text:
Cherchell

Cherchell (Arabic: شرشال) is a town on Algeria's Mediterranean coast, 55 mi west of Algiers. It is the seat of Cherchell District in Tipaza Province. Under the names Iol and Caesarea, it was formerly a Roman colony and the capital of the kingdoms of Numidia and Mauretania.

Names
The town was originally known by a Phoenician and Punic name that included the element, meaning "island". This may have been, meaning "Island of Sand". The Punic name was hellenized as Iṑl (Ἰὼλ) and latinized as Iol.

Cherchel and Cherchell are French transcriptions of the Arabic name Shershel (شرشال), derived from the town's old Latin name Caesarea (ἡ Καισάρεια, hē Kaisáreia), which was given to it in 25 by Juba II to honor his benefactor Augustus, who had legally borne the name "Gaius Julius Caesar" after his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar in 44. It was later distinguished from the many other Roman towns named Caesarea by calling it Caesarea in Mauretania, Caesarea Mauretaniae ("Mauretania's Caesarea"), Iol Caesarea (Ἰὼλ Καισάρεια, Iṑl Kaisáreia), or Caesarea Iol. After its notional refounding as a Roman colony, it was formally named Colonia Claudia Caesariensium Iol after its imperial patron Claudius.

Antiquity

Phoenicians established their first major wave of colonies on the coasts between their homeland and the Strait of Gibraltar in the 8th centuryBC, but Iol was probably established around 600BC and the oldest remains so far discovered at Cherchell date from the 5th centuryBC. By that time, Carthage had already taken control of the Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean. Punic Iol was one of the more important trading posts in what is now Algeria. In the 3rd centuryBC, it was fortified and began issuing Numidia's first coins in bronze and silver, bearing Punic text, Carthaginian gods, and images of local produce, particularly fish.

After the Punic Wars, Carthage's holdings in northwest Africa were mostly given to Rome's local allies. Iol was given to Micipsa, the king of Numidia, who first established it as a royal court. It became an important city for the kingdom and was the primary capital for Bocchus I and II. The town minted its own coins and received new defensive works in the 1st centuryBC. Its Punic culture continued, but worship of Baal Hammon was notionally substituted with worship of his Roman equivalent Saturn.

Iol was annexed directly to Rome in 33BC. Augustus established Juba II as king of Mauretania in 25BC, giving him the city as his capital, which Juba then renamed in his honor. Juba and his wife Cleopatra (the daughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra of Egypt) rebuilt the city on a lavish scale, combining Roman and Hellenized Egyptian styles. The roads were relaid on a grid and amenities included a theater, an art gallery, and a lighthouse modeled after the Pharos in Alexandria. He probably began the Roman wall that ran for about 7 km around a space of about 400 ha; about 150 of that total was used for the settlement in antiquity. The royal couple were buried in the Royal Mausoleum of Mauretania. The seaport capital and its kingdom flourished during this period, with most of the population being of Greek and Phoenician origin with a minority of Berbers.

Their son Ptolemy was assassinated by Caligula during a trip to Rome in AD40. Rome proclaimed the annexation of Mauretania, which was resisted by Ptolemy's former slave Aedemon and by Berber leaders such as Sabalus. Caligula himself was murdered before Rome's response could be made, but his successor Claudius sent legions under Gn. Hosidius Geta and G. Suetonius Paulinus to complete the conquest. By 44, most resistance had been ended and the former kingdom was divided into two Roman provinces, one governed from Tingis (present-day Tangiers) and another governed from Caesarea. Mauretania Caesariensis extended along what is now the Algerian coast and included most of the hinterland as far as the Atlas Mountains.

Roman colonies of veteran soldiers were established in the new provinces to maintain order. Caesarea itself was made a colony, with its residents gaining Roman citizenship. It prospered as a provincial capital during the 1st and 2nd centuries, reaching a population of over 20,000 and possibly as many as 30,000. It was defended by auxiliary units and was the harbor of Rome's Mauretanian Fleet, which was established as a permanent force after Berber raids in the early 170s. The city featured a hippodrome, amphitheater, numerous temples, and civic buildings like a basilica. It was surrounded by suburban villas whose agricultural mosaics are now celebrated. It had its own school of philosophy, academy, and library. It received a new forum and further patronage from the African emperor Septimius Severus and his dynasty, possibly reaching as many as 100,000 inhabitants. Its native son Macrinus and his son Diadumenian became the first Berber and lower-class emperors, reigning in 217 and 218. (Their predecessor's wastefulness and wars required unpopular financial adjustments that led to their overthrow in favor of Elagabalus.) Juba's theater was converted into an amphitheater sometime after the year 300.

The city was sacked by a Berber revolt in 371 and 372. It largely recovered, but was ravaged again by the Vandals after they were invited into Roman North Africa by Count Boniface in 429. Parts of the town received new fortifications. After the Vandal Kingdom conquered Carthage in 439, they also acquired a large part of Rome's Mediterranean fleet which they used to carry out raids all over the sea. Caesarea's port was sometimes used as a base for these raiders, and the city prospered from their plunder. Its schools produced the famous grammarian Priscian, who emigrated to the Byzantine east.

Middle Ages
In 533, the Vandal Kingdom was conquered by Byzantine forces under Justinian's general Belisarius. Caesarea was among the areas to return to imperial rule. It was the seat of Mauretania's duke (dux), but it went into decline and its city center was given over to ramshackle housing for the poor. The first duke was named John; that he was given an infantry unit rather than cavalry implies that he was meant to hold the port without much concern about controlling its surrounding hinterland.

The town remained under Byzantine control until its Muslim conquest in the late 7th century. Successive waves of Umayyad attacks into Byzantine North African territory over 15 years wore down the smaller and less motivated imperial forces, until finally Umayyad troops laid siege to the city of Caesarea and, although the defenders were resupplied by Byzantine fleets, finally overwhelmed it. Much of the Byzantine nobility and officials fled to other parts of the Empire, while most of the remaining Roman and semi-Roman Berber population accepted Islamic rule which granted them protected status.

Some remained Christians. For two generations what remained of the Roman population and Romanized Berbers launched several revolts often in conjunction with reinforcements from the Empire. As a result, by the ninth century down much of the city's defences were damaged beyond repair, and resulting in its political loss of importance, leaving the former city little more than a small village.

For the following few centuries, the city remained a power center of Arabs and Berbers with a small but significant population of Christians who were fully assimilated by the beginning of the Early Modern period. Similarly, by the 10th century the city's name had transformed in the local dialect from a Latin to a Berber and ultimately into the Arabised form Sharshal (in French orthography, Cherchell).

The Norman Kingdom of Africa raided Berreshk, near Cherchell, in 1144.

Modernity
Eventually, Ottoman Turks managed to successfully reconquer the city from Spanish occupation in the 16th century, using the city primarily as a fortified port. In 1520, Hayreddin Barbarossa captured the town and annexed the Algerian Pashalic. His elder brother Oruç Reis built a fort over the town. Under Turkish occupation, the city's importance as a port and fort led to it being inhabited by Moslems of many nationalities, some engaging in privateering and piracy on the Mediterranean.

In reply, European navies and especially the French Navy and the Knights Hospitaller (self-proclaimed descendants of the Crusaders) laid siege to the city and occasionally captured it for limited periods of time. For a century in the 1600s and for a brief period in the 1700s the city either was under Spanish or Hospitallar control. During this period a number of palaces were built, but the overwhelming edifice of Hayreddin Barbarossa's citadel, was considered too militarily valuable to destroy and uncover the previous ancient buildings of old Caesarea.

After the end of the Napoleonic Wars and Revolutions of the early 19th century, the French under both British, American, and other European powers were encouraged to attack and destroy the Barbary Pirates. From 1836 to 1840 various allied navies, but mostly French hunted down the Barbary pirates and conquered the Barbary ports while threatening the Ottoman Empire with war if it intervened. In 1840, the French after a significant siege captured and occupied the town. The French lynched the Barbary Pirates including the local pasha for Crimes against the laws of nations. In turn, many ancient statues and buildings were either restored and left in Cherchell, or taken to museums in Algiers or Paris, for further study. However, not all building projects were successful in uncovering and restoring the ancient town. The Roman amphitheatre was considered mostly unsalvageable and unnecessary to rebuild. Its dress stones were used to the build a new French fort and barracks. Materials from the Hippodrome were used to build a new church. The steps of the Hippodrome were partly destroyed by Cardinal Charles Lavigerie in a search for the tomb of Saint Marciana.

French occupation also brought new European settlement, to join the city's long-established communities of semi-Arabized Christians of local origin and old European merchant families, in addition to Berbers and Arab Muslims. Under French rule, European and Christians became a majority of the population again until World War II.

In the immediate years before World War II, losses to the French national population from World War I, and a declining birthrate in general among Europeans kept further colonial settlement to a trickle. Arab and Berber populations started seeing an increase in growth. French-Algerian colonial officials and landowners encouraged larger numbers of surrounding Berber tribesmen to move into the surrounding region to work the farms and groves cheaply. In turn, more and more Berbers and Arabs moved into the city seeking employment. By 1930 the combined Berbo-Arab Algerian population represented nearly 40% of the city's population.

The changing demographics within the city were disguised by the large numbers of French military personnel based there and the numbers of European tourists visiting what had become known as the Algerian Riviera. Additionally, during World War II, Cherchell, with its libraries, cafes, restaurants, and hotels served as a base for the United States Army and Allied War effort, hosting a summit conference between the US and UK in October 1942.

The end of the war with its departure of Allied forces and a reduction of French naval personnel due to rebasing saw an actual decline in Europeans living in the city. Additionally, the general austerity of the post-war years dried up the tourism industry and caused financial stagnation and losses to the local Franco-Algerian community. In 1952, a census recorded that the Frenco-Algerian population had declined to 50% of the population.

For the remaining 1950's Cherchell was only slightly caught up by the Algerian War of Independence. With its large proportion of Europeans, French control and influence was strong enough to discourage all but the most daring attacks by anti-French insurgents. By 1966, after independence from the French, Cherchell had lost nearly half of its population and all of its Franco-Algerian population.

Independent Algeria
Cherchell has continued to grow post-independence, recovering to peak colonial-era population by the 1980s. Cherchell currently has industries in marble, plaster quarries and iron mines. The town trades in oils, tobacco and earthenware. Additionally, the ancient cistern first developed by Juba and Cleopatra Selene II was restored and expanded under recent French rule and still supplies water to the town.

Although the Algerian Riviera ended with the war, Cherchell is still a popular tourist place in Algeria. Cherchell has various splendid temples and monuments from the Punic, Numidian and Roman periods, and the works of art found there, including statues of Neptune and Venus, are now in the Museum of Antiquities in Algiers. The former Roman port is no longer in commercial use and has been partly filled by alluvial deposits and has been affected by earthquakes. The former local mosque of the Hundred Columns contains 89 columns of diorite. This remarkable building now serves as a hospital. The local museum displays some of the finest ancient Greek and Roman antiquities found in Africa. Cherchell is the birthplace of writer and movie director Assia Djebar.

Remains
Earthquakes, wars and plunder have ravaged many of the ancient remains.

"The town (of Caesarea) remains insufficiently known....The town walls, studied in 1946, pose more problems; and the monuments are more often simply marked than completely known. The amphitheater, which has been excavated, remains unpublished; the very large hippodrome, which appears clearly on aerial photographs, is known only through old borings. The temples, which have been found on a spur of the mountain to the East of the central esplanade, on the edge of the route from Ténès to the West of the modern town, are too much destroyed to warrant publication even of plans. The baths along the edge of the sea, rather majestic, are also badly preserved. One would scarcely recognize several houses recently excavated. Grouped around peristyles with vast trichinia, they are readily adapted to the terrain and are constructed on terraces on the lower slopes or on the edge of cliffs with views over the sea. They often are preserved for us only in a late form—4th c. A.D.—and traces of the era of Juba are found only in the lower strata. The theater is an exception; still well preserved in 1840, it has since served as a quarry. It was set against the slope of the mountain. At the back of the scaena towards the N was a portico, covered over today by a street, where Gsell saw the S side of the forum. Of the rich scaenae frons there remain only traces and several statues, of which two are colossal muses. The orchestra had later undergone great modification which had resulted in the disappearance of the platform of the stage: an oval arena had been built, intended for hunting spectacles, and a wall was raised between the first row of seats and the cavea to protect spectators from the wild beasts. The sumptuously decorated monument is consequently very much mutilated, but is of interest specifically because of its complex history. The amphitheater, in the E part of the town, was erected in flat open country. It was not oval but rectangular, with the short sides rounded. The tiers of seats, for the most part missing, were carried on ramping vaults, and the arena floor was cut by two perpendicular passages intended for beasts. It is in this arena that St. Marciana was martyred."

Some remains can be seen in the local Archeological Museum of Chercell-Caesarea.

Religion
Christianity arrived in Caesarea early enough to produce martyrs during the Diocletianic Persecution. For vandalizing an idol of Diana, StMarciana was supposedly tortured and killed in Caesarea's arena, gored by a bull and mauled by a leopard for the amusement of the crowd. StTheodota and her sons were also supposedly martyred in the city.

Caesarea was a bishopric from about 314 to 484, although not all of its bishops are known. Fortunatus took part in the 314 Council of Arles, which condemned Donatism. Clemens was mentioned in one of Symmachus's letters and would have served in the 370s. During the 411 synod at Carthage, Caesarea was represented by the Donatist Emeritus and the orthodox Deuterius. StAugustine accosted Emeritus at Caesarea in the autumn of 418 and secured his exile. Apocorius was an orthodox bishop whom Huneric summoned to Carthage in 484 and then exiled. An early 8th-century Notitia Episcopatuum still included this see.

Caesarea was revived by the Roman Catholic Church as a titular see in the 19th century. It was distinguished as "Caesarea in Mauretania" in 1933. Its bishops have included:

 * Titular Bishop Biagio Pisani (1897.04.23 – 1901.06.07)
 * Titular Bishop Pietro Maffi (1902.06.09 – 1903.06.22)
 * Titular Bishop Thomas Francis Brennan (1905.10.07 – 1916.03.20)
 * Titular Archbishop Pierre-Célestin Cézerac (1918.01.02 – 1918.03.18)
 * Titular Archbishop Cardinal Wilhelmus Marinus van Rossum, CSSR (1918.04.25 – 1918.05.20)
 * Titular Archbishop Benedetto Aloisi Masella (1919.12.15 – 1946.02.18)
 * Titular Bishop Luigi Cammarata (1946.12.04 – 1950.02.25)
 * Titular Bishop Francesco Pennisi (1950.07.11 – 1955.10.01)
 * Titular Bishop André-Jacques Fougerat (1956.07.16 – 1957.01.05)
 * Titular Bishop Carmelo Canzonieri (1957.03.11 – 1963.07.30)
 * Titular Bishop Archbishop Enea Selis (1964.01.18 – 1971.09.02)
 * Titular Bishop Giuseppe Moizo (1972.01.22 – 1976.07.01)
 * Titular Archbishop Sergio Sebastiani (1976.09.27 – 2001.02.21)
 * Titular Bishop Gerard Johannes Nicolaas de Korte (2001.04.11 – 2008.06.18)
 * Titular Bishop Stanislaus Tobias Magombo (2009.04.29 – 2010.07.06)
 * Titular Archbishop Walter Brandmüller (2010.11.04 – 2010.11.20)
 * Titular Archbishop Marek Solczyński (2011.11.26 – present)

title: Cherchell


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Rose

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gareth Rose
Vanity? I can't find any hits for "Gareth Rose" +gay or "Gareth Rose" +proud which refer to this person. RickK 06:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. --Angr/undefined 07:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 08:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the Google test miserably. -Tadanisakari 07:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

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


text: User talk:70.51.219.177

title: User talk:70.51.219.177


text:
Ryan Griffiths

Ryan Griffiths may refer to:

 * Ryan Griffiths (guitarist) (born 1978), Australian guitarist
 * Ryan Griffiths (soccer) (born 1981), Australian footballer

title: Ryan Griffiths


text:
Head-Royce School

Head-Royce School (Head-Royce or HRS) is a private co-educational college-preparatory K-12 school in Oakland, California. The forerunner of Head-Royce was the Anna Head School for Girls in Berkeley, founded in 1887. Relocated to its current site in 1964, Anna Head School for Girls merged with the neighboring Royce School in 1979 to form the present-day Head-Royce School.

Head-Royce is composed of three divisions. The Lower School consists of kindergarten through 5th grade. The Middle School is composed of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Finally, the Upper School encompasses 9th through 12th grades. Most new students enter Head-Royce in kindergarten, 6th grade, or 9th grade.

History
The school was founded in 1887 by Anna Head as the Anna Head School for Girls, at 2538 Channing Way in Berkeley, California.

In 1955, the University of California, Berkeley acquired the school's property by writ of eminent domain. The school was relocated to the Oakland Hills, and a new campus was constructed by 1964.

In 1971, the school's Board of Trustees established a co-ordinate school for boys, The Royce School, named in honor of philosopher (and Anna Head's brother-in-law), Josiah Royce. In 1979, the schools completed the transition to become a fully co-educational school, with its current name.

Nearly one half of the students and one third of the employees are people of color. One quarter of the student body receives financial assistance.

On May 16, 2024, protesters at UCB protesting the Israel-Hamas war occupied the abandoned 130-year old Anna Head Alumnae building, temporarily renaming it "Hind's House" after Hind Rajab, a six year old girl killed during the Israeli-Hamas conflict. At 12 people were arrested and charged with burglary, vandalism, and conspiracy after police from 20 different regional police agencies cleared the hall the next day, treating the building as a crime scene.

Admissions and tuition
Evaluation for acceptance depends upon the division to which the applicant wishes to be admitted. The admissions process for the high school is generally composed of testing through a proprietary test or an Independent School Entrance Examination (ISEE), transcript and relevant history, recommendations, and an interview; in addition, a student evaluation may influence the final decision. Head-Royce claims a selective admissions rate that is competitive with many American colleges.

Tuition for previous school years (USD):

Head-Royce participates in the National Association of Independent Schools' School and Student Service for Financial Aid. In 2014, $4,000,000 worth of need-based grants was provided to K-12 students.

Academics and student life
Head-Royce students complete a college-preparatory curriculum including mandatory courses in English; mathematics; American history; European history; physics; chemistry; biology; foreign language; fine arts; and physical education, as well as a rotating group of elective courses in science, English and history in the senior year. These senior elective courses have covered such topics as astronomy, robotics, Shakespeare, Japanese literature, psychology, the history of Islam, and many others. Some courses specifically prepare students for Advanced Placement exams in the subject. The vast majority of students take at least three AP exams by the end of high school, with many students opting to take six or more exams.

Additional graduation requirements include completion of a prescribed amount of approved community service activity, and completion of a "senior project" in lieu of final exams at the end of the senior year, involving logging 80 hours toward a specific endeavor of the student's choosing.

Graduating-class sizes are generally 85–95 students. The school has a 100 percent (in some years nearly 100 percent) matriculation rate to four-year colleges, especially University of California schools and elite private institutions.

The 77 students in the class of 2006 had average SAT scores of 674 Critical Reading, 676 Math and 673 Writing. This class contained 15 National Merit commended students, 17 National Merit semi-finalists, 15 finalists and 3 National Merit Scholarship winners.

The school newspaper is The Hawk's Eye, which publishes monthly.

Athletics

Head-Royce's mascot is a Jayhawk named Tuffy. The high school competes as a member of the Bay Counties League - East (BCL East). The middle school competes as a member of the Bay Area Interscholastic Athletic League (BAIAL). Its rival is The College Preparatory School, commonly known as 'CPS'.

Athletic facilities on campus include the Paul Chapman Pavilion (commonly referred to as "the gym") for basketball and volleyball, three tennis courts (each named), and the Farley Field with the Jesse Becherer Diamond for soccer, baseball, softball, and lacrosse. Head-Royce also has several small practice basketball courts spread around campus. A new drainage system was installed underneath the field in the winter of 2005–2006 to prevent mud patches which had become a problem. The school has also installed a running path on a hill above the field which can be used for recreational running. A swimming pool is on campus for lower school swim lessons, PE classes, and the swim team, but it is not of regulation size and therefore does not host many meets. The golf team plays at Lake Chabot Golf Course, which is near the school. No plans to improve the athletic facilities have so far been revealed in the master plan.

In the 2005–2006 school year, the middle school varsity boys teams (high school class of 2010) went undefeated and won the championship in all three of their sports (soccer, basketball, and baseball). This is the first time in league history that the same school has won all three championships and gone undefeated in the three sports.

The high school men's varsity basketball team and women's varsity soccer team have won the BCL championship six years in a row. In the 2006 season, the women's varsity volleyball team won the BCL championship. The men's varsity soccer program has been extremely successful with multiple BCL championships and two NCS Championship appearances in the last 4 years. The men's varsity volleyball program were BCL champions in 2006 and 2007 and came in second in NCS in 2006. In 2009, the men's varsity baseball program won the NCS Championship. In 2010 the men's varsity soccer, basketball, and tennis programs all won the BCL championship. The 2012–2013 women's varsity soccer team made history by advancing all the way to the NCS Championship game.

In 2016, the women's varsity volleyball team won the CIF State Division V championship, the first statewide team championship in the school's history.

In 2017, the men's varsity soccer team won the North Coast Sectional (NCS) Division 2 title vs. Making Waves Academy by a score of 2-1. It was the first men's varsity soccer title win in school history. The Jayhawks ended the season 18-1, and ranked as the top men's team in the state of California for the fall soccer season.

Fall

 * Boys'/Men's Soccer (MS, HS)
 * Girls'/Women's Volleyball (MS, HS)
 * Women's Tennis (HS)
 * Cross Country (MS, HS)

Winter

 * Boy's/Men's Basketball (MS, HS)
 * Girls'/Women's Basketball (7–9, HS)
 * Girls' Soccer (MS, 6th only)

Spring

 * Baseball (MS, HS)
 * Softball (HS)
 * Men's Tennis (HS)
 * Girls' Basketball (6)
 * Women's Soccer (11–1, HS)
 * Men's Volleyball (HS)
 * Swimming (HS)
 * Track and field (HS)
 * Golf (MS, HS)
 * Lacrosse (MS, HS)

Notable alumni

 * Peter Alexander (journalist) – US national news correspondent NBC
 * Rebecca Alexander – psychotherapist and author
 * Kendra Andrews - sportswriter who covers the Golden State Warriors
 * Malika Andrews - American journalist And reporter, ESPN sports analyst and host Of NBA Today
 * Josh Birnbaum – American businessman who serves as managing director at Goldman Sachs
 * Jane Connell – actress
 * Adam Duritz – singer of Counting Crows
 * Claire Falkenstein – sculptor and painter
 * California Gibson – rancher and politician
 * Cynthia Holcomb Hall – United States federal judge
 * Nico Hoerner – MLB shortstop for the Chicago Cubs
 * Helen Hull Jacobs – tennis champion
 * MC Lars – post-punk laptop rapper
 * Steven J. Law – former Deputy Secretary of Labor
 * Helen Wills Moody – tennis champion
 * Margaret Wentworth Owings – American environmentalist
 * Libby Schaaf – American politician and former mayor of Oakland, California
 * Suki Schorer – ballet dancer
 * C.C. van Asch van Wijck – Dutch artist, model and sculptor
 * Krista Marie Yu – actress

title: Head-Royce School


text:
Talk:Wright Flyer

Kitty Hawk, alternate or original name?
This image, used on the page, includes a note from Orville Wright which indicates that he is calling the plane Kitty Hawk. It is clickable for a larger image. Was Kitty Hawk the name that the Wright's used for this plane and, if so, did they also name it, then or later, the Wright Flyer or was that a name used by others? Here is an article which includes, near the bottom, evidence that the plane was called the Kitty Hawk. Seems enough to include it as an alternate name, but is there information that it should be the official name with Wright Flyer being the common name? The Smithsonian includes Kitty Hawk Flyer as an alternate name (click 'long description'), but Orville's note doesn't include the word 'Flyer'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Here is an article..." link above has a photo with the "Kitty Hawk" name displayed, would that be copyable for the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The two photos (this page, and the truck with big sign in the wright.edu article) would be considered primary sources. But they seem to provide some support for applying the name "Kitty Hawk" to the plane. As a more general comment, I think the first sentence of any article should avoid, as much as possible, including a variety of different names (and pronunciations and linguistic versions) for the topic. I prefer that such additional identifiers be put at the end of the opening paragraph. Policy/Guidelines support that idea--of not stuffing the lead sentence with such material, making it hard to read. DonFB (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good format. The Smithsonian reference seems like the key one we presently have for the Kitty Hawk name (and Orville's note seems the icing on the cake). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, the airandspace.si.edu article is good secondary source. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking again at the initial naming sentence (which I've edited for brevity) its placement seems fine as it contains no pronunciation and is brief enough not to confuse readers or their topic comprehension. It may actually read awkwardly moving those to the end of the first paragraph, and could inhibit reading flow from the first to the second paragraph. What wording are you envisioning, maybe I'm missing it and you have a good sentence in mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I just wanted to state my preference as a general principle. I envisioned simply moving all the secondary names to the paragraph end, beginning: "The airplane is also known as...." I almost did, but decided I can live with its present form. Those kinds of ledes are a pet peeve, and I always worry a little that another editor coming along will see the multiple names up front and decide to add another, and pretty soon the lede becomes a big speed bump right at the start of the article. Several Policies/Guidelines urge not stuffing a lede sentence with multiple names, pronouncers, etc., and as a reader of the encyclopedia myself, I couldn't agree more. On a great many articles, however, those recommendations are honored in the breach. Here is one that was so bad as to be laughable:  DonFB (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * sol (smiling out loud and almost lol) at that article before your edit. I've had the same reaction to many other articles which overrun the first sentence with similar, but no doubt not as extreme, examples as that one. After reading that one, and thanks for pointing it out, I may use it on my talk page intro, the first sentence here seems like a walk in the park and doesn't seem like it would hinder the word flow for too many readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Randy, for highlighting this issue. And for these initial steps you've taken to correct the situation.

Any child who grew up as an avid builder of plastic model airplane kits knows very well that this most famous airplane is called the "Kitty Hawk". That's because this was clearly the name on the box: Google Image Search: kitty+hawk+wright+model+kit These ubiquitous kits, available all across the USA, spanned from the 1950s through the 1990s at a minimum.

And here is the motherload reference for the Wright Brothers' 1903 airplane being named the "Kitty Hawk":
 * https://sova.si.edu/record/NASM.XXXX.0393?s=11210&n=10&t=C&q=Art&i=11212 (dnld as PDF)

This 'Wright 1903 Flyer "Operation Homecoming" Scrapbook' from the Smithsonian Institute has well over one hundred instances of this airplane being called the "Kitty Hawk". Furthermore, that is the name which is used exclusively throughout this document (with three rare exceptions cited below). Here are particular pages of note:
 * - PDF p41,p45,p73,p221 of254: airplane referred to as "Kitty", for short, along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".
 * - PDF p29,p47-57,p81 of254: airplane referred to as "Kittyhawk" (with no space), along with the commonly used name "Kitty Hawk".
 * - PDF p41,p67 of254: "Kitty Hawk Day" proclamation.
 * - PDF p43 of254: US NAVY OFFICIAL MEMO & PLAN, airplane referred to as "Kitty Hawk" x2 in Memo, x1 in Plan, signed by XO of USS Palau.

Here are the rare exceptions to where the aircraft is referred to by any name other than the "Kitty Hawk" (or "Kitty", or "Kittyhawk"):
 * - PDF p71 of254: airplane "...known as both the "Flyer" and the "Kitty Hawk"." (newspaper: Paterson Evening News, Paterson, NJ).
 * - PDF p87 of254: "...Orville sought to have the 'Flyer' (as they called me)...", Magazine article, Current Science and Aviation.
 * - PDF p109 of254: "...the Wright Brothers' "Flyer" is...", (along with calling it the "Kitty Hawk", newspaper: The Knickerbocker News, Albany, NY).

This speech transcript is what I consider to be the STRONGEST reference:
 * - PDF p173 of254: Hap Arnold's message at the Smithsonian presentation event, Dec 17, 1948, "...this priceless airplane, the "Kitty Hawk", is back home...", "...I can never think of the "Kitty Hawk" without being aware of...", "...which the "Kitty Hawk" fathered...".

Hap Arnold knew the Wright Brothers personally. One of the "Early Birds", he was taught to fly by them at their school. He was the only 5-star general of the US Air Force, along with being the winner of the first Mackay Trophy, and being a founder of Pan Am and Project RAND.

And then of course there is Paul Garber of the Smithsonian who oversaw Operation Homecoming. Garber was one of the foremost historians on the pioneers of flight. He personally accompanied the aircraft during its legs from Nova Scotia to Washington DC. He had approval authority over these aspects of the entire mission, to include the name by which the airplane was referred to.

This Smithsonian reference includes examples from many various newspapers which referred to this airplane exclusively as the "Kitty Hawk", including The New York Times, The New York Sun, The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Daily News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, along with newspapers in Paterson, NJ, Dayton, OH, Omaha, NE, Scranton, PA, Albany, NY, Buffalo, NY, Nova Scotia, and Wellington, NZ.

Upon examination of the plethora of sources contained within this Smithsonian scrapbook, it indicates quite clearly that the PRIMARY NAME for this famous airplane is the "Kitty Hawk". And this was my first thought when I first happened across this article, many years ago: "I wonder why they aren't calling this plane the "Kitty Hawk". --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wright Stuf for your detailed research and analysis. Nice work. I enjoyed the link to decades of the scale model planes, all named Kitty Hawk. You've shown that there is a case for Kitty Hawk as primary name, and it would be an interesting RM (as Wright Flyer has probably become the common name). At a minimum your research shows that Kitty Hawk should remain as the main alternative. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * These were great documents to read. And here is another excellent reference:
 * Wilbur & Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight (NASA Publication SP-2002-4527, published Sep, 2002)
 * On pg123 (pdf132of153) you can find a batch of even more examples where the airplane is referred to as the "Kitty Hawk":
 * - Kitty Hawk in Museum. Aviation Week, Nov. 29, 1948, vol. 49, no. 22, p.15
 * - The Kitty Hawk Comes Home at Last, by Findley, Earl N., U.S. Air Services, Dec. 1948, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 5-6
 * - Kitty Hawk's Last Landing. Air Force, Dec. 1948, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 18-19
 * - America Welcomes the Kittyhawk. Some Extracts from the American Press on the Return of the Aeronautical Beau Geste. Pylon, June 1949, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 21

 * It's quite colorful to call this plane the "Aeronautical Beau Geste". That aside, Aviation Week and Air Force Magazine are not shabby references, as with the highly prestigious newspapers previously cited above, and of course the US Navy and US Air Force themselves, along with the Smithsonian, the folks who own, keep and maintain the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy section, in light of the name Kitty Hawk
Given the understanding that this famous aircraft has been widely and commonly known as the "Kitty Hawk", it is important for this article to likewise include the legacy of things which followed that were also named "Kitty Hawk". This includes aircraft and spacecraft, ships (airplane/aircraft carriers), and schools.

( These following blockquote paragraphs can be skipped as largely being an aside, separate from the Legacy section being recommended .) The aircraft naming story is particularly interesting. Aside from single aircraft being given the name "Kitty Hawk", there is the legacy naming of an entire aircraft type as the "Kittyhawk". Then there is the naming pattern observed within a particular aircraft corporation. Grumman, for example, is widely noted for using nicknames ending in "-cat". These are the Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat and Tomcat for the F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F and F-14 respectively. Continuing the "cat" theme, there was also the Grumman Panther, Cougar, Jaguar and Tiger. We can guess that when Grumman won the Lunar Module contract, there were strong arguments within the company to give this spacecraft a "-cat" name to continue this legacy. And when that didn't happen, there were 9 Apollo crews who flew these, with the commanders of Apollo 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 all having been Navy carrier pilots. In the case of Apollo 12 & 14, BOTH moonwalkers were Navy officers who had flown off of carriers. So any of these missions could have given their spaceships "-cat" callsigns. Neil Armstrong, Pete Conrad, Al Bean, Fred Haise, Alan Shepard, John Young and Gene Cernan all had flown Grumman "cats" off of carriers as their primary aircraft. The others (Lovell, Mitchell, etc) probably flew Grumman "cats" as a Navy test pilot. The best opportunity seems to have been Apollo 12, the All-Navy crew, with all three being Grumman "cat" veterans, with moonwalkers Conrad & Bean having flown the F9F Cougar operationally (VF-43 & VA-44 repectively), and the Command Module Pilot Dick Gordon having flown the F11F Tiger as a test pilot. [Edited 1/14]

But that didn't happen. I've never seen anyone refer to the LM as the Lunacat, nor similar. These "Moon Sailors" never did that. And I've never heard this topic raised, nor any of the moonwalkers asked this directly. But Apollo 14 did name their Command Module the Kitty Hawk (made by North American Aviation, a company which curiously has the same initials as the "First Man", N.A.A.). In parallel with this entrenched history of Grumman "-cats", there is another aircraft company which has an extremely long history of using the "-hawk" nickname. Though I don't hear anyone discuss this one. The Wright Brothers started their own aircraft company. In later years, Wright Aeronautical merged with Curtiss to become Curtiss-Wright, a company which exists to this day, headquartered in North Carolina. You can visit their homepage, and that page shows you the Wright Flyer. Click on that image, and it says this:
 * "Curtiss-Wright Corporation ... has a long history with its roots dating back to Orville and Wilbur Wright's first flight in 1903, and Mr. Glenn Curtiss, the father of naval aviation. In 1929, the companies founded by these three great aviation pioneers, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company and Wright Aeronautical Corporation, merged to form the largest aircraft company at the time..."

So it is this company which produced the P-40 Kittyhawk. Along with an entire line of "-hawk" aircraft, even predating the Wright merger. This includes the P-1, P-2, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-11, P-17, P-22, P-23, P-36 and AT-4 & AT-5 ...ALL named "Hawk". The P-40 is also known as the Warhawk and the Tomahawk. Various other Curtiss models were named the Seahawk, Sparrowhawk, Goshawk and Blackhawk. Then there was the Dayton-Wright XO-3 Mohawk [...along with the Curtiss Mohawk (Commonwealth P-36's) -Edit 1/15]. (Other companies have produced airplanes named the Skyhawk, Nighthawk, Jayhawk, and most recently the Red Hawk, along with the Hawkeye, and the more obscure Hawk Junior. Helo nicknames include the Black Hawk, Seahawk, Pave Hawk, Jayhawk and SpeedHawk.  Pilotless aircraft have been named the Global Hawk, T-Hawk and SpyHawk.)

Now I am not aware of these Hawk-themed aircraft nicknames as being connected with the Wright Brothers, or was done in tribute to them (with the obvious exception being the Kittyhawk). But I do see it to be important to have this mentioned here in the Talk page in case anyone were to find a reference where it is stated that there is some connection or tribute. If that were to be found, then it would be important to include that in the Legacy section.

One could even go so far as to identify commonality between these two different families of aircraft nicknames, both the -cat and -hawk traditions. The name "Kitty Hawk" has connotations of both -cat and -hawk. And then there is likewise commonality in the launching mechanism used by the Wright brothers, as well as the Navy carrier jet aircraft from more than one company, the Tomcat, the Skyhawk, etc. These used what is commonly called a "cat launch", here with the term 'cat' being an abbreviation for 'catapult'. 'Cats' using 'cats'. But this peripheral connection goes far beyond the naming pattern topic. And this entire blockquote section can be set aside for current purposes.

For the time being, the recommendation being proposed is to add a Legacy section where direct connections are clear. This includes the specific aircraft and spacecraft named the Kitty Hawk, along with the ships, and even one school in Texas, where the students at Kitty Hawk Middle School in San Antonio are known as The Flyers. This school is located on Kitty Hawk Rd. And this road is one mile from the Main Entrance at Randolph, Air Force Base, the famous pilot training base that was given the nickname "West Point of the Air". Another school, back at the Outer Banks, is First Flight High School, with their mascot being the Nighthawks, yet another -hawk themed name. Across the street is First Flight Middle School, where they are the Seahawks, and also First Flight Elementary, the Flyers. All three of these schools are adjacent to the Wright Brothers Memorial, with statue of the airplane being even closer.

Another excellent subsection for this would include mention of these statues of the Kitty Hawk, like this other one at Embry-Riddle in Daytona, Florida, in Chanute, Kansas, at Maxwell AFB, AL, etc. At least citing the most prominent ones. It seems to be a fitting complement to the Reproductions section.

And there's also the "Kitty Hawk Air Society" of the US Air Force Junior ROTC. Here's one page of theirs: with pin photo showing the Wright Flyer.

Far more important, and arguably the most important of all of these, is the NACA (seal), the 40-plus year predecessor to NASA itself. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Here's another one I had missed:
 * File:Viking_B-8_Kitty_Hawk_(2835380968).jpg
 * The Viking B-8 Kitty Hawk, used as a trainer during World War II (along with the Waco and Cub). One of the most famous pilots who trained in this Kitty Hawk was none other than Ted Williams, who flew this as prep for entering the "V-5 Naval Aviation program".  The screening was done at Amherst's Civilian Pilot Training Course as the first phase of officer candidate training (ref).  This B-8 Kitty Hawk was built by Viking Flying Boat Co. of New Haven, CT, after a merger with Bourdon Aircraft Corporation of Hillsgrove, Rhode Island (info HERE & HERE, stating that 34 were built).  THIS document shows that George Bush was picked at the same place and time as Ted Williams by the Naval Aviation Cadet Selection Board.  So it appears that it would be a reasonable guess that George Bush ALSO flew the B-8 Kitty Hawks at Amherst.  (Bush & Williams ended up as "Cloudbusters" in the V-5 program at Chapel Hill along with Gerald Ford, as stated by Anne Keene in her vid, with John Glenn going thru the V-5 program in Iowa.)  The marketing slogan that Bourdon used was:
 * The Kitty Hawk: "Flies Like a Hawk — Lands Like a Kitten"
 * (see AD, with the logo of pilot's wings featuring a cat's face as the center crest, and the words KITTY HAWK on the wings.)
 * Imagine if someone were to discover a photo of a pilot like Ted Williams or George Bush flying one of these Kitty Hawks. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The P-40 Kittyhawk and Tomahawk names are British creations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Here's an in-depth reference which explains:
 * "...the export version of the P-40, tagged the Tomahawk by Curtiss."
 * "...designating it the D-model, while the Royal Air Force gave it a new name: the Kittyhawk."
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Curtiss_P_40/2pCHCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

 * And here's another excellent reference which shows that the name "Warhawk" was not used until the F-model (Kittyhawk Mk II):
 * http://ram-home.com/ram-old/p-40family.html

 * This section of Wikipedia explains that the batch of P-40s delivered to the AVG Flying Tigers were "Tomahawks":
 * Flying_Tigers

 * Tomahawk IIB's, to be exact. So P-40C's.  That was well before the USAAF started calling the P-40F's the Warhawk.
 * Then there's also the fighterbomber units who nicknamed their P-40's the "Kittybomber". --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Kittybomber" is Kittyhawk+bomber (see also "Hurribomber" from (Hawker) Hurricane+bomber, "Whirlibomber" from Westland Whirlwind+bomber and Bombphoon from Bomb(er)+Hawker Typhoon.
 * British designations early in the war for American aircraft were taken from placenames in the US. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 * One other issue to be resolved. Are things named Kitty Hawk named after the aircraft itself or the first flight (location)?GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Re: Place vs Plane
 * I myself do not see that as being anything that needs to be resolved.
 * ...because the only reason why the place became famous is because of that singular event which happened on one particular day in history. The day that this aircraft became the first successful airplane.

 * Now the US Navy, for example, will tell you their official story that the aircraft carrier was named in tribute to the  place ...
 * "Named for: Kitty Hawk, N.C., and for Kill Devil Hill, the site approximately four miles south of the village of Kitty Hawk, where Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful sustained powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine on 17 December 1903.
 * https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/k/kitty-hawk-cva-63-ii.html

 * But I see this to be as silly as if those kids in San Antonio were told that their school, Kitty Hawk Middle School, is named after THE ROAD!

 * It creates cognitive dissonance as to why these kids refer to themselves as "The Flyers", and not, say, "The Asphalts".
 * And with the US Navy, to maintain that the ship is named for the village, then it DOES NOT explain why their ship's symbol unambiguously depicts the airplane:

 * If it was really only named for the village of Kitty Hawk, then a proper symbol would be the Town Hall, or at least their local 7-Eleven.
 * These prominent facts make it absolutely clear that regardless of what their official story might be, these are all examples of things being de facto named in honor of the Wright Brothers and their airplane.

 * Even in the case of the USS Wright, here is a patch design which does not depict a silhouette of the two brothers, but instead shows their airplane in flight:
 * https://www.popularpatch.com/navy-patches/aircraft-carrier-patches/cvl-49-uss-wright-kitty-hawk-patch
 * All of this is unambiguous evidence that what is being honored here is not merely the place, and not only the two men, but THE EVENT that was accomplished by these two brothers at this particular place. These are unequivocal tributes to the Wright Flyer, the Kitty Hawk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

OOPS. I now see that I misread your comment, Graeme. You were questioning:
 * Plane vs Event

Not Plane vs Place. Here I do not see how the two can be separated. Again, the only reason why the plane is famous is because of the event. And I would assert that our biggest guide on that question is the fact that here on Wikipedia, this Wright Flyer article covers both. There is no separate article covering the event as distinct from the aircraft. We have articles on the inventors, the photographer, and the plane. Each of these discuss the event. But not a separate article for that. And so I see no need whatsoever for us to split out any such distinction. And I don't see how we would go about attempting to do that, even if someone saw that to be a productive effort. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I see to be another excellent guide for us here... This example of The Spirit of St. Louis (disambiguation). We have an entire section on Charles Lindbergh#In popular culture. I have not delved into this, but I would be shocked if anyone there attempts to split out any distinction between the aircraft vs the event. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Italics
Hello. Single aircraft which are named are italicized (Wright Flyer, Enola Gay, etc.). Saw you also removed italics from the name of a Space Shuttle and the Ingenuity helicopter, so wanted to let you know before other Space Shuttle pages are unitalicized. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why was section discussing pieces of Flyer on Moon and Mars deleted???
All,

Why did editor Randy Kryn remove the short section about pieces of the Wright Flyer being brought to the Moon and Mars? His edit claims "there is an entire section about this at the page below" but it's not clear what "page" he is referring to. I no longer see any references to these in the article.

Certainly, the section as written was entirely accurate and now no information about the Wright Flyer pieces brought to the Moon and Mars appears in this article at all.

Strongly need this restored. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, a section already existed when you added yours. You can find it at Wright Flyer. Please have a look to see if more needs to be added, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that the "page" he was referring to is within the "Artifacts" roll-up subsection of this article. However, still need to understand why the Moon and Mars references are better hidden in an "Artifacts" roll-up section and not in the main body of the article. TheGreyMouser2016 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by 'roll up section'. The topics have a decent sized section with some good images. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the suggestion, I've added a brief note in the lead as a summary of the Artifacts section. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When mentions the "roll- up subsection", I can only conclude that this editor is reading the article on the godforsaken mobile app which displays only the lead section of the article, unless the reader clicks on a pull-down menu to actually read the body of the full article., this is the type of havoc that WMF software foolishness wreaks. The fully functional desktop site works fine on 2021 mobile devices and the app is addressing 2010 problems. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only time I looked at Wikipedia on mobile was when a friend looked something up about 10 years ago, and I've never edited on mobile, so thanks for the explanation and a sad thing to hear. Because of TheGreyMouse's commendable persistence I've added a summary to the lead which should do the trick. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, and I use the desktop site. I only check out the mobile site from time to time, to verify that it still sucks, which it still does. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not the mobile life for me. Edit on a chesttop laptop, much easier laying around than sitting up. My related quibble is the small size of the default print, I crank my machine up to 175 percent and that suits me fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed it from the lede - a couple of swatches of cloth are too minor to put in the lede and has little to do with the aircraft and its flights during its operational life time. It is mentioned down in the body of the article under "artifacts" and that is sufficient. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . The lead summarizes its page and, apparently, is the only thing shown on some screens. Instead of removing these important honors of the Wright Flyer this lead could use a couple more paragraphs in addition to this one. Maybe concentrate on extending the lead summary, which is now too short, and provide the standard lead-overview of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter really, even if the lede is expanded, or split into more paras, the fact that a tiny swatch of fabric was sent to Mars is still really minor and wouldn't belong in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. If there was an adequate lead summarizing the page the honoring, no matter how large a piece of the Wright Flyer was used (what if NASA had sent an entire wing of the plane? The tiny fabrics, and the wood which went to the Moon, have the same effect: symbolizing in real-time and space the enormity of what the Wright's accomplished) it would find inclusion in the summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would basically classify it as WP:TRIVIA, but let's see if any other editors think it should be in the lede. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting but in the end it is trivia and doesnt need a mention in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wright brothers were not the first
Stringfellow beat them. https://www.newscientist.com/definition/first-powered-flight/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.14.66 (talk • contribs)

 * From this article:
 * The U.S. Smithsonian Institution describes the aircraft as "the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard."
 * From the article Wright brothers:
 * They made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft...
 * Key words are pilot, and also controlled, which, back then, would be a pilot. DB1729 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I think the key word that you quote is "sustained" that doesnt apply to Stringfellow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Stringfellow's craft flew about 90 feet vs Wright's 120 feet. So I gathered the key distinction was control. Stringfellow's craft was unmanned and thus uncontrolled. DB1729 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the UK in a small village near Great Ayton there was a steam powered craft that half glided and half flew over a field a few years before the Wright brothers. It is not very well known but the wright brothers were the first to make a sustained flight back in 1903. I'm unaware of any other pre WB flight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew James Gilbert (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Colorized image (again)
The article once again features a colorized image, in the Specifications section, as added by in. I believe the colorized and edited photo has no place in this article. I also remember this was the consensus in the talk page discussion last year, which I hope we do not need to reproduce here. I will remove it now. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Despite the consensus, this image seem to be constantly reintroduced. I agree it does not belong, looks really awful. It looks more like a screenshot from a video game than a historical photograph. - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I again oppose use of this colorized image in this article, which is jam packed full of original research on the part of the colorizing editor. No one can possibly know what the actual colors were at the time of the flight, and all of the truly encyclopedic content is contained in the black and white photo. This simply does not belong here. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism - or perhaps an alternative explanation as to recent edits which have degraded article quality
This article has been repeatedly vandalized. And subsequent editors appear to be perfectly accepting of incremental deliberate damage that has been done. On Jan 12, well over one month ago, Ravenpuff did THIS EDIT to the infobox, presenting the justification that being a Featured Picture, this was somehow an improvement. Yet anyone doing a cursory comparison can readily see that this FP is actually an inferior version of the image. So it is obvious that FP was simply pretense for this deliberate vandalism. [EDIT (Feb 21, 2022): Please see my apology to Ravenpuff below.]

Now my own starting point when evaluating that edit was to AGF. But I stretched my imagination and could not arrive at any possible way that any editor could assess that this FP was an improvement over the Fully Restored version that got knocked out. Perhaps someone here might be able to present a scenario that is consistent with Good Faith. I cannot. It is extremely easy to see that the FP status had been conferred at least as far back as 2012. And that the Fully Restored version was not created until 2018. Had the Fully Restored version existed when the FP decision was being made, it seems quite obvious that FP status would have been given to that one instead.

So why am I raising this issue about this Wright Flyer article being vandalized here in this section about photo colorization? Because Ariadacapo's edit from Jan 23, exactly 4 weeks ago, is yet another example of deliberate damage being done to the article, where subsequent editors have fully accepted this damage. If the actual objection was simply regarding colorization of the historical photo, then the edit which would be consistent with the goal of continual improvement of Wikipedia articles would be to simply SWAP the colored version with the black&white version, which was readily indicated over on the Commons. And who is the person who had uploaded that black&white version? None other than Ariadacapo. (B&w pic here.)

The approach I myself decided to take upon observing these cases which were clearly damaging the article was to sit back and wait. My hope was that others here would, at the very minimum, raise questions to these editors who were inflicting the damage and give them opportunity to explain themselves.

Ariadacapo & Ravenpuff, I am giving you that opportunity here and now.

And this involves far more than just those two editors. This same question is being asked of you, BilCat, Ahunt, GraemeLeggett and Cullen328. If the four of you are objecting to Colorization, then why did none of you not simply swap the colorized photo for the historical black&white version? You all are denying anyone who comes here to learn about the Wright Flyer from seeing this image, regardless of form. And on top of this, there are all of the editors who let the degradation of the infobox image stand. That is two other editors, on top of everyone mentioned above.

Of course, the central issue here in this section on Colorization is the question of Policy, which appears to remain unanswered. And the third issue being Consensus. I am starting my reply over here on the Talk by addressing Vandalism, because I see THIS to be the most immediate concern. I would hope that ALL of us, regardless of our differences when it comes to those other two issues, share the common goal of continually improving our article here. Any and all edits which deliberately inflict damage go against that goal, obviously.

No one else here has fixed the infobox image. I intend to do that myself. And how this gets fixed goes back to the sticking point from one year ago regarding the issue of whether or not we, as a group, will choose to follow one of the most fundamental principles when it comes to editing: Consensus. After Vandalism, I see that to be the next priority on aspects here that need to be resolved. The way this was left hanging back in February of 2021, fully one year ago, was not a resolution. Not one consistent with Consensus, as I understand it. And not even with the Admin who intervened and presented an Essay which argued for Consistency Between Articles. I will hold off on that discussion until after this Vandalism issue gets resolved. If we cannot get this aspect under control, then we are walking backwards, no matter what our position on Consensus might be. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * A content dispute is not vandalism. Accusing editors of vandalism when it's not can be considered a personal attack. I highly advise you to.strike those comments so we.can proceed in good faith discussions on the matter. If you keep falsely accusing editors of vandalism, you will be reported to ANI, and may be blocked to prevent this from occurring again. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Hello?
 * "I believe the colorized and edited photo has no place in this article." - Ariadacapo
 * That is not a content objection. It is a photo colorization objection.
 * NO ONE, not even you, raised any objection other than colorization.

 * And your reply, and your threat, did not address the first vandalism issue which I had raised. The deliberate degradation of the infobox image. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a dispute over of content, in this case a photo. It is not vandalism. Anyway, you can defend yourself to the admins at ANI. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * All of 2 minutes after I had raised the issue which I saw to be as Vandalism, you vandalize my post by clobbering the Subsection I had created for the express purpose of highlighting this issue. An issue which I had highlighted one year ago (see Archive).  The subsection has now been restored.
 * In light of Ravenpuff's explanation (below), I have modified the header title.
 * My full reply is posted over there (User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism).
 * My first post in this section here indicated that I was totally open to alternate reasons which might explain these edits which I've called attention to. You presented a reason which did nothing to explain why you clobbered the image, instead of switching to b&w.

 * ...and next, went straight to complaining to Admins, instead of presenting a rational rebuttal here as to why your revert was not deliberately inflicting damage. We have seen a history of Admins refusing to uphold WP.  Or failure to logically explain why my understanding of WP is incorrect (instead, citing an Essay which contradicted their position).  Anyone can look over at that new section where flags have been raised, and see that there are Admins who have mischaracterized the quality of my efforts here.  So it appears that we are now entering another cycle of history repeating itself.
 * Or perhaps, someone might surprise me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I have no objection to using the highest-quality image here. Admittedly I did not scrutinise the files before making the change, not being an expert in this area. featured pictures can be delisted and replaced; you can nominate the version you uploaded to replace the current featured picture if superior to it – see WP:FPC. At any rate, this does not count as vandalism. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Ravenpuff, thank you for explaining what had happened with your infobox image edit. Given that, then I have mischaracterized what has happened in that case.  It appears that I owe you an apology.

 * I would be interested to know your reason why you have taken no further action, after this has been called to your attention. In my own view, it would at least be appropriate for you to explain why you see your chosen image to be the better choice.  You have not done that (let alone revert). --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I chose the current image because it appeared, at first glance, to be the better one – one is (currently) a featured picture, and the other is not. Since, as you pointed out, the other version should work better here, I shall not object if you revert my change and replace the image. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Ok, it is now clear that you have no intention to revert it yourself. If your reason for not doing so is because FP status is something which you value as making your image a better one to present to the public, then I expect you're well aware of the other option available here:
 * - Since it is important to you, then you can do what you had initially suggested that I do. Nominate for that Delist/Replace thing.
 * I myself have no care whatsoever regarding FP status. Perhaps you know something that I don't know as to why FP is so important.  I myself just use my own two eyeballs.  I can readily see that one image tells a better story than the other, making it more historically valuable.  Making it more valuable for this article.  For example, in the Fully Restored version, you can see the start of the wooden rail which this airplane used to launch off of.  In your FP, the length of the takeoff run is utterly ambiguous.  For all anyone knows, Orv might have been travelling down it for hundreds of feet prior to liftoff.  But in the Fully Restored version, everyone can see, quite clearly, exactly how long the maximum length of that takeoff run was.

 * I see the ball to be in your court here. And of course, you have the option to leave it there.

 * I hope I have provided a thorough explanation here as to why one image provides significantly better information to the general public than the other image does. That is to say, I still see your edit as having done a negative improvement to our article.  That is my opinion.  I am fully open to considering any and all other productive views on this which may run counter to my own. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your evaluation of the versions of the photograph, or your judgement on whether to revert the change. Since you don't seem willing to do it either (it doesn't have to be me), I have reinstated the previous infobox image.
 * FP status is accorded to the highest-quality images on Wikipedia, and can serve as a useful indicator to editors who want to use (say) a photograph of the Wright Flyer in an article. Featured pictures are also eligible to appear on the Main Page as the picture of the day – the Daniels photograph could profitably be the POTD on an anniversary of the flight, for example. The version that holds featured status would be the one to appear; the featured status of the current FP can be transferred via a delist-and-replace nomination to the fully restored version. As you have much better knowledge than I about the merits of this version, I think you to be better suited to initiate or contribute to such a nomination. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 12:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * THANK YOU!
 * You stated: "Since you don't seem willing to do it either..."
 * Actually, you will find this in my original post:
 * "No one else here has fixed the infobox image. I intend to do that myself."
 * The reason why I held back is because, once you appeared in our discussion here, I saw you to be the best person to do this change. And I am certain that everyone else here would have freaked out by the way I was going to make the change.

 * Thank you also for all the info regarding FP. I've long been aware of all that.  And then with the pic we're discussing, when striving to evaluate your reasons, I had also seen this:
 * "This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for December 17, 2023."

 * I myself could care less which version is used on that day. But maybe some time before December of 2023, I might find a reason to care.
 * Now I had stated that I owe you an  apology . I am extremely sorry for having mischaracterized your motivations.  There is loads of history in what has been happening here over the past year.  So my reaction is laced with some variant of PTSD.  Maybe Omicron-PTSD.  That does not in any way excuse me having jumped the gun.  Well... actually, I did not jump at all.  I have been waiting very patiently for well over a month to address your change.  Things have certainly gotten out of hand here.

 * In my ideal world, the response to my initial post here would have been your explanation, which you gave. And then the other editors piping in to explain their own motivations as being perfectly benign as well.  Now me having raised this V-flag probably was the worst way to go about getting their feedback.  But I am glad that with you, this has resolved in the way that I had originally hoped for.

 * Once again, Ravenpuff, I am sorry for the unnecessary and inaccurate mischaracterization of your work here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This discussion is largely academic anyway, since the image in question is actually CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic) and as such can't be used without a fair-use rationale, and since the black and white version is free it would obviously fail WP:NFCCP point 1. I've tagged it for deletion on Commons anyway. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for raising that issue. But it is not academic at all to the discussion which is the focus of this particular subsection.  The question that was presented to various editors is why they did not simply switch from the colorized image to the monochrome version.  I have yet to see an answer presented which explains this as not being willful degradation of our article.

 * Now regarding copyright of the colorized image, I see your post to be highly relevant to the main section above. Should you decide to delete it here, and repost up there, I would be perfectly fine with you likewise deleting my reply here.
 * I still do not understand the reason why you say that use here on Wikipedia of that image should not be allowed. My understanding is that my act of uploading it to the Commons was in line with the creator's permissions.  I am not a lawyer.  And perhaps someone will present an explanation in which the light bulb will click on for me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * You uploaded the colourized image to commons with a Creative Commons 2.5 free licence, when the original file on Flicker was under a "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" licence, which is a non-free licence. Those are incompatible licences and thus your upload was a copyright violation, as it did not comply with the image's licence. You can note the image has been deleted from Commons, which renders quite a bit of this discussion moot. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Ok, that's an explanation that makes sense to me. THANK YOU for that.  I apparently had made a major error in interpreting what the Flickr license actually meant.  Curious that a copyright violation would go undetected for more than one year.

 * As for things becoming moot by that deletion,
 * it actually does absolutely nothing to answer the question as to why no one, yourself included, opted for the solution of swapping the colorized image to the black&white image.

 * To this very moment, my own view is that it is an excellent image to have in our article.
 * There is one more image of the Wright Flyer which is the only other image I myself am aware of where it was photographed actually flying. The famous infobox image, and this other image.  A grand total of two (2).  Yet no one knows about this second pic.  My own opinion is that it belongs in the article along with that Dec 14th image.

 * No one switched to the b&w. Everyone deleted it.  Repeatedly, and persistently.  Voicing objection only to the fact that it was colorized. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Well I can't speak for any other editors, but in my case, I removed it and didn't replace it with anything else, because the article already has a lot of images and didn't need anymore, especially in the section where that image appeared. It was down in the "Specifications" section and overlapped into the "See also" section. It just added to too much clutter, regardless of the other issues. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Uses global dating system
This article uses the global dating system (dd/mm/yy). Why am I ranting about this? Well the flight, took place in Kill Devil, North Carolina, which is in the United States. The United States, however uses their own dating system (mm/dd/yy). I request to fix this. Please change all the dates in the article to fit mm/dd/yy. This is to give convenience to American readers. MLBFanAdrien (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Good catch. The article originally used MDY dates, but because of a mistaken change to the article date in May 2021, the date style was changed in December 2021. As such, I've started changing it back. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Solving mystery of this photo

This photo shows the Wrights and party(the men from the Life Saving Station) bringing the Flyer back to the camp after the fourth flight on December 17, 1903. The airplane is in a state of disassembly and transit with the rudder laying on the ground in back of the machine. The engine and props have stopped. The front elevator has been detached and is in a more upright position as it had been twisted over and semi crushed after the fourth flight. Importantly the machine has probably already been brought back several hundred feet from where it ended the 852ft flight by the time this photo was snapped. One can compare the photo with the more clear frontal photo of the machine just after Wilbur's landing.

Koplimek (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, what's the mystery of the photo? Furthermore, will solving this mystery help improve the article? -  ZLEA  T \ C 22:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree, what is your point? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because many people think the aeroplane is still flying. There was a caption by early flying historian Carroll Gray, it has now been reduced to a citation, and now essentially out of site. So I added some clearup.Koplimek (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see how people might think that, but I don't know that it is a problem on Wikipedia. - ZLEA  T \ C 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Liking the uncropped version better, it gives a fuller experience of what the site looked like. I haven't looked if it's there yet, but if it is real, and seems to be, the uncropped version could be used on the page somewhere in a large enough size to provide the feeling of the scene. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See Wright Flyer. It's been there awhile. BilCat (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added it for context and added the other front photo. Cropped versions are at Wikicommons.Koplimek (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:First flight2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

title: Talk:Wright Flyer


text: Category:Canadian strength athletes

title: Category:Canadian strength athletes


text: User talk:68.85.230.150

title: User talk:68.85.230.150


text: Category:Canadian skateboarders

title: Category:Canadian skateboarders


text:
Francisco Antonio de Zela

Francisco Antonio de Zela y Arizaga (July 24, 1768, in Lima – July 18, 1819, in Panama City) is notable for sending forth the first anti-Spanish rebellion in the Peruvian city of Tacna on June 20, 1811, in an attempt to start the independence of Peru. De Zela was supported by a large group of criollos, mestizos and Indians, among them the caciques José Rosa Ara and Miguel Copaja.

Military career
The rebellion of Tacna was in close contact with the Argentine revolution, initiated in Buenos Aires on May 25, 1810. The Argentines sent an army to the Charcas region (Bolivia), under the command of general Antonio González de Balcarce and the lawyer Juan José Castelli. They sent proclamations to various towns in southern Peru, inviting them to follow them in the revolution. The town of Tacna was the first under the direction of Francisco Antonio de Zela, occupying the quarters of the Spanish authorities that night.

On the same day (June 20) the Argentine army was defeated by Spanish forces in the Battle of Huaqui, bordering Lake Titicaca, and thus De Zela never received the needed support. This news created a morale problem for the De Zela's troops and as a result, they were defeated by the Spaniards. The main leaders of the rebellion were caught, among them De Zela, and they were led to Lima and condemned to 10 years in the military prison of Chagres, Panama, where De Zela died.

His house, located on Zela Street #542, was named a Historical Monument on July 26, 1961, and to this day continues to be one of the major tourist attractions of the city of Tacna.

June 20 is a local holiday in city of Tacna.

title: Francisco Antonio de Zela


text:
D4 Princess

D4 Princess (D4プリンセス) is a manga series created by Shotaro Harada (原田将太郎). The story was adapted into an anime series. The anime is composed of 24 thirteen-minute episodes and is part of the anime program Anime Complex II; it ran from April 6 to September 28, 1999.

Summary
A panzer is a powerful costumed fighter who uses a "tool" (ツール, it can be a power tool, a hand tool, or a household appliance) as a weapon. Anybody who wants to be a panzer can easily buy a kit that is currently mass-produced. As a result, one in ten people is a panzer. Doris Rurido is one of those panzers.

Thirteen-year-old Doris comes from a family that owns an advertising firm and has lived a very utopic lifestyle, even regarding herself as a princess. But when she attends the all-girls Teito Academy (帝都学園) which is known for its Panzer League, she not only faces very new things as a typical rich girl such as junk food, the lack of servants, and studying in school, but also faces challenges as a panzer, especially her inexperience and small stature.

To help Doris advance as a panzer, her sister Doria came over and gave her training sessions that to Doris were "very mean". During a break in training, Doris was challenged by a panzer known as "Raging Beetle", who uses a pair of large hedge trimmers as weapons.

A panzer fight consists of two thirty-minute rounds, each with a field giving an advantage to one of the two contending panzers. The panzer that knocks out the other wins. A panzer can also win on points.

Their first encounter was a disaster as Doris, billed as "Drill Princess", was overwhelmingly routed by Raging Beetle. Due to her loss, Doris was being mocked by other students. Not taking the stares any longer, she demanded a "revenge match" against Raging Beetle. The rematch was set and Doris won on that return match.

Doris then faced a fighter dubbed "Tornado Motor", who uses a vacuum cleaner as a weapon of choice. Despite an injured hand from trying to open and close a hard-to-turn faucet, Doris not only managed to drive her drill through solid steel, but also managed to transform into a sexier and more powerful fighter without her awareness, winning the fight in the process.

Thinking that she was strong enough to face her dream opponent, Nejiru Gaou, Doris confronted her and verbally gave her challenge to fight her—one that Nejiru accepted. Despite Doria's best efforts to stop it (knowing that Doris was not yet worthy to face Nejiru), the match was set anyway. Doris's progress as a panzer and Nejiru's rustiness after a long absence figured in that bout, which ended on a draw based on points.

Nejiru was fatally injured while she and Doris were rescuing some construction workers from a collapsing structure using their powers as panzers. Knowing she failed to rescue Nejiru, Doris was overcome with guilt and grief as she is the only person outside the Gaou family to remember Nejiru. But she found enough courage and some solace from Nejiru's little sister Nejiri to continue her quest to be a good panzer.

Characters

 * Doris Rurido (瑠璃堂どりす):
 * Being the third daughter of the family who owns Rasen Advertising, she has yet to adjust to life outside her home. She always clutches a little star which turns into a hand drill once she puts on her hand as a weapon whenever she turns into a panzer. She is billed as "Drill Princess" (which explains the title — the "D" in "D4" stands for drill as well as the fact that she as well as her mother and sisters start their names with a "D", while the "4" signifies that she is the fourth member of the family to do so). Furthermore, her surname "Rurido" is doriru (ドリル) or drill pronounced backwards. Also, even though her name is written in hiragana, fansubbers prefer to call her Doris because of its Western nature.

 * Doria Rurido (瑠璃堂どりあ):
 * Doris's very nice and doting yet "very mean" older sister. She comes to Doris's aid to help her by giving training sessions that to Doris are brutal. But the training is actually from experience; Doria is a panzer, too, but her panzer name is never mentioned in the anime.

 * Tsubasa Ginno (銀乃つばさ):
 * Doris's friend, seatmate, and roommate. An ordinary girl who looks out on Doris, both on her school life and well as her life as a panzer. Doris refers to her as Gin-chan (銀ちゃん).

 * Nozomi Aino (愛野のぞみ):
 * Tsubasa's best friend. An ordinary girl who became friends with Doris through Tsubasa and also looks out for Doris. Doris refers to her as Ai-chan (愛ちゃん).

 * Nejiru Gaou (我王ねじる):
 * The second-year student whom Doris regards as her dream opponent, as she is the first panzer Doris encountered in Doris' first day in Teito. Nejiru is feared by other panzers not because of her skill, but because of her destructive power. Her last bout six months before ended with the death of her opponent; since then, she is labeled as a satsuriku (殺戮) or murderer, and therefore an outcast. Her name literally means "to twist" which explains why she, like Doris, uses a drill as a weapon. She is billed as "Bloody Drill".

title: D4 Princess


text:
World Puzzle Championship

The World Puzzle Championship (commonly abbreviated as WPC) is an annual international puzzle competition run by the World Puzzle Federation. All the puzzles in the competition are pure-logic problems based on simple principles, designed to be playable regardless of language or culture.

National teams are determined by local affiliates of the World Puzzle Federation. Of the 30 championships (team category) held thus far, 16 have been won by the United States, 8 by Germany, and 3 each by the Czech Republic and Japan. The most successful individual contestant is Ulrich Voigt (Germany) with 11 titles since 2000.

The latest WPC was held in October 2023 in Canada.

Origin
The World Puzzle Championship was the brainchild of Levi Summers, who wanted to create an event where puzzlers from different countries could compete on an even playing field. Previously, the International Crossword Marathon was the major international competition for puzzle-solving, and Shortz had attended it every year, but because participants used their own language and crossword rules, it was not a very good basis for comparing raw puzzle-solving skills across cultures. Shortz created the WPC to overcome these flaws. As described by Nick Baxter, co-director of the U.S. Puzzle Championship, the challenge of the competition is speed.

The first WPC was held in New York City in 1992, and Shortz was the organizer and Helene Hovanec was the coordinator. Each WPC has been held at a different city since then.

Participants
Currently, 34 countries are official members of the World Puzzle Federation. Individuals may also take part if their country is not already represented by a national team. In the 2017 WPC, 169 contestants from 27 countries participated. The United States has won the championship 16 times, followed by Germany with 8 championships. The Czech Republic and Japan has each won three times. Ulrich Voigt of Germany has been the most successful individual contestant, winning the gold medal eleven times since 2000. Wei-Hwa Huang of the United States won four of the first eight championships in the 1990s. Ken Endo of Japan won four of the most recent seven championships.

Age-restricted categories
Starting from 2013, titles have been awarded also for the best players in two age categories, Under 18 and Over 50 years of age.

Classic puzzles used
Incomplete list, in alphabetical order:

 * Balance
 * Battleship
 * Fillomino
 * Hitori
 * Kakuro
 * Nonogram
 * Numberlink
 * Slitherlink
 * Sudoku and many variants

title: World Puzzle Championship


text:
The Simpsons: Cartoon Studio

The Simpsons: Cartoon Studio is a Filmmaking game and computer program based on the animated television series The Simpsons that was released for PC and Mac computers in 1996 by Fox Interactive. It allows users to create their own Simpsons cartoons, using characters, sounds, music, and locations from the show. The cast members of The Simpsons provided their voices for the program. The Simpsons Cartoon Studio has received generally positive reviews, although there has been some criticism too.

Gameplay
The Simpsons Cartoon Studio is a design program for creating cartoons using characters, sounds, music, and locations from the American animated television series The Simpsons. To create a cartoon, one first selects a background, then inserts characters, props, and special effects, and after that adds dialog, sound effects, and music. The program allows users to send the finished cartoons to friends through email or save it onto a hard drive or a floppy disk.

There are 17 characters, 50 special effects, 270 props, and 35 backgrounds in The Simpsons Cartoon Studio, with thousands of individual cels hand-drawn by actual The Simpsons cartoonists. Every character has a set of actions; for example, Homer can crawl, ride on a tube, and run away screaming, while Bart can run, trip over, cycle, ride his skateboard, and paint graffiti with spray-paint. Backgrounds featured range from the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant to Bart's room, and props include tables, blenders, and the three-eyed fish Blinky.

Development
The Simpsons Cartoon Studio was released for PC and Mac computers in the middle of 1996. It was developed by Big Top Productions and published by Fox Interactive, and uses an improved version of the interface from Felix the Cat's Cartoon Toolbox that was developed by Big Top Productions. The dialogs featured in the program were provided by the actual cast members of The Simpsons.

Reception
Critics gave The Simpsons Cartoon Studio generally favorable reviews, and it received a lot of hype in the United States around the time it was released. A reviewer for The Palm Beach Post wrote that it is not very easy to create the cartoons: "Layering characters, props, sound effects and dialogue into seamless animation is no small task, and you'll invest a good chunk of time with this CD-ROM before you're ready to premiere your own Simpsons episodes. But if you're fan enough to go the distance, this is a remarkably versatile program that turns out great-looking cartoons." Similarly, Jane Clifford of The San Diego Union-Tribune called it "quite a challenging product" which produces cartoons that "really look professional." Benjamin Svetkey of Entertainment Weekly gave it a B+ rating, commenting that the cartoons created "can be entertaining, but they're hampered by a failing common to the make-your-own-movie genre: Since Cartoon Studio has a limited number of voice clips ('Ay, caramba!', 'Mmm... donuts', and about 50 variations on 'Bart!'), your plot choices are restricted to the usual pranks, pratfalls, and catchphrases. Still, as Homer would say, The Simpsons Cartoon Studio is more 'Woohoo!' than 'D'oh!'."

Wired's Erika Milvy commented that "Fox's Simpsons Cartoon Studio may be more the '90s answer to Colorforms than a finely tuned animation resource, but dang if it isn't fun to watch Smithers and Mr. Burns hula across the monitor as a three-eyed fish swims by," and added that "for the anally inclined, there's certainly a way to have these cartoons make more sense. But I prefer to toss rhyme and reason out the window." Joseph Szadkowski of The Washington Times wrote that "For the amount of complicated computer stuff going on — frame by frame editing, character motion, voice overlays — even the most computer-illiterate individual should be able to figure this out. The Simpsons Cartoon Studio is a very fun, relatively inexpensive jaunt into the mind of Mr. Groening."

Mike Langberg of Knight Ridder was less positive, writing in his review that "At first glance, the CD-ROM provides a lot of raw material. There are 350 brief animations, running two or three seconds each, showing 17 characters from the show in numerous poses. The CD-ROM delivery, unfortunately, falls flat[...]." He explained that "Simpsons Cartoon Studio is awkward to operate and limited in what it can accomplish, producing animated sequences that are jerky and out of sync. The CD-ROM comes with 15 cartoons created by the developers, running from 10 seconds to 55 seconds. None flow smoothly or tell funny stories. There's no reason to expect the rest of us will do any better." Similarly, Nancy Malitz of The Detroit News wrote that "you move the characters around and invent the scenarios, but in the end you might feel your creativity wasn't heavily challenged. The whole deal is essentially a cut-and-paste operation. You can't create characters of your own, and the kind of automatic synchronization of sounds with movement that you see in a simple product like Video Jam isn't available, so things look sort of choppy no matter how hard you try."

title: The Simpsons: Cartoon Studio


text:
Category:Canadian judoka

Practitioners of judo from Canada.

title: Category:Canadian judoka


text:
Kotor Varoš

Kotor Varoš (Котор Варош) is a town and municipality in Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina. As of 2013 census, the municipality has a population of 19,710 inhabitants, while the town of Kotor Varoš has a population of 7,330 inhabitants.

History
An early Roman (3rd–5th c.) basilica was discovered along with other Roman findings in the Šiprage area, at the Crkvenica-Vrbanja river mouth. 12th-century stećci testify a medieval settlement. The original location of the stećci was at the Crkvenica-Vrbanja, from where they were removed and built into the walls of surrounding buildings (possibly due to the belief in their miraculous properties). One of the best preserved steći is submerged in the Vrbanja.

It has been theorized that Kotor Varoš was mentioned in the De Administrando Imperio as "Katera", a part of the "land of Bosnia".

The town was part of the Donji Kraji province of the Banate of Bosnia in the 13th century, and the Kingdom in the 14th and 15th century. The Kotor fortress and its podgrađe was the property of the Hrvatinić noble family.

Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina began in 1878 and ended with the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918, later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The town was part of the Vrbas Banovina (1929–41), but after World War II it became part of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a republic of Yugoslavia.

Settlements
Aside from the town of Kotor Varoš, the municipality includes the following settlements:

 * Baština
 * Bilice
 * Boljanići
 * Borci Donji
 * Borci Gornji
 * Ćorkovići
 * Duratovci
 * Garići
 * Grabovica
 * Hadrovci
 * Hrvaćani
 * Hanifići
 * Jakotina
 * Kruševo Brdo
 * Liplje
 * Maljeva
 * Maslovare
 * Obodnik
 * Orahova
 * Palivuk
 * Plitska
 * Podbrđe
 * Podosoje
 * Postoje
 * Prisočka
 * Radohova
 * Ravne
 * Selačka
 * Sokoline
 * Stopan
 * Šibovi
 * Šiprage
 * Tovladić
 * Vagani
 * Varjače
 * Večići
 * Viševice
 * Vranić
 * Vrbanjci
 * Zabrđe
 * Zaselje

Economy
The following table gives a preview of total number of registered employed people per their core activity (as of 2016):

Famous people

 * Croatian footballer Mateo Kovačić's parents are from Kotor Varoš

Features
The city also features a large monument to the local partisans who died for Yugoslavia during the fighting with the German and Ustaša forces during WW2.

Sister cities

 * 🇸🇮 Kranj, Slovenia
 * 🇲🇪 Herceg Novi, Montenegro
 * 🇷🇸 Kraljevo, Serbia

title: Kotor Varoš


text:
User talk:TheSandwichPrince

Please don't change Jonin and Jōnin to Jounin --JadziaLover 06:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style the Hepburn rominization system is used.--JadziaLover 07:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --JadziaLover 07:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:TheSandwichPrince