text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia gubernatorial election, 2006

 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Georgia gubernatorial election, 2006
do we need this article with such mispelled title Melaen 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy ? delete because. No, mispelling needs correction, not deletion. But would have said . Gtabary 23:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I wrote this article because I noticed that a number of gubernatorial pages had been set up but not written. I have been attempting to correct my spelling errors since I posted the article. If you find a spelling problem, please feel free to fix it. However, I do not believe minor spelling errors to be justification for deletion. 7 June 7:57 EST.
 * Is Gtabary saying delete or keep? I can't tell. 7 June 8:00 EST.
 * The bold section is the usual format. So I said delete (because). :-) Gtabary 23:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked through the requirements for deletion. Spelling errors were not listed as justification. Thus far, that appears to be the only complaint. - The Author
 * This is the Author again. I have fixed as many spelling errors as I could. If you have found a problem I missed, please fix it yourself or post here so I know what to fix.
 * Keep and cleanup Upcoming elections are an exception to the "crystal ball" rule. Xoloz 00:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For other articles on upcoming elections see the article on the 2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign as well as the articles on the 2006 Senate and House elections.
 * Keep. What, exactly, is misspelled in the title? In any event, notable and predictable future exercises of the political process are not "crystal ball" cases. -- BD2412 talk 00:33, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks fine. - Mustafaa 01:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand, no misspellings as far as I can tell. Certainly no one would suggest that the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article should have been deleted when it was created in January of 2003.  Why should a gubernatorial race be any different? -  Jersyko    talk   02:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "gubernatorial" is spelled correctly. Since it's an upcoming election, I'd vote keep on this or any gubernatorial articles which have an election date of November 2006 and find themselves up for deletion. Mike H 17:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Mike H. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  22:05, 10 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: User talk:81.156.208.133

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

title: User talk:81.156.208.133


text:
Talk:Z4 (computer)

electronic or relay
Was the Z4 electronic, or did it use relays?--Bubba73 23:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

first computer
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/fcomp.shtml

The above link discusses what should be counted as a computer and mentions the the mechanically based operation of the memory in the Z4, and it not using a stored program so perhaps it should not thought of as the first computer- the link discusses this in some detail.
 * That link discusses a first stored-program computer, not a first computer (there's a difference).

--89.25.210.104 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Needs clarification
The "251" claimed Zuse computers: is the implication that these are all Z4s? Needs clarification in models. 171.66.161.158 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No of course not. They made lots of later computers. That sentence does seem inappropriate in this article though. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"World's first commercial digital computer"
Both the Z4 article and the BINAC article claim to be the "world's first commerical digital computer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z4_%28computer%29&oldid=619761555

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BINAC&oldid=631071670 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.104.215 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 * But does one-of-a-kind computer is "commercial"?--89.25.210.104 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The Z1, Z2, and Z3 articles make the same claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.131.120.2 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Z4 (computer). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.epemag.com/zuse/part6a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Z4 (computer). 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/20110719110029/http://cs.uni-muenster.de/Professoren/Lippe/lehre/skripte/geschichte/pdf/Kap14.pdf to http://cs.uni-muenster.de/Professoren/Lippe/lehre/skripte/geschichte/pdf/Kap14.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914034703/http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/rechner_z4.html to http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/Rechner_Z4.html

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) 06:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Only digital computer?
The article makes the claim that "In 1950/1951, the Z4 was the only working digital computer in continental Europe". BARK (computer) became operational on April 28, 1950, but it wasn't a commercial available computer. It probably needs clarification. // Liftarn (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Date of sale - or was it sold at all?
The article states that the Z4 was the second digital computer to be sold, but this is not backed up by any supplied reference as far as I can tell. The article's reference:

states (translation from German by Google):

[in 1949 Professor Stiefel from ETH Zürich] was not a little surprised when he found the Z4, which was already a bit battered from the outside, set up in a horse stable. Nevertheless, he dictated to Zuse a simple differential equation that Zuse could immediately program, demonstrate on the machine and solve. After that he concluded a contract with Zuse: the Z4 should be loaned to the ETH after a thorough overhaul and cleaning.

In 1950 the Z4 was loaded and taken to Zurich. It was her sixth transport. To this day, all those involved remain silent about the exact circumstances of the transport of the Z4 from the Allgäu to Switzerland. On the basis of the political and legal situation at the time, this is also understandable (Control Council laws).

So, the circumstances of the Z4's move from Germany to Switzerland are not publicly known, and this particular source claims that the deal involved a loan not a sale.

On that basis, unless more information can be sourced, it seems that the article should reflect doubt about the Z4 having been sold at all. For example, the article states that the Z4 was constructed for a order placed by Henschel & Son, but not that it had been paid for. Perhaps it had been and therefore Henschel & Son owned the machine as completed in 1945, perhaps it was owned by whatever concern had funded the construction and therefore remained unsold when completed. No references supplied support either position and the article text takes the 1949 deal as the year of the supposed sale; that deal is called a loan in the reference above.

If money did change hands in the 1949 deal (for whatever reason), who owned the Z4 in that year, where did the money come from, and where did it go? The reference above doesn't make that clear and seems to suggest the whole business was at least a bit shady; the reference says Stiefel did a deal with Zuse to acquire the Z4 on loan which on the face of it appears possibly unlawful since it seems unlikely Zuse was the owner of the machine. The reference also suggests that the 'Control Council Laws' might also have been broken by the deal.

If the transfer to ETH was unlawful—it looks like it could have been—it seems to me that the Z4 was rather more stolen than sold or loaned.

It's certainly not clear and I'm equally certainly no lawyer: are there any references to settle this one way or another?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi, I hope these passages from Herbert Bruderer's Milestones in Analog and Digital Computing (2021) might clear it up.
 * p. 14 - The Z4 (1945), which has survived to the present time, was the world’s first commercial computer.
 * p. 1070 - The two partners [Zuse and ETH] concluded two very complex agreements. In the main contract of September 7, 1949, the Institute for Applied Mathematics agreed to bear the costs for the reconditioning and the further development of the Z4. In return, the ETH was allowed to use the large machine in Zurich from 1950 to 1955, as defined in the supplementary agreement of September 22/October 8, 1949 (leasing contract). The machine was also pledged to the ETH.
 * p. 1073 – a letter dated October 20, 1949.
 * To the responsible border authorities for the Swiss-German border
 * Dear sirs:
 * In view of the current political uncertainty, we wish to take the precaution of advising you that it is in our interest that you – in the event that conditions arise in Germany in the coming years or circumstances were to lead to grave danger to life and limb for Herr K. Zuse, graduate engineer in Neukirchen, as well as his family and two closest colleagues, graduate engineers Harro Stucken and Alfred Eckard together with their families, compelling them to flee from Germany – do not refuse the above mentioned persons entry to Switzerland if they should turn up at the border to Switzerland under these circumstances. In this case we ask that you contact us immediately by telephone (telephone number Zurich (051) 32 73 30) in order that we have the opportunity to express our standpoint in regard to the issue of their passing the border.
 * Respectfully yours,
 * The President of the Swiss School Board [written by Hans Pallmann]
 * p. 1077 - Regarding the costs of the Zuse relay computer, widely different figures were published. It follows from the agreements between Zuse and the Institute for Applied Mathematics of the ETH Zurich that the ETH financed the reconditioning and expansion of the Z4 (see Figs. 23.6, 23.7, 23.8, and 23.9) (utilizing external funding) with 50,000 Swiss francs. In return, the ETH leased the machine for 5 years for a price of 30,000 francs. Zuse’s final bill of July 26, 1950, for the reconditioning of the Z4 computer was actually in the amount of 56,900 German marks, but the rest was never paid: the amount remained 50,000 francs.
 * p. 1079 - The money for the Z4 did not come from the ETH Zurich, but from the Jubiläumsfonds ETH 1930 (20,000 Swiss francs, commitment of the Board of Trustees of December 27, 1949) and the Huber-Kudlich-Stiftung (30,000 Swiss francs, presidential decree of December 30, 1950). The ETH made an advance payment, since the foundation was not yet established in 1949. Accordingly, for the acquisition of the Z4, the sourcing of financing was the responsibility of the President of the School Board and not of the School Board in its entirety.
 * p. 1083 - The leased electromechanical relay machine [Z4] was installed in July 1950 and was in continuous use from August of the same year.
 * p. 1110 – 1949: Leasing agreement for the Zuse Z4 between the Konrad Zuse-Ingenieurbüro, Neukirchen, Germany, and the Institute for Applied Mathematics.
 * pp. 1139, 1140 - For the reconditioning and use of the Z4 relay machine, total costs of 50,000 Swiss francs (of which 30,000 Swiss francs were for the leasing costs) were agreed. However, a contract extension was agreed later (see Sect. 24.4), but this was not additionally billed. This was presumably cause for a misunderstanding. Although the final bill (see Sect. 24.7) was higher than 50,000 Swiss francs, no supplementary payment was made. The testing of the Z4 (see Sect. 24.5) was performed in the German Neukirchen. The handover (see Sect. 24.6) and the return (see Sect. 24.8) took place in Zurich. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Z4 (computer)


text:
Kyriakos of Makuria

Kyriakos or Cyriacus (ca. 750) was a ruler of the Nubian kingdom of Makuria. While some authorities place his reign between Merkurios and Zacharias I, according to Severus of El Ashmunein, Kyriakos succeeded Markos.

Around 748, Kyriakos marched north into Egypt as far as Fustat (Cairo) at the head of an army said to number 100,000 men to free the Patriarch of Alexandria Michael, whom the Governor of Egypt, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan ibn Musa bin Nusayr, had thrown into prison. However, once the Makurian army reached Egypt, the Patriarch was released from prison, along with Kyriakos' envoy, who was then dispatched to Kyriakos to ask him to return to Makuria.

title: Kyriakos of Makuria


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 8

Category:Danish economy, Category:Indian economy, and Category:Romanian economy

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Economy of Denmark, Category:Economy of India, and Category:Economy of Romania, respectively, so they will match the rest of the subcategories of Category:National economies. Neutralitytalk 20:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Standard contradicts the one applied in Categories for deletion. Sebastian (talk) 06:06, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that one still under dispute? Anyway there's no difference between Economy of and in Denmark, but there is a difference between battles fought in or by a country. Agree with Neutrality. Radiant_ >|< 07:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that sounds to me rather like a reason to omit the preposition in this case. Sebastian (talk) 07:59, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * It is the "Battles of Foo" categories that are a deliberate exception to the rule, for the reason of differences between nationality of combatants and location of battle. Most other categories are changing or have been changed to "X in Foo" or "X of Foo", depending on normal grammatical usage or fairly straightforward rules of thumb. The reason that is brought up on the rare occasions that someone objects to this is the very good one - it is often difficult to guess what a nationality calls itself. "Economy of Monaco", "Economy of Burkina Faso", "Economy of Kiribati" is far simpler than having to remember "Monegasque economy", "Burkinabe economy", "Gilbertese economy" etc. Grutness...  wha?  13:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! — Rename. Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Now THAT's consensus building. Rename.  --Kbdank71 14:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:National economies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Economy by country, like the rest of the subcategories of Category:Categories by country. Neutralitytalk 20:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, though is there a reason it shouldn't be Economies by Country?. -- Lochaber 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant to type. Must have been distracted. Neutralitytalk 01:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lochaber. Radiant_ >|< 07:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree: Rename to "by country". Sebastian (talk) 07:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant to type. Must have been distracted. Neutralitytalk 01:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Gundam technology

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category is obsolete; all articles have been moved to the respective articles of the various timelines, and even if some new technology could be added or expanded strong enough to have its page, it should belong to the category of the respective Gundam timeline. --IgorTrieste 11:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's still stuff that doesn't fit in any timeline. 132.205.44.134 22:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, where do you propose to put that? Something like Gundam technology outside timeline? Radiant_ >|< 07:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * There can be a single article, in the general Gundam category (above the timelines), there is no need for a whole category of articles about technology --IgorTrieste 09:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Labor strikes

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Based on contents, should be Category:Labor disputes, as it contains both strikes and lockouts. – flamurai (t) 07:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Companies for commercial item transport and distribution

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite an unweildy title. I would suggest renaming it to a slightly smaller one that fits better with the others: Category:Commercial transport and distribution companies instead. --Hooperbloob 01:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support renaming. Postdlf 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest Category:Transport and distribution companies. What does the word "commercial" add? Is there a separate category for uncommercial transport and distribution companies, or for those that won't take contracts from not for profit organisations? I think not. CalJW 17:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support CalJW's version - the shorter, the better. -- BD2412 talk 22:37, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cable television shows

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erroneously listed on VfD by User:MakeRocketGoNow. Edit summary for addition of VfD template was "category is overly broad and better served by existing Category:Television series by network)".   — Gwalla | Talk 00:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. Postdlf 18:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Pavel Vozenilek 17:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 8


text:
Palais des Sports

Palais des Sports (French: Palace of Sports) is a generic name of comprehensive indoors sports venue, mostly in the French-speaking world, including:

 * France:
 * Palais des Sports de Beaulieu, Nantes
 * Palais des sports Ghani-Yalouz, Besançon
 * Palais des Sports Jean-Michel Geoffroy, Dijon
 * Palais des Sports de Beaublanc, Limoges
 * Palais des Sports de Gerland, Lyon
 * Palais des Sports, Grenoble
 * Palais des Sports de Marseille
 * Palais des Sports Jean Weille, Nancy
 * Palais des Sports Maurice Thorez, Nanterre
 * Palais des Sports, Orléans
 * Palais des Sports, Paris in Porte de Versailles (XVe arrondissement)
 * Palais des Sports de Pau
 * Palais des Sports de Toulon
 * Palais des sports André-Brouat, Toulouse

 * Québec, Canada:
 * Palais des Sports Léopold-Drolet, Sherbrooke
 * Palais des Sports, Val d'Or

 * Greece:
 * Palais des Sports (Kallithea)
 * Palais des Sports (Thessaloniki), an alternate name for the Alexandreio Melathron Nick Galis Hall arena in Thessaloniki

 * Ivory Coast
 * Palais des Sports de Treichville, Abidjan

 * Republic of the Congo
 * Palais des Sports (Kintélé), Brazzaville

title: Palais des Sports


text:
Talk:Excavata

explanation
Do we need the excavation explanation at the top?

It's useful because people sometimes make links to this page when they're talking about excavating. At the moment, for instance, the page on Huguenot tunnel has made this mistake.

--- Does anyone have any info regarding the phylogenetic relationships between the Excavate taxa? I rember reading somewhere that the Metamonads had ancestors with mitochondria (destroying the old "Archaezoa" hypothesis of basal Eukaryote phylogeny) and that the mitochondria-bearing Jakobids may be the most primitive and most deeply branching Eukaryotes.

--Odin2006 20:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (Taylor Selseth)

Jakobids
Why isn't there a jakobid page? Could someone with knowledge on this group please create a page? Werothegreat 12:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discicristates
Why isn't there a page on discicristates (discicristata), they are a distinct group that are passed over and redirected to this article.

Also, was this article just copy-pasted, because I get that sense from it. Wiki wiki1 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Discicristates are a group of excavates, including the Euglenozoa and Percolozoa. Yes, it should be expWerothegreat 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)lained here.

I added it to the table and the text. --Kupirijo (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

higher classification
For the time being, I'd like to suggest we remove the reference to Cabozoa from the taxobox. Some studies have contradicted the hypothesis that Excavates are sister group to Rhizaria, for example Burki et al. 2007. Phylogenomics Reshuffles the Eukaryotic Supergroups. PLoS ONE 2(8): e790. Cephal-odd (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it uni-cellular?
I have no idea at all about biology and can't believe I'm asking a question like this. I was just curious if this type of creature is mostly uni-cellular? Thanks in advance!Senantiasa (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for bringing this up. Including this kind of information is very important in writing an good encyclopedia article.  Took me a few tries to find a reference, but yes they are all unicellular. I've added it to the article. Kingdon (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Depends on how you define uni-/multicellularity. Excavates contain acrasid slime moulds (Acrasida, Heterolobosea, Discicristata), which are cellular slime moulds similar to Dictyostelium. Some (eg. King 2004 Dev. Cell) would argue that cellular slime moulds are a type of multicellularity, as there is spatial cell differentiation. So I'd say excavates are *mostly* unicellular, to avoid generalising too much. Perhaps that would be too nitpicky though, I don't know... --Psi Wavefunction (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Definitely worth a mention; thanks. My thinking is that they are "unicellular enough" that we can say "unicellular" in the lead and expand later in the article, but feel free to tweak the wording if you think that is taking too many liberties. Kingdon (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Malawimonas
First paragraph: "the genus Malawimonas is generally considered to be a member of Excavata". Second paragraph: "Malawimonas appears not to belong to Excavata". Ain't Wikipedia wonderful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.151.49 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name?
What we need at the top is an explanation of the peculiar name. Who dug it up? Are they digging something up? Where does it come from? -j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.195.81 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see it hidden away in characteristics but it deserves more prominence at the beginning of the article. It's more important information than when it was created (history section) or that "protists" is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.195.81 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A question about Excavata
Hello. My name is Mohammadsina Mokarmipour from Iran and I am a Persian speaker, but I plan to contribute to the improvement of English articles. About the Excavata article on Wikipedia: In the table, this category of organisms was introduced as "unranked". But due to the importance of this category that I have seen on other pages of Wikipedia, I suggest that this category be introduced as a "kingdom" in Wikipedia. With thanks for your attention. Mohsina881018 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The importance is not the issue. Do you have a reliable source (WP:RS) stating that the Excavata would represent a Kingdom? IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 * The group is being broken up as paraphyletic, so I'm not sure that talking about any particular taxonomic grades is really feasible. This makes the article itself moot: it could be broken up, redirected, or preserved as a description of a moment in taxonomic history. The taxobox in particular needs to be removed as misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The taxobox is just an infobox that summarises information about the group in convenient and quickly accessible form. It includes a variety of information including taxonomic information. It's use makes no assumption about the validity of the group as a monophyletic or paraphyletic taxon, but can provide the information about what it contains. This change needs consensus. An edit summary of the citing the talk page one hour after an unanswered comment is not consensus. —  Jts1882 | talk 06:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for discussing, but I dispute the suggestion that a taxobox makes no taxonomic claim: it patently does, indicating to every unsuspecting reader that this is a clade. I am minded to mark the article as disputed now, but I see you've stated "obsolete" in there, which I guess mitigates its rather bizarre survival. To be clear, since we (and scientists) agree it's not a valid taxon we should not have a taxobox. I suggest we do remove it - to say the least, having such a box for a not-a-clade would set a terrible precedent - but there's no immediate hurry as long as it's clearly understood that the box is basically up for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an infobox, which has an unusual name because it predated the infobox system. What is important is what faces the reader, not the name of the template behind the page output. There is nothing to suggest a taxobox only deals with monophyletic taxa. And as they include images, conservation status, and range maps, it's clear the intent was not to be strictly a taxonbox, let alone a monophyletic_taxonbox. The case that it should be restricted to monophyletic taxa is weak as paraphyletic groups are still widely used in taxonomy. Some people object strongly, some people think they have validity, and others think they are an unnecessary evil while we learn more (even Hennig used taxa he thought paraphyletic). We have to be neutral and present opposing points of views. In this particular case, "excavate" is still widely used in discussion of the evolution of Eukaryotes and this article should try and present the information in an easily assessable form. Infoboxes are one means to do this that is used widely on Wikipedia. —  Jts1882 | talk 08:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, some good points there, but "widely used" is, you'll agree, something of a weasel term: and old taxonomists never change their minds, they just die off eventually. It fries the Darwinian brain to think of deliberately using paraphyletic or polyphyletic groups as taxa – if it doesn't have a common ancestor, whatever can it mean?? (though para- might seem better than poly- if we're down to that) Coming down to earth, the box is certainly much less confusing now than it was. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

About Eukaryotes, not Excavata
"With respect to the origin of the metamonada s.l. a.k.a. Excavata s.l. a.k.a. Eukaryotes, in 2023, Eme, Tamarit and colleagues reported that the Eukaryota emerged deep within Asgard, as sister of Hodarcheales within the Heimdallarchaeia.[19]" (+ cladogram)

 * Um, with respect, this is not about the excavata at all, but about the origin of the Eukaryotes. In this sensu lato (or should I say (sensu latissimo, the broadest imaginable sense which totally changes the meaning), the name becomes a synonym for the whole of the Eukaryota, which is not the topic of this article (I note that the tree is already in Asgard, where it belongs). I'd also gently remind editors that we are writing for the general public, and s.l. a.k.a. i.bet.they.cant.make.head.nor.tail.of.this style is really not appropriate; but the main problem is that the added material is simply and frankly out of scope of this article. I'd simply have removed it as obviously and grossly WP:OOS but would prefer to do this with everyone's agreement if possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Discussing the sister taxa and ancestral should always be in scope. With the rest of the Eukaryotes emerging within the Excavata and metamonada case, this looks like it coincides with the Eukaryotes. Eukaryotes is not a "special" domain boundary anymore, beyond one should not dare to look. Jmv2009 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * The meaning change is exactly commensurate with the realization that the rest emerged in them. There is then no other meaning left to "Excavata" and "metamonada", really (following cladistics). In this case we end up with junior and senior synonyms. There is actual biological meaning to the statement that animals belong to the metamonada, and that animals are in a group which is sister to one of them. Jmv2009 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, since it "coincides" with the Eukaryotes, and the tree is already in Asgard, all the material is redundant here. Ancestral taxa can't just be taken as "in scope", or Hominids would be "in scope" for an article on Homo sapiens, as would Primates, as would Mammals, as would Vertebrates, as would Metazoa, as would Eukaryotes, in short every one of a million taxo-articles would have a tree of eukaryogenesis in scope. Of course not, the whole point is that each article discusses its own scope, and wikilinks related topics. You are completely correct that there is no meaning left to "Excavata", so we should not be wasting time building up this article: it should be a brief stub on a blind alley in taxonomic thought. We should never create Content Forks by writing stuff that belongs in the senior article in the junior synonym article. We should delete the Eukaryote tree now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * There is a useful distinction between the full ancestry and the immediate sister context that we should not gloss over. Jmv2009 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * No objection to mentioning the sister context, but we should now remove the rest forthwith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Ok, because biological groups are logically defined by exactly which ones in reality have not emerged within them (rather than e.g. which were historically erroneously excluded), and giving the sister is a very good proxy for that. I'll give it another succinct shot. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Added the sister. There is no name for the clade Hodarchaeota-Eukaryota yet, but they appear to be part of the Heimdallarchaeia, which include the Heimdallarcheaota. Please note that Eme and Jewari are actually not in conflict. Jewari kind of arbitrarily chose the root between Archaea and Eukaryotes, which explains the difference in appearance. Jmv2009 (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 * May require a very small tweak, but we mustn't repeat ourselves in one section after another. Actually, on reflection, the mentions of "metamonada" (in two different senses!) in "Phylogeny" is not good either; we don't want to confuse readers with two names for the Eukaryotes, and the "/metamonada s.l." is just a junior synonym which has no hope of adoption, while "within the traditional metamonada group" (before it was seen to be paraphyletic, I guess) is redundant verbiage to "as sister taxon to the Preaxostyla," which says concisely all that needs to be said about the relationship. I suggest we just remove both mentions from the section – they'll mean slightly less than nothing to all ordinary readers, while the taxonomically savvy will wonder why we want to keep saying "metamonada" in different senses all over the place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Excavata


text:
Drew Rosenhaus

Drew Jordan Rosenhaus (born October 29, 1966) is an American sports agent who represents professional football players. He owns the Miami-based sports agency Rosenhaus Sports, and has negotiated over $7 billion of NFL contracts.

Early life and education
Rosenhaus was born on October 29, 1966, in South Orange, New Jersey. Four years later his family moved to North Miami, Florida. When young, Rosenhaus was a fan of the Miami Dolphins and attended home games and practices.

Rosenhaus attended the University of Miami School of Business at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he graduated in 1987. He attended law school at Duke University School of Law, graduating with a Juris Doctor in 1990.

Career
In 1989, Rosenhaus became a registered sports agent and at the age of 22, he was the youngest registered sports agent at the time. As a University of Miami alumnus, many of his clients and contacts came from the Miami Hurricanes football program.

His company operates under the name Rosenhaus Sports Representation (RSR). Other principals in the firm include Rosenhaus' brother Jason, who serves as the firm's vice president, and Robert Bailey, the firm's director of marketing.

After the 2011 NFL Lockout, Rosenhaus negotiated more than 90 contracts, worth about $600 million, in one month.

In 2022, Rosenhaus negotiated a four-year, $120 million contract for then Kansas City Chiefs' wide receiver Tyreek Hill with the Miami Dolphins, which made Hill the highest paid wide receiver in NFL history by average annual contract value and total guaranteed compensation.

Notable clients
Rosenhaus represents more than 170 players, including several high-profile clients, many of which are known for having eccentric personalities. Notable players Rosenhaus has represented or represents include Aaron Jones, Antonio Brown, Chad Johnson, Frank Gore, Rex Grossman, Rob Gronkowski, LeSean McCoy, Jimmy Smith, Plaxico Burress, Terrell Owens, Tyreek Hill, Warren Sapp, and Darren Waller.

Willis McGahee
In January 2003, University of Miami running back Willis McGahee suffered a complex and serious knee injury in his final college game during the Fiesta Bowl, the national championship game that year. One month later, he signed with Rosenhaus who predicted that, despite the injury, McGahee would be a first round NFL draft pick in the 2003 NFL Draft. During the draft, cameras would cut to live shots of McGahee and Rosenhaus talking on their cell phones, giving the impression that they were communicating with teams, even though they were in fact speaking with each other. The Buffalo Bills selected McGahee in the first round as the 23rd overall choice in the draft. After reconstructive surgery and physical rehabilitation, McGahee signed a five-year contract with the Bills worth about $16 million.

Terrell Owens
After the 2005 Terrell Owens controversy with the Philadelphia Eagles, Rosenhaus attended a press conference with the client. Rosenhaus responded to the majority of journalists' inquiries by asking for the "next question." The incident contributed to the title of Rosenhaus's second book Next Question: An NFL Super Agent's Proven Game Plan for Business Success.

Johnny Manziel
In March 2016, after his previous agent terminated their contract, Rosenhaus began to represent Johnny Manziel, the first freshman in the history of college football to win the Heisman Trophy, on the condition that Manziel sought treatment for substance abuse. On April 19, after only representing Manziel for a month, Rosenhaus ended his contract with Manziel because he never met his deadline to seek treatment.

Media appearances
Rosenhaus is the author of two books. The first is his autobiography A Shark Never Sleeps: Wheeling and Dealing with the NFL's Most Ruthless Agent, published in 1997. The second book, published in 2008, is Next Question: An NFL Super Agent's Proven Game Plan for Business Success. In 1996, he became the first sports agent to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

He has been featured on several television programs including CBS's 60 Minutes, HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel and Showtime's Inside the NFL. Additionally, Rosenhaus appeared as himself on the sitcom Arli$ and is a weekly contributor on "Sports Xtra," WSVN Miami's Sunday night sports wrap-up show. He was also featured in ESPN documentaries The U and The Dotted Line.

Rosenhaus has appeared in commercials for Burger King and ESPN's Sportscenter.

Rosenhaus made a cameo appearance in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire. Also, the persona of Jerry Maguire was reportedly based on Rosenhaus. In 1998, he appeared as himself in the HBO series, Arli$. In 1999, he appeared in the movie about professional football, Any Given Sunday.

title: Drew Rosenhaus


text:
Talk:Mary & Shelley Fan Club

Information
The Mary & Shelley Fan Club should not have its own article, there is not enough information on the club. This should be put in the Shelley and Mary Godwin article. -- Revolver Ocelot 23:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mary & Shelley Fan Club


text:
New Hampshire Route 63

New Hampshire Route 63 is a 21.514 mi north–south state highway in Cheshire County in southwestern New Hampshire. It runs from Winchester to Westmoreland. The southern terminus is in Winchester at the Massachusetts state line, where the road continues as Massachusetts Route 63 in the town of Northfield. The northern terminus of NH 63 is in Westmoreland at New Hampshire Route 12.

Route description
After entering Winchester from Massachusetts, NH 63 immediately enters the town of Hinsdale after only a few feet of pavement. Following the narrow salient of Hinsdale between the Connecticut River and Winchester, it is known locally as Northfield Road. Crossing the Ashuelot River into the main village of Hinsdale, it has a T-intersection with Main Street and joins NH 119 for a short concurrency eastward. At the intersection of Main Street, Canal Street, and Chesterfield Road, NH 63 turns north onto Chesterfield Road while NH 119 continues east on Canal Street, Following Chesterfield Road north along the banks of Kilburn Brook, the road travels along the western edge of Pisgah State Park and enters the town of Chesterfield. At Spofford Lake, NH 63 intersects NH 9 (Franklin Pierce Highway) before passing north out of Chesterfield into Westmoreland. In the main village of Westmoreland, the road takes a hard turn to the northwest, then as it approaches the Connecticut River turns gradually back to the northeast in the village of Park Hill before coming to its northern terminus at NH 12.

title: New Hampshire Route 63


text: User talk:222.153.115.194

title: User talk:222.153.115.194


text:
New Hampshire Route 75

New Hampshire Route 75 (abbreviated NH 75) is a 5.453 mi secondary east–west highway in Strafford County in southeastern New Hampshire. It runs from Farmington to Milton.

The western terminus of NH 75 is in Farmington at New Hampshire Route 11. The eastern terminus is in Milton at New Hampshire Route 125 just east of the Spaulding Turnpike.

title: New Hampshire Route 75


text:
NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship

The NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship, originally known as the NWA Eastern States Heavyweight Championship, was a professional wrestling championship promoted in Jim Crockett Promotions (JCP), a territory-promotion governed by the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA).

Title history
On October 13, 1970, the championship was introduced as the NWA Eastern Heavyweight Championship during a taping of Championship Wrestling. It was announced that the Missouri Mauler had defeated the defending champion Pat O'Connor in New York City to win the title; this title change was fictitious and a storyline to introduce the championship to the promotion; nevertheless, O'Connor's reign is denoted as the first official reign. Because it was fictitious, further information regarding O'Connor's reign is unavailable.

On the September 6, 1973 taping of Championship Wrestling, JCP owner Jim Crockett, Jr. announced the retirement of the NWA Eastern Heavyweight Championship and the establishment of the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship. At the time of this change, Jerry Brisco was in his fourth reign as the NWA Eastern Heavyweight Champion, and as a result of never losing the title, he was recognized as the first NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Champion. Because Brisco's fourth reign did not end, being awarded the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Title is not counted as a new reign overall in the title's history. By 1974, JCP was also known as "Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling" (MACW), which is why all of its championships included "Mid-Atlantic" in their names.

On December 26, 1986, Ron Garvin, after winning JCP's version of the NWA United States Tag Team Championship with Barry Windham, vacated the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship and handed the belt to Crockett, Jr. on a taping of World Championship Wrestling. Crockett, Jr. deactivated the championship for unknown reasons, and eventually, JCP was sold to Ted Turner in 1988, thus becoming the new promotion, World Championship Wrestling.

In the late 1990s, NWA gave a group of promoters permission to establish a territory called "Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling"; however, this territory has not claimed any connection to the original JCP/MACW. As a result, their prime championship, called the MACW Heavyweight Championship, has no connection to this original championship or its lineage.

Reigns
Overall, there were 63 reigns among 29 wrestlers. Fifteen of those reigns occurred while the title was called the "NWA Eastern Heavyweight Championship" while 46 reigns occurred under the "NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship" name. Johnny Valentine ranks first in combined reigns by the length of 504 days with 2 reigns total. Wahoo McDaniel had the most reigns with seven. Ken Patera's second reign was the longest in the title's history at 334 days. All title changes occurred at JCP–promoted events: live events, pay-per-view events, and on televised events that aired on broadcast delay.

Combined reigns

 * Key


text:
New Hampshire Route 77

New Hampshire Route 77 (abbreviated NH 77) is a 17.874 mi nominally east–west highway in Hillsborough and Merrimack counties in southern New Hampshire. It runs from New Boston to Dunbarton. Though labeled as east–west, the road has a north–south alignment for half of its length.

The western terminus is in New Boston at New Hampshire Route 13 and New Hampshire Route 136. The eastern terminus of NH 77 is in Dunbarton at New Hampshire Route 13.

Route description
NH 77's western terminus is at NH 13 in New Boston, just north of the town's central village, where it forks off to the north on Weare Road. Entering Weare, the road changes names to Dustin Tavern Road. At Country Three Corners, it meets the eastern terminus of NH 149 and merges with NH 114, where the name changes to South Stark Highway. Heading due north and passing by the eastern slopes of Mount Wallingford, the two routes cross through the main village of Weare at the center of town, where the road becomes North Stark Highway. and upon crossing the Piscataquog River, at a hard right turn NH 77 leaves NH 114/Stark Highway to join Concord Stage Road. Winding past Weare Town Forest and leaving near the northeast corner of the town, NH 77 enters Dunbarton near the northern end of town and reaches its eastern terminus at NH 13.

title: New Hampshire Route 77


text:
Talk:Bee Hive, Alabama

A subsection of Auburn, Alabama? --Wetman 23:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bee Hive, Alabama. 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/20150102081707/http://www.postalhistory.com/postoffices.asp?task=display&state=AL&county=Lee to http://www.postalhistory.com/postoffices.asp?task=display&state=AL&county=Lee

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) 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bee Hive, Alabama


text:
Columbia Film Society

The Columbia Film Society is a nonprofit organization founded in January 1979 in Columbia, South Carolina. It is a community arts organization whose aim is to stimulate discussion and enhance appreciation of media arts in the community by presenting a wide variety of alternative films and sponsoring media arts events and educational programs.

The Society is mostly known for operating the Nickelodeon Theatre, a 77-seat storefront venue located in the shadow of the state capitol building. Using this current home, the Society showcases films and videos found outside the commercial cinemas in the area. In June 2005 the Society (along with the help of private citizens, corporate sponsors and other civic organizations including the City of Columbia) purchased the historic former Fox Theater, a 1936 Art Deco cinema, to use as a future home for the Society. This facility will offer two theaters for programs.

title: Columbia Film Society


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleincision

 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) 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Teleincision

 * Delete: Everything in this article is nothing but rumour and speculation and probably completely false. Most web sites and articles mentioning "Teleincision" refer to this Wikipedia article as the source.  Wikipedia is not a rumour site. MrHate 23:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: As the article states it, it's subject does not exist yet. Can not be encyclopaedic. Gtabary 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: So far, nothing has been confirmed: the first single, (official) track listing, touring and other info. I also found out this might be a DVD this time instead of album or there must be some confusion or mistake. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT) --Durin 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak weakling keep: I say this because if Danny Carey did report information about the album then that is a rather strong source and not merely a crystal ball article. The problem is, if the title is just a rumor what would we call the article?  (and how did they get that cover?) gren 04:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Carey said the new album will have an 18 minute long song... he never said the album was called Teleincision. The cover is a fake MrHate 06:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I only want to discourage deletion if there is any relevant information... I'd change my vote... but, it won't matter. gren 20:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete rumourmongering. — Chameleon 20:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I have said it ten times and I will say it another ten times: until there is proof, this page is misleading at best. --Johnnyw 23:38, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Delete We shouldn't be starting articles based on rumors. At most, there should be notes in the band's page about the possible new album, but only if the rumors have some degree of credibility.  Actually starting a page about the album should await a definite announcement. *Dan* 04:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is rumored to be the title for the new Lateralus tour DVD, not the new album title. Either way, they are strictly rumors and this page should be deleted.--Herrhav0k 13:57, 14 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:
New Hampshire Route 78

New Hampshire Route 78 (abbreviated NH 78) is a 3.456 mi secondary state highway in Cheshire County, New Hampshire, United States. A northward extension of Massachusetts Route 78, NH 78 runs entirely within the town of Winchester from the state border to downtown, where it ends at New Hampshire Route 10 and New Hampshire Route 119.

Route description
NH 78 begins at the Massachusetts–New Hampshire state border where it meets the northern end of Massachusetts Route 78. The short highway runs for just under 3.5 miles northwest to downtown Winchester, where it ends at its intersection with NH 10 and NH 119. There are no major intersections between its endpoints.

title: New Hampshire Route 78


text:
Talk:Boric acid

B(OH)4−
What is the name of the anion B(OH)4−? I can't find a definitive answer anywhere! The only name I've seen is borate, but that is also used to refer to BO33−. The only reason I want to know is because I've made an image of the structure of this anion and before I can upload it, I need to give it a filename!

Cheers

Ben 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * According to CAS: CA Index Name: Borate(1-), tetrahydroxy- (9CI); Other Names:	Borate (BO45-), tetrahydrogen (8CI); Borate (B(OH)41-); Tetrahydroxoborate(1-); Tetrahydroxyborate(1-).
 * My favorite among those would be tetrahydroxyborate. Itub 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "bible" (Holleman and Wiberg) also say tetrahydroxyborate. It explains that B(OH)3 (orthoboric acid, also called boric acid) is a very weak Lewis acid (not Bronsted) and apparently picks up the extra hydroxide somewhat reluctantly.--Smokefoot 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks, gentlemen. I have, accordingly, created the article tetrahydroxyborate. See if you might like to contribute to it.

Ben 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that BO33− actually exists? Both boric acid and borate explain that H3BO3 does not dissociate protolytically: the acid equilibrium is:
 * B(OH)3 + H2O ⇌ B(OH)4− + H+
 * Ka = 5.8x10−10 mol/l; pKa = 9.24.
 * NaB(OH)4 is stoichiometrically equivalent to NaBO2·2H2O, and will dehydrate to sodium metaborate if you heat it strongly enough. But sodium borate is not Na3BO3, at least as far as I've ever seen (although a fusion of the mixed oxides would be quite interesting: it would probably give... a mixed oxide!) Physchim62 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this in Greenwood & Earnshaw:
 * monomeric triangular BO3 units exist in rare-earth orthoborates, MIIIBO4

so I assumed BO33−, whether it really exists or not aside, was named orthoborate.

Would it not be possible to form BO33− fleetingly in the gas phase? If so, the species would need a name.

Even if BO33− doesn't exist, that doesn't necessarily mean B(OH)4− assumes the title borate. Considering the immense structural diversity of boron oxoanions, I thought a common one like B(OH)4− would have its own distinct name.

At least I had a term to name my images and the article!

Ben 00:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, BO33− is listed by Chemical Abstracts as "borate" (also "orthoborate") and has its own registry number. I don't know for sure under which conditions it exists, but certainly tetrahydroxyborate is a less-ambiguous name for B(OH)4−. Itub 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, more details for borate then :) ! Physchim62 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ortho boric acid: toxicity?
The article mentions that boric acid is also known as orthoboric acid, and provides the formula H3BO3. Then it goes on to mention a couple other substances that are formed by heating boric acid to very high temperatures, and says they are also known as boric acid. This brings me to two questions:

69.140.164.142 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is ortho boric acid the same as H3BO3, or is it a different form of boric acid?
 * 2) Is ortho boric acid as safe as, or safer than, or less safe than other commonly-used pesticides, such as indoor pyrethrin-based insecticides?  Is the toxicity of boric acid more specific (to invertebrates or arthropods) or less specific than that of the pyrethrin derivatives?
 * Orthoboric acid is the same as H3BO3: it is by far the commonest form of boric acid, and the only one that most people are likely to come accross.
 * Orthoboric acid is about as safe as insecticides come (although the same could be said for pyrethroids in household preparations). It does have a measurable toxicity to mammals, particularly if it can get directly into the bloodstream (see the note at the top of this talk page), but it is relatively low. It is considered safe enough to be permitted as a preservative in foods in the European Union (number E284), but not, I believe, in the U.S. Pyrethroids are pretty non-toxic to humans as well, although they can cause asthma in sensitive indviduals. Both boric acid and pyrethroids can be irritating to the skin, especially on prolonged or repeated contact, and for this reason it is a good idea to wash your hands after using either chemical (any chemical, in fact). As with all household chemicals, they should be stored well out of reach of children.
 * Hope this answers your query. Physchim62 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When comparing the toxicity of Boric acid to other insecticides (pyrethrum and pyrethroids) you may be trying to compare apples to oranges. When talking of using BA powder as an insecticide it will be at 97%-99% strength, where the pyrethrum or pyrethroid products will contain only a fraction of one percent of the active ingredient. So the "insecticide" boric acid powder can be 50 to over 200 times more toxic than the "insecticide" using a pyrethrum or pyrethroid as the active ingredient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.238.19 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite you fellow editors to read the EPA TRED on the topic. Testicular toxicity in dogs has been noted at fairly low concentrations (32 mg/kg bw/day) after 90 days. 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observer31 (talk • contribs)
 * That is not a "low concentration" — it corresponds to more than two grams per day for an adult male! Most substances are toxic at such doses. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but are humans more or less sensitive than dogs? We don't know.  Are some individuals more sensitive than others due to genetic diversity?  Most probably.  What about small kids who weight a lot less than adults?  A 10 kg kid would only need to ingest 320 mg!  This is why safety factors are needed, and this is why limits had to be put boric acid use in pools.  Again, read the TRED.  This is a work in progress for me and I should hopefully have more documentation to put soon.  For example, it seems that rats are particularly resistant to boric acid poisoning, and that other mammalian species are much more sensitive to it.  I'm not going to put this on the main page for now as I don't have the documentation, but again, hopefully I will be able to back this up soon.  Observer31 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

states that serveral incidents with upto 297 grams per person makes it unlikely that there is acute poisoning with a single uptake is possible.--Stone (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * states that upto 1000 mg/kg per day lead to effects, but no significant death.--Stone (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)--Stone (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly Putty - "elemental silicon"
"Now name-brand Silly Putty also contains significant amounts of elemental silicon (silicon binds to the silicone and allows the material to bounce 20% higher)."

Does anyone have a source for this? Presumably a gray, metallic powder would be visible in the Silly Putty if silicon was present. Also, elemental silicon is protected by a surface oxide layer, and would probably not bind to the silicone. Even if it did, it seems unlikely that it would result in a higher bounce.

The same statement is repeated on the Silly Putty page, however, the formula listed there gives no mention of elemental silicon. Unless someone can back up this statement, I will remove it from both articles shortly. --Pyrochem 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Spinning reference
Boric acid is popularly used among fire jugglers and fire spinners dissolved in methanol to give a deep green flame.

I've added in a reference for this, from a Home of Poi article; Home of Poi is linked from the Poi (juggling) page, as "one of the largest and most influential poi communities in the world". Nacbrie 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

copyvio from beyondpesticides.org

 * I removed a paragraph which appeared to be lifted verbatim from beyondpesticides.org and seems to be a copyvio. Re-instate if there is some evidence to the contrary.
 * The page at beyondpesticides.org cites its sources (and we do not, in this case), and is also referenced by another site. Both of these I take to be evidence (not proof) that the beyondpesticides.org version of that paragraph came first (the addition on wikipedia was from September).

 * The original page: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidefactsheets/leasttoxic/boricacid_borates_borax.htm
 * The reference to the original page: http://www.expertvillage.com/article/1769_boric-acid-cockroaches.htm
 * The paragraph in question started with: "Boric acid may be used either in an insect bait formulation containing a feed attractant..." Jun-Dai (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What does Goodman and Gilman say about this?
71.114.163.227 suggested we look this up in a textbook such as Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics; although I see that the concerns about toxicity have already been addressed, I think that it would be nice if somebody would please consult that source and see what it says about the content of this article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The US NIOSH have kidly published the RTECS record for boric acid here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The textbook would be a useful secondary source, if somebody were to consult it and update the article based on its content. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So I looked it up on Amazon "search inside". It reads: "Boric acid, a common household chemical, forms a complex with riboflavin and promotes its urinary excretion. Boric acid poisoning, therefore, may induce riboflavin deficiency." Is that it? If so, I propose to remove the title from "Further reading", and the tag calling for the material to be included. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP article: Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding 11-M Madrid bombings
I think a new section, or maybe a new page should be written about this. An amount of boric acid found in the house of one of the terrorists involved in the bombings suppossedly linked him to ETA. That wasn't considered important during the trial, and some think this information has been dismissed on purpose to hide connections between Al-Qaeda, ETA and even the current goverment. (This is thought by die-hard rightists who support Aznar's goverment and consider that 11-M was some sort of coup)

There's already a page about it in Spanish, but not in English, as far as I know.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_del_informe_sobre_el_%C3%A1cido_b%C3%B3rico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.245.104 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Eti Mine Works Borate Mine or Bank/Insurance?
The article says Eti Mine Works is a large mine - it hot links to an article that says that Eti Mine Works is a bank and insurance company...? Paulburnett (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Boric acid, at the same ld50 as pyrethroid, is much less toxic to marine animals. What is worse is the surfactant (dtergent) that is used to emulsify the pyrethroid, and to distribute it. The surfactant is often more toxic than the pyrethroid. In Friday Harbor, WA, we are seeing major damage to nearshore animals from pyrethroids and surfactants in stormwater, which is not treated. Mikie

Extraction of boron
I know that boron is extracted from this mineral. Can a chemist please write something about boron's extraction from this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamp (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Acidity
pKa1 is 5.2 or 9.24 Ka2 & Ka3 is respectively 4*10^-13 & 4*10^-14. 113.22.176.107 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

ECHA Classification
The wikipedia article states that the ECHA changed their classification Boric Acid to highly toxic and gives a reference to a document published by ECHA. However, upon examination the document actually states ''May damage fertility. May damage the unborn child''. I'm going to change the text in the article to accurately reflect the situation. --Popoi (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

EU legislation now requires it to be labelled "toxic to reproduction" and prohibits supply to the general public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Decomposes below the boiling point??
Here we can read, that it decomposes above 170 deg C to B2O3 and H2O. In the table there is not only the melting point given, but also a boiling point which is with 300 deg C well above the decomposition temperature. How is this possible? Are these extrapolated values from low pressure conditions? Are there any references for these values? (I found the 170 deg decomp as well, in the Hollemann/Wiberg 101. ed). --188.23.115.23 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a contradiction between the article and the infobox. The Properties section describes decomposition reactions at 170oC and also at about 300oC. If this is correct, these temperatures should not be defined as melting and boiling point in the infobox, or should at least have the notation "dec".
 * However we need proper sources before deciding which is correct. At the moment there are no references for either the decomposition reactions in the Properties section, or the "melting point" and "boiling point". Sources please. Dirac66 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * You do realize that it is not a point event, the compound does not decompose 100% before heating to a higher temperature. If the compound is heated rapidly enough, it will melt. Octasulfur decomposes above 109 degrees, but melts at 115. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had not thought of rate-dependent processes, which could reconcile the two statements. You may be right, but I find it suspicious that the infobox melting and boiling points correspond exactly to the decomposition temperatures of the article. However, I have not been able to find the correct information in my books, so I am hoping you have a source for your statements. If so, we can add the required explanations and give a reference. Dirac66 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How one makes a solution of borax & boric acid with a high solubility
This article claims:

'Boric acid, mixed with borax (sodium tetraborate decahydrate) at the weight ratio of 4:5, is highly soluble in water'

The article which it references says:

'the solution prepared by dissolving 20 g of boric acid and 25 g of borax into 100 g of hot water over 80 °C did not recrystallize at 20 °C.'

and:

'It should be noted that the mixture of boric acid and borax does not dissolve into water at room temperature to the level of the highly concentrated solution. This is considered to be due to the problem of kinetics.'

In other words one can't mix them 4:5 with room temperature water and have them go into solution. The person who wants to make this solution needs this information. The article isn't in the public domain: one must either pay for it, have a subscription to the journal, or go to a institution which has a subscription (what I did).

RussellBell (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Since you have read the reference, could you suggest what changes should be made to the article to make it more useful? (preferably without looking at the reference while you write, so that you do not use the same words and violate copyright) Dirac66 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Boric acid mattress treatments and its health concerns
Some mattresses are treated with boric acid powder in order to meet flame retardant regulations. This of course raises health concerns, but from what I understand boric acid is one of the least toxic 'treatments' available (As opposed to synthetic chlorinated and brominated chemicals). I didn't look for solid references, but I hope someone is inspired to do so, and add this topic to the page.

Love and Light! Joe* Bit spark (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Source needed for Bronsted acidity
Question to Plasmic Physics: Do you have a source for your recent claim that Boric acid dissociates in aqueous solution as a triprotic Brønsted acid, and for the three equiiibrium constant values Ka1, Ka2, Ka3? After your edit, the article appears to reference Jolly p.198 for both the Lewis and Bronsted acidity. However I have Jolly open in front of me and it in fact says that B(OH)3 does not lose a proton upon ionization; it abstracts a hydroxide ion from water. The only equation given is the one which forms B(OH)4- with K = 5.8 x 10-10. (not 7.3 x 10-10 as in the article now).

A more recent source is Housecroft and Sharpe (2nd ed. p.314-5) which says In aqueous solution, B(OH)3 behaves as a weak acid, but is a Lewis rather than Bronsted acid. The chemical equation has an H2O added to each side which is strictly more correct, and pKa is given as 9.1 (corresponding to Ka = 7.9 x 10-10. So that is two sources for no Bronsted acidity; we need your source for claiming Bronsted acidity so that we can assess its reliability and decide whether or not to mention both opinions. Dirac66 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Done. (A courtesy from DMacks.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I have now read the article by Perelygin and Chistyakov which you cite. There appears to be a genuine disagreement between their article and the two inorganic books mentioned above as to whether boric acid is a Bronsted acid. Since none of the three sources addresses the question of why there is a disagreement (or even mentions the disagreement), I think that WP:NPOV requires that we mention both viewpoints and maintain neutrality as to which is correct. I will rewrite this section accordingly.

 * Part of the problem is that we seem to have incomplete evidence for both sides of the argument. Jolly mentions Raman evidence for B(OH)4- but excludes the possibility of deprotonation without saying why. Perelygin and Chistyakov give equilibrium constants for the three deprotonation steps, but does not say how they were measured or mention spectroscopic or other evidence for BO(OH)2- etc. It might help to check their references (two Russian handbooks and a Russian encyclopedia) and find the original source for the numbers, but that task requires someone who can access and read the Russian literature. Dirac66 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I've given the Pelelygin's sources a very quick look:

 * Lur'e has only K1=5.8×10-10. It doesn't have inline citations (in fact, it doesn't even have a complete references list)

 * Knunyants has K1=5.8×10-10, K2=4×10-13, K3=4×10-14. It claims the acid releases free H+. The only document it calls a source doesn't have these numbers (it only says pKa for the first step is 9).

 * Glinka has K1=6×10-10, K2=2×10-13, K3=2×10-14 (at 20°C). No references list.

 * Hopefully, this is helpful.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical order for uses?
Would it help readers if the ==Uses== section was arranged alphabetically by ===subsection=== title? R Ge B (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Changed pKa to resemble Sulfuric acid and Phosphoric acid
In the info box, I have changed "9.24 (see text)" to "9.24, 12.4, 13.3", the format used in Sulfuric acid and Phosphoric acid. There are good reasons for the 'see text' note, but it's not clear what part of the text is meant. It could refer to Lewis acidity, or it could refer to the section discussing boric acid in solution with other species (as in natural waters).

The articles on the other polyprotic acids simply list the values; it should be clear to a reader with knowledge of the concept of the dissociation constant that this refers to pKa1, pKa2 and pKa3, and the solvent is water. pKa by definition refers to Brønsted acidity, so the Lewis acidity discussed in the article should not impact the values given here.

Some readers probably come to this article just for the pKa and other basic properties. Some possibilities for presenting the acidity: - Keep this version (with 3 values) - Revert to "see text", but with a link to the intended section - Provide just the first dissociation constant - Indicate the mixed Lewis/Brønsted acidity in the infobox (may be too technical for some readers) Roches (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Boric acid. 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 tag to http://www.deti.ie/employment/chemicalspolicy/clpregulation1272.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406065032/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406065032/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/industrialchem/inorganic/BORIC%20ACID.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

LD50, About units / SI
2,660 mg/kg, 5.14 g/kg, 5 to 20 g/kg, 3.75 g/kg, 2–3 g in infants, 5–6 g in children, and 15–20 g in adults,  poisonings with boric acid (10–88 g) reported no fatalities. I changed the 2,660 mg/kg to 2.66 g/kg, for a clearer comparison between the data. Change was denied, and it makes no sense to me as why. 84.251.181.39 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported material
However, other sources say that boric acid is also a tribasic Brønsted acid, with successive ionization steps and acidities as follows:

Since the value of Ka1 is comparable to that of the reaction with OH−, the concentrations of BO(OH)$− 2$ and B(OH)$$ are similar. I have removed the above items from the main article for the following reason: The paper reporting these species is purely theoretical. The abstract reads "pH ranges of existence of boric acid and its ionic species H2BO3−, HBO32− , BO33− , and B(OH)4− in aqueous solutions are calculated using Mathcad software package." This is speculation, not supported by any physical evidence. Petergans (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Boric acid as insecticide
Note that Boric acid exists as a fine powder of slippery plates (ala graphite, wiki notes lubrication properties) so the "cut up the insect like glass" doesn't make sense. The lit says roaches acquire a static charge while moving and the powder (c.f. diatamaceous earth) sticks to their bodies being ingested on insect self-cleaning actions AND entry into and blockage of insects spiracles preventing respiration. Many animals and birds take "dust baths" to relieve themselves of arthropod parasites in the same manner. 96.89.150.123 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity and food preservation
Sir/ma'am, if boric acid is toxic,supposed to be carcinogenic and even used as insecticide, why is it used as a food preservative? Won't it increase the chances of disease? Vanshita poddar (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mouthwash
Boric acid used to be a part of the formula for Listerine mouthwash. This was changed in the '70s or '80s, when boric acid was replaced by Poloxamer 407. Was Warner Lambert forced to change it, or did they do so on their own accord? rlongman1 24.45.154.41 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Chemical structure
The chemical structure for boric acid is BOOH. It is an acid. Its structure is not B(OH)3. That is the hydrated form of boric acid. My Flatley (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't BO2H specifically metaboric acid? Our article here notes "The term boric acid may sometimes refer to any of these compounds". Looking at the cited refs, that formula is always called "meta..." whereas simply "boric acid" seems to B(OH)3 whenever it is refering to a single compound. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not how covalent bonds work
Boron is in group 3. This means that Boron would require 5 covalent bonds to be electronically stable. However, there is only 3 covalent bonds shown on the boron in the graphic.

I am going to assume that you want ionic bonds. This would not be B(OH)₃, that would be B⁺³(OH)⁻₃. 91.240.227.220 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Your premise is not correct. While there are multiple kinds of "electronic stability", putting 5 bonds on a group 3 element would make it have a charge of –2 and an exceeded octet. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 * You have stumbled across some of complexity and subtlety of chemical bonding that is often omitted from introductory chemistry teaching. I think what you mean is boron is in group 3, therefore it has 3 valence electrons and requires 5 more to achieve a full outer shell of 8 electrons according to the octet rule. Boron could do that by forming 4 bonds, not 5. But it doesn't have to do that to be stable. The fact is boric acid is stable with only 3 formal covalent bonds at boron. It's not this article that's wrong, it's treating the octet rule as inviolable rather than a rule of thumb that has many exceptions. Boric acid is one of them, and boron compounds provide many others. These exceptions are useful, as shown by organoboron chemistry or frustrated Lewis pairs, for example.

 * For starters, the 3-coordinate, trigonal planar structure of boric acid presented in this article is backed up by experimental evidence: see Boric acid for details. You don't have to take my word for it.

 * Why is boric acid able to break the octet rule? Boron offers something of an explanation for the stability of boric acid and other 3-coordinate, electronically and coordinatively unsaturated boron species. It alludes to the typical textbook explanation: donation of electron density from filled π orbitals on adjacent atoms stabilises the empty boron p orbital, as described at Boron trifluoride. As discussed at Talk:Boron trifluoride, in some cases a better explanation that doesn't involve π donation is this: remaining 3-coordinate and planar avoids the destabilisation of the existing bonds that would occur if a bond to a fourth atom were to form. This explanation makes sense for boron species with ionic or highly polar covalent bonding. In boron compounds without π donation or ionic/strongly polar bonds, you observe other ways of stabilising the vacant boron p orbital. For example, borane tends to aggregate to diborane or other boranes unless it encounters a Lewis base and forms an adduct.

 * I said boron could form 4 bonds to complete its octet and that does sometimes happen. As you can see in Boric acid, boric acid is able to act as a Lewis acid by accepting an electron pair from a Lewis base to form 4-coordinate, tetrahedral species. An example is boric acid's reaction with hydroxide to form tetrahydroxyborate:

 * B(OH)3 + OH- -> B(OH)4(-)

 * These 4-coordinate boron species are not necessarily more stable than the 3-coordinate ones, so you tend to see equilibria between the two. Ben (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boric acid


text:
Green for Danger (film)

Green for Danger is a 1946 British thriller film, based on the 1944 detective novel of the same name by Christianna Brand. It was directed by Sidney Gilliat and stars Sally Gray, Trevor Howard, Rosamund John, Leo Genn, and Alastair Sim. The film was shot at Pinewood Studios in England. The title is a reference to the colour-coding used on the gas canisters used by anaesthetists.

Plot
Inspector Cockrill is typing a report to his chief at Scotland Yard on the “amazing events” beginning on 17th August 1944, with postman Joseph Higgins “the first to die”. We see the operating theatre and the personnel in a rural hospital. “Two will be dead, one a murderer”.

The V-1 offensive sends flying bombs far from London. Higgins reports for duty as a warden, and a “doodlebug” hits. A wireless plays in the wreckage—an Englishwoman giving a Nazi propaganda broadcast.

Higgins comes into the hospital unconscious, without identification. Mr. Eden commiserates with Nurse Sanson about the nightmares she has had since the death of her mother, suggesting the work with bombing victims is a reminder.

Nurse Linley tells Eden that she has broken her engagement to Dr. Barnes, an anaesthetist. A bomb lands, and they kiss under the watchful eye of Sister Bates. Sister Bates runs away, hiding tears. Sanson recognises Higgins, who reminds her of her mother. Before surgery, Woods recognised the name. Higgins becomes distressed when he hears Woods' voice.

Barnes administers the anaesthetic. Something is wrong. Full oxygen is of no help. “They neglected nothing,” Cockrill says. “Joseph Higgins was quite dead”.

At a big staff party, a bitter Bates warns Barnes that Eden is after Linley. She announces to the party that she has proof that Higgins was murdered. Leaving the party, she goes through the windy night to the operating theatre to retrieve her proof and is met by a gowned and masked figure holding a scalpel. Linley finds her body.

Cockrill arrives and interviews the five suspects: Barnes, Eden, Linley, Sanson and Woods. He reveals that Bates was stabbed to death, then dressed in a gown and stabbed a second time. Also, some poison pills are missing.

Barnes shows Cockrill the anaesthesia set-up. “There was the vital evidence,” Cockrill recalls, “Right under my nose… It might have saved another life”. The investigation continues.

Linley has suspicions, but the others advise her to talk to Cockrill. She goes to bed. Woods puts a shilling in the gas meter to heat a kettle. The gas fire in Linley's room is on but not lit.

Sanson calls for help but falls, dropping Linley downstairs headfirst.

The Inspector meets with the suspects. He reveals that Higgins recognised the voice of Woods' twin sister on the wireless. Linley has a skull fracture. A craniotomy is required, or she will not recover—and tell what she knows. Cockrill asks them to re-enact the operation that killed Higgins. Eden is not a brain surgeon, so he will assist Mr. Purdy. Eden provokes Barnes, who socks him, and Cockrill enjoys the resulting brawl. His laughter brings the two men to their senses.

In fact, Nurse Linley is recovering nicely. Cockrill has a plan to trap the murderer. He exits, saying that he thinks he knows who did it.

Prepping for surgery, Woods installs a new oxygen bottle, as she did with Higgins. Linley is anaesthetized and soon shows signs of distress. She does not respond to pure oxygen. When the reserve oxygen bottle is connected, she recovers. Cockrill scratches black paint off the original "oxygen" bottle, revealing the green surface signalling carbon dioxide.

Bates was wearing a gown with a piece of it cut out and hidden by the knife, which Linley noticed. Cockrill points to the fresh black paint on Woods' gown. The murderer concealed a corresponding stain by stabbing Bates.

Cockrill's questioning focuses on Sanson. Eden surreptitiously prepares a hypodermic, then warns the inspector to back off. Sanson runs into the next room. Eden follows with the hypodermic and locks the door. Cockrill breaks in, smashes it, and arrests Sanson.

Sanson's mother was buried in an air raid. Higgins, who was leading the rescue effort in his capacity as a warden, dug for three days before giving up. She was found alive the next day, but died an hour later. According to Eden, she transferred her guilt to Higgins, and then she had to protect herself. Sanson collapses, dead. The Inspector accuses Eden, who reveals that he was trying to give her the antidote to the poison tablets. Cockrill is speechless.

He concludes his letter to his superior by offering his resignation, “in the confident hope that you will not accept it”.

Cast

 * Sally Gray as Nurse Linley
 * Trevor Howard as Dr. Barnes
 * Rosamund John as Nurse Sanson
 * Alastair Sim as Inspector Cockrill
 * Leo Genn as Dr. Eden
 * Judy Campbell as Sister Bates
 * Megs Jenkins as Nurse Woods
 * Moore Marriott as Joseph Higgins
 * Henry Edwards as Mr. Purdy
 * Ronald Adam as Dr. White
 * George Woodbridge as Detective Sergeant Hendricks
 * Frank Ling as Rescue Worker
 * Wendy Thompson as Sister Carter
 * John Rae as The Porter

Production
The film was based on a novel by Christianna Brand. She was married to a surgeon who was assigned to a military hospital. She went along to watch an operation, and the anaesthetist told her how to commit murder. She thought of turning this into a thriller but could not think of a motive until a drunk man told her of an experience in a bomb shelter. She wrote the book, which was published in 1941. The New York Times called it "extremely involved."

Sidney Gilliat said he bought a copy of the novel at Victoria Station to read on a train. Though not attracted by the detective or the hospital setting, he said, "what appealed to me was the anesthetics - the rhythmic ritual, from wheeling the patient out to putting him out and keeping him out (in this case, permanently), with all those crosscutting opportunities offered by flowmeters, hissing gas, cylinders, palpitating rubber bags, and all the other trappings, in the middle of the Blitz, too."

In December 1945, the film was announced as a project for Individual Pictures, the company of Gilliat and Frank Launder. In January 1946, it was announced that Robert Morley would star. Morley was eventually replaced by Alastair Sim.

It was the first movie to be made at Pinewood Studios. Pinewood was to be the basis for three companies: Individual, Cineguild, and the Archers.

Reception
The film was originally banned out of fear it would undermine confidence in hospitals. This was overruled and ,the film was passed with one minor cut.

According to trade papers, the film was a "notable box office attraction" at British cinemas in 1947. Unfortunately, it had lost £26,600 (equivalent to £ in ) by 24 December 1949.

Critics have also given the movie high marks. The Monthly Film Bulletin said: "Though the story has plenty of improbabilities when considered in cold blood, this thriller holds one well when on the screen. Alastair Sim is most amusing as the self-important detective who enjoys tormenting his suspects, but who comes a partial cropper despite his assurance." Leslie Halliwell noted that it was a "classic comedy-thriller, with serious detection balanced by excellent jokes and performances, also by moments of fright". François Truffaut later argued the film "didn't quite come off". The New York Times stated: "Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder have laid deftly humorous hands on the subject of murder. And, while they manage to keep the spectator chuckling most of the time, they never for a moment lose sight of a mystery film's prime purpose—that is, to intrigue and startle the onlooker. What more could one ask? In the case of Green For Danger one could reasonably request just a bit more justification for the solution, which, truth to tell, is bewildering."

The Brooklyn Eagle was enthusiastic and praised the film as "an expert concoction of thrills, homicide, and laughs. It's also a fine showcase for the talents of Alastair Sim, a new type of detective with a sense of humor. He easily dominates this melodrama about an old English estate that has been converted into a hospital. It's during World War II and there's dirty work afoot. Plenty of it, with two murders, one near-murder, and one dramatic death. Who says the English have no sense of humor? Green for Danger will convince them otherwise. And give them some chills at the same time."

For the Buffalo Courier-Express, the film was "an ambitious, highly acceptable murder melodrama...expertly acted and smartly directed....the musical score is a big asset."

Home video releases
The Criterion Collection released Green for Danger on laserdisc in 1993, with optional audio commentary by Bruce Eder. Home Vision Cinema released it on VHS at the same time. Criterion released the film on DVD in 2007 with Eder's commentary and a 2007 interview documentary produced by Heather Shaw, "Geoff Brown on Green for Danger" (Brown being the author of a book on the work of Gilliat and Launder). The DVD also includes a booklet with an essay on the film by Geoffrey O'Brien and a programme note by Gilliat from a 1960s revival screening.

title: Green for Danger (film)


text:
Zacharias III of Makuria

Zacharias III (Zakarya ibn-Bahnas) (c. 822 – c. 854) was ruler of the Nubian kingdom of Makuria. In 833, he ceased paying the Baqt to the rulers of Egypt, and prepared to fight the Abbasid Caliph al-Mu'tasim (833-842) over the tribute. He sent his son Georgios (Arabic: Firaki) to renegotiate the terms, and al-Mu'tasim reduced the payment to once every third year.

When the Beja refused to pay their tribute to the Abbasids in 854, the forces of Makuria joined with them in attacking Egypt. They slew the Egyptians working the emerald mines in the Eastern Desert, invaded Upper Egypt and pillaged Edfu, Esna and many other villages.1

title: Zacharias III of Makuria


text:
Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 15–16, 1998

Article expansion
Article needs expansion and rework for better historical accuracy of event which was far from limited to Nashville.

 * Any suggestions? Kaldari 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arkansas tornado outbreak on same day
A tornado outbreak also occured in Arkansas on the same day as the Middle Tennessee outbreak, although earlier in the day. Most sources treat this as a separate outbreak, although the CNN story referenced in this article makes no distinction between the two. In order to keep things from beng too confusing, I'm going to limit this article to the Middle Tennessee outbreak (at least for now). Kaldari 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * IMO, that would be part of the same outbreak - they were caused by the same system and were related. If there is solid information, they should go in this article which should be renamed something like Mid-April 1998 Tornado Outbreak (prefix needed to differentiate from the Birmingham Tornado of April 1998) or a better geographic name, depending on where all the tornadoes are found to be. CrazyC83 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part, although I'm concerned such a conclusion might be considered original research (without more solid info). Of all the sources I've looked at, only the CNN article seems to group them all together as one event. This article is also a bit problematic in that it was originally just about 1 tornado, then 4 (the 3 Nashville tornadoes and the F5), now 10, and perhaps soon about even more. Obviously the F3 in downtown Nashville is the most encyclopedic. As we broaden the scope of the article more it seems we may be in danger of losing the encyclopedic content within the lists and minutia. Do we really need to list every tornado that has ever occured within Wikipedia? Well, I guess that's a question for another place and time, but basically what I'm saying is that this article isn't sure what it wants to be. Is it an article about a tornado or a tornado outbreak? Kaldari 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've notice several existing Tornado Sequences articles, in which the events consist of two or more rounds of severe weather (i.e May 2003 and January 1999). Maybe we should call it the Tornado Sequence of Mid-April 1998 or something like that. The tornado death toll is 12 for the day. I would put a new table with all 12 fatalities under a new table including those in Arkansas and Kentucky. I will wait a week to see if any opposes to that--JForget 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And also considering the large size of the low pressure and a long cold front I am pretty much sure that it is from the same storm.--JForget 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * If you think that's the best thing to do, go ahead with the changes. At some point, however, I think we may want to spin off a separate article about the tornado that hit downtown Nashville. There's certainly enough material out there to make a separate article on it. Kaldari 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Support the broader article. However, a completely new article for Nashville would be unprecedented (no other single tornado within a larger outbreak has an article independent of its outbreak). It should get a fairly lenghty section at the bottom of the article. CrazyC83 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've included tornadoes on the 15th as well as other tornadoes outside of Tennessee on the 16th including Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Michigan. Overall it gives a total of 61 tornadoes and 12 fatalities. I've put the source link to the THP site as the main reference as it uses data from the NOAA-- JForget 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/research/nashtor.htm
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:35:39, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bna/research/f5.htm
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:35:50, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/tornado/alltor.php
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:36:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bna/research/bnator33.htm
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:36:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/06/52609675.shtml?Element_ID=52609675
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:36:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NEWS01/804160420
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-05-25 06:34:56, 404 Not Found
 * In 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak on 2011-06-25 11:36:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on April 15–16, 1998 tornado outbreak. 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/20070218170420/http://www.lawrencecountyskywarn.org:80/april16.html to http://www.lawrencecountyskywarn.org/april16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)