text:
Talk:Superior highly composite number

The same as colossally abundant numbers?
Aren't these the same thing as Colossally abundant numbers???? The articles should be combined if so.Scythe33 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but it appears they are different. In the definition of superior highly composite number, the exponent is required to be > 0, whereas in the definition of colossally abundant number, the exponent is required to be > 1, so every colossally abundant number is superior highly composite, but not conversely. See also the links to the encyclopedia of integer sequences. Revolver 6 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
 * They're two completely different things. Superior highly composite numbers are defined in terms of number of divisors (d function); colossally abundant numbers are defined in terms of sum of divisors (sigma function).  DPJ, 16 Aug 2005 6:13 UTC
 * According to OEIS data the first 15 numbers of both series are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.181.209 (talk)
 * Yes, and then they have differences with both sequences containing numbers not in the other. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Further research shows that the definition is wrong. (At 14:27, 14 June 2005 Scythe33 changed the definition; the article was right the first time.) According to the definition supplied by Scythe33, every highly composite number would qualify. DPJ, 16 Aug 2005 6:21 UTC

Why isn't n=1 included as a superior highly composite number? Putting $$ \epsilon $$ = 1, we get $$ d(k)/k \le 1 = d(1)/1 $$, which suggests that 1 is a superior highly composite number. DRLB 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm...
Wow, this is densely packed information. There's a formal definition given, which I'm sure is easy to understand for mathematicians, but I'm no slouch at math myself and it's clear as mud to me. Can someone give an informal definition?  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I cannot think of a good less formal definition. An example might be better (not formatted properly for article space). Consider ε=0.6. Rounded to 3 decimals, the value of d(k)/k^0.6 for k = 1, 2, ... is 1.000, 1.320, 1.035, 1.306, 0.761, 1.365, 0.622, 1.149, 0.803, 1.005, ... It can be proved (skipped here) that the value for k=6, d(6)/6^0.6 = 1.365, is the largest value in this infinite sequence. Therefore 6 is a superior highly composite number. The same value of ε can never be used for two distinct superior highly composite numbers, since at most one of them can give the maximal value of d(k)/k^ε. Does this help? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there may be boundary values of ε where distinct superior highly composite numbers give the same maximal value of d(k)/k^ε. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I get it. So... if I take a positive integer, and divide its # of divisors by the original number raised to the power of ε (which is just any positive number), and the result I get is the maximum for that function, than the positive integer I used must be a superior highly composite number. If I'm right, than you have explained this very well (and I realize it's really difficult to give any less formal of a definition than what the article states... thank you very much!).  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  09:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You are right. I will add a better formatted example to the article later. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I still don't get it although I am supposed to be a mathematician, epsilon-(delta) never was my forte though. --84.208.152.226 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I feel your pain. A while ago I added in the first sentence that it was a more restrictive definition of "compositeness" than a highly-composite number (the definition of which is way easier to understand).
 * My goal was for the first sentence to get the basic idea down in English, with the lack of an illustrative mathematical explanation beyond the following formula to serve as a warning, but I think it can be further improved by saying "Know ye who read past the lead, this definition eludes intuitive analysis, so if thou seeketh compositeness, verify that highly composite number be not sufficient." SamuelRiv (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is 840 an example?
There has been controversy over whether 840 should be included in the list: asserts that it should. However, disagrees. Deltahedron (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don,t understand the definition of highly composite numners. 94.254.209.29 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't see the controversy, since a counterexample range in which to search is easy to find and quick to search to very high numbers, though those will still diverge. The easiest way to check counterexamples, is only to compare the two existing SHC numbers above and below 840, and see (using plotting software like Mathematica) if there's any epsilon range for which they both satisfy the inequality. My Mma code, factoring out 840^eps, was this:

Plot[{32 - 24*(7/3)^eps, 32 - 48*(1/3)^eps}, {eps, .2, 1}]
 * The nearest they got to both being positive was at eps=.355. Of course, a plot isn't necessary, since you can quickly check thousands of possibilities by either looking only in the range of epsilons at which consecutive SHC#'s are valid and manually checking anything that misses the inequality, or compare the intersection and slopes of two curves in epsilon to find where they peak. Many ways to do it.
 * tldr; no, 840 is provably not a SHC number. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition?
This:

In mathematics, a superior highly composite number is a natural number which has more divisors than any other number scaled relative to the number itself

should be defined. Wlod (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 * It was originally a lose description after the definition [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_highly_composite_number&oldid=590513795] but then the lead was restructured so it sounded like the definition itself while the actual definition sounded like a derived property. I don't have time to improve it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Factors of the first seventeen SHCNs
I obviously did not work this out by hand. :-) I did this for putting in the article, but they quickly became walls of text so enormous that I truncated it at the tenth SHCN (720720) – which already has every integer from 1 to 16 as a divisor!

see: /Factors

A neat illustration of just how superior highly composite these numbers are, I guess, but an impenetrable wall of text for the last few. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The need to normalize the graphs
This graph: ...and the graph below it: File:Highly_composite_numbers.svg both present good information. But this isn't the best info to present in order to communicate how highly composite a number is. One of the most important math concepts when analyzing data is normalization. For example, we don't say that China is a much more highly composite country than, say, Luxembourg. You expect there to be a much wider range of diversity of people within a country of more than a billion people than you would with a small country. So the important info jumps forward when you normalize the stats. How diverse is the population with respect to the size of the population? This is why you see "per capita" used so often. If you fail to normalize your data, important aspects within your dataset can get buried. Ok, now back to the topic of this article...

The key info to present in the graph is not merely how many divisors are within any number. You obviously expect there to be more divisors for larger numbers. So to capture the actual composite quality of any number, it must be normalized to the size of the number. One normalization method is to do a straight division of the number of divisors by the integer. But more meaningful info comes forward when the # of divisors is normalized by the method of dividing by the square of the integer. And a strong argument says that the proper normalization method is to divide the # of divisors by the cube of the integer. The argument for normalizing with a higher power of the integer is that divisors are not used to form a one-dimensional entity. A divisor need to be multiplied by something else in order to get back to the integer, so it can be considered to be an area or a volume-type of parameter (analogous to area/volume). And so the proper normalization is by dividing by the square or the cube of the integer.

When these graphs are properly normalized, then the special status of the numbers 12 and 60 become evident. But as the graphs stand today, all it really communicates is that "there are more people in China". Yes, it does an adequate job of showing that 360 is a special number. But these graphs have buried the reality of how much more special the composite qualities of 12 and 60 are. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the whole point of superior highly composite numbers: you have that n−ε factor in the formula that scales the divisor function by some power of the number. Depending on what power you use, any of the superior highly composite numbers can have its turn at being the maximum; 2, 6, 12, 60, 120, 360, 2520, and so on. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the problem being highlighted is that the graphs do not show this.-- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another way to understand the need for proper normalization...
 * Consider the graph in the thumbnail above. Say that the x-axis and y-axis are scaled one-to-one.  Then you can picture that there is an envelope ramping up and to the right from the origin at a 45-degree angle, representing the theoretical very best you can do with the magnitude of the number of divisors.  So one proper normalization technique would be to scale the number of divisors as the percentage up to this theoretical maximum.-- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Superior highly composite number or Convergence Point
I tweaked the opening statement... In mathematics, a superior highly composite number or convergence point is a natural number which has more divisors than any other number scaled relative to some positive power of the number itself. It is a stronger restriction than that of a highly composite number, which is defined as having more divisors than any smaller positive integer. 50.245.89.150 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wording of the beginning sentence
I believe it needs to be reworded in a way that's more intuitive than how it is now. I made the (now reverted) change because I believed "when adjusted for magnitude" seemed much easier to understand than "scaled relative to some positive power of the number itself". For example, when I first read this, I thought "the number itself" was referring to the natural number in question, not just "any" number scaled relative to the same power of "any" number. What about a middle ground between my change and how it is now? Avengingbandit 20:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it gives the definition in words although it may be hard to understand and require some interpretation. "adjusted for magnitude" is not a definition without saying how the adjustment is made, which is impossible to guess in this case where the adjustment method is complicated and invented specificially for these numbers. Apart from being vague, I also think "adjusted for magnitude" is misleading because it would normally mean the same adjustment is made for all superior highly composite numbers. If that was the case then there could only be one number with more divisors than any other number "adjusted for magnitude". If we don't want a complicated definition and cannot make a simple definition then we shouldn't give something which sounds like a definition but isn't, and is misleading. How about: "a superior highly composite number is a natural number which has more divisors than any other number when adjusted for magnitude in a certain way which is a little different for each superior highly composite number." It may sound vague and clunky but it's correct. "in a certain way" makes it clear that this is not the actual definition, and "a little different for each superior highly composite number" explains how there could be more than one with more divisors than any other number. Without this part, many readers will probably think there must be an error in the sentence, e.g. that it should have said "more divisors than any smaller number". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The way you worded it makes it hard for me to tell if you're seriously suggesting "in a certain way which is a little different" wording; I would not be opposed to that if you are. Another suggestion of mine would be "more divisors than any other number when divided by some positive power of itself"? Replaces "scaled" with "divided" and "the number itself" with just "itself". You may not find that necessary but as a fellow reader I'd like to be able to clearly and unambiguously understand what I'm reading. I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. Avengingbandit 02:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@L 106.79.204.198 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Superior highly composite number


text:
Talk:Japanese Korean Army

The title
I moved the title from Chosen Army of Japan to Japanese Korean Army since this is the only common name in English sources as I briefly addressed in the edit summary while moving. --Caspian blue 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 0 on "Chosen Army of Japan" at Google scholar
 * 2 on "Chosen Army of Japan" at Google books (unreliable book whose contents are copied from Wikipedia)
 * 0 on "Chosen Army of Japan" at Google news
 * 1 on "Japanese Chosen Army" at Google books
 * 1 on "Japanese Chosen Army" at Google scholar
 * 0 on "Japanese Chosen Army" at Google news
 * 1 on "Japanese Korean Army" at Google scholar
 * 25 on "Japanese Korean Army" Google books
 * 0 on "Japanese Korean Army" Google news
 * 0 on "Korean Army of Japan" at Google scholar
 * 0 on "Korean Army of Japan". Google books
 * 0 on "Korean Army of Japan" Google news
 * 0 on "Chosen-gun" Google news
 * 0 on "Chosengun" Google news

 * The term Chōsen Army appears in the following Western-language sources, among numerous others:

The Google Books search gives several hits for Japanese Korean Army, but the seach engine also picks up the wording anti-Japanese Korean Army in its count, as well as instances of the phrase Japanese, Korean Army out of context. A number of reputable historians including Peter Duss use the term Chōsen Army, so it is not accurate to state that "Japanese Korean Army" is the only common name. --MChew (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackburn, Carl. Forgotten Captives in Japanese-Occupied Asia. Routledge (2008), ISBN 0415426359, page 114
 * Clark, Donald N. Living Dangerously in Korea: The Western Experience, 1900-1950. Eastbridge (2003). ISBN 1891936115, page 287
 * Duss, Peter. The Japanese Wartime Empire, 1931-1945. Princeton University Press (1996), ISBN 0691043825, page 29
 * Humphreys, Leonard A. The Way of the Heavenly Sword:the Japanese Army in the 1920s. Stanford University Press (1995), ISBN 0804723753 page 23
 * Millett, Allan R. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. University Press of Kansas (2005). ISBN 0700613935. Page 5
 * Rottman, Gordon L. Japanese Army in World War II: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42. Osprey Publishing (2005) ISBN 1841767891. Page 10
 * Thanks, but your sources do not still outnumber the number of sources to back up current title even though all matters are considered. The "presented sources" is the best one because "chosen" is the past tense of "choose", so just the Google related hits are very inaccurate. The term is also way much used for Israel-Palestine or bible-related subjects as well as other military topics such as Chinese armies. So "Chosen Army" is inherently "ambiguous", and "inaccurate" while there is absolutely not hit for "Chosen Army of Japan". So I don't think the retitle is a wise solution. If you insist that the macaroon should be used, well, I don't see that much in your source.--Caspian blue 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Japanese Korean Army


text:
Talk:Vidoll

Untitled
For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Vidoll

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vidoll. 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/20090113084935/http://ameblo.jp/vidoll-giru to http://ameblo.jp/vidoll-giru/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vidoll


text: Category:Bridges in Tennessee

title: Category:Bridges in Tennessee


text:
Talk:Monocacy Aqueduct

Now the renovations are complete, I'll try to get back for a new picture or two. Henryhartley 14:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monocacy Aqueduct


text:
Al Basty

Al Basty (Turkish: Albastı; Uzbek: Alvasti; Tatar, Kyrgyz, Kazakh: Албасты, Chuvash: Алпастă, Albasdı, Russian: Албасты́) or Al Kardai is an ancient female spirit, the personification of guilt, found in folklore throughout the Caucasus mountains, with origins going as far back as Sumerian mythology. Al means red, and bastı means pressure or pressing in Turkic languages.

Other languages

 * Bashkort: Албаҫты
 * Uzbek: Alvasti
 * Altai: Алвасти́
 * Turkmen: Албассы
 * Kyrgyz: Албарсты́
 * Nogai: Албаслы́
 * Kumyk: Албаслы́
 * Balkar: Алмасты́
 * Tajik: Албасти
 * Lezgian: Алпаб
 * Chechen: Алмазы
 * Yaghnobian: Албасты
 * Çuvaşça: Алпастă
 * Sogdian: Олбасты
 * Russian: Албасты́

Sumerian folklore
A variation of the Al Basti myth stretches back into Sumerian times as one of the names given to Lilith. In later Rabbinical interpretations of the Talmud, she was regarded as the first wife of Adam, cast out of Paradise for her willfulness and independence. In this form much of the mythology surrounding Lilith has also been ascribed, in different accounts, to Al Basti, though with local regional variances taken into account.

Turkic folklore
In Turkic folklore Al Basti has been often confused as both a Mare, a Succubus, as well as any number of Middle Eastern female spirits which are told to enter a man's erotic dreams. However, the difference in the Al Basti legends is that she is not a sexual spirit, she rather visits those “who have guilty souls” and “come from families that have committed bloody crimes that have gone unpunished.”

This spirit is mostly known as Al Karısı in Turkic folklore. It is believed that she mostly haunts women in their postpartum period which causes emergence of phycological problems. Therefore, traditional practices applied for 40 days for these women as a part of postpartum care.

According to scholar Özhan Öztürk those who Al Basti visits are said to wake up in ''“an intense fever ... She is also known to steal horses, who are found sweating and exhausted in the morning, and unable to provide a full day's work. Due to her torments, she is also known as the 'red mother'.”''

Armenian folklore
There is another version of Al Basti found in Armenian folklore, referred to simply as Āl, a ''“demon of childbirth who blinds unborn children and causes miscarriages and stillbirths to women who have committed crimes that have gone unpunished. In this form she appears as spirit of flame, with snake-like hair, brass fingernails and iron teeth ... [she] hides in damp places.”'' According to Ann and Imel there is a similar legend found in Afghanistan.

authors: Абдырашит Сатылганов

title: Al Basty


text:
Talk:Amit Kilam

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Amit Kilam

title: Talk:Amit Kilam


text:
Valencian Nationalist Bloc

The Valencian Nationalist Bloc (Bloc Nacionalista Valencià, Bloc or BNV; ) was a Valencian nationalist party in the Valencian Country, Spain. It was the largest party in the Coalició Compromís until 2021, when it was replaced in a refoundation process by Més–Compromís.

History
The Bloc was formed in 1998 as a result of the federation of several parties in a coalition formed for the 1995 regional elections. That group of parties was headed by Unitat del Poble Valencià (UPV, founded in 1982) which is the main predecessor of the current Bloc, together with other smaller parties, often locally based, such as the Valencian Nationalist Party (1990) or Alcoi Nationalists (1994).

The Bloc has historically defined itself as a left-wing party. This position shifted to a centrist or center-left position in the late nineties, as part of a strategy to appeal to a broader audience known as tercera via (third way). This strategy proved unsuccessful, especially due to their failure to attract enough of the regionalist vote in the 2003 regional elections. Then, for the 2007 Valencian regional elections to the Corts Valencianes, the Valencian regional parliament, the Bloc returned to a more left wing agenda as it ran in coalition with EUPV, the Valencian branch of Izquierda Unida, a coalition whose main member is the Communist Party (PCE). This coalition operated under the name of Compromís pel País Valencià. Compromís' results (seven seats) did not achieve their goal of growing and forming a front alongside the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) to oust the Partido Popular from the regional government. Still, they allowed Bloc to enter the autonomous Parliament (two seats) and secured EUPV representation as well (the remaining five seats).

However, a schism occurred soon after within the EUPV between the two more nationalist and social democratic MPs on the one side and the more communist and less nationalist remaining three members on the other. The former MPs were finally expelled from EUPV and went on to create a new party Iniciativa del Poble Valencià (Valencian People Initiative). In turn, they allied themselves with the Bloc, thus effectively gaining a majority for the nationalists in the coalition, while creating a climate of frigid relations between EUPV and Bloc for the remainder of the term, making the renewal of the pact for future polls unlikely in the short term.

For the 2008 General election the Bloc ran in coalition with other left wing, regional and green parties, such as Iniciativa del Poble Valencià. However, despite the fact that the list was headed by a sitting deputy, Isaura Navarro, their vote fell relative to 2004.

For the 2011 Valencian Regional elections, they stood in an electoral alliance with Iniciativa del Poble Valencià and other Green parties in a new coalition called Coalició Compromís. This coalition won a record of six seats in the Valencian parliament, and also won the first seat in history for a Valencian Nationalist force in the Spanish national parliament at the 2011 Spanish General Election.

Representation
The Bloc only runs elections held in the Valencian Community. Including its Unitat del Poble Valencià former era, until 2011 it had historically polled at around 4% of the votes in elections for the Valencian regional parliament, with significantly lower figures when running at Spanish general elections in Valencia.

Since 2011, it has been represented by Coalició Compromís, and became the third political force in the Land of Valencia, with 3 of 6 seats of Coalició Compromís in the Valencian parliament, about 385 seats in municipal councils and one seat in the Spanish parliament.

Coalitions
Bloc has been represented at the Valencian parliament three times, twice by means of a coalition with the Valencian branch of United Left.

Their first participation in this coalition was in 1987, under Bloc's "Unitat del Poble Valencià" (UPV) former name. According to the coalition pact, UPV was allotted two out of the six MPs. Internal tensions within the coalition and, especially, within the UPV, led to its disbanding. These events were the start of the process which led to the demise of UPV and its refoundation as BLOC.

Still, both parties (under new names, Bloc for UPV and Esquerra Unida del País Valencià, EUPV, for United Left) agreed to repeat their coalition for the 2007 regional elections, in order to secure if only joint representation, something which was at stake if they participated by themselves. This renewed coalition, called Compromís pel País Valencià, indeed achieved representation with seven MPs, two of which corresponded to Bloc according to the coalition pact rules. Internal dissent plagued again the coalition, this time predating especially on its EUPV component, which has split since.

In 2011, the BLOC created a coalition Coalició Compromís, running alongside Iniciativa del Poble Valencià (a scission of United Left) and the Green, both partners in the previous coalition. Coalició Compromís got 6 seats in the Valencian Parlement in the 2011 elections, consolidating itself as the third political force in the Land of Valencia.

At municipalities
Support for the Bloc is higher at the local level, with 384 councillors and about 20 mayors. Thus, it is the distant third major Valencian political party at the municipal level, far from the major parties, PP and PSPV-PSOE. The party is nearly absent in a number of areas in the Valencian Community (virtually all of those comarcas which are Spanish speaking only) while it is a major political agent in others, namely in its historic stronghold at the contiguous area formed by the northernmost part of Alicante province and the southernmost part of Valencia province.

International representation
For the 1999 European Parliament election the Bloc allied with the Catalonia-based Convergence and Union and the Majorca Socialist Party with Bloc leader Enric Morera fifth on the list. The coalition won two seats, however Morera briefly became a Euro MP in April 2004

The Bloc joined the Galeusca coalition in the 2004 European Parliament election, with other nationalist parties from the Spanish state such as the Basque Nationalist Party, the Catalan Convergence and Union, the Galician Nationalist Bloc, and the Socialist Party of Majorca. Galeusca got two seats, neither of them for the BNV.

Corts Valencianes

 * * In coalition with The Greens.
 * ** Within Commitment for the Valencian Country.
 * *** Within Compromís.

Valencian Community

 * * In coalition with The Greens–Valencians for Change.
 * ** In coalition with Initiative–Greens.
 * *** Within Compromís.
 * **** Within És el moment.
 * ***** Within A la valenciana.

European Parliament

 * * Within Convergence and Union.
 * ** Within Galeusca–Peoples of Europe.
 * *** Within Coalition for Europe.
 * **** Within European Spring.
 * ***** Within Compromís.

title: Valencian Nationalist Bloc


text:
Three-phase commit protocol

In computer networking and databases, the three-phase commit protocol (3PC) is a distributed algorithm which lets all nodes in a distributed system agree to commit a transaction. It is a more failure-resilient refinement of the two-phase commit protocol (2PC).

Motivation
A two-phase commit protocol cannot dependably recover from a failure of both the coordinator and a cohort member during the Commit phase. If only the coordinator had failed, and no cohort members had received a commit message, it could safely be inferred that no commit had happened. If, however, both the coordinator and a cohort member failed, it is possible that the failed cohort member was the first to be notified, and had actually done the commit. Even if a new coordinator is selected, it cannot confidently proceed with the operation until it has received an agreement from all cohort members, and hence must block until all cohort members respond.

The three-phase commit protocol eliminates this problem by introducing the Prepared to commit state. If the coordinator fails before sending preCommit messages, the cohort will unanimously agree that the operation was aborted. The coordinator will not send out a doCommit message until all cohort members have ACKed that they are Prepared to commit. This eliminates the possibility that any cohort member actually completed the transaction before all cohort members were aware of the decision to do so (an ambiguity that necessitated indefinite blocking in the two-phase commit protocol).

Solution
The pre-commit phase introduced above helps the system to recover when a participant or both the coordinator and a participant failed during the commit phase. When the recovery coordinator takes over after the coordinator failed during a commit phase of two-phase commit, the new pre-commit comes handy as follows: On querying participants, if it learns that some nodes are in commit phase then it assumes that the previous coordinator before crashing has made the decision to commit. Hence it can shepherd the protocol to commit. Similarly, if a participant says that it had not received a PrepareToCommit message, then the new coordinator can assume that the previous coordinator failed even before it completed the PrepareToCommit phase. Hence it can safely assume that no participant has committed the changes, and hence safely abort the transaction.

Extensions
Using Skeen's original three-phase commit protocol, it is possible that a quorum becomes connected without being able to make progress (this is not a deadlock situation; the system will still progress if the network partitioning is resolved). Keidar and Dolev's E3PC refines Skeen's three-phase commit protocol and solves this problem in a way which always allows a quorum to make progress.

Disadvantages
Three-phase commit assumes a network with bounded delay and nodes with bounded response times; In most practical systems with unbounded network delay and process pauses, it cannot guarantee atomicity. The other drawback of the protocol is it requires at least three round trips to complete, needing a minimum of three round trip times (RTTs). This is potentially a long latency to complete each transaction.

title: Three-phase commit protocol


text: Talk:Korean War Service Medal

title: Talk:Korean War Service Medal


text:
Brookie

Brookie may refer to:
 * A dessert made by combining a brownie and a cookie
 * A nickname for someone named Brooke
 * Brook trout, a type of fish native to Eastern North America
 * Brooklyn Supreme, the largest horse ever recorded
 * A recipient of a Brooke Owens Fellowship for undergraduate women in aerospace
 * Brookside, a British soap opera set in Liverpool, England

title: Brookie


text:
1945 in Norwegian football

Results from Norwegian football in 1945.

Final

 * Replay

 * Second replay

title: 1945 in Norwegian football


text:
Talk:Southport

Gas Tower
Should we add photos of it's removal? --Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please! Certainly in a category on Commons, even if they aren't embedded directly in the article. The gas holder is a significant landmark - I have a feeling it's even notable amongst gas holders, as a rare survivor of that "cage" style. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You may put them on a seperate article called Southport Gas Holder. We need more images on that page and in paticular Commons. I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pan's Playground
Does any one have any photographs of this long lost part of Southport? It would be fantastic to also make a page for it as well. Sadly I can not find any ref. as of yet... Can anyone help? Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Education
Tried to clean it up a bit. As I did, I spotted Southport College was not listed... So I have added it. Might be worth putting a link to the Ofted reports for the area? Anyone have any views on this? Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge
There was previoiusly a note to merge the Politics section with Southport (UK Parliament constituency). I removed this in light of recent plans to rename/redefine Southport's constituency to allow time to see what actually happens. --me_and 14:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

History of Southport in Merseyside
I've copied this over from User_talk:IanDavies, as it's relevant to the article:

I know that Southport is now part of the (administrative) county of Merseyside(!), but think it's important to also mention that it was part of the (administrative) county of Lancashire before that, which is what I put. (It is still part of the traditional county of Lancashire however - the borders for that have never changed).

I just tried to give a bit more detailed idea of the history behind the decision, which I think is important to include as it was (perhaps still is!) a contentious issue in the town. I can see it was a bit fuzzy though, so I've rewritten my earlier effort and I think my new version makes the situation clearer and shows the distinction.

(I was also trying to point people towards the distinction between different types of county, and the different roles they play by referring to them by the technical terms administrative, ceremonial and traditional counties, and pointing towards those articles in Wikipedia).

Have a read at my new version and see what you think - hopefully you'll like the new version more!

PS I agree with your removal of the sentence about the traditional county in the Lancashire article - I was going to do it myself (I didn't write it, I just moved it). The problem is that there is only one page for 'Lancashire', a term which relates to two different areas according to which type of county you're referring to. We'll just have to make it clear each time the difference is important, and refer to the ceremonial [ie modern] or traditional [ie old] county specifically. Aquilina 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Having looked at you edit's. Are you doing this as part of the Campaign for Real lancashire?--IanDavies 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I have no agenda. It's just that it's more complicated a situation than saying "Southport is in Merseyside" makes out.  That is true, but it's not the full picture at all.

Please clarify what you feel is wrong with adding the extra information. It doesn't contradict your version, just gives a fuller picture. Aquilina 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aquilina 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with the content but I think it should be in either a section of it's own or the History section. The status in Merseyside is a fact of life. An easier way to do it would be to produce a good article on the debate from a National POV.--IanDavies 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you think it should be in a section of its own, that's where you should have put it rather than simply reverting! - it's basic wikiquette, and far more constructive. I would disagree with putting it in the history section, as Southport's status within the *traditional* county of Lancashire is still current [just as much a fact of life as its presence in the *administrative* county of Merseyside], and relevant - many people in Southport still give their county as Lancashire, and for this reason alone it deserves clarification and explanation.  Southport's status in both of these different types of counties is not a POV matter - it's plain fact.

 * I will put the information in a separate section; if you disagree with this version, please edit it constructively or, if you feel you must revert it, why not RfC it at the same time? Hopefully this will be a good compromise option, but if this fails we might as well try and seek mediation. Aquilina 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I did edit constritivly I spelt out the exact Historical relationship and modern one. It is you edits which seek to give some offical status to the taditional counties that is bad editing. --IanDavies 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Either way, the current version should hopefully be ok for both of us. There is no mention of Lancashire till the new third section.  If not, please just edit the *specific* bits you disagree with, rather than reverting the lot, as I've added extra stuff [about the merge with Bootle and so on] which shouldn't be lost. Aquilina 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's fine with me.--IanDavies 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the current administrative status of Southport and its position within a traditional county are key aspects of the town's identity, and therefore should be mentioned in the introduction. I hope that my edit reflects this from a neutral point of view, and avoids offence to the partisans of the new and the old. Countersubject 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

npov
The page smacks of an advert for southport, specifically on the transport side of things. I think we should point out that there is no direct rail link to Preston and the town is not well connected by road.

 * Moved this section to the end of the page. New items are by convention appended to the page. Countersubject 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Location of Steve Jones's Photography
I see from the page's history that there's some uncertainty about the location of SJ's photography. Under or over water? Is this significant? Have I been away from Southport for too long? Countersubject 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Southport in Relation to Surrounding Areas
I've removed the paragraph 'It is called Souwie by the Scousers' from the intoduction, added by 82.152.209.70 at 11:32, 18th July, as it doesn't really fit in the introduction. Perhaps it could belong in a new section on the interaction of Southport with its surrounding areas, from a number of angles: economy, society, geography, language etc. BTW - Wikipedia encourages those who edit pages to do so through a Wikipedia account. Countersubject 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pier Picture
If anyone could upload a picture of the pier for the Southport Pier article I would appreciate it. --Paul E. Ester 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just spotted your request. Will add one for you as soon as I can register. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)newuser-appleman

I have just got a few shots to go on of the pier. Just need to scan them now. Also need to sign up to upload them. But do you want up to date only or old photos as well? --81.129.235.13 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Signing-up-tomorrow

Rail- Present
Why is there a load of stuff about Pleasureland in the rail section? Should we make a Pleasureland section, or mention it in economy?

Population
I have added up the Ward statistics on the UK National Statistics website for the 7 wards that cover Southport within Sefton to come up with an accurate figure for the population (see reference on article).
 * On the subject of the UK Office of National Statistics, could it be worth mentioning that Southport is home to one of its four branches, at Smedley Hydro? ONS is a relatively significant government agency, and to my knowlege, one of the towns largest employers. 81.156.205.69 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Southport Reporter
The para on the Southport Reporter under History verges on a commercial,  Talk:Southport/Archive,reporter

Is my Memory Faulty or Correct? Someone please help!
Having been brought up in Southport in the 1950s I seem to remember there was a large explosion at a petrol station not far from Meols Cop Secondary School. This would have been around 1957. I'll continue to attempt to find out if this actually happened.

Soarhead77 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Media
''Just a quick log on and off... Thought I should put this before making any more changes...

Ref - Should Liverpool Echo etc. and all media names carry ref? Might be a good idea to do this.

I have spotted a bit about Southport GB? Is this site media or not? No ref made and reads very poorly...

A newly popular website covering the (unofficial) news of Southport is Southport GB. This website covers minor/trivial stories usually relayed from local taxi drivers to the website owner. Southport GB also contains a forum for its residents to moan/gossip about trivial matters and express their right-wing, reactionary and usually inappropriate comments about anyone or anything.

Should this be removed? Also it has a link to an article on Wikipedia with this exact name. This does not look good for the section and in my view it should be removed.'' 89.243.241.240 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well it looks like the orginal article was removed as not being notable, hence the dead link. So probably it too should be removed. - Gallo glass 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the following paragraph, which was subsequently removed by 91.109.13.49:
 * "In addition, there are four other local radio stations that transmit to Southport: BBC Radio Merseyside, Radio City 96.7, Juice 107.6, and Rock FM 97.4."

On reflection, is this relevant to the article? I think it is, but understand that you could argue that more stations should be included. Any opinions? Snowy 1973 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a note that other forms of media are available in the area, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable people
Notable people in Southport

Disappointed to find that the list of notable people from or resident in Southport has recently been edited without, in my view, proper justification. A good example of the kind of arrogant 'I know better than you' messing about that means Wikipedia is so much less valuable and reliable than it could be.

There are no firm rules on what constitutes 'notability' as far as I am aware. So, it's a subjective thing and therefore one person's opinion is as valid as another as long as people are not merely listing their friends and neighbour, etc.

However, some of the alterations made do not even make objective sense; the writer Tony Jordan has been a figure of considerable influence in British TV drama for 10 years or more and has had more impact in his field than, say, the guitarist Ollie Halsall. I'm wondering if the person making the edits is unaware that Tony Jordan grew up in Southport, and his parents still live in Ainsdale.

When the 'notable people' list was first added to the Southport page, it was to give an idea of people who not were not only born in the town but who, by living here, have made an impact on the town's identity. By that token, people like Dr Barnardo, Kenny Dalglish and Alan Hansen should certainly still be included. It's ridiculous to say that because someone was not born in the town, they don't have an influence. This is information of general interest.

Also, I don't believe that just because a person does not have their own Wikipedia page they should not be included. The best example of this is the Rev Marcus Morris, a figure of great influence in the field of comics publishing. There's a certain kind of weird paradox at work when someone is deemed unimportant because they're not on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleamhound (talk • contribs) 29 October 2007

 * Unfortunately so many marginal and non famous people have been added to this list that many users who read this list judged its was ok to add their friends, mother, sister brother etc. Now the main test for inclusion on Wikipeidia as a 'Notable Person' is pretty strict and laid down in WP:BIO. Many of those that were removed failed this test, some simply because of any lack of referencing on their article, others because their connection was minimal. I would very like to include Marcus Morris on the notable list but with no article extant there seems little chance of it meeting the test of WP:BIO at the present time. When such an article is created, you can be sure he will belong on the list. By all means propose any individual for re-inclusion here and we can all discuss their merits. Thanks Galloglass 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I happened to see this conversation, and have now created Marcus Morris stub page - certainly notable, as he's in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and there were 3 different redlinks to him already. (Almost anyone in UK could have done this, as most public libraries provide online access to ODNB, from home, through their subscription.) PamD (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Ronson's mother Ann Dexter-Jones is from Southport, and Ronson has personally announced at his Liverpool gigs that he himself is from Southport (which was met by a roar of boos last time he was there). Despite her being a successful author abroad, can anyone explain why this is not worth adding? I tried to add it myself, and just because Ann Dexter-Jones was not a Wiki page it got repeatedly removed by some blithering purist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.241.58 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Presumably the "blithering purist" had actually read WP:BIO, unlike yourself; but if you can establish notability for the women (say, enough to write an article about her) then she can be added. Swanny18 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Magazines And Newspapers
Just added Lancashire Life but it does not appear to have a Wiki page. I think it should, so I am not 100% if I have missed it... Does it have an entry? If not should we add one? Can any one help?
 * This has been added to mainspace as Lancashire Life. Nk.sheridan   Talk  22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also what are the other two magazines in the Southport area. I know that the Champ. and Vis. do one each...  If anyone could add them I think that would be fantastic. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Appelman-martin  Sorry not been able to register tonight as I had hoped... Just a quick added section... Does any one know the start date and end date of the Southport Star newspaper? Also the Southport Advertiser? I have it on file in one of the books, but I can not locate it. I am also adding Coastlines, a magazine made by Sefton Council Ranger Service. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Will get to register some day.

Cleanup of Article
Hi all, I had a go at the lead today. I'm surprised this article got a B-Class rating. If we want it to go to GA class as is Runcorn it needs more work.Nk.sheridan   Talk  23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The 15:54, 8 August 2008 The Rambling Man version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation
(This move suggestion was rejected overwhelmingly, and closed itself per WP:SNOW in July 2009. Archived by Swanny18 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC). )

with the number of places globally named southport, the default for southport should be the disambiguation page and not the city in england. WillC (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - The other "Southports" appear to be fairly insignificant places in comparison. There is already a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page at the top of the article. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per Jenuk1985 and WP:PRIME; readers are most likely to be looking for the town in England when they enter "Southport" in the search box. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakly oppose move. I have the unusual perspective of being a New Yorker resident in England, so can maybe appreciate the relative recognition factor of both the major Southports better than most. I'd agree that the UK town is the most significant usage, but also that a significant proportion of readers searching for "Southport" will be looking for Southport Correctional Facility. I still think the majority of those searching on this term will be after the English town, so would oppose a move. – iride  scent  20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move Agree with the opinions above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose move The Southport in question is the major one, and the others are in countries where the addition of a state or province name or abbreviation is customary. This is not the case with the Southport that is in England. There is an existing disambiguation which is clearly linked for those who end up here by mistake. The only prior editing of any Southport by the 'mover' that I can see in the last six months is an edit to Southport, North Carolina, so I can't see quite why he is getting so worked up about this issue. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY SUPPORT MOVE predictable that all those strongly opposed to the move are from england...i suppose Jenuk1985 went out and recruited you....your lack of geo-neutrality is evident....anyone searching in the united states will think of southport, north carolina, first.....a hotbed for american movies and tv show filming. WillC (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. In my case, this article was already on my watchlist and I have edited it previously. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * good faith was not assumed when my original changes were reverted without a second thought, but whatever. WillC (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly (or fortunately, whichever view you take), the world doesn't revolve around the US. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you admit your bias finally. that clears things up. WillC (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a statement of bias, it's a statement that wikipedia is meant to have a global view. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith by the 'mover'. I'm beginning to have doubts following the above comments. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (A 'watcher' and editor of Southport amongst other places.)

 * Oppose move. Traffic stats show 7000 hits on England article in May and 200 hits on the dab page. Clearly most of the readers reaching this article that acts like the primary topic aren't looking for another article, so it appears to indeed be the primary topic. BTW, I'm from the U.S., and have never been to England except for an airport, once. Reverting rash moves does not indicated a lack of assumption of good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:BIAS; can we move NY to point to North Yorkshire please? No? Thought not. So please, have some consideration for that strange world that exists outside of the USA.  Chzz  ►  00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move on the basis of the traffic stats quoted by JHunterJ. ClickRick (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * where's the proof? WillC (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and  Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose There is no provision of evidence that the shift should be made, beyond don't you think? and there is evidence that the UK town has predominance under the established criteria.  To get such a move, demonstrate to me that the 'What links here' is incorrect and not managed; that there is a high burden of incorrect links; that there is a higher assumption that there is a predominance to another place of that name.  Give me the evidence to that effect, and I will review my viewpoint. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (not living in either UK or US).
 * Comment - I'm from the U.S. and from North Carolina. Reviewing the disambiguation policy and indicators that would show a Primary Topic, I guess the question is if this article is much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer.  Traffic to this article is 10x that of the NC article (some traffic may be because it holds the primary name though - still a significant number).  "What links here" likewise shows significantly more links to the England article.  Google gives them fairly equal ranking in a "Soutport" search, suggesting that it should be a disambig (but I'm not sure if Google is doing some GeoLocation on my IP to give me different results for my location - perhaps someone could test from the other side of the pond).  So, I'm undecided (leaning toward oppose) on the move but do agree that England's Southport is more notable and the most likely destination for "Southport".   Morphh   (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - The English Southport is clearly the primary use as a brief look at the population figures of the various Southports would indicate :-
 * Southport, England (99,456)
 * Southport, Queensland {24,097}
 * Southport, New York (11,185)
 * Southport, North Carolina {2,351}
 * Southport, Connecticut (2,201)
 * Southport, Indiana (1,852)
 * Southport, Maine {684)
 * Southport, Newfoundland and Labrador (50)
 * Southport, Florida (unknown)
 * Southport, Illinois (unknown : it's a rapid transit station!)
 * Skinsmoke (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose move per other opposers DBaK (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This move suggestion seems to have been rejected overwhelmingly, and closed itself per WP:SNOW in July 2009. So (to tidy up a bit) I'm formally closing and archiving it. Swanny18 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Architecture
The section opens with :-
 * "Southport has many fascinating buildings and features. Buildings and Gardens of architectural interest to note are:"

It then goes on to list numerous buildings, six of which aren't actually there any longer, along with at least one garden that has been built on. The list is then followed by a comment which clearly violates the neutral point of view policy. This whole section needs an overhaul, and perhaps a bit of information adding on the various sites. Maybe even incorporate into the Landmarks section? Any comments? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the section? ithink its much better than the "landmarks" section, which should actually be called "Attractions"

It doesnt matter if there are buildings in the architecture list that have gone (demolished), as the buildings that have gone have been important parts of southport and its history and architectural history, and maybe influencing other buildings.

As for the comment at the end i dont see what is wrong with it as it is more of a statement saying there are many other buildings that are private houses, (now surely you dont want every individual one listing) which are architectually important, that have been demolished/ or may be luck to still remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.67.243 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case the section should start:-
 * "'Southport used to have many fascinating buildings and features but these have since been demolished. Derelict sites that once housed buildings and gardens of architectural interest to note are:"
 * The problem with the final paragraph is that it expresses an opinion, which is directly contrary to Wikipedia rules. It needs rephrasing in a neutral tone per WP:NPOV.  If in doubt about how to improve this section, check out a few of the Good articles or Featured articles from the United Kingdom. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Despite the names, it's standard practice to use Template:Infobox UK place for settlements and Template:Infobox settlement for boroughs. Hence the Trafford article uses Template:Infobox settlement whereas Sale, Greater Manchester, uses Template:Infobox UK place (both FAs). It's detailed in WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, although not explained as such. I'm not sure why one is preferred to the other, presumably the fields are considered more appropriate for different types of places, but it's likely that someone will revert the current infobox. If there are any concerns, using Template:Infobox UK place has been no obstacle to many articles on towns getting FA status. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History
As you can see I have re-shaped and editted the history section of this article. I know it looks a little limp at the moment, but I will improve it shortly. I have been reading about local history lately and so I have lots of good information. But I still need people's help to get this section... and article to a good tandard. I would love to see people's contributions.

I aslo think there should be a sub-section on Southport's role during the WW's, but my knowledge is limited on that area.

Just incase you don't know our aim is to get this article to GA Satus. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable people - 2
Having an unsourced list of names is simply not acceptable. A significant connection with Southport needs to be reliably sourced. After a reasonable time, any name without such a source may be removed. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that ones not belonging get challenged fairly quickly if they're not backed up in their own article as regards the Southport connection. Of the places on my watchlist, Southport is one of those about which I worry the least. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry but this is not what I am seeing. Firstly, having regard to WP:BLP any significant statement about living people needs sourcing. If the connection is sourced in the article then copying the source to the list is straightforward. Taking some entries at random:
 * Andrew Lancel - no mention in article (Rufford, of course, is not Southport).
 * Liz Kessler - "She grew up in Southport" is unsourced.
 * Johnny Mitchell - no mention in article.
 * Marcus Morris (publisher) - "grew up in Southport" is unsourced.
 * Jean Alexander - "lives alone in Southport" is unsourced.
 * Sidney Allinson - "grew up in Southport" is unsourced.
 * Kenny Dalglish - no mention in article.
 * Alan Hansen - no mention in article.
 * TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; the current list is absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the light of the edit summary that 'articles verify', let me say that I agree with Malleus Fatuorum that verification must also be in this list. As I mention above, "If the connection is sourced in the article then copying the source to the list is straightforward." However, in many cases the articles do not verify. I give a list of examples above and even claims of others being born in Southport are not sourced. The first two I looked at were:
 * Jennifer Kendal
 * Ollie Halsall
 * I would add that, in any case, the list is unhelpful without being structured to indicate the nature of the connection to Southport (born there, worked there etc). TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

History section: samphire and "blown sand gave way to new fish"
I've just language edited this section, and corrected a reference to samphire being only found at a few sites in western Europe. Both types of samphire are relatively widespread, and the less common type isn't found in the Southport area: http://www.samphire.org.uk/types_of_samphire.php, http://www.seasonalwildflowers.com/july/rock-samphire.html. I also amended this gibberish: "The population was scattered thinly across the region and it was at the North-East end of Otergimele (present day Crossens) where blown sand gave way to new fish supplies from the River Ribble estuary that a small concentration of people had occurred." Robocon1 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This reference to recent research showing that samphire 'may have attracted' mesolithic hunter gatherers to settle in the area is uncited. Does anyone know which research, by who? It seems suspect because 1. the statement that samphire is only found at a few sites in western Europe is wrong, and 2. it's hard to imagine nomadic stone age people choosing to settle in an area just because a plant which is considered a delicacy grew there - its other uses in manufacturing soap and glass (which I added) would have been irrelevant to them. Robocon1 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can get samphire quite easily from Morrisons! although, apparently it's from Watt's Farm in Kent. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Southport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060221085123/http://www.southportlibdems.com:80/meols.htm to http://www.southportlibdems.com/meols.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

other grim etymology

 * The first real evidence of an early settlement here is in the Domesday Book, in which the area is called Otergimele. The name is derived from Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm and is linked to the Old Norse word melr meaning sandbank.

Say what? "The son of Grimm", whether in Old Norse or Old English, would be (wait for it) Grimmsson or Grimmssonnr or Grimmssunu or the like. A compound of Odd with Grim is a bit dubious also because both of these are names of Odin. And if the m belongs to Grim then it probably doesn't also belong to melr.

A source might help. —Tamfang (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Southport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.championline.net/html/news/champnews_display.asp?story=5781
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214004557/http://southportpast.com/altcarbob.shtml to http://www.southportpast.com/altcarbob.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816211834/http://www.liverpoolreporter.com/tv/24hour05/ to http://www.liverpoolreporter.com/tv/24hour05/

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) 04:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Southport. 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/20080409163605/http://www.piers.co.uk/facts.htm to http://piers.co.uk/facts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925084334/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Southport to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Southport
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427131752/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southport%20pier.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southport%20pier.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915120919/http://www.southportcamra.org.uk/beerfest.htm to http://www.southportcamra.org.uk/beerfest.htm

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) 13:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Napoleon III
More evidence is needed for the assertion that Lord Street was "once [the] home of Napoleon III of France." The refernce provided is to an advertising website for Lord Street. This is not an authoritative secondary source - it claims "Louise napoleon lived here", but provides no evidence, or reference to a reliable historical secondary source. Spodatus (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed that claim, pending a better source. There is no mention of Southport at Napoleon III, although he did die, in exile, at Chislehurst in Kent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Napoleon III was before 1848, when he took the throne, not after the Franco-Prussian War when he was exiled to Kent. I think (but don't know) this was in his exile (he had several) after his second coup (he also had several) in 1840.
 * There's a plaque on Lord Street itself Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes ok, thanks for clarifying. Let's call him "Prince Louis Napoleon" as that source does. But the plaque just says that he lived in Southport in 1838 and that he "admired" Lord Street? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that, absent other evidence, a plaque on Lord Street tells us anything more than that the Civic Society thinks he lived there and admired it. Nor am I aware of any sources on which it has based this belief (I've checked the wbsite and emailed a request for detail, but to no avail).

 * The reference for the assertion under '19th Century' is little better. It is to a local newspaper article quoting an architectural historian who admits "His links with Southport have so far eluded his biographers". Spodatus (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * In which case, I would not object to its removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Removed. Spodatus (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Orgrimmar?
The History section currently says: "The first real evidence of an early settlement here is in the Domesday Book, in which the area is called Otergimele. The name is derived from Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm and is linked to the Old Norse word melr meaning sandbank."

However, it also seems that, apparently: "Orgrimmar is the capital city of the Horde, with large settlements of trolls, orcs and tauren. Orgrimmar is also home to the Ragefire Chasm instance, a network of volcanic tunnels taken by the Burning Blade" So I'd suggest that this might be quickly removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 * p.s. this article by Francis A. Bailey (2004) might be useful though. Here's an extract. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Source of Otergimele appears to be this edit from a long dormant editor. The source is the Domesday book which states "North Meols, Otegrimele / Otringemele: Roger de Poitou, Meols Hall in Southport." This is apparently this guy -> Roger the Poitevin.
 * Searching the correct spelling of Otegrimele brings up a few sources such as 'Townships: North Meols', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1907), pp. 230-236, a piece by the Liverpool Museums This gives an alternate origin of the names etymology on page 73.
 * Regarding Otringemele however I can also find Orrell being described as the subject of that name and again here. this piece by Lumby provides a map and tries to counter the arguments etc over the dispute / classification issue, which is somewhat semi supported by this book on page 59 stating "Another Orrell, in Sefton parish, is set down in Domesday as Otringemele".
 * In conclusion, there's sufficient support for the origin, but we should be attributing it. Koncorde (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all those useful sources. But "Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't particularly checking the underlying meaning but rather trying to find where there might be sources to clarify the history. From what I read in the links I glanced at last night I didn't see that being supported. I don't think I found anything supporting Oddrgrimir at all, and any sites referencing it in the internet are likely duplicating the longstanding claim from wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The sources you have provided should be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So looking into the books in more detail, below is a summary of the content from the links which may reverse my previous statement (apologies, I hadn't read the new articles sourcing fully at the time);
 * Domesday Book, area is referred to as "North Meols, Otegrimele / Otringemele: Roger de Poitou, Meols Hall in Southport." probably worth mentioning the link to Roger the Poitevin.
 * Farrer & Brownbill (which is generally very reliable and well sourced itself) states "Otegrimele, Otringemele, Dom. Bk.; Northmeles, 1232; Nordmele, 1237." indicating the changing naming convention from a thing, to a place. The switch from Otegr to North / Nord may mean "Otring" or "Otegr" could be inferred to be a persons name or otherwise, but it would need a reliable source covering the etymology. Farrer & Brownbill in their notes #2 refer to "#2. Odda son of Grim was an ancestor of a certain Mark of Melis; Landnámabok, iii, 17." which may be significant as it would suggest "OddaGrimMeles" is plausible). "Meles" itself is well cited in a number of sources as meaning "sand banks" / "sand dunes".
 * Sefton Historic Settlement Study on page 73/74 actually summarises some of Farrer & Brownbill quite succinctly (we may wish to paraphrase), in addition to a few other contemporaries of theirs. They reference the names origin as "Otegrimele (1086). This is a corruiption of a scandinavian personal name, possibly Old Norse "Audgrimr"." I suspect Audgrimr will turn out to mean "OddaGrim" and may tie in. This would be verging on OR / Synth so would suggest we stick to referencing what is said rather than inferring unless a supporting source can be identified from one of the suggested books.
 * History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster: III, by Baines, I suspect is confusing the Orrell of Wigan, with this other Township of Orrell that is Otingremele. It refers to the same valuation, which would be somewhat of a coincidence, or perhaps we have some bleeding through because of similarity of names. Baines is usually reliable otherwise (per below)
 * History County Palatine of Duchy of Lancaster: I, also by Baines, refers to the West Derby Hundreds and in particular talks about Crosby, Halsall, Everton and Orrell ID'd as "Otringemele" which would suggest that he knew that there were two Orrells at some point.
 * Domesday Survey of South Lancashire, by Lumby, is citing and referring to Farrer for the purposes of making its arguments about Hirleton. Less relevant, but ties all together.
 * THE PLACE-NAMES OF THE LIVERPOOL DISTRICT; by Henry Harrison is a quality book and its summary at the end on page 59 is very insightful. "Melar" meaning "stretch of sand" makes you wonder how Orrell in Wigan would ever be the source of the name, so he has his own hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests an alternative to the concept of OddaGrim, by suggesting "teigr" meaning meadow resultng in the leap to " the sandy area out of which not a strip of meadow-land could be got." I would suggest this is somewhat fanciful, but it's interesting all the same. Though I do not see it ever being referred to by any other reliable sources published after the fact (which may reflect its "etymological" analysis, rather than actually being to Orrell and seeing it doesn't have a beach...).
 * In summary, yes we can probably infer that the OddaGrimm story is true, if only because it is referenced in the Landnamabok. However we should clearly state that "it is suggested" as one possible source, just as is "Audgrimr". Two new sources I found are from Ekwall here on page 125 and 126 which semi reinforces OddaGrimm (although it states "not evidenced") and in this more modern summary by Stephen Harding here on page 98 who references Ekwall, and suggests the OddGrimmr / Audgrim link. Koncorde (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Southport-RFC-2nd-XV-v-Keswick-29.09.18-12.jpg

title: Talk:Southport


text:
The Firm (hip hop group)

The Firm was an American hip hop supergroup formed in New York City in 1996 by rapper Nas, his manager Steve Stoute, producer Dr. Dre and production team Trackmasters. The group is composed of East Coast-based rappers Nas, Foxy Brown, AZ and Cormega. Rapper Nature is a former member: he served as a replacement for Cormega after he was ousted from the group.

Although the group received initial hype and high expectations from fans upon their formation after collectively signing to Dr. Dre's Aftermath label, The Firm's debut album, The Album (1997), generated disappointing sales and generally negative criticism. The album, which featured predominant mafioso rap-themes and production from Dr. Dre and the Trackmasters, was criticized for its pop-orientation. Their debut album was the group's only release and they disbanded in 1999 with each member continuing their solo careers.

The members (including Cormega, who had made up with Nas after their falling-out, and excluding Nature) reunited on Nas' 2020 album King's Disease on the track "Full Circle". Dr. Dre has outro vocals on the song.

Background
The Firm's origins lie in the recording of Nas' studio album It Was Written (1996), which included a collaboration on the song "Affirmative Action" with East Coast-based rappers AZ, Cormega, and Foxy Brown. The supergroup was a project created by rapper Nas, his manager Steve Stoute, West Coast-based rapper and producer Dr. Dre, and production team the Trackmasters. The resulting lineup included Nas, Brown, AZ and rapper Nature. Cormega had been ousted from the group and was replaced by Nature prior to recording The Firm's debut, due to artistic differences between him and Nas, as well as contract disagreements with Nas's manager Steve Stoute. According to Poke & Tone, 50 Cent and Mary J. Blige were tentatively considered for the group.

Prior to their formation, the members were at transitional stages of their careers, as Nas had commercialized his musical style with his second album, Foxy Brown had earned her first recording contract, AZ had gained critical acclaim for his 1995 debut album Doe or Die (1995), and Cormega had chosen to continue his rapping career after his release from prison in 1995. The project also served as an attempt by Dr. Dre to focus on producing other artists work rather than his solo work, following his departure from Death Row Records and the formation of his Aftermath label, which the group was collectively signed to. After the announcement of the group's formation by Dr. Dre, all involved with the project hyped it heavily, creating considerable buzz.

The Album
The group's only studio album, The Album (1997) was a concept album that revolved around mafioso rap themes, and featured production work from Dr. Dre and the Trackmasters. Two singles were released from the album, "Firm Biz", which features singer Dawn Robinson, and "Phone Tap". While anticipated with much hype, The Album received generally negative reviews and generated disappointing sales upon its release.

Despite the group's excessive hype and its mainstream musical approach, The Firm did not meet the expectations of fans who were introduced to the group via It Was Written, and The Album was criticized by music writers for abandoning hip hop for R&B and pop style. Nas appeared to be seeking pop stardom.

Aftermath
The Firm disbanded the following year and its members continued their solo careers. Nas' and Dr. Dre's participation in the group furthered speculation by fans and critics that the two artists were losing their creativity and appeal. Their work during this period has since been considered the weakest and least successful of their careers.

The replacing of Cormega with rapper Nature strained his friendship with Nas. Cormega, who continued to resent being ousted from the group, released the white label "Fuck Nas & Nature", circulating it through the mixtape market. Nature retaliated through a verse contribution on a DJ Clue mixtape. The two have since ended their beef and have recorded and performed together. After a short-lived truce, Nas attacked Cormega on the diss track "Destroy & Rebuild" from his fifth studio album Stillmatic (2001).

In December 2006, Cormega, Foxy Brown and Nas reunited to perform "Affirmative Action" live on-stage, ending the beef between Cormega and Nas. A reunion was unconfirmed. In an August 2010 interview with MTV, Foxy Brown explained there have been recent discussions on a Firm reformation, dependent on the remaining four agreeing to it.

Reunion
In August 2020, the group reunited for the song "Full Circle" from Nas' album King's Disease.

title: The Firm (hip hop group)


text:
Talk:Colossally abundant number

Aren't these the same as Superior highly composite numbers????Scythe33 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but it appears they are different. In the definition of superior highly composite number, the exponent is required to be > 0, whereas in the definition of colossally abundant number, the exponent is required to be > 1, so every colossally abundant number is superior highly composite, but not conversely. See also the links to the encyclopedia of integer sequences. Revolver 6 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
 * See my remarks in the discussion page for superior highly composite numbers. They use different divisor functions; Scythe33's change to the definition is wrong (and would be satifsied by all superabundant numbers).  DPJ, 16 Aug 2005 6:26 UTC
 * According to OEIS data the first 15 numbers of both series are the same.

W.r.t. "All colossally abundant numbers are Harshad numbers." is this true only in base 10 (for the Harshad definition)? Rycanada 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Relation to the Riemann hypothesis. How are they related - This is actually a question of interest. Please put this relation explicitely.
 * f the RH is false, a colossally abundant number will be a counterexample (probably the first counterexample; it's 'obvious' that the first counterexample must be a superabundant number). See . CRGreathouse 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't understand this sentence. To me a counterexample to the Riemann hypothesis is some non-integer complex number s such that z(s) = 0. Surely you must refer to some function f : N -> {0,1} which is constantly 0 if RH holds, and your "first counterexample" must be the first n such that f(n) = 1. What f are you talking about ? (A quick parse of the article your reference yields me no hint of such an f.) --FvdP (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Doh. The answer is in the article. --FvdP (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the definition just say "ε > 1" instead of "ε > 0"; then the "1 + ε" terms could be reduced to just "ε"? Or does "ε" have some other significance not mentioned? — sjorford++ 11:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Harshad-ness
I removed the claim that all colossally abundant numbers are Harshad as uncited. If anyone has a citation for a proof of this claim, please add it back. Thanks, Doctormatt (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this page mean?
I just wanted to know what a colosally abundant number was and this page doesn't help... (thanks) Monkey Tennis (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratio of consecutive superabundant numbers isn't prime
The article says "In their 1944 paper, Alaoglu and Erdős managed to show that the ratio of two consecutive superabundant numbers was always a prime number", but looking at the first few superabundant numbers shows this is clearly not true. They showed that the ratio aproached 1 for large n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.178.217.23 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly an error, but I believe the result the contributor was thinking of was the proof of Alaoglu and Erdős that the ratio of two consecutive superior highly composite numbers is always a prime number. I will check to make sure it's the right paper and correct the article. Jaycob Coleman (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it seems that Ramanujan proved the result I mentioned, but I'm not sure which paper it's in. Jaycob Coleman (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here it is. Someone should cite this properly and fix the article. Jaycob Coleman (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The Ramanujan result from 1916 isn't really relevant to this section of the article, which is discussing the 1944 paper by Alaoglu and Erdős. I have removed the claim about the ratio of consecutive superabundant numbers being a prime number - it wasn't essential in that paragraph anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An inconsistency definition versus OEIS table
It seems a minor point, but I know that it confuses people.

When we apply the definition of a colossally abundant number to n = 1, we have that n satisfies the definition with, say, ε = 1.

And yet the referenced OEIS list has 2 as the smallest element in its list. Here the OEIS definition agrees with Wikipedia. But OEIS references other lists, by Amiram Eldar and possibly by T.D. Noe, that apparently have used different definition(s).

I would like to correct the list on the Wikipedia page so that it includes 1. But how do I create a proper reference, now that the correct inclusion of 1 in the list seems to disagree with all the accepted sources? Tommy Rene Jensen (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I have used my registration at OEIS to attempt to correct their list. But nothing has changed yet. The question therefore still stands. Tommy Rene Jensen (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me expand a little bit on the point that this confuses people.
 * The statement "2 is the smallest colossally abundant number" formally implies, using the definition of colossally abundant numbers, that for every k > 0 there exists a natural number n for which σ(n) > n^k.
 * The latter would seem an important theorem in number theory, so why do we not see that statement around much in the literature, as often as we see the equivalent statement that 2 is the smallest CA number? Tommy Rene Jensen (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The definition in OEIS for A004490 says "for all k > 1", which would exclude 1 from being in the sequence. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I looked at the edit history for A004490, and it is up for review (and someone there commented on it). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The list has been corrected on OEIS, it now starts 1,2,4,6,12, etc. Tommy Rene Jensen (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies: the edit has been submitted and is as yet not effective. I was looking at a different page that I had open for some reason. Sorry about the confusion. Tommy Rene Jensen (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Colossally abundant number


text:
List of parliamentary constituencies in Surrey

The county of Surrey is divided into 11 parliamentary constituencies (sub-classified into four of borough type and seven of county status affecting the level of expenses permitted and status of returning officer). The county saw the vast bulk of its population and seats removed on the creation of the County of London in 1889 and its wider replacement the county of Greater London in 1965. Reflecting its mainly suburban and rural nature, all seats covering the present definition of Surrey have been held by Conservative MPs at each general election since 1885, with the exception of two Liberals in 1906 and 1 Liberal Democrat in 2001.

Used from 1950 to 1974

 * Chertsey
 * Dorking
 * Epsom
 * Esher
 * Farnham
 * Guildford
 * Reigate
 * East Surrey
 * Spelthorne (previous county: Middlesex abolished in 1965)
 * Woking

Eleven other seats fell within the north-east of Surrey until 1965, forming the metropolitan part closest to London and the majority of the population (shown in the Historical Representation tables below). These were moved into Greater London leaving a predominantly suburban and rural content.

Used from 1974 to 1983

 * Chertsey and Walton
 * Dorking
 * East Surrey
 * Epsom and Ewell
 * Esher
 * Farnham
 * Guildford
 * North West Surrey
 * Reigate
 * Spelthorne
 * Woking

Used from 1983 to 1997

 * Chertsey and Walton
 * East Surrey
 * Epsom and Ewell
 * Esher
 * Mole Valley
 * Guildford
 * North West Surrey
 * Reigate
 * South West Surrey
 * Spelthorne
 * Woking

2010 boundary changes
Under the Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, the Boundary Commission for England decided to retain the existing 11 constituencies in Surrey, with only very minor changes to four of them.

Proposed boundary changes
See 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies for further details.

Following the abandonment of the Sixth Periodic Review (the 2018 review), the Boundary Commission for England formally launched the 2023 Review on 5 January 2021. Initial proposals were published on 8 June 2021 and, following two periods of public consultation, revised proposals were published on 8 November 2022. The final proposals were published on 28 June 2023.

The commission has proposed that Surrey be combined with Berkshire and Hampshire as a sub-region of the South East Region. As a result, the majority of the abolished constituency of South West Surrey would be combined with parts of the current constituency of East Hampshire to form a new cross-county boundary constituency named Farnham and Bordon. The remainder of South West Surrey would be combined with parts of Guildford, Mole Valley and Surrey Heath to form the new constituency of Godalming and Ash. The communities of Englefield Green and Virginia Water in the borough of Runnymede would be included in the Berkshire constituency of Windsor. Following changes to Mole Valley, it is proposed that this constituency is renamed Dorking and Horley.

The following constituencies are proposed:

Containing electoral wards from Elmbridge

 * Esher and Walton
 * Runnymede and Weybridge (part)

Containing electoral wards from Epsom and Ewell

 * Epsom and Ewell (part)

Containing electoral wards from Guildford

 * Guildford
 * Surrey Heath (part)
 * Godalming and Ash (part)

Containing electoral wards from Mole Valley

 * Dorking and Horley (part)
 * Epsom and Ewell (part)

Containing electoral wards from Reigate and Banstead

 * Dorking and Horley (part)
 * East Surrey (part)
 * Reigate

Containing electoral wards from Runnymede

 * Runnymede and Weybridge (part)
 * Windsor (parts also in the Boroughs of Slough, and Windsor and Maidenhead in Berkshire)

Containing electoral wards from Spelthorne

 * Spelthorne

Containing electoral wards from Surrey Heath

 * Surrey Heath (part)

Containing electoral wards from Tandridge

 * East Surrey (part)

Containing electoral wards from Waverley

 * Dorking and Horley (part)

 * Farnham and Bordon (part also in the District of East Hampshire)
 * Godalming and Ash (part)

Containing electoral wards from Woking

 * Woking

Results history
Primary data source: House of Commons research briefing – General election results from 1918 to 2019

2019
The number of votes cast for each political party who fielded candidates in constituencies comprising Surrey in the 2019 general election were as follows:

Percentage votes
Note that before 1974 Surrey included a considerable part of what is now London. 1pre-1979 – Liberal Party; 1983 & 1987 – SDP-Liberal Alliance

* Included in Other

Accurate vote percentages cannot be obtained for the elections of 1918, 1922, 1923 and 1931 because at least one candidate stood unopposed.

Seats
11974 & 1979 – Liberal Party; 1983 & 1987 – SDP-Liberal Alliance

General Election 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010 results
The following tables show the results for all Surrey constituencies in the General Elections in 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010. The results are given as percentages.

Historical representation by party
A cell marked → (with a different colour background to the preceding cell) indicates that the previous MP continued to sit under a new party name.

1885 to 1918
Note the 15 other seats of Surrey created in 1885 which primarily or wholly lay in the 1889-created County of London are not included in this list.

1918 to 1950 (12, then 14 MPs)
† denotes seat which falls wholly or largely within present-day county of Greater London.

1950 to 1974 (19, then 20 MPs)
† denotes seat which falls wholly or largely within present-day county of Greater London

1974 to 1997 (11 MPs)
In 1965 half (ten) of Surrey's constituencies were moved to the new county of Greater London, but constituencies based on the old boundaries continued to be used until 1974, when Surrey gained one constituency (Spelthorne) from the abolished administrative county of Middlesex.

1997 to present (11, then 11.5 MPs)
Liberal Democrat MP Sue Doughty, who won Guildford in 2001 with a winning margin of 1.2%, was the first candidate to take a seat from the Conservatives in the area covered by the present county of Surrey in 56 years.

1contains some parts of Hampshire


text: Category:Computing timelines

title: Category:Computing timelines


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeOnDVD

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

AnimeOnDVD
Web guide. If anything, this deserves to be just an external link on the Anime page. Ashibaka (tock) 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a web guide. JamesBurns 05:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It just isn't encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 23:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .