for their ritual Passover matzoh bakery, the forno delle azzime described in detail in Edda Servi Machlin's "Classic Cuisine of the Italian Jews". After the promulgation of racial laws under Nazi influence, all the Jews of the town reportedly escaped capture with the help of their Christian neighbors. Although there are almost no Jews left in town, not enough to provide a minyan, the synagogue (1598, with furnishings of the 17th and 18th centuries) is still officiated from time to time. It was restored in 1995.

Etruscan remains
Pitigliano is home to a series of artificial cuts into the tuff rock to varying depths ranging from less than 1 m to over 10 m. At the bottom of these cuts (Italian: tagliate) are carved channels, apparently for water, although some take the form of steps. The purpose of the cuts is not known: the three main theories are that they were roads, quarries, or water conveyance schemes; they radiate outward from the base of the butte of Pitigliano, down to the rivers then back to the top of the plateau that surrounds the town. A few very brief Etruscan inscriptions are said to have been found on the walls of the cuts, but are ill documented.

Medieval and Renaissance structures

 * The Cathedral of Santi Pietro e Paolo, Pitigliano.
 * The church of Santa Maria.
 * The Orsini Fortress, which achieved its present state in 1545 but represents a reworking of the earlier medieval fortress
 * the town's walls and gates, the best preserved of which is the Porta Sovana.
 * remains of a tall and very visible aqueduct at the very top of the butte.

Tempietto
The Tempietto ("small temple") is a small cave, probably of natural origin but considerably reworked by human hands, lying a few hundred meters outside the central district, yet far above the Lente valley. Its purpose and builders remain unknown. Locally it is referred to as a "paleochristian tempietto", but this has never been confirmed; it must date to Late Antiquity or the early Middle Ages, although it may replace an Etruscan or Roman arcosolium.

People

 * Umberto Baldini, art historian
 * Giuseppe Bennati, director and screenwriter
 * Alberto Manzi, teacher, writer and television presenter
 * Niccolò di Pitigliano, noble leader
 * Francesco Zuccarelli, painter of the 18th century

title: Pitigliano


text:
User talk:Happy ga

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Djegan 20:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Happy ga


text:
Institute of Antoniano

Istituto Antoniano was created in Bologna in 1953 by the Franciscans, (the Lesser Friars). The Convent of the Franciscans who govern the establishment is built next to the Church of St. Antonio, hence the name of the Institute.

The Institute was established as a community services initiative with the goal of helping the less fortunate, a life rule of the Franciscans. In 1953 poverty was quite widely spread throughout Italy and the Antoniano set up a soup kitchen that still exists today.

Over the years however the Antoniano has expanded and widened its range of initiatives particularly so as to service the needs of children, and since 1961 the Institute has been the prime organiser of the Zecchino d'Oro festival of song for children. The Instituto Antoniano has three choirs, ballet school, drama school etc. There is also a special after-school for children with Down syndrome.

title: Institute of Antoniano