text:
List of British weapon L numbers

The L number ("L" standing for Land Service) or weapon identity number system is a numerical designation system used for the type classification of British Army weapons and related stores. The L number in isolation is not a unique identifier; the L1 designation alone is used for a rifle and its corresponding bayonet and blank-firing attachment, a machine gun, a tank gun, a sighting telescope, an anti-riot grenade, three separate rocket systems, a necklace demolition charge, a hand-thrown flare, a fuze setter head, and two separate types of user-filled demolition charge among other stores, while the L10 designation was used for three separate calibres of blank cartridge. Rather, the number is used in conjunction with a description, e.g. "Rifle, 7.62mm, L1A1" or "L1A1 7.62mm Rifle". The A number following the L number refers to the particular version of a piece of equipment; unlike some similar designation systems used by other countries where an A number is only used for subsequent versions of equipment, an A1 designation is always used for the first version to be officially adopted. Stores coming into Army service began receiving Land Service designations in 1954, replacing the old number-and-mark system of designations.

Some weapons such as the AR-15 and M16A2 rifles, C3 Non-Metallic Anti-Personnel Mine, M18A1 Anti-Personnel Mine, M79 grenade launcher, M6-895 and M6-640 mortars, were not given L numbers and are referred to in official documentation by their manufacturer's designations instead. Likewise, legacy items such as the No.5 Mk 1 Bayonet, No. 8 Mk 1 0.22in Rifle,  No. 80 Mk 1 White Phosphorus Smoke Hand Grenade, No. 1 Mk 3 6 Inch Beehive Demolition Charge,   and No. 14 Mk 1 11 lb Hayrick Demolition Charge that were given designations under the earlier number-and-mark system continued to be referred to by those designations until replacement.

Equivalent designation systems were devised for the Royal Navy ("N", standing for Naval Service) and the Royal Air Force ("A", standing for Air Service), though in many cases stores used across all three branches were and are referred to by Land Service designations; Land Service designations have also been used where no Army equivalent exists, as in the case of the L44A1. A number of guided weapons in service with British forces such as K170 NLAW and K130 HVM have received a "K" designation that parallels the "L" designation applied to unguided weapons. The FV (fighting vehicle) number series is similar in purpose but not in formatting. Similar designation systems are used by various other militaries; for example, Canada uses "C" ("C" standing for Canadian), Australia uses "F" ("F" standing for Forces), though some stores did receive "L" designations particularly where they were of British origin,   and several nations such as Denmark, South Africa, and the United States of America use or used "M" ("M" standing for Model or its non-English equivalent).

Firearms

 * L1
 * L1A1 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle (SLR) (Also referred to as the L1A1 7.62mm Rifle)
 * L1A1-A4 Bayonet (For use with the SLR)
 * L1A1/A2 Blank Firing Attachment (For use with the SLR)
 * L1A1/A2 .50 inch Machine Gun (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun)
 * L1A1 .50 inch Anti-Aircraft Machine Gun Mounting (For use with the L1A1 MG)
 * L1A1 Vehicle Stand (For use with the L1A1 MG)
 * L1A1/A2 84mm AT4 (CS) HP Rocket System (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Interim Light Anti-tank Weapon (ILAW))
 * L1 120 mm rifled gun - used on Conqueror tank
 * L1A1/A2/A3 66mm HEAT Rocket and Launcher (Also referred to as the L1 66mm Section Anti-Tank Rocket)
 * L1A1 66mm Sub-Calibre 21mm Adaptor (Training adaptor for L1 66mm HEAT Rocket)
 * L1A1/A2/A3 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade
 * L1A1 Straight Sighting Telescope (Modified No. 32 Mk 3 Sighting Telescope as used with the L42A1 rifle)
 * L1A1 Illuminating Hand Thrown Flare
 * L1A1 Necklace Demolition Charge
 * L1A1 94mm HEAT Rocket System
 * L1A1 8 kg Linear User Filled Demolition Charge
 * L1A1 12 kg Conical User Filled Demolition Charge
 * L1E1 Area Defence Projector
 * L1A1-A4 Handheld Pressurized Irritant Canister
 * L1A1 Fuze Setter Head, NSN 1290-99-967-0882
 * L1A1 IR Torch
 * L1A1 IR Section Torch
 * L1A1 Small Arms Bore Cleaning Brush
 * L1A1 Instantaneous Fuze
 * L1A1/A2/A3 Safety Fuze
 * L1A1 Detonating Cord
 * L1A1/A2 Non-Electric Demolition Detonator (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Plain Detonator )
 * L1A1 Smoke Generator
 * L1A1/A2 9mm Magazine (Magazine for use with the L2 submachine gun; L1A1 magazines were manufactured by Sterling while L1A2 magazines were variously manufactured by ROF Fazakerley, Royal Laboratories Woolwich, Rolls Razor, and Mettoy)
 * L1A1/A2/A3 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L1 Individual Weapon Sight (IWS), L1 Image Intensified Weaponsight, or L1 Individual Weaponsight)
 * L1A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L7 GPMG)
 * L1A1 Safety Unit (Attached to L44A1)
 * L1A1 7.62mm Machine Gun Tools and Accessories Roll (L7 GPMG tool roll)
 * L1A1 Small Arms Cleaning Rod
 * L1A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with SUSAT and CWS on the SA80 series)
 * L2
 * L2A1/A2 High Explosive Hand Grenade (Also referred to as the L2A1/A2 Anti-Personnel Hand Grenade, which is particularly apparent on the grenade markings)
 * L2A1 7.62mm Automatic Rifle
 * L2A1 84mm HE (CS) Rocket (Also referred to as the L2A1 ILAW)
 * L2A1 Anti-Structures Munition
 * L2A1 7.62mm Rifle
 * L2A1/A2/A3 9mm Submachine Gun
 * L2A1/A2 Trilux Infantry Sight Unit (Abbreviated to SUIT after "Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux")
 * L2A1 Irritant One Shot Hand-Held Discharger
 * L2A1 .30 in. Machine Gun Tripod Mounting (Tripod mounting for L3 Machine Gun series)
 * L2A1 0.22in Aiming Rifle (No. 8 rifles converted for Royal Armoured Corps miniature range training via removal of iron sights and furniture)
 * L2A1 Laser Range-Finder
 * L2A1 Paint Marker Hand Grenade
 * L2A1 Light Non-Metallic Anti-Tank Mine
 * L2A1/A2 Electric Demolition Detonator
 * L2A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L2A1 Individual Weapon Sight (IWS))
 * L2A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L14 anti-tank gun)
 * L2A1 7.62mm Magazine (For use with the L1A1 SLR)
 * L2A1 Drill Necklace Demolition Charge (Drill version of the L1A1 Necklace Charge)
 * L2A1 Ground Stand (For use with the L1A1 MG)
 * L2A1 Practice Anti-Tank Mine
 * L2A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with the telescopic sight and CWS on the L96 rifle)
 * L3
 * L3A1-A4 .30 in Machine Gun
 * L3A1 Bayonet (Used with the L85 rifle; can also be attached to the L129A1 via an adaptor)
 * L3A1 Non-Metallic Anti-Tank Mine (Also referred to as the L3A1 Anti-Tank Mine or the L3A1 Lightweight Non-Metallic Anti-Tank Mine)
 * L3A1 Anti-Tank Mine Clearing Equipment
 * L3A1 PE4 Slab Demolition Charge
 * L3A1/A2/A3 Handheld Electronic D.C. Exploder
 * L3A1/A2/A3 Practice Hand Grenade (Training version of the L2 HE/APERS Hand Grenade)
 * L3A1/A2 Flash Initiator
 * L3A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the AR-15 rifle; there is no relation to the L3A1 Weapon Sight below)
 * L3A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L3A1 Crew Served Weapon Sight)
 * L3A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with the iron sights and CWS on the SA80 series)
 * L4
 * L4 183 mm anti-tank gun used on FV4005 prototype
 * L4A1-A9 7.62mm Light Machine Gun (7.62mm Bren conversions; designation often simplified to "L4 7.62mm Machine Gun")
 * L4A1 7.62mm Magazine (For use with the above)
 * L4A1 Drill Slab Demolition Charge (Drill version of the L3A1 Slab Charge)
 * L4A1/A2 Drill Hand Grenade (Drill version of the L2 HE/APERS Hand Grenade)
 * L4A1 Flash Initiator
 * L4A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L1 SLR)
 * L4A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Case (Case for L1 IWS; also referred to as the L4 Image Intensified Weaponsight Case)
 * L4A1 Cased Image Intensified Weapon Sight (L1 IWS with case and accessories; also referred to as the L4 Cased Image Intensified Weaponsight or the L4 Cased Image Intensified Straight Telescope)
 * L4A1 Machine Gun Tripod Mounting (Tripod mount for L7)
 * L4A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Adaptor (Mount for the L5 and L6 sights; Also referred to as the L4 Image Intensified Weaponsight Adaptor)
 * L5
 * L5A1/A2/A3 Trilux 7.62mm Rifle Sight Conversion Kit (Used with the SLR, also referred to as the L5 Trilux Foresight)
 * L5A1-A4 Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L5A1 Combination Demolition Firing Device
 * L5A1 Detonating Cord
 * L5A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L42A1 rifle; there is no relation to the L5A1 Weapon Sight below)
 * L5A1 Incendiary Destructor
 * L5A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L5A1 Image Intensified Weaponsight or L5A1 Pocketscope)
 * L5A1 Adaptor (Adaptor for the L5 and L6 sights)
 * L6
 * L6A1 12.7mm Ranging machine gun for 105mm tank gun on Centurion tank
 * L6A1 Blank Firing Attachment
 * L6A1 Image Intensified Straight Telescope (Also referred to as the L6A1 Pocketscope)
 * L6A1 Adaptor (Adaptor for the L5 and L6 sights)
 * L7
 * L7A1/A2 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG)
 * L7A1 105mm Tank Gun (Centurion tank armament)
 * L7A1 Rapid Bridge Demolition Charge
 * L8
 * L8A1/A2 7.62mm Machine Gun, L7 for AFV use
 * L8A1-A5 7.62mm Rifle (7.62mm Lee-Enfield conversions)
 * L8A1-A4 Screening Smoke Discharger Grenade
 * L8A1/A2 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L8 Image Intensified Weaponsight or the L8 Common Weapon Sight)
 * L8A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for the L5 and L6 sights; Also referred to as the L8 Image Intensified Weaponsight Mount)
 * L9
 * L9A1 9mm Automatic Pistol
 * L9A1 51 mm light mortar
 * L9 165 mm demolition gun
 * L9A1 Trilux Small Arms Sight Unit (Abbreviated to SUSAT after "Sight Unit, Small Arms, Trilux") (Version with 100-600m range settings)
 * L9A1-A8 HE Blast Anti-Tank Mine
 * L10
 * L10A1 Anti-Personnel Mine
 * L10A1/A2 Tripwire Flare Kit
 * L10A1 Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L10A1 Detonating Cord Booster
 * L10A1/A2 General Purpose Machine Gun Mount
 * L10A1/A2 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Case (Also referred to as the L10 Image Intensified Weaponsight Case)
 * L11
 * L11A1 9mm Automatic Pistol Kit (L9A1 pistol with accessories)
 * L11A1 12.7mm Machine Gun (0.50 inch M2 Browning machine gun for use as ranging gun)
 * L11A1-A6 120mm Rifled Gun
 * L11A1 Rapid Bridge Demolition Charge
 * L11A1 Blank Ammunition Firing Attachment (For use with the SA80 series)
 * L11A1 Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L11A1 Long Range Irritant Anti-Riot Discharger Grenade
 * L11A1 Tripwire Flare Simulator Kit (Practice version of the L10A1 Tripwire Kit)
 * L11A1 Cased Image Intensified Weapon Sight (L5 Weapon Sight in case with accessories; Also referred to as the L11 Cased Image Intensified Weaponsight)
 * L11A1 Gun and Mortar Fire Simulator
 * L12
 * L12A1 0.22 inch Calibre 7.62mm Rifle Conversion Kit (.22 inch conversion kit for the L1A1 SLR; occasionally, "5.60mm" could be used in place of "0.22 inch")
 * L12A1 Trilux Small Arms Sight Unit (Version with 300-800m range settings)
 * L12A1/A2 Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L12A1 Rapid Bridge Demolition Charge
 * L12A1 Cased Image Intensified Weapon Sight (L6 Telescope in case with accessories; Also referred to as the L11 Cased Image Intensified Weaponsight)
 * L13
 * L13A1 5.56mm SA80-series blank fire attachment
 * L13A1 105 mm gun used on FV433 Abbot self-propelled gun
 * L13A1/A2 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade
 * L13A1 Irritant Hand Held Jet Spray
 * L13A1 Telescope (Schmidt & Bender 6 x 42, primary sighting system for the L96 rifle prior to its 2000 upgrade; also referred to as the L13 Telescopic Sight)
 * L13A1 Illuminating Parachute Rocket
 * L13A1 Gun and Mortar Fire Simulator
 * L14A1
 * L14A1 Anti-Tank Mine
 * L14A1 40mm Multi Shot Grenade Launcher (MSGL)
 * L14A1 84mm Infantry Anti-Tank Gun (Also referred to as the L14A1 84mm Medium Anti-Tank Weapon)
 * L14A1 Small Arms General Purpose Cleaning Brush
 * L14A1/A2 Cased Image Intensified Weapon Sight (L8 Weapon Sight in L10 case with accessories; Also referred to as the L14 Cased Image Intensified Weaponsight)
 * L14A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Used to mount the L8 Weapon Sight on the L96 rifle; Also referred to as the L14A1 Image Intensified Weaponsight Mount)
 * L15
 * L15A1 Rifle Grenade Launcher Sight (Attached to a SUSAT scope for use with the Rifle Grenade General Service series)
 * L15A1 Small Arms Cleaning Brush
 * L16
 * L16A1/A2 81mm Mortar
 * L16A1/A2 Practice Anti-Riot Hand Grenade (Training version of L13 grenade)
 * L16A1 Flash and Sound Armoured Fighting Vehicle Gunfire Simulator
 * L17
 * L17A1 40mm Underslung Grenade Launcher
 * L17A2 40mm Underslung Grenade Launcher (Initial designation for the AG-SA80/L123 launcher)
 * L17A1 HE Blast Anti-Tank Mine
 * L17A1/A2 Telescope (Schmidt & Bender 3-12 x 50, primary sighting system for the L96 rifle following its 2000 upgrade, the L118 rifle, and the L129 SSW, and capable of being retrofitted onto the L115 rifle; also referred to as the L17 Telescopic Sight)
 * L17A1 Blank Ammunition Firing Attachment
 * L18
 * L18A1 9mm Automatic Pistol
 * L18A1 HE Blast Anti-Tank Mine
 * L18A1/A2 Optical Sight (Sighting system on L104 Riot Gun)
 * L18A1/A2 Flash and Sound Armoured Fighting Vehicle Gunfire Simulator
 * L18A1 Gun and Mortar Fire Simulator
 * L19
 * L19A1 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (Heavy-barrelled variant of the L7 GPMG)
 * L19A1 Small Arms Fire Simulator
 * L20
 * L20A1/A2 7.62mm Machine Gun (L7A1/A2 variant for use in gun pods and other external mounts)
 * L20A1 PE7 Block Demolition Charge
 * L20A1 Explosion Simulator
 * L21
 * L21A1 30mm Gun
 * L21A1 PE7 Slab Demolition Charge
 * L21A1 Drill Anti-Tank Mine (Drill version of L9, L17, and L18 anti-tank mines)
 * L21A1 5.56mm Magazine (Radway Green STANAG magazine for the SA80 series)
 * L21A1 Small Arms Strike Simulator
 * L22
 * L22A1/A2 5.56mm Carbine
 * L22A1 PE8 Slab Demolition Charge
 * L22A1 Red Distress Signal Hand Fired Rocket
 * L22A1 Small Arms Ricochet Simulator
 * L23
 * L23A1 76 mm gun, as used on Scorpion light tank
 * L23A1 Load Circuit Fault Locating Tool
 * L23A1 94mm Rocket Fire Simulator
 * L24
 * L24A1 300m Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L24A1 12.7mm machine gun Ranging drill version.
 * L24A1 Telescope (Schmidt & Bender 5-25 x 56, primary sighting system for the L115 rifle; also referred to as the L24 Telescopic Sight)
 * L24A1 5.56mm Magazine (Heckler & Koch STANAG magazine for the SA80 series and M16 series)
 * L25
 * L25A1/A2 Rapid Cratering Explosive Kit
 * L25A1 600m IR Illuminating Parachute Hand Fired Rocket
 * L25A1 Instructional Rifle (Sectionalised version of the L1A1 SLR)
 * L25A1 5.56mm Magazine (Heckler & Koch STANAG magazine for blank ammunition)
 * L25A1 Electric Safety Fuze Igniter
 * L25A1 PE7 Drill Slab Demolition Charge
 * L26
 * L26A1 Bangalore Torpedo Demolition Charge
 * L26A1 Instructional Rifle (Variant of the L25A1 instructional rifle)
 * L26A1 Rarden 30 mm cannon
 * L26A1 "Jericho" APFSDS round for the L11A5 rifled gun on the Challenger 1 tank.
 * L26A1 5.56mm Magazine (Twenty-round magazine for the L22A2 carbine)
 * L27
 * L27A1 Anti-Tank Mine Kit (Consisting of two L14A1 Anti-Tank Mines and accessories)
 * L27A1 Drill Bangalore Torpedo Demolition Charge
 * L28
 * L28A1 Practice Anti-Tank Mine Kit (Practice version of the L27A1 Anti-Tank Mine Kit)
 * L28A1 Drill Hand Grenade (Later drill version of the L2 HE/APERS Hand Grenade)
 * L28A1 Instructional Bangalore Torpedo Demolition Charge
 * L28A1 Large Hand Battle Noise Simulator
 * L29
 * L29A1/A2 Instructional Anti-Tank Mine Kit (Instructional version of the L27A1 Anti-Tank Mine Kit)
 * L29A1 Electric Battle Noise Simulator
 * L30
 * L30A1 120mm Challenger Armament (CHARM) Gun
 * L32
 * L32A1 12 Bore Automatic Shotgun
 * L34
 * L34A1 9mm Submachine Gun (Silenced version of L2A3)
 * L35
 * L35A1 Shielder Vehicle Launched Scatterable Mine System
 * L35A1/A2 Blue Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L35A1 Battle Sound Simulator
 * L36
 * L36A1/A2 Green Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L37
 * L37A1/A2 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (Variant of L7 GPMG for AFVs, e.g. Challenger 2).
 * L37A1 Red Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L38
 * L38A1 7.62mm Drill Rifle (Drill purpose version of the L1A1 SLR)
 * L38A1/A2 Yellow Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L39
 * L39A1 7.62mm Rifle (7.62mm NATO conversion of Rifle No. 4, Marks 1/2 and 2, used for target rifle competition)
 * L41
 * L41A1/A2 0.22 inch Calibre 5.56mm Rifle Conversion Kit (.22 inch conversion kit for SA80-pattern weapons; also referred to as the L41A1/A2 .22 inch Calibre SA 80 5.56mm Rifle and LSW Conversion Kit)
 * L41A1-A4 Demolition Grip Firing Device Kit
 * L42
 * L42A1 7.62mm Rifle (7.62mm NATO conversion of Rifle No. 4, Marks I (T) and I* (T), standard sniper rifle from 1970 to 1992; also referred as the L42A1 7.62mm Sniper Rifle)
 * L43
 * L43A1 7.62mm Machine Gun (L7 variant used on the Scorpion as a ranging gun)
 * L44
 * L44A1 7.62mm Machine Gun (Royal Navy L7 variant fitted with L1A1 Safety Unit and No. 1 Mk 1 Electrical Firing Unit, normally pintle-mounted or set in remote gun pods)
 * L45
 * L45A1 7.62mm Drill Machine Gun (Drill purpose version of L7)
 * L46
 * L46A1 7.62mm Drill Machine Gun (Drill purpose version of L7)
 * L47
 * L47A1 7.65mm Automatic Pistol
 * L47A1 Universal Cleaning Kit
 * L49
 * L49A1 9mm Drill Submachine Gun (Drill purpose version of the L2A3 converted from unserviceable weapons)
 * L49A1 Minefield Perimeter Marking Kit
 * L50
 * L50A1 9mm Drill Purpose Machine Carbine (Drill purpose version of the Sten Mk II)
 * L50A1 Smoke Screening/Marker Hand Grenade
 * L51
 * L51A1 9mm Drill Purpose Machine Carbine (Drill purpose version of the Sten Mk III)
 * L52
 * L52A1 9mm Drill Purpose Machine Carbine (Drill purpose version of the Sten Mk V)
 * L52A1/A2 Blue Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L53
 * L53A1/A2 Green Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L54
 * L54A1/A2 Red Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L55
 * L55A1/A2/A3 Orange Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L55A1 120mm Gun
 * L56
 * L56A1 Practice Hand Grenade (Later training version of the L2 HE/APERS Hand Grenade with a rubber body)
 * L59
 * L59A1 Drill Purpose Rifle
 * L60
 * L60A1 40mm Target Practice Marker Grenade (Training variant of the L74A1 HEAT Grenade)
 * L64
 * L64A1 Green Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L65
 * L65A1 Orange Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L66
 * L66A1 .22in Automatic Pistol
 * L66A1 Red Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L67
 * L67A1-A4 37mm Riot Gun (Also referred to as the L67 1.5" Riot Gun)
 * L67A1 Blue Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L68
 * L68A1 Green Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L69
 * L69A1 Orange Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L70
 * L70A1 Red Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L71
 * L71A1 Blue Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L72
 * L72A9 Light Anti-Structures Missile (LASM) (M72A9)
 * L72A1 Training Smoke Screening Hand Grenade
 * L73
 * L73A1/A2 Training Smoke Screening Hand Grenade
 * L74
 * L74A1/A2 12 Bore Shotgun
 * L74A1 40mm HEAT Grenade (Used with the L85 rifle until the introduction of the Rifle Grenade General Service series)
 * L75
 * L75A1 40mm HEAT-APERS Grenade (Used with the L85 rifle until the introduction of the Rifle Grenade General Service series)
 * L78
 * L78A1 White Light Stabilised Illumination Device Flare Kit
 * L79
 * L79A1 Infra-Red Stabilised Illumination Device Flare Kit
 * L80
 * L80A1 9mm Submachine Gun (MP5K)
 * L80A1 Drill Stabilised Illumination Device Flare Kit
 * L81
 * L81A1/A2 7.62mm Cadet Target Rifle (Sometimes simplified to L81 7.62mm Rifle)
 * L83
 * L83A1/A2 Training Smoke Screening Hand Grenade
 * L84
 * L84A1/A2/A3 Red Phosphorus Smoke Screening Hand Grenade (Rheinmetall SPIRCO)
 * L85
 * L85A1/A2/A3 5.56mm Rifle (Also referred to as the L85 5.56mm Individual Weapon)
 * L85A1 HE Rifle Grenade used with the L85 rifle until the introduction of the L123 UGL
 * L86
 * L86A1/A2 5.56mm Light Support Weapon (Also referred to as the L86 5.56mm Machine Gun)
 * L86A1 Practice Rifle Grenade (Practice version of the L85A1 Rifle Grenade)
 * L87A1
 * L87A1 Inert Practice Rifle Grenade (Inert version of the L85A1 Rifle Grenade)
 * L89
 * L89A1 9mm Automatic Pistol (Instructional version of the L9A1 pistol)
 * L89A1 16mm White Pyrotechnic Signal Kit
 * L90
 * L90A1 9mm Submachine Gun (MP5KA1)
 * L90A1 16mm Green Pyrotechnic Signal Kit
 * L91
 * L91A1 9mm Submachine Gun (MP5SD3)
 * L91A1 16mm Red Pyrotechnic Signal Kit
 * L92
 * L92A1 9mm Submachine Gun (MP5A3)
 * L94
 * L94A1 7.62mm Machine Gun (Hughes EX34 chain gun)
 * L95
 * L95 another variant of the Chain gun
 * L96
 * L96A1/A2 7.62mm Rifle (Also referred as the L96 7.62mm Sniper Rifle)
 * L98
 * L98A1/A2 5.56mm Cadet General Purpose Rifle (A1 is single shot, no longer in use; A2 is semi-automatic, replaced A1 from 2009 onwards)
 * L98A1 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade
 * L100
 * L100A1 Yellow Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L100A1/A2 7.62mm Rifle (G3KA4)
 * L101
 * L101A1 Purple Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L101A1/A2 5.56mm Rifle (HK53) (Also referred to as the L101 5.56mm Submachine Gun)
 * L102
 * L102A1 9mm Automatic Pistol (Walther P5 Compact)
 * L103
 * L103A1/A2 Drill Purpose (DP) Rifle (Drill purpose variant of the L98A1 and L98A2 GP rifles)
 * L104
 * L104A1/A2 37mm Riot Gun
 * L105
 * L105A1/A2 9mm Automatic Pistol (SIG Sauer P226)
 * L106
 * L106A1/A2 9mm Automatic Pistol (SIG Sauer P226 with corrosion-resistant finish)
 * L106A1 Distraction Hand Grenade
 * L107
 * L107A1 9mm Automatic Pistol (SIG Sauer P228)
 * L107A1 Distraction Hand Grenade
 * L108A1
 * L108A1 5.56mm Light Machine Gun
 * L108A1/A2 Practice Distraction Hand Grenade (Training version of the L107A1 Distraction Hand Grenade)
 * L109
 * L109A1 9mm Automatic Pistol
 * L109A1/A2 High Explosive Hand Grenade
 * L110
 * L110A1/A2/A3 5.56mm Light Machine Gun (FN Minimi Para)
 * L110A1 Drill Hand Grenade (Drill version of the L109 HE Hand Grenade)
 * L111
 * L111A1 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun (M2 Browning with quick-change barrel; originally referred to as the L111A1 .50 inch Machine Gun)
 * L111A1 Practice Hand Grenade (Training version of the L109 HE Hand Grenade)
 * L112
 * L112A1 7.62mm Air Role Derivative (ARD) General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) (Helicopter door gun variant of the L7)
 * L114
 * L114A1 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun (FN Herstal M3M)
 * L115
 * L115A1-A4 8.59mm Long Range Rifle (Also referred to as the L115 8.59mm Sniper Rifle, L115 8.59mm Large Calibre Long Range Rifle, or simply L115 8.59mm Rifle; additionally, "0.338in" or ".338" can be used in place of "8.59mm")
 * L115A1 Practice Distraction Hand Grenade (Training version of the L106A1 Distraction Hand Grenade)
 * L116
 * L116A1 Drill Purpose (DP) Rifle (Drill purpose version of the L98 converted from unserviceable L85s)
 * L117
 * L117A1/A2 9mm Pistol (SIG Sauer P229)
 * L118
 * L118 105mm Light Gun (Also referred to as the L118 105mm Field Gun)
 * L118A1 7.62mm Counter Terrorism Sniper Rifle
 * L119
 * L119A1/A2 5.56mm Rifle (C8SFW and C8CQB; also referred to as the L119A1/A2 5.56mm Assault Rifle)
 * L119A1 105mm Field Gun
 * L121
 * L121A1 12.7mm Long Range Precision Anti Structure Rifle
 * L123
 * L123A1/A2/A3 40mm Underslung Grenade Launcher (UGL)
 * L126
 * L126A1 Cadet Drill Purpose (DP) Rifle (Inert version of the L98A2 for the Sea Cadet Corps and Combined Cadet Force)
 * L127
 * L127A1 'Sideloader' 37mm Less Lethal Gun (based on the HK GLM)
 * L128
 * L128A1 12 Bore Combat Shotgun
 * L129
 * L129A1 7.62mm Sharpshooter Rifle (Also referred to as the L129A1 7.62mm Sharpshooter Assault Rifle)
 * L129A1 7.62mm Sniper Support Weapon (Variant of the Sharpshooter Rifle outfitted with an L17 telescope and a suppressor for use by the spotter in a sniper-spotter pair)
 * L130
 * L130A1 7.62mm Light Machine Gun
 * L131
 * L131A1 9mm General Service Pistol (Glock 17 Gen4)
 * L132
 * L132A1 9mm FX Pistol (Glock 17T (Gen4), fires Marker Round Training System (MRTS) munitions)
 * L132A1/A2 Smoke Screening Hand Grenade
 * L134
 * L134A1 40mm Grenade Machine Gun
 * L135
 * L135A1 12.7mm Long Range Precision Anti Structure Rifle
 * L137
 * L137A1 9mm Pistol (Glock 19)
 * L144
 * L144A1 0.22" Cadet Small Bore Target Rifle
 * L152
 * L152A1 Green Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L153
 * L153A1 Orange Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L154
 * L154A1 Red Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L155
 * L155A1 Yellow Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L157
 * L157A1 Purple Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L158
 * L158A1 Turquoise Signal Smoke Hand Grenade
 * L238
 * L238A1 Ammunition Container Assembly (Container with fifteen L1 66mm HEAT Rockets and Launchers)
 * L403
 * L403A1 5.56mm Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) for Ranger Regiment and Royal Marines

Ammunition

 * L1
 * L1A1/A2 5.56mm Tracer Round (Tracer round complement to L2A1/A2)
 * L1A1/A2/A3 5.56mm Blank Cartridge (Blank training round complement to L2A1/A2, also used for grenade launching)
 * L1A1 5.45mm×39mm Ball Round
 * L1A1 0.45 Inch Auto Colt Pistol Ball Round
 * L1A1 51mm High Explosive Mortar Bomb
 * L1A1 .22 inch Club Round
 * L1A1 12.7mm Multi-Purpose Round
 * L2
 * L2A1/A2 5.56mm Ball Round
 * L2A1-A4 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L2A1 9mm Plastic Blank Round
 * L2A1 51mm Smoke Screening Mortar Bomb
 * L2A1/A2 1.5 in. Anti-Riot Baton Round
 * L3
 * L3A1/A2 1.5 in. Anti-Riot Baton Round
 * L3A1/A2 51mm Illuminating Mortar Bomb
 * L3A1 5.56mm Ball Round (M193-type round for use in AR-15 weapons and the L101A1/A2 rifle)
 * L3A1 12.7mm Multi-Purpose Tracer Round
 * L4
 * L4A1 60mm High Explosive Mortar Bomb
 * L4A1 1.5" Green Signal Cartridge
 * L4A1 12.7mm Armour Piercing Incendiary Round
 * L4A1 .338 inch Ball
 * L5
 * L5A1-A7 1.5 in. Anti-Riot Baton Round
 * L5A1-A5 7.62mm Tracer Round (Tracer round complement to L2A1/A2)
 * L5A1/A2 .22 inch Ball Round
 * L7
 * L7A1 9mm Ball Round
 * L7A1 5.56mm Ball Round
 * L7A1 120mm Blank Charge
 * L8
 * L8A1 5.56mm Blank Cartridge
 * L8A1 40mm Practice Round
 * L8A1-A6 12 Bore Entry Round
 * L9
 * L9A1 .22 inch Ball Round
 * L9A1-A7 12 Bore Short Range Irritant Round
 * L10
 * L10A1 .303 inch Blank Cartridge
 * L10A1/A2 7.62mm Blank Cartridge (Blank training round complement to L2A1/A2)
 * L10A1 .30 inch Blank Cartridge
 * L10A1/A2 81mm High Explosive Mortar Bomb
 * L10A1-A8 12 Bore Short Range Practice Round
 * L11
 * L11A1/A2 .50 inch Observing Round
 * L11A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L11A1 51mm Drill Mortar Bomb (Representing L2 Smoke and L3 Illumination bombs)
 * L11A1-A5 12 Bore Long Range Irritant Round
 * L12
 * L12A1 9mm Ball Round
 * L12A1 51mm Drill Mortar Bomb (Representing L1 HE bombs)
 * L13
 * L13A1-A4 7.62mm Blank Cartridge (Blank training round complement to L2A1/A2)
 * L14
 * L14A1 7.62mm Blank Cartridge
 * L15
 * L15A1/A2 5.56mm Ball Round (FN SS109-type round optimised for use in AR-15 weapons such as the L119A1/A2 rifle)
 * L15A1-A4 81mm High Explosive Mortar Bomb
 * L15A1-A4 155mm High Explosive Shell
 * L15A1-A5 120mm Armour-Piercing Discarding-Sabot Tank Shot
 * L16
 * L16A1 5.56mm Tracer Round (Tracer round complement to L15A1/A2 and L17A1/A2)
 * L16A1 51mm Illuminating Mortar Bomb
 * L16A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L17
 * L17A1/A2 5.56mm Ball Round (FN SS109-type round optimised for use with SA80 weapons)
 * L18
 * L18A1 5.56mm Blank Cartridge (Blank training round complement to L17A1/A2)
 * L18A1 9mm Ball Round
 * L19
 * L19A1 81mm White Phosphorus Smoke Screening Mortar Bomb
 * L21
 * L21A1/A2 37mm Baton Round
 * L21A1/A2 155mm High Explosive Shell
 * L21A1 5.56mm Ball Round
 * L22
 * L22A1 81mm Practice Mortar Bomb
 * L22A1 5.56mm Ball Round
 * L23
 * L23A1/A2 120mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Tank Shot
 * L23A1 5.56mm Armour Piercing Round
 * L26
 * L26A1 120mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Tank Shot
 * L26A1 5.56mm Tracer Round
 * L27
 * L27A1 120mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Tank Shot
 * L27A1 5.56mm Blank Cartridge
 * L28
 * L28A1/A2 9mm Makarov Ball Round
 * L28A1/A2 81mm Illuminating Parachute Mortar Bomb
 * L28A1/A2 120mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Tank Shot
 * L29
 * L29A1/A2 9mm Short Ball Round
 * L29A1 120mm Discarding Sabot Training Tank Shot
 * L31
 * L31A1 5.56mm Ball Round ("Enhanced Performance" design based on the FN SS109 round but featuring an all-steel bullet for improved penetration and giving similar performance in both AR-15 and SA80 weapons)
 * L31A1 7.62mm Blank Cartridge
 * L31A1 9mm Ball Round (Sometimes referred to as a cartridge despite being a live round)
 * L31A1/A2 7.62mm×39mm Short Blank Cartridge
 * L31A1-A4 105mm High Explosive Shell
 * L31A1-A7 120mm High Explosive Squash Head Tank Shot
 * L32
 * L32A1-A6 120mm Squash Head Practice Tank Shot
 * L33
 * L33A1 105mm Blank Cartridge
 * L34
 * L34A1/A2 120mm Smoke Tank Shot
 * L37
 * L37A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L38
 * L38A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L38A1 105mm Blank Cartridge
 * L39
 * L39A1 81mm Illuminating Parachute Mortar Bomb
 * L39A1 105mm Blank Cartridge
 * L40
 * L40A1/A2/A3 84mm High Explosive Anti-Tank Round
 * L40A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L40A1 105mm Blank Cartridge
 * L41
 * L41A1-A5 81mm High Explosive Mortar Bomb
 * L41A1/A2/A3 84mm Practice Round
 * L42
 * L42A1/A2/A3 7.62mm Sniper Ball Round (Sniper-grade round manufactured to tighter standards)
 * L42A1/A2/A3 81mm White Phosphorus Smoke Screening Mortar Bomb
 * L43
 * L43A1/A2/A3 7.62mm Blank Cartridge (Blank training round complement to L44A1)
 * L43A1-A4 105mm Illuminating Parachute Shell
 * L44
 * L44A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L45
 * L45A1 7.62mm Tracer Round (Tracer round complement to L44A1)
 * L45A1/A2 105mm Smoke Screening Shell
 * L46
 * L46A1 7.62mm Ball Round
 * L52
 * L52A1 105mm Smoke Screening Shell
 * L53
 * L53A1/A2 7.62mm×39mm Short Ball Round
 * L54
 * L54A1 81mm Illuminating Parachute Mortar Bomb
 * L55
 * L55A1/A2 7.62mm×54mm Long Ball Round
 * L58
 * L58A1 81mm Infra-Red Illuminating Parachute Mortar Bomb
 * L59
 * L59A1/A2 7.62mm High Performance Ball Round (Hardened steel tip)
 * L60
 * L60A1/A2 37mm Attenuated Energy Projectile Round

title: List of British weapon L numbers


text:
User talk:Herbert Langsteiner

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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Duk 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Huang Sheng Shyan
Hi Herbert, permission to use the text you mention in this wikipedia article needs to be per the GFDL license (see WP:C). This means that it is open source, so Wikipedia and its downstream customers are allowed to use this contribution, and are allowed to change and edit it as time goes on.

Granting permission to Wikipedia to use this kind of contribution needs explicit GFDL acknowledgment. I usually ask for a permission email from the address that is listed on the cited web page. I didn't see a contact email address on this web page.

I'm sorry if this seems a little picky here, but word of mouth permission granted through a third party isn't good enough. Can you get a contact email address put on the website that I can confirm through, or a note on the website stating that it is licensed per the GFDL?

thanks -Duk 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Herbert Langsteiner


text:
Talk:X-COM: UFO Defense

Citation Needed?
Under Single play there is a banner that tells us that a citation is needed for the accuracy of the info.

But the citation is the game manual. How can I point out that the information comes straight from the games manual?

You can mail a suggestion directly to me at address nes@iki.fi

 * No one is going to email you. That is very un-wiki.  Just state it came from the manual.  What's the problem? . — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed info
I removed the following info from the Sequels section of the article:

 * However, UFO: Aftermath, created by Cenega, essentially achieves that goal, as it creates a game highly similar to the original (although with a key plot difference that it is set after a catastrophic alien attack) but with simplified base control and real time combat in place of the original turn-based system.

I removed it because Cenega (or Altar Interactive) came right out and stated that their game, though very much like X-COM was not an X-COM game. It wasn't an official part of the series, it just had some similar elements. As a compromise, I added a link to the game (which doesn't have an article as of this writing) to the See also section. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

AGA version
I've just being playing UFO: Enemy Unknown on WinUAE, the Amiga emulator. If you do a little searching, there's an adf of the AGA version. The graphics are far better than the crappy PC Dos version or the old Amiga 500 version, higher resoultion, more colourful, smoother, etc... the music is also very atmospheric compared to other versions. Download WinUAE and check it out. It takes a while to get the correct configuarion, but it's worth it. I'm addicted all over again...

Image additions
If you look at this version, you'll see that Coolcat added a slew of images of alien ships with their statistics. I reverted them without discussion. This is way too much info for this game and is unencyclopedic. Changes of this sort which have been made to other articles have also been dismissed, so I have precedent. I recommend adding such information to a Wikibook, but not to the main 'pedia entry. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * PLease do not determine what is encyclopedic and what isnt. I have reverted that back. This is an article about the game and the information I provided is only to that extent. If you are suggesting fancruft you may want to argue to that extent. -- Cat chi? 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my duty (and every editor's) to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. However, I won't revert your revert without resolving it here first.

I do indeed think your additions are fancruft. I'm a huge fan of the game, but all the statistics and images you added would only be of interest to the hardcore fan. The information would be great for a strategy guide or a walkthrough, but it simply isn't encyclopedic. I don't where it is now, but there is a sister project for all this type of game information. Things such as this and cheat codes are a great place for it, but not an article that is supposed to give a general overview of the game.

Unfortunately, this article isn't very heavily watched, or we'd have more input from other editors on this point. If you like, you can raise the issue on the Computer and video games WikiProject (a project you might be interested in joining). There, other editors who are much more into games than I am can weigh in on the issue.

Thank you for being open to discussing this issue. :-)  — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frecklefoot, while the information is, on some level, interesting, I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic. Now I'm sure you could probably point out some equally bad cases of fancruft that never get's deleted, but I still think that it should be removed. --CVaneg 00:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that it should be removed. I am not keen to have more fair-use material than necessary in articles, and this addition introduces too many. -- Jon Dowland 13:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the information. It'd be fine for a strategy guide, such as a Wikibook, but not a Wikipedia article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fan sites
I moved them to the main X-COM article, where they belong. Also the last one had incorrect markup, and I fixed it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are quite right, that is the best place.  I've added a note to the article directing people to X-COM for more external links, so hopefully, people like me won't keep adding them thinking they are missing. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Name change
Morwen changed the name to X-COM: Enemy Unknown. While this is the original name of the game in the UK (where it was developed), this article was written about and contains information based on the North American version. For an example, see the scan of the player's manual in the infobox. I'd like to keep it as X-COM: UFO Defense, but I'm not strongly opposed to a name change. But the graphics used in the article should be changed as well.

But more importantly, the article should be moved to X-COM: Enemy Unknown, not just changed in the article. Please discuss here before attempting to move again. A namespace change should almost always be discussed first. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No they shouldn't. However, since you've stated your opposition to it I'm happy to discuss.   I don't see why you merely reverted though - the text before was downright misleading.  I've altered the wording again to make it clear what the name of the game actually is, whilst keeping the brand that was adopted for the US release in the article first.  Morwen - Talk 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There are few, if any changes between the original UK version and versions released elsewhere. Therefore, I'd be happier if the article was called X-COM: Enemy Unknown, as not only was this the first and original name, it keeps it contingious with the rest of the series. Mouse Nightshirt 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it was originally called UFO:Enemy Unknown, not X-COM at all. I'm not sure what you're arguing for. i kan reed 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a redirect page at UFO:Enemy Unknown. Strictly speaking the main article should be moved there, as it was written (and first published, I believe) in the UK under that title. --  JediLofty User 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This should not be a concern. Article names should be the thing most likely searched for, and all common names for something should be disambiguated at the very beginning of the article.  Preferably, in this case, we'd want to match what references are saying for minimal confusion.  i kan reed 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian novelization
Is the Russian novelization of X-COM officially licensed?

 * I highly doubt it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Terror from the Deep
I've removed a claim that Terror from the Deep was a licensed port, as the sources I've found all imply the game was developed by Microprose. Just posting here to verify I'm not missing a reputable source making this claim. i kan reed 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A possible Wikipedia project?
I'm thinking of starting up a Wikipedia project page for X-COM - the game is under-represented in the encyclopaedia considering the original's impact on the genre. Articles are reasonably messy too and need some maintenance and referencing done.

If you think this project could work, give me a shout on my talk page and I'll fire up the burners! Mouse Nightshirt | talk  17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I'll discuss it here. I don't think this is a good idea, unless it is a temporary project.  There's a limited number of articles in this series and there aren't any games being developed for it anymore. After the fixing up is done, there won't be a need for the project any longer.  One thing these articles could benefit from would be a footer for each article in the series.  Something along the lines of what is used for the Need for Speed and Galaxian series.  We don't need a project to develop one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

UFO Defense or Enemy Unknown?
According to the information I've been able to scrounge up, the game was released in the USA before it was in Europe; why is someone making it seem like it's the other way around? 75.88.49.3 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I chalk it up to abandonware sites the distribute the windows version released under the later title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

Here's some info on the titles:
 * Julian Gollop's bio on the Laser Squad Nemesis website calls the game UFO: Enemy Unknown, with X-Com: UFO Defense used as the alternate title.
 * The original version of the game (v1.0) is called UFO: Enemy Unknown, with no reference to the later title in the manual or in-game.
 * The v1.2 readme calls the game UFO: ENEMY UNKNOWN.
 * The v1.4 readme calls it UFO/XCOM: ENEMY UNKNOWN, and the included TFTD advertisement calls it "X-COM: UFO DEFENSE also known as UFO: ENEMY UNKNOWN in Europe".
 * The title screens of the three DOS versions and the Windows version call the game UFO: Enemy Unknown, and the description of the Windows re-release's executable file is X-COM: UFO Defense Gold Edition.144.138.89.171 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It was definitely "Enemy Unknown" first. It was developed by MicroProse's UK studio and released in Europe.  The US headquarters of MP evaluated it, as they did with all UK-developed titles, to see if it was appropriate for a US release.  They finally decided it was, but changed the title first. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I had a Computer store when the game came out. I'd read about the game and was fascinated. I found out that the UK version was going to be released 1-2 weeks before XCOM, the US version. I managed to snag a case of UFO, the UK release, the day before it released in the UK. I put them on sale 2 days after the UK release, and was told by MicroProse lawyers that I had (illegally) sold the first copies of the game in the US. there were no effective differences in the 2 versions of the game, outside the box art, name & manual.Paganize (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebelstar is NOT X-COM
I snipped out a few lines regarding the Rebelstar release. It is 'not' X-COM, nor does it follow the X-COM storyline in any way, which is already described at the beginning of the article. It's basically a "sorta-related" release since the Gallop brothers do not have the rights to X-COM. TFX 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

=
============================================================== Original game CD - 1997. Game is called: X-COM:UFO Defense   DOS CD-ROM #0-522-40-102 Publisher: Microprose copyright. Mythos Games Ltd and Microprose Ltd. All Rights Reserved. X-COM and MICROPROSE are registered trademarks and X-COM:UFO DEFENSE is a trademark of Microprose Software, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective holders. Rated: Teen Ages 13+ ESRB

This is my CD-ROM of the game with serial number of the CD disk. Version 1 I might add since I know there is the 1.4 patch for this ms-dos game.

Review at Gamespot of game: Dec. 31, 1993 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/xcomufodefense/index.html - Patch v1.4 Sept.1, 1997 - X-COM Collector's Edition (which I also have upgraded to work in Windows turning off DirectDraw or Direct 3D nowadays to make the game play) Nov. 24, 1999 Review at Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/xcomcollectorsedition/index.html

Oh, also if it helps since I remember the game on the shelf the game was X-COM:Enemy Unknown but here in the USA it did not catch on at first, and then it became X-COM:UFO Defense within the same box as shown for the game.

Original Concept?
The Gollop brothers originally approached Microprose wishing to produce a sequel to Laser Squad. They had a graphics demo on the Atari ST. At This point their intention was to produce a squad level tactical battle game based on another planet with no extra strategic elements.

Microprose liked the demo but UK publisher Paul Hibbard felt the game should be ‘bigger’ to fit in line with the rest of the MicroProse strategic titles and ideally should have an earth based element. He tasked the development and marketing departments to come up with some ideas to expand the game and present them to the Gollop brothers. Peter Moreland from MicroProse development immediately recognised that there was an opportunity to use many of the elements from a 60’s Gerry Anderson Sci-Fi TV series UFO.

In conjunction with Rob Davies, Tim Roberts and the Gollop Brothers a brain storming session was held and the additional strategic elements were thrashed out including the Geosphere, Interception, Base building, Ufopedia and weapons research, the latter items being adaptations of strategy elements already included in other MicroProse titles such as Civilisation.

Peter Moreland87.114.1.219 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * We would need a ref for that. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Went to your page... I am a Wikipedia virgin... I couldnt see how to start a new message... When you say you need a ref.. what do you mean? I am telling you the events as I remember them happening. Cheers

Peter Moreland

 * Dear Peter Moreland,
 * The problem is, that there is no real user authentification in Wikipedia. So everyone could claim to be you. If you have a personal home page you could write the comment there and add a link to that here. 88.68.195.145 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree. That would be a "verifiable reference", what I referring to above. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Move from X-COM: UFO Defense to X-COM: Enemy Unknown
I disagree with this move, because the person who moved it doesn't seem to have his/her facts straight, and I can't blame him/her, it can get confusing. If you read the current introductory text on the game's page, you'll notice it states that it was released as X-COM: Enemy Unknown and later as UFO: Enemy Unknown in the USA and X-COM: UFO Defense on Steam. This is incorrect. Back when it was first released, it was called UFO: Enemy Unknown in Europe and X-COM: UFO Defense in the USA. X-COM: Enemy Unknown is the title for the (European) Playstation version (released later) as per this article on Mobygames: http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/x-com-ufo-defense ; and for visual confirmation, you can check this page on StrategyCore: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufogameversions. Also, X-COM: Enemy Unknown is not the most common name, it is X-COM: UFO Defense. X-COM: UFO Defense is also the official title of the trademark (again, as per USPTO: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pjve9c.2.7). Finally, I think this could unnecessarily confuse Wikipedia readers - most of the ones searching for the game will know it under either UFO: Enemy Unknown or X-COM: UFO Defense. For those reasons I think it should be returned to how it looked just before the move. I hope I also cleared up some things. :) --Gibly (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. My old CD copy of the game is called X-COM: UFO Defense and I live in the US. I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the US release because there was already a series called UFO. The guideline for video games says to "use the original official title of the game", so that means this article should be titled "UFO: Enemy Unknown". I will fix this now. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It threw me an error when I tried to move it because of the redirect existing already. I tagged the redirect for deletion, so as soon as that's done we can move the article. In the meantime I'll fix the intro. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Everything should be fixed now I think. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he said it should be returned to how it looked just before the move and I agree. Galagahunt (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be reverted back to the UFO: Enemy Unknown title. See also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.41.92 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead
While WP:LEADCITE does state that a lead repeats what is said (and cited) in the body, it also says: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" and that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Best-ever claims are extraordinary, potentially controversial and need citations whether in the lead or body. Also, synthesising these claims with words such as "various" and "often" is too vague, as is saying that it's listed as "as one of the best video games ever made." What's "one of the best" exactly? Top 3? Top 5? 10? 20? 25? 50? 100? 500? There's a difference between no. 1 and no. 7; no. 7 and no. 12; no. 12 and no. 78. bridies (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Usually it's top 100, but sometimes also top 25 (IGN) or just hall-of-fame type articles, and the places are all listed if there are any places. You could just check the reception section, instead of asking. (Also, it's not stated in the article but since you're so curious: CGW '96 special had various lists, top 15 to 50 or maybe 100, I'd have to check it, if it even really matters. And the GameSpot list is confusing, I think 50, but you can count it yourself if you want.) --Niemti (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point being, top-25 and top-100 are very different things and so it needs to be specified for the reader. And that "best PC ever" is an exceptional, potentially controversially claim that needs a citation, even if it's in the lead. bridies (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all clearly stated in the references, and anyway being #3 on top 10 and #3 on top 100 doesn't change a thing, it's still just being third. And given the sheer ammount of these lists (here it's not even a definitive listing, just a few examples), it's nothing "potentially controversial", it's just stating a fact. Factually. To quote, "UFO: Enemy Unknown comes up again and again whenever talking the best game ever." --Niemti (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. To be clear, I'm not bothered about citations for all the various lists in the lead, but for IGN's claim of UFO being the best PC game ever. This should be mentioned separately in the lead because as I said it's a lot more important than no. 7 or 12 or 78. And it needs a citation because yes, "best PC game ever" is potentially controversial, and it is the opinion of a particular publication and thus needs an in-line citation. The fact that it's on a bazillion lists is a separate issue in that it needs to be more specific: there's a big difference between a top-10 place or a lower top-100 place and it should be clarified. That UGO quote is vague opinion, not hard fact: again, who's to say what "[one of the] best ever" constitutes? One might quote that in the lead but it seems better just to synthesise the several top-10 lists (it being pretty redundant to talk about top-50s and -100s and such for game that got top-10 listings). bridies (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a hard fact. Check any such list (PC), and it will probably be in it - even as it will be soon 20 years from the release. And there's really not much difference of first to second or third, like in some other lists. And as of even being 100th - there are tens of thousands of video games, but only 100 of them are in this top 100. Being even the 100th, it's a huge acclaim. Also as of "top-10 listings", there are just no (or very few) lists for top video games of all times that feature only 10 titles from all the genres, at all (and there's none here, too). 100 is the usual selection, soemtimes it's 50 or 25. It's never, or almost never, just 10. --Niemti (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're either ignoring my point, or you just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many places there are in any particular source list, but the position of this game within them. Now, this article mentions it taking top place in a couple of lists, at least several top-10 placings (regardless of whether it was no 7 out of 10, 7 out of 50 or 7 out of 100; all those make it no 7th best game, fair enough if you want to write "...within the top-10" rather than "..top-10 list"), as well as much lower top-100 placings. By your logic, any of the games which regularly place low in top-100 lists could still have the same claim that they "often are named in lists of the best games ever", even though when one digs into one would fine the accolades to be less auspicious than UFO's. The lead needs to clarify these claims in order to adequately summarise the article (WP:LEAD). bridies (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seems to think that stuff like at 12th place in 2005 ("for us 1994 will always be remembered as the year of X-COM"), and at 21st place in 2007 ("one of the most memorable and perfectly executed strategy games ever seen") is irrevelant to being regarded as "one of the best games ever", I obviously totally disagree. And no, it's not "regularly place low". It's places top (including many 1-3 positions), mid, and (relatively) low on these top 25, 50 and 100 lists. And by "(relatively) low", I mean stuff like being 90th 1UP in 2012, where they say it "remains a masterpiece" about 18 years and many thousands of games later. --Niemti (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not disputing that the game is regarded as one of the best ever, but saying that "one of the best ever" is too vague on it's own. You keep arguing for a point that is not in dispute. You've completely misunderstood what I said about regularly low places; I wasn't even talking about UFO. There will be minor classics which regularly turn up lower down in top-100 ever articles, but won't often or ever be placed as one of the top 20 or 10 or 5. This is why to do the game justice the lead has to state exactly what is meant by "listed as one of the best games ever" i.e top of IGN's list and inside the 10 best of several others. bridies (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IGN's already there and I don't see a need for any more. I also rewrote the whole reception section (once again). --Niemti (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you don't see it, that's the problem. I'm just implementing another version in the hope it will prove amenable. bridies (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want ANY references there (because why referencing this, which is referenced in the article, but not the other stuff in the lead), and I don't any more examples neither there because I think it will distract from the flow (and also the only other number one being listed currently is the #1 sleeper hit from 1996, which is hardly that much impressive). Oh, and before you ask or point it out, this "If you wish to establish a consensus that a duplicate section is necessary in this article lead, please start a discussion on the talk page" wasn't even put in there by me, it was done by someone else who had removed all references there in first place, and it was done long ago and well before my latest rewrites (the latest one that took place yesterday). Anyway can we move on now? I'm pretty sure the article may have actual faults to point out. --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you want doesn't matter. And the fact that someone felt the need to write that indicates a will to add citations to the lead, not the other way around. The notion that a couple of citations will "distract from the flow" is derisory. I fail to see the relevance of the sleeper hit claim. The claim that requires a citation is the claim of this game as the best of all time. If that doesn't need a cite then don't know what does. I'll "move on" after we have some 3rd opinions. bridies (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is no " claim of this game as the best of all time". There is a factual statement that is the game widely regarded as one of top of all time (not "the best of all time"), which is a simple statement of the fact. And it is elaborated and well referenced in the rest of the article, because good article leads should contain no references (I've witnessed myself how an ex-GA class article got recently demoted precisely for having references in the lead, among other reasons). And the singling out of IGN's number one positions has been added by you so you can also just remove it if you think it's now problematic. --Niemti (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm talking about the IGN claim and the IGN claim only. And no, it needs to be there for reasons explained about a dozen times above, and yes it needs a cite. bridies (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely spurious about GAs having no cites in the lead. I quote again from the MOS on leads: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." bridies (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we're not quite on the same page here, requested input: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. bridies (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, and yeah, it got lots of Game of the Year type awards and such, but it was just before the Internet, and also some 18 years ago. So the Game of Ever awards will have to do. --Niemti (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving on
Several sources including IGN and GameSpot claim the game was released in 1993 (specifically "Dec 31, 1993" in the US, according to GameSpot). I think I'm quite sure it wasn't, with Gollop himself repeatedly saying the PC version wasn't even ready before March 1994, and I believe the US version arrived there even later. I decided to ignore the date of 1993 altogether, and here I just want inform about it. --Niemti (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * GameSpot tends to be terrible with old release dates. bridies (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that it would have made no sense whatsoever to release a game on New Years Eve. I think we can discount that date simply based on how ludicrous it is.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

- some links are dead, "PC Gamer's top 100 PC Games of all time". PC Gamer. February 5, 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-15. - is there any alternate source for this? http://www.gamesradar.com/f/pc-gamers-top-100-pc-games-of-all-time/a-2010012911133649022/p-5 Thelux12 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit
I've started copy editing for basic grammar and such but have been pressed for time today and have only done about half. I should get the rest done tomorrow morning. Aside from the basic grammar and such, here's some points to consider more regarding the tone and style:
 * Plot section
 * I mentioned an in-universe syle. One issue here is the use of dates. The game has a near-future setting, but the dates used are now in the past. So just dropping them in the way the article does makes it seem like it's referring to a real-world historical event, or at least that the game is set in the past. At least clarify this was then a near-future setting.
 * And the main issue is the excitable tone, which should be cooler and more detached. E.g. the "secret defense and research paramilitary organization" is pretty ostentatious. "fail miserably", "more and more", "creatures of immense mental power" and such are pretty emotional; suggest either toning it down or quoting from something if you want to include strong subjectivity.
 * I'd trim the use of in-universe names, specifically I'd rewrite The nations of the world come to perceive this as a threat and attempt to form their own forces to deal with this, such as Japan's Kiryu-Kai force. However, these forces fail miserably, the Kiryu-Kai not intercepting a single UFO in its five months of operation as ''The nations of the world come to perceive this as a threat and attempt to form their own forces to deal with it. However, these forces fail miserably, with Japan's force not intercepting a single UFO in its five months of operation.
 * A more minor point: "Alien Brain" is in quotation marks, but stuff like Geoscape and Battlescape (in the game play section) is not. bridies (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks better now. I'll try and post up some reference material I have; however this will probably take several days. bridies (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviews
Here's the Electronic Gaming Monthly review in brief, for a start. This is for the PlayStation version, but EGM was one of the biggest overall gaming magazines around at the time. Somewhat inconveniently, it uses a panel format, with 4 mini-reviews and 4 scores. Make of that what you will.... Also note the inconsistent capitalisation of X-COM/X-Com/X-com is straight from the source. Anyway: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridies (talk • contribs)
 * Andrew Baran, 9.5
 * Calls the graphics "average, but its in-depth gameplay and terrific strategy will win you over. The difficulty may be a bit extreme, but you can keep going back to it. The range of missions and the diversity keep it fresh"... notes that the other reviewers prefer the PS mouse, but says "I like the controller better." Then says: "X-com's a must buy. There is so much to do, you really get your money's worth. You can keep playing this one for months. Hard as hell, but great."
 * Mark LeFebvre 9.5
 * If you could afford to buy one game for the PS over the next year, X-COM would be it. It has it all and then some! The PC port has the same look and feel as the original, especially when accompanied by the new PS mouse." Some hyperbole about it being like 5-way blindfolded chess. Calls it an "extremely addictive title."
 * Mike Desmond 8.5
 * Also says the graphics make the game look average "At first glance", but says: "The game is like chess with a pulse. In-depth strategy and varying enemies with different attributes are what makes this game worthwhile and fun to play. The interface is tedious and difficult to use with the PlayStation controller, but the PlayStation mouse makes it easier. Any person who likes strategy games will fall in love with this title."
 * Sushi-X 8.0
 * This is the lowest score but the sentiments are pretty similar to Desmond's tbh. Also, this one is less than ideal as Sushi-X was used as a pen name for a load of writers over the years. I think this was during David Siller's time but I'm not sure there's any way of knowing.
 * Full cite: Electronic Gaming Monthly Jan 1996 (issue 78), p. 38 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, do you want to take a shot at incorporating some of that into the article? Like in maybe one paragraph? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fan-made utilities and remake that allows this game to run on Windows 7 and 8
Should we create a new section for:
 * XcomUtil
 * UFO extender: allows the game to run on Windows 7
 * OpenXcom: complete reprogramming remake with many new options.

Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on UFO: Enemy Unknown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026175106/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/making-x-com-enemy-unknown to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/making-x-com-enemy-unknown
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308022717/http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/AboutUs.htm to http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/AboutUs.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/april96/xcom.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103113149/http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features to http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/july01/top502ase/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NO5FXXr?url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309200739/http://gamestar.ru/english/julian_gollop_inteview_in_english.html to http://gamestar.ru/english/julian_gollop_inteview_in_english.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UFO: Enemy Unknown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901002618/http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/150/150686p1.html to http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/150/150686p1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on UFO: Enemy Unknown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130222045149/http://gry.wp.pl/galeria/gry-ktore-zabraly-nam-dziecinstwo-najbardziej-uzalezniajace-produkcje-sprzed-lat,179101/8.html to http://gry.wp.pl/galeria/gry-ktore-zabraly-nam-dziecinstwo-najbardziej-uzalezniajace-produkcje-sprzed-lat,179101/8.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426193342/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/24/best-strategy-games/7/ to http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/24/best-strategy-games/7/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102182341/http://www.1up.com/features/hall-of-fame?pager.offset=8 to http://www.1up.com/features/hall-of-fame?pager.offset=8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629144115/http://games.ign.com/halloffame/x-com-ufo-defense.html to http://games.ign.com/halloffame/x-com-ufo-defense.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513151517/http://www.1up.com/features/cover-essential-100-part-one to http://www.1up.com/features/cover-essential-100-part-one
 * Added tag to http://www.1up.com/features/essential-90-xcom-ufo-defense,

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

New reference
An article in Wireframe, where Gollop talks about difficulties of testing the game:. It may be enough for a paragraph. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:X-COM: UFO Defense


text:
Radek Dvořák

Radek Dvořák (born March 9, 1977) is a Czech former professional ice hockey right winger. Dvořák was drafted in the first round of the 1995 NHL Entry Draft, tenth overall, by the Florida Panthers. A veteran of 1,260 NHL games, Radek has played for the Panthers, New York Rangers, Edmonton Oilers, St. Louis Blues, Atlanta Thrashers, Dallas Stars, Anaheim Ducks and the Carolina Hurricanes.

Florida Panthers
Dvořák began his NHL career as an 18-year-old with the Florida Panthers in the 1995–96 season. In 77 games, Dvořák scored 13 goals and 27 points, as the Panthers reached the playoffs for the first time in club history. Dvořák helped the Panthers to the 1996 Stanley Cup Finals, earning four points in 16 games. He saw his numbers improve in his second season, scoring 18 goals and 39 points in 78 games to finish fourth in team scoring. He missed 18 games during the 1997–98 NHL season, but still scored 12 goals and 24 assists for 36 points. In his fourth season, Dvořák played in every game, scoring 19 goals and 43 points. He scored four shorthanded goals which placed him in a tie for fourth in the NHL. In 1999–2000, Dvořák scored 7 goals and 17 points in 35 games before being traded. On December 30, 1999, the Panthers traded him to the San Jose Sharks in exchange for Mike Vernon and the Sharks' third-round pick in the 2000 NHL Entry Draft, after which the Sharks traded Dvořák to the New York Rangers for Todd Harvey and the Rangers' fourth-round pick in the 2001 NHL Entry Draft.

New York Rangers
Dvořák finished the 1999–2000 season with the Rangers, scoring 11 goals and 33 points in 46 games. In 2000–01, Dvořák was placed on a line with fellow Czechs Petr Nedvěd and Jan Hlavac and he would have a breakout season. In 79 games, Dvořák scored 31 goals and 36 assists for 67 points to finish fourth in team scoring. However, the Rangers would once again miss the playoffs. Dvořák saw his production fall during the 2001–02 season, scoring 17 goals and 37 points in 65 games. His production continued to fall during the 2002–03 season, as Dvořák had six goals and 27 points in 63 games with the Rangers. On March 11, 2003, the Rangers traded Dvořák and Cory Cross to the Edmonton Oilers in exchange for Anson Carter and Aleš Píša.

Edmonton Oilers
Dvořák appeared in 12 games with the Oilers in 2002–03, scoring four goals and eight points, as Edmonton qualified for the playoffs. In his first playoff action since 1997, Dvorak scored a highlight reel goal in which he skated from end to end, scoring a game-winning goal. It would be his only point in four playoff games. Dvořák returned to the Oilers in 2003–04, where he scored 15 goals and 50 points in 78 games, however, Edmonton failed to make the playoffs. During the 2004–05 NHL lockout, Dvorak played with HC České Budějovice. He returned to the Oilers in 2005–06, where he had only eight goals and 28 points in 64 games. In the playoffs, Dvořák had two assists in 16 games, as the Oilers lost to the Carolina Hurricanes in the 2006 Stanley Cup Finals. He left the Oilers during the off-season, as he signed a one-year contract with the St. Louis Blues on September 14, 2006.

St. Louis Blues
Dvořák spent the 2006–07 season with the Blues, where in 82 games, he scored 10 goals and recorded 27 assists for 37 points. The Blues failed to qualify for the playoffs, and Dvořák left as a free agent after the season, returning to the Florida Panthers on July 1, 2007.

Florida Panthers
Dvořák returned to his original NHL team in the 2007–08 season. In 67 games with the Panthers, Dvořák had only 8 goals and 17 points. He saw his numbers rebound in the 2008–09 season, with 15 goals and 36 points in 81 games. On July 1, 2009, Dvořák signed a two-year, $3.4 million contract extension with Florida. In the 2009–10 season, he had 14 goals and 32 points in 76 games. On December 7, 2009, he played in his 1,000th NHL game against his former club, the Edmonton Oilers, at the BankAtlantic Center.

During the 2010–11 season, the Panthers honoured Dvořák for playing more career games as a Panther than anyone in franchise history on November 23 before a game against the Pittsburgh Penguins. In 53 games that year, Dvořák had 7 goals and 14 assists for 21 points.

Atlanta Thrashers
On February 28, 2011, the Panthers traded Dvořák (along with a fifth-round pick in the 2011 NHL Entry Draft) to the Atlanta Thrashers in exchange for Patrick Rissmiller and Niclas Bergfors.

Dallas Stars
On July 1, 2011, Dvořák signed a one-year, $1.5 million contract with the Dallas Stars. On December 1, 2011, Radek Dvořák recorded his 350th career assist.

Anaheim Ducks
During the 2012–13 NHL lockout, and as a free agent, Dvořák signed a contract with HC Davos of the Swiss National League A. He played in the final seven regular season games with Davos and contributed in their post-season campaign before he signed for the remainder of the shortened 2012–13 NHL season with the Anaheim Ducks on March 24, 2013.

Carolina Hurricanes
On September 3, 2013, it was announced by Carolina Hurricanes general manager Jim Rutherford that Dvořák would be invited to attend the Carolina Hurricanes' training camp. He subsequently signed a two-way contract with Carolina on October 2, 2013. He scored his first goal for the Hurricanes in the second period of a game against the Philadelphia Flyers.

Retirement
Dvořák retired from professional hockey on January 27, 2015, after 18 seasons and 1,260 games played in the NHL.

Transactions

 * July 8, 1995 — Florida Panthers 1st round draft choice, 10th overall in the 1995 NHL Entry Draft.
 * December 30, 1999 – Traded by the Florida Panthers to the San Jose Sharks in exchange for Mike Vernon.
 * December 30, 1999 – Traded by the San Jose Sharks to the New York Rangers in exchange for Todd Harvey.
 * March 11, 2003 – Traded by the New York Rangers, along with Cory Cross, to the Edmonton Oilers in exchange for Anson Carter and Aleš Píša.
 * September 14, 2006 – Signed as a free agent with the St. Louis Blues.
 * July 1, 2007 – Signed as a free agent with the Florida Panthers.
 * July 1, 2009 – Signed a two-year, $3.4 million contract extension with Florida.
 * February 28, 2011 – Traded by the Florida Panthers to the Atlanta Thrashers along with a fifth-round draft pick in exchange for Patrick Rissmiller and Niclas Bergfors.
 * July 1, 2011 – Signed a one-year contract worth $1.5 million with the Dallas Stars.
 * March 24, 2013 - Signed a one-year contract worth $675K with the Anaheim Ducks
 * October 2, 2013 - Signed a one-year contract worth $600K with the Carolina Hurricanes
 * January 27, 2015 - Retired from the NHL

title: Radek Dvořák


text:
Category talk:American English

Untitled
Since there is an article on Southern American English, shouldn't there also be articles on Northern American English, Western American English, and Eastern American English? Gringo300 15:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Likely (or, more precisely, we may need additional articles on named sub-dialects of American English, which will not actually correspond to the terms you proposed, since this isn't about arbitrary compass directions). But that has nothing to do with category maintenance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Category talk:American English


text:
Arsinoe I

Arsinoe I (Ἀρσινόη, 305 BC – after c. 248 BC) was queen of Egypt by marriage to Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

Life
Arsinoe I was the second daughter and youngest child born to King Lysimachus and Nicaea of Macedon. Her older siblings were Agathocles and Eurydice. Her ancestors were powerful—her paternal grandfather was Agathocles of Pella, a nobleman contemporary to King Philip II of Macedon. Her maternal grandfather was the Regent Antipater. Arsinoe I shared a name with her grandmother, though it is unknown whether it was the mother of Lysimachus or of Nicaea as both women remain unnamed in ancient sources. Little is known of her life prior to her marriage.

Queen
Between 289/88 and 281 BC, Arsinoe I married her distant maternal cousin, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, pharaoh of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The marriage was part of Ptolemy's alliance with her father against Seleucus I Nicator. Through her marriage, she became queen of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Together, she and Ptolemy had three children: Ptolemy III Euergetes, Lysimachus of Egypt, and Berenice.

Between after 279-274/3 BC Ptolemy's sister, Arsinoe II Philadelphos, arrived in Egypt. Arsinoe II had married Lysimachus and was therefore both step-mother and sister-in-law to Arsinoe I. Following the death of Lysimachus, Arsinoe II had married her half-brother, Ptolemy Keraunos, but fled to Egypt following a dispute. Soon after Arsinoe II's arrival, charges of conspiracy to assassinate Ptolemy II were brought against Arsinoe I.

As a result of the charges, Ptolemy II convicted Arsinoe I of plotting against him. He repudiated her then exiled her to Coptos in Upper Egypt. It is chronologically plausible that these events were also connected to the banishment of Ptolemy II's niece Theoxena, as Theoxena was sent to the Thebaid, perhaps to Coptos as well.

Afterwards, Ptolemy II married his sister, Arsinoe II, and after her death, his children with Arsinoe I were officially regarded as the children of Arsinoe II.

Later life
Arsinoe I lived in exile for twenty years. During her exile, she lived in great splendour and enjoyed considerable privilege, since she was the former wife of a pharaoh. Her first son with Ptolemy II succeeded his father after his death.

A surviving stele has been found at Coptos which refers to Arsinoe I. The Stele is of Senu-sher, a steward of Arsinoe I and the Stele is assigned to Arsinoe I's exile. The stele calls Arsinoe I the "king’s wife", but her name is not enclosed in the royal cartouche as was customary for an Egyptian queen. Another piece of surviving evidence connected to Arsinoe I is a Phoenician inscription found at Masub inscription, considered to originate from Umm al-Amad, which counts the year by the reign of "Ptolemy, lord of kings, (the) great, (the) beneficent, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoë, the gods-brothers". Larnakas tis Lapithou pedestal inscription, the Phoenician inscription found at Lapithos, Cyprus, which is dated in the 11th or 12th year in the reign of Ptolemy II, may refer to a sacrifice instituted by Yatonba’al on behalf of "the legitimate scion and his wife", hence refers to Arsinoe I. As Arsinoe I was disgraced as a traitor, the fact the person who did the sacrifice on her behalf strongly suggests that the news of her disgrace had not yet reached him.

Issue

 * Ptolemy III Euergetes.
 * Lysimachus
 * Berenice Phernophorus, married Antiochus II Theos, king of Syria.

title: Arsinoe I


text:
Category:Mountains of Mozambique

The mountains of Mozambique.

title: Category:Mountains of Mozambique


text:
M. F. Enterprises

M. F. Enterprises was a 1966–67 comic book publisher owned by artist and 1970s pulp-magazine entrepreneur Myron Fass, whose holdings also included the black-and-white horror comics magazine imprint Eerie Publications.

Overview
M.F.'s best-known character was Captain Marvel (no relation to the Fawcett Comics, DC Comics or Marvel Comics superheroes of that name), a crimefighting alien android who could detach his head, limbs and hands and send them flying off in all directions whenever he shouted "Split!" and reattach them when he shouted "Xam!".

M. F. Enterprises also published Henry Brewster, a teen-humor comic created by artist Bob Powell, which ran for seven issues from February 1966 to September 1967. It followed the adventures and misadventures of the titular red-headed all-American teenager and his friends: the big, squeaky-voiced jock "Animal"; the brainy, bespectacled "Weenie"; and the beautiful Debbie and Melody. Their teacher was a former secret agent named Mr. Secrett, who was always happy to lend a handy gadget when needed.

Although the M. F. Enterprises brand stopped publishing comics in 1967, publisher Myron Fass continued to publish Great West magazine under the imprint, as well as with his Eerie Publications line of black-and-white mostly horror comic magazines until 1981.

Titles published

 * Captain Marvel (4 issues, April – November 1966)
 * Captain Marvel Presents The Terrible Five (2 issues, August 1966 – September 1967) — Vol.1, No. 1 and Vol.2, No. 5 (continues the numbering of Captain Marvel)
 * Great West (1966–1974) [Magazine]
 * Henry Brewster (7 issues, February 1966 – September 1967)

title: M. F. Enterprises


text:
Talk:Pneumoconiosis

Untitled
Is that stuff about black beans real? Or am I just an idiot who got duped. - kaliyarivet

doesn't the lung have mucous and cilia to remove particles like this? - Omegatron 15:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but fine particles do get deposited in the lungs all the time. Particles such as silica dust and asbestos fibers that cannot be removed by the macrophages can cause respiratory diseases. Hfwd 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The small particulate matter under 2.5 micrometers in size is not removed by the body, and accumulate over time. Some other sources of this dust include wood dust from woodworking or construction activity, and fiberglass that breaks off of loose or batt fiberglass insulation. Some this dust is large enough to be visible to the naked eye, but some of it is too small to see and is missed by filters.  Most air filtration systems and vacuum cleaners are unable to trap much of that dust, and end up pumping more of the dust through the house, unless HEPA filters are used. That this dust will eventually cause respiratory illness is generally agreed by workplace regulatory agencies in the US (OSHA) and Europe. See this source: :

 * Research shows that exposure to airborne dust affects our health in different ways. The larger airborne dust particles cause skin irritation and rashes, make us sneeze and cough and leave us with watery eyes and runny noses. Continued excessive airborne dust exposure leads to deeper coughs, sinus infections, and lung infections followed by permanent lung damage, emphysema, and worse. Additionally, many dusts such as airborne wood dust contain toxic chemicals that can increase irritation, promote infections, poison us, cause permanent nerve damage, cause us to build up potentially life threatening allergies, and increase our risk of cancer. Before working with any wood we should consult a good wood toxicity table such as.

 * Additionally, some fine particles such as fiberglass, asbestos, and fine invisible wood contain sharp barbed particles. Our bodies do a pretty good job of getting rid of the larger visible particles, but these invisible particles sized under 10-microns, roughly one seventh the thickness of a human hair slip right past our natural protections. The sharp barbed particles then get stuck in our tissues causing damage leading to scaring and long term respiratory capacity loss. These trapped particles also continue to release toxic chemicals long after the exposure ends. Over time this damage builds and our immune systems weaken with age. Like smoking, many woodworkers and others exposed to fine dust will never show worse symptoms, but most develop significant loss in overall respiratory capacity, about one in seven develops serious allergic reactions, and others more severe reactions that lead to eye, ear, nose, throat, respiratory, and skin problems.

76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Bill Pentz--76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Luciuskwok 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "Research shows the most long term health problems come from exposure to airborne dust." That's crap. :-) The most common long-term health problems, like heart disease, cancers, diabetes, fibromyalgia, arthritis, high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with airborne dust. The only common health problem that I can think of that has something to do with dust is asthma, and it might not even be caused by dust (one problem with that is why asthma rates are increasing in areas where the air pollution has decreased). I believe that the person made that statement to sell products that are supposed to reduce airborne dust. He has a big advertisement for one product (they thank him on their website and recommend that people visit his website) and he sells ad space for woodworking products.
 * People have made similar claims for many other things. For example, people might say that undigested food that stays in your intestines is the number one cause of disease (they call it intestinal plaque, but it does not really exist according to surgeons and coroners). Then they'll sell you some clay that expands inside you when it gets wet. Then you'll have what is probably the most painful bowel movement of your life and think that the black stuff is toxins when it is really the expanded clay. Other people might say that household mold, processed food, lead paint or carbohydrates is the biggest cause of health problems, but it is all nonsense. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the discussion from this page is either taken from or paraphrased from my Cyclone and Dust Collection Research pages. A late 1999 exposure to extremely strong sensitizing wood dust gave me a very nasty allergic reaction that evolved into severe pneumonia. I had been thoroughly checked for allergies not long before and the testing showed no allergic reactions. Additionally, just three months prior I installed the then top rated small shop cyclone based dust collection system with vendor designed and supplied ducting and their best finest filter that was the whole basis of their advertising campaign promising excellent health protection. Allergy testing showed with nasty welts I was seriously allergic. Paying a certified air quality inspector showed my garage based shop and attached home were badly contaminated. My pulmonary doctor sent me home for extended bed rest with orders to figure out what happened and how to better protect my family and me. The more I researched the more confused I became because really big name institutions were saying fine dusts, particularly wood dusts were either deadly or only mild irritants. OSHA standards allowed up to 5 milligrams of fine dust per cubic meter or air, but EPA standards only allowed 0.1 milligrams for a cubic meter of air. Two different controlling government agencies, OSHA for industrial work places and EPA for office buildings, hospitals, etc. had a fifty times different level of acceptable. More digging found insurance companies that showed fine wood dust causes all kinds of serious short and long term health problems. After lots of research I discovered what caused my problems. I learned almost all small shop vendors sold filters rated for outdoor use, meaning they are rated after they have built up a cake of particles trapped in the filter matrix that does not come out with normal cleaning. During this seasoning process which can take a year in a typical small shop, fine dust goes right through explaining why my expensive so called fine filters pushed the dust right through. Like an idiot my keeping all closed up let that unhealthiest invisible dust build to dangerously high levels. That fine dust so quickly clogs filters fine enough to protect our health, fine filters need to be huge to avoid plugging right away. Worse, the more we clean filters the shorter they last. I had worked with cyclonic separators since 1994 and had some ideas on how to greatly increase their separation. Improved separation would reduce the loading reducing cleaning and extending fine filter life. It took me a while, but I built a much finer separating cyclone that reduced filter cleaning roughly six fold and extended filter life from a typical three months of full time work to years.

When I shared my solution with my pulmonary doctor he got really excited and talked me into writing with his help a long article on my cyclone with his editing the medical portions. That single post generated over 10,000 emails in just a few weeks, so we wrote two follow up articles which generated even more interest. My Cyclone and Dust Collection Research web pages went up to share our initial articles along with our responses to the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s. This apparently was the right topic at the right time because in short order almost every major name in dust collection and many top medical researchers contacted me with suggestions. The amount of information on how to do things right was overwhelming, and in good faith I just kept adding more and more. Then, one of my fellow university engineering instructors wrote me a really long email that shared lots of what I had been sharing was dead wrong because it was based on how high pressure air behaves instead of how low pressure dust collection airflows behave. He was absolutely correct and I ended up having to redo considerable material. When my site was repaired to show real airflows and dust collection it created a very bad situation as almost every single tool and dust collection vendor offered solutions that actually made small shop dust levels dangerously high. I developed standard procedures for my university and engineer friends to test almost every major brand woodworking shop vacuum, dust collector, cyclone based dust collector, and air cleaner. All results were independently checked with certified test equipment. We found most vendors advertised maximum airflows which are about double working airflows, and almost all sold filters that filtered ten to twenty times worse than advertised. We shared our test results on my site finally giving people a way to do accurate apples to apples comparisons. Within three days of sharing that test information I was threatened with five different law suits and my attorney required me to remove that test data and almost all vendor names from my site. He said we would win every one of those suits, but at a cost of at least $25,000 for each suit, being right would soon wipe me out financially, plus during the suits the courts would force me to not just take down the test data, but also pull down my entire site and all its information.

The above nonsense complaint is exactly what the vendor shills said on almost every woodworking forum. They made one false claim after another about what I said then shot me and my site down for saying something so ridiculous that I never said in the first place. Further, these same vendors used their advertising might to get me banned from almost every Internet woodworking forum. Frankly, my priorities were elsewhere. My health had worsened with so many repeated bouts of pneumonia I was left bedridden on full time supplemental oxygen and not expected to live much longer. While I recovered many knowledgeable people and firms slowly countered that nonsense. Soon I was invited back not only to join most of the forums, a few of them asked me to start specialty groups to discuss how to get good fine dust collection. I also was asked to oversee almost all of the major magazine testing. Even the magazines had problems where their advertisers threatened to stop paying for ads if some of the test results were shared. Regardless, my web pages went back to sharing what I learned about how to get good small shop fine dust collection. Meanwhile, now about 15,000 small shops worldwide follow my advice and use cyclones of my design. I made nothing off this site except a few advertising dollars to help offset the considerable costs to keep this page going. Years after I shared my designs and put this site up and running, I authorized a firm to make cyclones of my design in trade for a royalty on each unit they sell. So, I do now get something from their sales, but still have spent far more on this project than it has ever returned financially. Moreover, I'd gladly trade all the nonsense for not having had to go through these health challenges. Bill Pentz (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Bill Pentz Bill Pentz (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Means exactly the same"?
The following statement is not quite true:
 * The term "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" was coined in 1935 as the putative longest word in the English language, but means exactly the same as pneumoconiosis

According to the pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis page, the meanings are slightly different; the longer word is specifically used for a pneumoconiosis due to a volcano. I removed the section, but if someone wants to re-word it to make it more accurate, please go ahead. Alki 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the above also wrongly identified me as someone selling a product. In 1999 I shared my improved cyclone design with building instructions on the Internet. Thousands of woodworkers world wide now use cyclones of my design. Five years after I shared that design I added an advertisement for a firm that builds a clear version of my cyclone. They pay me a small advertizing commission on sales which helps support my efforts, but saying that my efforts were built to or even now just sell a product is more of the same kind of nonsense that the vendor community keeps putting out about their actual airflows, separation ability, and personal protection offered by their cyclones and dust collectors. Those who have been buying the portable particle counters have near universally realized that residual fine dust is a bigger problem than our exposures when making fine dust. Anyhow, just wanted to set the record straight. --76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Bill Pentz03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)~

I propose that the page Dust Pneumonia should be deleted and reference to Dust Pneumonia as a common misnomer for Dust Bowl pneumoconiosis should be added to this page. I am a total Wiki newb and don't know how to go about it, though. Help, please?JLA87 (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Pentz, if you're refering to my post as "the above" then must admit I have utterly no idea what you're talking about, sorry. If you're talking about something else, please ignore. Alki (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"In addition, it has been speculated that astronauts subject to prolonged exposure to lunar dust..."
I speculate that any as yet unencountered particulates may cause forms of pneumoconiosis. Hardly encyclopaedic though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowt (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pneumoconiosis VS. Pulmonary fibrosis
Except for the ICD number, pneumoconiosis is only an class of pulmonary fibrosis from occupational origin. I think that this article can very well be merged in the main article about this pulmonary disease.--Leon saudanha (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think pneumoconiosis is important enough to warrant its own entry. Also, I don't agree with the statement that "pneumoconiosis is only a[ ] class of pulmonary fibrosis from occupational origin." The defining characteristic of pneumoconiosis as distinguished from pulmonary fibrosis generally is that pneumoconiosis is caused by dust inhalation. Also, although pneumoconiosis is often occupational, that is not necessarily so or part of its definition. - N'Awlins Contrarian 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)

Need help with pinpoint citations
For some of the basic medical propositions, I added a link to a standard reference. However, I am not aware of how to put pinpoint cites to the pages in the long-ish medical journal article that this article now cites. Can someone do that for me? It should be: "Pneumoconiosis often causes restrictive impairment,[add pinpoint citation to pp. 697 & 700] although diagnosable pneumoconiosis can occur without measurable impairment of lung function.[add pinpoint citation to pp. 691 & 692]" Thanks! N'Awlins Contrarian 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

English
Give me a 20 difficult words with meaning 222.127.191.241 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pneumoconiosis


text:
Liftershalte

A liftershalte or liftplaats (in the Dutch language) is a spot (halte means stop, like in bushalte), marked by an official sign, where a hitchhiker (lifter) can easily be picked up by car drivers. In the Netherlands these spots can be found at the following places (2024):

 * Amsterdam: at the Prins Bernhardplein before NS Station Amsterdam Amstel (pass the bus stop), road that leads to the ramp of the S112 of the A10. (direction A1 and A2).

 * Groningen: at the Emmaviaduct, the road to the A28, 200 meter westwards of the Centraal Station (richting Assen) and at the Europaweg at the crossing with the Damsterdiep (direction Germany).

 * Sneek and Heeg: local liftershaltes connecting these places. The liftplaats in Heeg can be found on De Skatting, just after the crossroads with Tollewei and the liftplaats in Sneek on the Kanaalstraat between the entrance of the P+R (Park+Ride) and the petrolstation.

 * Langweer/Sint Nicolaasga: there are two local liftershaltes
 * On the Langwarderdyk in the direction of Langweer.
 * At the start of the Brédyk in the direction of Sint Nicolaasga.

 * Utrecht ramp of the Waterlinieweg near Galgenwaard stadium (north-bound A27 and A28 and south-bound A12, A2 and A27).

 * Zoetermeer: at the bus stop Pruimengaarde on the Australieweg. Combined bus stop/hitchhiking spot eastwards A12 to Utrecht. And at the bus stop Fonteinbos on the Afrikaweg. Combined bus stop/hitchhiking spot directions The Hague, Rotterdam, Delft.

 * Nijmegen: Just after the Keizer Traianus plein, before the bridge over the Waal, in the direction of Arnhem. And on the Graafseweg just after the Keizer Karel plein, in the direction of 's-Hertogenbosch.

In the past there were also liftershaltes in:
 * Amsterdam: N200 direction Haarlem
 * The Hague: next to the Malieveld, at the beginning of the A12 (direction Utrecht). Officially doesn't exist anymore: sign has gone. But location is still good for hitchhiking.
 * Enschede: on Westerval, at the Parkweg (direction A1), receded 2006.
 * Maastricht: at the beginning of the A2 near the soccer stadium De Geusselt situated on a very good location to hitchhike to (Viaductweg x N2/A2) (direction Eindhoven) and the A79 (direction Heerlen), receded in 2012.
 * Leeuwarden: reportedly had an official hitch-hiking spot

title: Liftershalte