text:
Talk:Manchester, New Hampshire

Roller derby
Reverted the NH Skatefree or Die Aka New Hampshire Roller Derby, that is the home team of nashua. Removed them & will add them to the nashua wiki if they request to do so. Other then that will monitor the site as always and revert when needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team1up (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 * New Hampshire Roller Derby practices and competes at the JFK Memorial Coliseum in Manchester, New Hampshire. The consistent deletion of New Hampshire Roller Derby appears to be done by those who are affiliated with and posting on behalf of ManchVegas Roller Girls, whose business model and status have not been referenced or verified. Also, WFTDA's website does not list ManchVegas as a member league. I removed the WFTDA affiliation and added New Hampshire Roller Derby. Did not delete ManchVegas Roller Girls in good faith that the league's existence can be verified. Currently, a previously deleted page (for non-notability) which blatantly advertises on behalf of ManchVegas Roller Girls has been reposted and is pending speedy deletion. No credible references have been found as to the validity of the claim that New Hampshire Roller Derby does not belong in this article. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated on there own web site they train at roller kingdom in MA, They have bouts at JFK but they do not belong nor train in manchester. They train in Nashua As quoted from tehre won site:

" Derby girls come in all shapes, sizes, and ages. Fishnets, tattoos and piercings are not required—some of us have them, some of us don’t. Some of the girls on the roster are lifelong athletes, others had never tried a sport outside of gym class. To be a skater:

 * * You must be female
 * * You must be 21 or older
 * * you must have health insurance and USARS insurance ($55 a year)
 * * You must sign a waiver that says when you get hurt you won’t sue us into oblivion
 * * You must be able to attend at least 75% of our events. Right now, we practice twice a week, eventually it will increase.
 * * You will need quad skates, a helmet, mouth guard, knee and elbow pads, and wrist guards. We can help you choose the right gear for derby—there are starter derby packages available for around $175.

We charge $35 a month in dues to cover rink rental fees. You don’t have to be a great skater—we can teach you the skills you need. We’re looking for women who are determined and willing to push themselves. Think you’ve got the right attitude?

 * * Check out the new skater page or
 * * email freshmeat@nhrollerderby.com
 * * or stop by an open skate at Roller Kingdom at Skate 3 in Tyngsboro, Mass. We hold recruiting nights one Friday a month at 7 p.m.

Team1up (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Their website says that they recruit in Tyngsboro, MA. It says nothing about where they practice. Roller derby leagues typically hold open recruitments at open skates hosted by rinks to attract new players who may not be ready for a full practice. Full practices are typically not disclosed to discourage public attendance and to protect skaters. This varies by league. Providence Roller Derby recruits at rinks in Narragansett, RI and Taunton, MA but compete and train in Providence under the Bank of America building. Their practice schedule is kept confidential from the public. Boston Derby Dames' team Boston Massacre recruit at rinks all over the greater Boston region, but compete in Wilmington, MA and practice in Holbrook, MA (yet they are granted consideration as one of Boston's teams). Their practice schedule is also witheld from the public. The Boston Red Sox train not just in Fenway, but also in other areas of the country for spring training, and their recruiters/scouters travel not only across the country but to other countries as well. Skate Free or Die, which is the travel team for New Hampshire Roller Derby, competes and practices at the JFK Memorial Coliseum, with an undisclosed schedule to protect their skaters from security issues. If Fenway Park is home to the Boston Red Sox because they train and compete there, then I do not see how New Hampshire Roller Derby is exempt from this same consideration, especially when their . Also, New Hampshire Roller Derby's use of the JFK is well documented by several publications online and in print. The JFK Memorial Coliseum in MAnchester, NH is their home venue for competing with teams from other states, cities, and regions. They do not practice, train, recruit, or compete in Nashua, NH. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I would also like to make the observation that Team1up has made a couple of attempts to publish a page for ManchVegas Roller Girls that has been deleted for blatant advertising. It appears that this user has a conflict of interest in making unbiased, objective edits to information having to do with a roller derby presence in Manchester, NH. The two leagues are both amateur leagues that would be in direct competition for venue space and recruiting efforts. I am reverting the sports section back to the previous edit, where both teams are present. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated here : http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/squeals_on_wheels_1204776282/

"Following the nationwide resurgence of the crash-and-slam sport over the past three or four years, the group of 20- and 30-something women began rallying here last fall. They now come to Tyngsborough's Roller Kingdom every week from all over the Merrimack Valley and the southern-central sliver of New Hampshire to skate, vamp, and train for on-rink battle. They hope to begin league play in 2009"

"The group assembles at the squat Roller Kingdom building, slung along Middlesex Road just a few minutes from the New Hampshire border, every Thursday night."

Oh and in the nashua telegraph here http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS01/312070078/-1/XML07

"Members of the first New Hampshire women’s roller derby league, Skate Free or Die Roller Girls, work on calisthenics Thursday at Skate 3 in Tyngsborough, Mass."

Just stating the obvious.. for some reason i don't see txt anywhere that says every week we train in Manchester nh here.. etc etc etc.All i see is we have bouts in Manchester JFK that's fine that's true... All I'm stating is that there are 2 different groups who are own and run separately.. the Nashua team above and the MVRG who train and operate in Manchester not Nashua.. anyone can have bouts anywhere but training well were in Manchester there in Nashua. I have the uppermost respect for them, But historically This is wrong. Were the only team that runs out of Manchester.

To top it off if i cant create a wiki page with all the correct information for MVRG who can ? Anytime anyone creates the page the wiki trolls come out and  take it away. We have valid information site resources & keep it up to date. I'm sticking to my derby guns here and would like to see this resolved asap.

Team1up (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Team1up, I believe you have been recently warned about contributing topics and articles where you have a conflict of interest. If you are a part of an organization you need to follow the appropriate standards for Wikipedia. As a member of the ManchVegas Roller Girls, you have not shown a neutral point of view in your edits to articles with information pertaining to New Hampshire Roller Derby.

 * New Hampshire Roller Derby, like so many other non-WFTDA leagues is currently chartered, insured, and sanctioned by USARS. The JFK Memorial Coliseum is a USARs sanctioned facility for roller derby events and practices held by New Hampshire Roller Derby. This sanctioning can be confirmed on the USARS website through their events listing.

 * The articles you are referencing are from early last year. Even those articles, including the Boston Globe's article, state that New Hampshire Roller Derby is the first and only roller derby league in NH at the time those articles were written. As far as can be certain, ManchVegas Roller Girls were not formed as of January 11th, 2008 according to an article in the HippoPress: | http://www.hippopress.com/music/nite080110b.html. The league has not practiced at the rink in Tyngsboro, MA for some time now, due to its loss of USARS sanctioning for roller derby.

 * Also, playing by the WFTDA rule set does NOT make a league governed by WFTDA or affiliated with the organization. It's just a standard rule set. Pioneer Valley Roller Derby in Holyoke, MA and Central Mass Roller Derby in Worcester, MA and even New Hampshire Roller Derby play by the WFTDA rule set but are not WFTDA affiliated. The WFTDA website does not list ManchVegas as an affiliated OR member league. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames -- ManchVegas?
Is "ManchVegas" really unique to Manchester? It's a rather common form of ironic nicknaming seen in a lot of cities: first syllable + Vegas, e.g. DorchVegas (Dorchester). --71.235.98.27 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Outside of twenty-something hipsters I've never heard the term Manchvagas used. The amount of article space given to discussing it far outweighs it's real world use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.45.107 (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I've heard adults use the term, which has been in use for a generation at least. T-Shirts are sold with the term printed on it. It's a factual, in-use term. The amount of space given to it is because it was merged from another article because of ruthless deletionists' repeated attempts to delete it. - Nhprman 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, definitely a real term. Google "ManchVegas" right now and you get thirty thousand hits, mostly looking like they're referring to NH, whereas "DorchVegas" gets one tenth as many and is split up between Dorchester in the UK and a bunch of Dorchesters in the US (and maybe Canada and Australia? I'm not sure.)  Trying Google Books you also get a bunch of hits for "ManchVegas" all in books or other sources referring to New Hampshire, going back to 2004; "DorchVegas" gets zero Google Books hits right now.

 * "ManchVegas" was already in common use in the 90's when I was in college in NH, (like, some people always said "ManchVegas" instead of "Manchester", every single time they mentioned it, rather than it being a jokey one-off) and we're all in our thirties now obviously. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The arguments above make it clear "ManchVegas" is common and notable enough for inclusion. Growing up in Manchester in the 1950s and 1960s, our favorite term of affectionate abuse for our hometown was "Manchesta city of culcha." I'm sure that's not notable, and I mention it only to give a nostalgic smile to any of my age-cohorts who read this page. betsythedevine (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Manch-Vegas isn't in exclusive use in the city itself either. I live in Dover, NH (nearly on the border with Maine) and "Manch-Vegas" is used quite often over here as well. 21:30, 19 January 2011

There are no WFTDA leagues in New Hampshire, whatsoever
Skating by WFTDA's rules does not make a league a member of WFTDA. I'm not from New Hampshire, I'm not affiliated with either local league, and I'm sure they're both a bunch of great people.

Here's an OFFICIAL listing of WFTDA member leagues. You won't find the letters "NH" after any of the cities listed. Not yet, anyways. TimBRoy (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've changed Manch-Vegas' affiliation to USARS (USA Roller Sports). They are not listed on the WFTDA site as members, they are listed on the USARS site as a member league. NH Roller Derby is as well. Perhaps a compromise like this that references cite-worthy sites would suit you folks better than edit wars? TimBRoy (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * TimBRoy, I'm not sure if your changes were lost in the reverting by Team1up, did you mean to list NHRD as an USARS league? Skate Free or Die and New Hampshire Roller Derby are actually two separate entities, with Skate Free Or Die! Rollergirls of NH being a team governed under New Hampshire Roller Derby. I know that New Hampshire Roller Derby is a league currently chartered by USARS. The distinction seems to be a bit hairy. Does the team or the governing league get entered in as the club? Encyclopediaclown (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Encyclopediaclown Nah, I didn't touch that. I wanted to think that over a bit. Roller derby leagues tend to work with a different business model than most sports organizations. They are a league made up of local teams, which is part of a larger organization like WFTDA, OSDA or USARS. You might want to see how that's dealt with on other cities' pages. My primary reason for editing this page was to remove something which was clearly not true and replace it with something that was true. What you have in there MIGHT be factually correct but not in the most common format, or it might be fine. I couldn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * After some further consideration, I decided to make NHRD's appearance on the list consistent with MVRG. Inasmuch as they appear to be single team leagues, USARS works a bit better, as it's the organization which the club plays against other members of. Roller Derby leagues as they exist at present are all pretty much single-city entities. In other words, for the purpose of a city's list of teams, the league can be considered a team, and USARS, WFTDA, OSDA or Renegades could be considered the league. TimBRoy (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * TimBRoy - The only issue I have with saying that USARS is a governing body of any roller derby league is that USARS (as they relate to roller derby, I'm not sure about other roller sports) is just how some leagues get their insurance. Interleague play is not usually determined by membership to USARS, but by availability of the leagues participating. As far as I know, NHRD is the only league in New England still insuring through USARS, and yet they have played WFTDA leagues - Maine and Providence to date - and will eventually play the Boston Massacre (because it is the only way they will be able to obtain one of the membership requirements for WFTDA). To what extent is an organization like USARS a governing body? They provide no standard rule set, do not rank member leagues, and do not sanction events in the way that WFTDA or OSDA does. The only reason they charter leagues and sanction facilities is because they have a contract with AIG - AIG will not pay out on claims that occur at an unsanctioned facility or with an unchartered league. USARS also charters/insures some OSDA leagues... Would it be more appropriate to say that USARS is not a governing body but a third-party method of insuring? Encyclopediaclown (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Encyclopediaclown - USARS is not an insurance company. That's a common misperception about the organization. From their web site: "USA Roller Sports (USARS) is recognized by the Federation Internationale de Roller Skating (FIRS) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) as the National Governing Body for Competitive Roller Sports in the United States." Both leagues are listed as members of USARS as per the link I provided elsewhere on the chat page. USARS does sanction roller derby events, which they actually generally list on their web sites. In fact, they require a sanction for derby bouts for the event to be covered. Roller derby gets regular features in the magazine they produce for their members, and they seem to be in the starting stage of planning to hold tournaments for member leagues. Basically, unless they drop USARS membership, I'd file both leagues under USARS until they gain WFTDA, OSDA, or even Renegades membership. It's an organization of leagues that they are member leagues within.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 * At least the Green Mountain Derby Dames (Essex Jct./Colchester, Vermont) are members of USARS and located in New England. Pioneer Valley Roller Derby (Holyoke, MA) does not use USARS nor are they affiliated with WFTDA (ineligible due to having a men's team). I'm not certain about Central Mass Roller Derby's affiliation. Maine, Boston, Providence, and Connecticut are all affiliated with WFTDA and have dropped their USARS affiliation. USARS also tracks and archives scores as well as writes articles about bouts they sanction. Amy "Bitches Bruze" Moore (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, we don’t play by usars, we play by wftda rules and hence the wftda affiliation. If i could get the wiki page up without it being taken down it is stated in there as we play by their rules & working towards getting to be wftda qualified. Team1up (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * USARS does not have a rule set. ManchVegas is listed as a member of USARS, not as a member of WFTDA. Unless you can provide a reliable source that indicates ManchVegas is affiliated with WFTDA, please stop altering this information. Make your case as part of the discussion page instead of continuing to revert. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * @ Team1up:It really doesn't matter what rules a league plays by. If they are a member league of WFTDA, they would be listed on the WFTDA web site as a member league. The league is NOT a member of WFTDA per the WFTDA web site. More than 95% of the 400ish leagues around the world skate by WFTDA rules. Only 77 of them are currently WFTDA member leagues.

 * I have provided cites that establish that ManchVegas is a member of USARS and is not a member of WFTDA. That column is for affiliation, not for "What rules they skate by." If it were for the rules set, both leagues would be listed as WFTDA, would they not? In your writings here, you're pretty clearly displaying evidence of a conflict of interest, by the way. TimBRoy (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as NHRD is now a WFTDA Apprentice, Can we remove this whole section.. since its not needed anymore. WiiBlockHer (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Adding to that, NHRD was just inducted as a full member of WFTDA yesterday (6/17/10) so a big chunk of this discussion page could be cleaned up, if so desired. Anguissette1979 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
There seems to be an obsession about size in the introduction. It gets alot boring reading through it. Isn't the introduction suppose to give a person a thumbnail sketch of the city? Shouldn't the thinking be that if a person is going to only read one paragraph about about the city, that is what you would want them to know. I know Manchester has more going for it then being the biggest fish in the pond. Dave 2346 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that the intro got bogged down with the fine points of people counting, so I moved the NECTA details into the Demographics section. Now there is room in the intro for more interesting overview info about Manchester, should someone feel inclined to take that on.--Ken Gallager (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The intro is necessary to include all points... 115.117.146.153 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, no. If you put all points in the introduction, it wouldn't be an introduction, would it?  It would be the whole article.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester, Nashua... Tyngsborough?
NHRD practices at least 2/3 of the season and bouts at Manchester's JFK Memorial Coliseum (see citations on both New Hampshire Roller Derby and Nashua, NH pages). They are currently listed on the Nashua page but should also be listed in Manchester. Because I am affiliated with this league, and given the apparent history of this page, I do not feel comfortable making the addition (in compliance with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policies). Additional references can be provided as needed for this. Anguissette1979 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Added it here. I left a comment on the Nashua page, wondering why it's listed there. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Ken : With All Due Respect, to my knowledge NHRD practices at Roller Kingdom on the Nashua/Ma border for the year and has games "bouts" at JFK. Kinda like how MVRG practices at there own facility here in Manchester but has games "bouts" at the West Side Arena. So if I am correct they should be listed in both places. Maybe make a notation on that this is where they host Games and make Nashua there Home practice space for the rest of the year. But i won't add anything/tweak anything since the "conflict of interest" is also in my court. Just trying to make sure everything is correct. WiiBlockHer (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * My point is that Roller Kingdom is not in Nashua. It's in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. If they practiced across the river in Hudson, they'd be listed in Hudson, not Nashua.  A similar example is with the Rockingham County Courthouse.  Several years ago, the state moved the courthouse out of Exeter onto undeveloped land in neighboring Brentwood.  Guess where the county seat of Rockingham County is now?  Not Exeter anymore, even though Exeter is clearly the more significant community.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
OK. It's about time. I know that like 4 years ago, the ManchVegas article survived a barely noticed deletion discussion. Still, there does not seem to be anything much at the ManchVegas article that couldn't be said here, I don't think we're well served with two articles here. The term is certainly used often, but its just not worth keeping a seperate article about. Any ideas? -- Jayron  32  03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I support merging. How about putting the "ManchVegas" info in the Culture section? (Removing duplicate info as needed, of course.)  --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I also support merging. As Ken said, place "ManchVegas" into the cultural section... no reason for seperate article--Ericci8996 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't see any need for a separate article. Go ahead and merge. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Geography - ridiculous data
just a short while back, I chose to remove the climactic data presented. Given Manchester's location not too far from the Atlantic coast, and its low-lying location, the normal winter day-night (diurnal) temperature range should NOT be even close to 27 °F. Among NE stations, I have seen 20 °F for some areas away from an urban heat island, but rarely any larger: winter ranges here mostly tend to fall between 11-17 °F. Apparently, I checked the list of New Hampshire stations listed here, and the closest one to the city centre of Manchester appears to be Massabesic Lake, which is clearly in a rural setting. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to depict an urban-influenced climate in an urban location. Thus I intend to change the station to Nashua. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Have you looked at a map for this? Part of Massabesic is within the city boundary of Manchester itself, the remainder being in the adjacent town of Auburn.  Does it really make sense to choose a completely different city 20km+ away?  That's all I'm going to say because I'm no climate expert.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * yes, which reminds me that I completely neglected to provide the map link. It's just that the 27 F (15 C) diurnal range is ridiculous and reflects the relatively rural setting of the lake rather than the urbanised setting that we are aiming to depict. And 20 km+ isn't that unreasonable; some airports are located that distance away from their city centres, yet Wiki still oddly uses such articles. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The diurnal range may be ridiculous, but is actually accurate. Nashua, some 20 miles to the south, does not have the same temperature fluctuations that Manchester does. I cannot explain why this is so, but it is. If you change the data, you will be guilty of making the information misleading and incorrect. OneEyedCat (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * whatever. I am adding on NOAA sourcing. Hopefully 1981-2010 data will have a station at Manchester Regional Airport. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That wouldn't really satisfy your objection, however, because the airport is farther away from downtown than the Massabesic Lake station. Perhaps the data isn't "ridiculous", but merely "interesting" and worth presenting as is.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I have to say that it seems to me that all this data is saying is that Manchester isn't an especially urban location or is not an especially standard urban location. If we include data from Nashua then it should be clearly labeled as data from Nashua rather than Manchester.

 * I think that it would be better to include the data that is actually from Manchester with a note that it's from the part of Manchester in the vicinity of Lake Massabesic as opposed to being from downtown Manchester, and that the actual temperature in downtown Manchester may have differed due to the UHI effect you mention; we can even refer the reader to the Nashua climate data as a possibly more representative downtown temperature. That would be more encyclopedic and in line with the goals of the Wikipedia project, I should think, rather than presenting the Nashua data for Manchester without caveat.  (Although if you can point to some existing consensus on the duty to "depict an urban-influenced climate" I'd be interested in reading it.  It just seems odd to me that we would have a mandate or other motive to depict anything other than actual, documented information about the subject of the article.)

 * ...oops, okay, that's what the article says right now. I'm just going to wikify urban heat island. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

and anyone care to comment on the validity of the snow data? I find it far more doubtful, so take a look: the NOAA source we used in the article says that the September snow average is 0.2 in, while October's is 0, and September has a greatest daily snowfall of 4.3 in, while for the same figure October has a trace amount. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Again, it sounds strange, but I'm inclined to say it's real rather than they messed up their records somehow. If you divide a single 4.3 inch snow event over 30 years, you get 0.14 inches of snow per September.  I remember a significant snowfall in the early fall of 1989, but my memory had put it around October 4.  September 27 is not that far from there, so I'd go with the published record over my memory.  What's much stranger is that they don't have any measurable snowfall for October.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhoods
How the heck is a description of the neighborhoods in a city irrelevant to an article about that city?

Dkriegls, it sounds to me like you aren't actually reading the guidelines and policies you are citing. Notability is about whether or not a particular topic gets its own article in Wikipedia independent from others, not about classifying the details of a particular topic that are already in an article "notable" and "not notable".

The bit you quote in your edit comment from the style guide, "material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail" is immediately preceded by the phrase "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope:" and it's in a section called "Size". It doesn't have anything to do with deleting lists you come across.

If your personal opinion is that mentioning and describing the neighborhoods of Manchester as defined by the city's own planning board is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the city and shouldn't even be rewritten as prose the way the guideline you link to recommends, make the case here. Don't just toss around links to guidelines and policies that are vaguely related to your edits and act as if your edits are somehow anointed by them. I have no idea why you think "Consensus is not to list this" - it hasn't even been discussed and it appears that you're trying to make up consensus on the spot to support whatever action you take.

At the very least, clean up after yourself. Take care of the preceding paragraph that now ends in a dangling colon. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I delete long lists from city pages that add little value (IMO) to readers of the article and are not typically found on any other city pages (I used 'consensus' when I meant standard practice; which can be considered assumed consensus). I have grown to default on deleting lists of neighborhoods because almost all the other lists of neighborhoods I have come across in smaller cites were promotionals for subdivisions and housing developments. I understand that this is not the case here and I understand that you think there is good reason to keep this info on Wikipedia. Big city pages like Chicago have separate list pages for neighborhoods. I think Manchester is big enough to warrant such a list. We can work on creating that list together. The main reason I think it shouldn't be included here is that its creates a vague inclusion criterion for other lists that go "into unnecessary detail". There is nothing notable about this list that wouldn't also fit for a list of Mayors, city Aldermen, historical alderman, city wards, top employers (I see that a lot). I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument, I just think there should be clear inclusion criterion based on notable information. So lets make a Neighborhoods in Manchester, New Hampshire list page. Dkriegls (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I was inclined to agree with S. Bandersnatch, as this is the largest city in the state, it has numerous distinct neighborhoods, and it follows up on a discussion of the city's neighborhood planning. So why would someone want to remove that information?  However, I see that Dkriegls has offered to work on a Neighborhoods page, so I have gone ahead and started it.  Have at it, folks!  --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Before we go creating such articles willy-nilly, we first need to consider if there is reliable, independent, published information which we could use as sources for the information. Something more substantial and reliable that real-estate listings or a bare list of neighborhoods.  Something which discusses, in depth, the history and details of each neighborhood would be good.  We should write articles because source material exist, not because it makes us feel inferior that Chicago has articles about individual neighborhoods and Manchester doesn't.  If the only justification is that, we need to reconsider the wisdom of such a move.  If, instead, someone has a book on their shelves which has lots of good information on the subject, which is just waiting to be used as a source, then have at it.  -- Jayron  32  12:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * It's based on the city's 2010 Master Plan. I've copied the source ref over to the neighborhoods list. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Dkreigls, it appears to me that you do not understand some basic Wikipedia policies and concepts. There isn't "notable information" and "non-notable information" in Wikipedia terminology and you can't make individual edits and claim that they're supported by consensus based on your personal interpretation of guideline pages and patterns you think you see: that is not what consensus means.

 * You should not be going around and based upon your personal judgement of whether a city is big enough or important enough deciding how long the article should be and eliminating tens or hundreds of hours or more of other peoples' work actually researching and writing encyclopedia content in those articles to enact that judgement. It's one thing if you think something is promotional spam after carefully reading and looking at the topic but things like accounts of the neighborhoods or past mayors of a city are certainly appropriate to be researched and documented on Wikipedia.  An entire encyclopedia can be written on a single city - this is called a city gazetteer and they were written hundreds of years ago when most of the cities in the world were smaller than Manchester is now.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no reason to limit the topics it documents encyclopedically or the amount of encyclopedic content on those topics.

 * If you think there should be inclusion criteria limiting what Wikipedia can document encyclopedically based upon whether a topic is big enough or important enough, go start a project page advocating this and try to get it adopted as a guideline or policy. Don't go around deleting chunks of researched and written encyclopedia content based on your personal judgement and call it consensus.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I belong to and am active in both the WP:WikiProject Cities and WP:WikiProject Lists, neither of which make a default inclusion criterion for lists of neighborhoods. Many editors, including myself, think that style and presentation have just as much to do with access to information for readers as content does. There are plenty of editors that argue against the cumbersomeness of articles that include everything and the kitchen sink. I've addressed the rest of your personal attacks and critics of my interpretive ability on my talk page where it is more appropriate. I ask that you keep this thread WP:Civil and focused on discussions of editing this page. Do you support creation of a separate page for the neighborhood information as Ken Gallager so graciously did? Dkriegls (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't care whether it's maintained in this article or in a separate one as a notable topic itself as long as you aren't eliminating encyclopedic content that other people have gone to the trouble of researching and writing. I am not going to fight with you on your talk page.  When you are making edits in support of your argument or philosophy about Wikipedia, please do not toss around links to policy or guidelines to imply that they support your personal editing decisions, nor quote them out of context for such a purpose. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While we're are on the topic of cleaning up Neighborhoods. Other WP:Manual of Style issues that need to be addressed include turning the blue links to outside websites into references. Also, citation 12 to nhpr is a dead link, and the outside link to LivableMHT should be removed altogether because of its open advocacy and NPV issues. The links to its maps seem okay. Dkriegls (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I created the original section & list of neighborhoods in Manchester. I also created the LivableMHT neighborhood map that is linked to in the article. Both the neighborhood names and boundaries are based on the city's 2010 Master Plan, mentioned by Ken Gallager. I original set up the list in the hopes that others would build upon it with more information. Similarly sized and prominent cities in the region, such as Providence and Portland have both informative overviews of their neighborhoods in their main pages, as well as much lengthier descriptions in their respective neighborhood pages. I think something similar would be appropriate for Manchester, and I'm happy to see that Ken Gallager has started a separate Neighborhoods of Manchester page. The Neighborhoods of Portland page seems especially good in terms of style and content. FrankLloydMike 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The link to the Neighborhoods in Manchester, New Hampshire should probably be more prominent. Maybe a "main article" link at the top of the section. The prose still left in the city article would make a great lead section for the new list article. Dkriegls (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Record temps
In case there were any doubts, here are the November record highs (in °F) for some major (regional) cities on the Eastern Seaboard (i.e. south and east of the Appalachians) south of Manchester, NH: Even though NOAA/NWS's period of record for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre dates only back to 1948, I rest my case. GotR Talk 18:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Weather.com has 91 as the record in Manchester in November, see and select the "record high" check box.  That's a reliable source.  You need a different reliable source to say that is wrong.  Sorry, "It doesn't feel right" doesn't cut it.  -- Jayron  32  21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Weather Undergound has the record high temperature for November occurring on November 27, 1954, and lists 91 degrees. Again, if you have a source that corrects this, that's fine.  But you can't go on feelings alone.  -- Jayron  32  21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but it isn't "Verifiability trumps truth", but "Verifiability and truth". My conclusions are not based on feeling, as you falsely accuse me, but on what is physically possible–only Columbia, SC and the southern half of Florida have 90 °F+ November records. Analogous, Simply because Weather.com has Boston's record low at −30 °F does not make Boston's record low −30 °F. See my talk for clarification. GotR Talk 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * How do you know what you say is the truth? You've not established that with any sources?  As far as I know, that figure is true, and I have no reason to believe that either Weather Underground or Weather.com is deliberately deceiving me or has faulty methods in their determinations.  I've never said that verifiability trumps truth.  I'm merely saying that a) I wasn't in Manchester in 1954 to know myself and b) two reliable sources both report that number.  So, how do I know the number isn't true?  Because you're not comfortable with the number based on a random collection of other numbers you found?  -- Jayron  32  23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Stop playing dumb. These "numbers" are not a "random collection" if you create a scatterplot with each city's latitude on the X-axis and the corresponding Nov. record high on the Y-axis. Barring everything else, lower latitude → higher sun angle → warmer non-summer temperatures. Until you illuminate me otherwise, there is nothing that can plausibly explain why Manchester, NH has a more extreme NOV high than almost all the locations above or how it can, as compared to OCT, despite significantly reduced sunshine, host a significantly higher NOV record.

 * We editors are behooved to learn not to immediately accept anything and everything, as illustrated by my example for Boston. And AFAIK, Weather.com and Weather Underground derive their averages from NOAA, which, as you should know from their supposed magical heat island in Baltimore, is not error-free. GotR Talk 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not playing dumb. What I am saying is that if NOAA is wrong, then show me a source which says they are wrong.  It's quite simple: find something, anything, written in the entire world that contradicts the above.  Not just your own feelings on the matter, but something someone wrote down in another reliable source.  I've never said that NOAA was infallible.  I'm just asking for a source to show they are wrong here.  -- Jayron  32  00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What's to hide?
We watch BYUtv "Story Trek" where they do stories of citizens in rural and urban neighborhoods. They were in Manchester, New Hampshire, and were told by police in two patrol cars that it would be illegal to do such a story in Manchester. What's that about? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)-- Is there a lawyer in the house?

 * I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with this article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Passenger rail (future)
There's a section in the article entitled "passenger rail (future)". Has this happened? Does this section need to be updated or deleted? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Manchester, New Hampshire
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester, New Hampshire. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/69hd5KAIE?url=http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.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) 21:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Air Travel
I am not certain I understand the value to include all of the major New England airports in this section in a fairly localized article. I would suggest removing all information about air travel in this section from the words "Alternative airports include". Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manchester, New Hampshire. 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/20100818165507/http://www.yourmanchesternh.com/plans-and-projects/current-projects.aspx to http://www.yourmanchesternh.com/plans-and-projects/current-projects.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717103219/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33/3345140.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33/3345140.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529101017/http://www.verizonwirelessarena.com/arena_info/default.asp to http://www.verizonwirelessarena.com/arena_info/default.asp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130110202616/http://www.eagletribune.com/archivesearch/local_story_239015311.html to http://www.eagletribune.com/archivesearch/local_story_239015311.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320095942/http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/HSIPR_Summary_of_Federal_Investments.pdf to http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/HSIPR_Summary_of_Federal_Investments.pdf

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) 10:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Manchester, England from the 'Sister Cities' section
There is no evidence online of Manchester, NH and Manchester, England having any signed agreement to be sister cities. Manchester, England website makes no mention of Manchester, NH: https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/100004/the_council_and_democracy/5903/international_civic_links

I managed to find that there was a proposal made back in 2013 but it looks like nothing ever proceeded past that. https://www.fosters.com/article/20130211/AP02/302119981?template=ampart

So I've removed it from the page as the original edit back in 2017 was made with zero citations from an anonymous IP that has since been blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia. Flibblesan (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

St. Anselm College
A veteran editor has removed mention of St. Anselm College from the article's list of educational institutions, making the obvious point that the college is not located within the city limits. The deleted text in fact made that point as well and served to correct a common mistake by reporters and others who write that the college is in Manchester. I spent hours finding and correcting as many Wikipedia articles as I could which repeated the mistake; there were dozens. So this is a check to see if anybody still reads this talk page. Should we or should we not mention the fact that St. Anselm is regularly and mistakenly believed to be in Manchester? I suppose someone in rebuttal could say, "Harvard isn't in Manchester either", or any other college, but the fact is that it is an extremely common mistake to place St. Anselm in Manchester. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Here is the deleted text, so people won't have to search through the edit history:
 * Saint Anselm College, in the Pinardville neighborhood of the adjacent town of Goffstown, but with a Manchester mailing address and telephone exchange
 * Ken Gallager (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And less than one month later, an editor puts St. Anselm back into the list, incorrectly listing it on the Manchester/Bedford border. I will restore a version of the above text so as to head off further well-meaning attempts. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Transportation section
I added details about the bus service, and how that service has been cut back in recent years. But it looks like most of that was removed from the article, and I'm just not sure why. It's especially odd to see such a tiny Bus section now, compared to the long Passenger Rail section. After all, there is bus service in Manchester today but no passenger rail service. And let's be honest, the chances of passenger rail ever returning to the state of NH is very low. So why not cut down on the rail talk and give readers more useful information about the bus? DakaCookies (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manchester, New Hampshire


text:
Robert Reimann (United States Navy officer)

Robert Theodore Reimann Sr. (August 17, 1936 - June 29, 2014) was a U.S. Navy rear admiral. Born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he graduated from the Boston University College of Business Administration in 1958. He then attended the Officer Candidate School at Newport, Rhode Island, and was commissioned into the United States Naval Reserve as an ensign on May 1, 1959.

Reimann's first assignment was aboard the destroyer escort Gainard (DD-706). He served as executive officer on the destroyer escort Van Voorhis (DE-1028) and the destroyer USS Charles H. Roan (DD-853). Reimann was given command of the destroyer escort USS Courtney (DE-1021) from July 1970 to January 1972 and the destroyer escort Garcia (DE-1040) from April 1972 to August 1973.

After attending the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and serving a shore assignment in Coronado, California, Reimann became executive officer of the guided missile cruiser Chicago (CG-11). He served as the commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Gridley (CG-21) from January 1982 to December 1984.

As a flag officer, Reimann commanded Pearl Harbor Naval Base in 1987, was Naval Sea Systems Command's deputy commander for surface combatants in 1989, and was the deputy assistant chief of naval operations for surface warfare in 1991.

At NAVSEA, Reimann helped oversee the 1988–89 repair of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) by Bath Iron Works in Portland, Maine, after it was nearly sunk by an Iranian mine during Operation Earnest Will.

Reimann received the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, three awards of the Legion of Merit, and three Meritorious Service Medals.

After retiring from the Navy in January 1993, Reimann went to work for Rumpf Associates International, a defense contractor based in Arlington, Virginia.

He married Iris Johnson, with whom he had two children (Robert Reimann Jr. and Lynne Reimann), and had four granddaughters. They lived in Great Falls, Virginia. After his death in 2014, Reimann Sr. was interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

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


text:
RAD750

The RAD750 is a radiation-hardened single-board computer manufactured by BAE Systems Electronics, Intelligence & Support. The successor of the RAD6000, the RAD750 is for use in high-radiation environments experienced on board satellites and spacecraft. The RAD750 was released in 2001, with the first units launched into space in 2005.

Technology
The CPU has 10.4 million transistors, an order of magnitude more than the RAD6000 (which had 1.1 million). It is manufactured using either 250 or 150 nm photolithography and has a die area of 130 mm2. It has a core clock of 110 to 200 MHz and can process at 266 MIPS or more. The CPU can include an extended L2 cache to improve performance. The CPU can withstand an absorbed radiation dose of 2,000 to 10,000 grays (200,000 to 1,000,000 rads), temperatures between −55 °C and 125 °C, and requires 5 watts of power. The standard RAD750 single-board system (CPU and motherboard) can withstand 1,000 grays (100,000 rads), temperatures between −55 °C and 70 °C, and requires 10 watts of power.

The RAD750 system has a price that is comparable to the RAD6000, the latter of which as of 2002 was listed at US$200,000. Customer program requirements and quantities, however, greatly affect the final unit costs.

The RAD750 is based on the PowerPC 750. Its packaging and logic functions are completely compatible with the PowerPC 7xx family.

The term RAD750 is a registered trademark of BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc.

Deployment
In 2010, it was reported that there were over 150 RAD750s used in a variety of spacecraft. Notable examples, in order of launch date, include:
 * Deep Impact comet-chasing spacecraft, launched in January 2005 – first to use the RAD750 computer.
 * XSS 11, small experimental satellite, launched 11 April 2005.
 * Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched 12 August 2005.
 * SECCHI (Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation) instrument package on each of the STEREO spacecraft, launched 15 October 2006.
 * WorldView-1 satellite, launched 18 September 2007, has two RAD750s.
 * Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, formerly GLAST, launched 11 June 2008.
 * Kepler space telescope, launched in March 2009.
 * Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched on 18 June 2009.
 * Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), launched 14 December 2009.
 * Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched 11 February 2010.
 * Juno spacecraft, launched 5 August 2011.
 * Curiosity rover, launched 26 November 2011.
 * Van Allen Probes, launched on 30 August 2012.
 * InSight, launched on 5 May 2018.
 * Perseverance rover, launched 30 July 2020.
 * James Webb Space Telescope, launched 25 December 2021, uses one RAD750 clocked at 118 MHz.

title: RAD750


text:
Template talk:Tone

Rename
Can this be renamed tone or something? — Omegatron 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * writing tone has the same effect --FlareNUKE 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well I think not 68.80.2.130 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup?
What's the point of adding the cleanup part? It just nullifies the use since we could just use regular cleanup.

Reference please

 * This article may not be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Where? In the style guide lines, I couldn't find anything on the inappropriateness of using formal tone! Please, be more specific when you refer to guide lines. Don't refer to just a general category of many, many style guide pages. I almost feel like tagging this tag with

Also, no further reason whatsoever is given why specifically 'this article' is not allowed to be formal of tone, and why you make exceptions to your rule for other articles.

-- ActiveSelective 08:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, (IIANM) the template tries to say that the article is not written in a formal tone, and how is that a problem, not that the problem is that it is formal. But it also tries to be very polite, so it does not say "the article is badly written", it says "the article is maybe badly written". And, in effect, the template could have been understood in the exact opposite sense. I tried to reformulate it (although I think the best idea would be to drop the excessive politeness), take a look at it, please. --Mormegil 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Ha, funny, a case of incorrect grammar changing the meaning. User:ActiveSelective interpreted "may not be" in the sense of permission as in "you may do this".  What the sentence meant to say was that the article might not be such-and-such, meaning that "it seems to be" so-and-so.  Fortunately, as of now the sentence has been revised to avoid this goof. 24.19.184.243 09:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single word in the style guides does mention any "formal tone". The single instance of "tone" is in "News style ... Encyclopedia articles do not have to follow news style". Indeed: Wikipedia does not bind itself to pseudo-informed formalism. So this template as a whole is complete nonsense. --Jhartmann 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the cleanup template to avoid potential ambiguity: if this template is transcluded to an article, it won't be clear that the not verified tag applies to the inappropriate tone tag and not the article. I propose the following rewrite to address your concern:

This article or section does not seem to be written in the tone recommended by Wikipedia's style guidelines. Wikipedia articles should use a clear, informative, and unbiased writing style. Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the |talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles, article development guide, and guide to writing the perfect article for suggestions.
 * --Muchness 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to convey the message "what you've written is rubbish, but I can't be bothered even discussing how to improve it". Here's my suggestion for a tag to be added to the talk page: In my opinion this article could benefit from improvement in writing style to fully achieve the clear, informative, and unbiased approach set out in the guide to writing the perfect article. My particular concerns are indicated below, please add your own comments to discuss proposed changes or try editing to improve the article. This tag automatically adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing to request additional help. Further suggestions for improvement can be found at Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles and article development guide. --dave souza, talk 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page
I think, as an comment to editors of a page and not to the readers, this template ought to go at the top of the talk page not the article page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Completely agree. .. dave souza, talk 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, this kind of tag do not belong in the articles. Articles should be discussed on the talk page, not in the articles them self.
 * Non-editors should not have to scroll past one or more ugly tags before they get to the actual article. As I see it this kind of tag often makes more damage than the "problem" the tag is pointing out. The tag is confusing and scary for non-editors and as such very detrimental. The only "benefit" this kind of tag has is that it puts the article in a clean-up category, but for that purpose it works just as well to put a tag on the talk page.
 * My experience is that people who slab this kind of tag on an article often do not write an explanation on the talk page what they find is the problem and don't ever bother to fix the problem. I find that lazy, to complain but not fix.
 * --David Göthberg 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
"This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry."

Can we change it to something like This article or section does not seem to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry. or something less awkward? The current wording really makes me mad. -- D -Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwelcome annoyance without useful advice
This tag advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find. Wikipedia can have a problem with knowledgeable or expert editors being driven away by the stress and tediousness of dealing with vandalism and pov pushing. Use of this tag, while no doubt well intentioned, has the same effect and can be more damage than help. I'll try to think of ways of rewording this tag, possibly along the more neutral lines of cleanup with an indication that it should go on the talk page. It should perhaps be added that this came up in the context of it being added to articles which arguably are lively and interesting, but which had been admired as an improvement or asset by very experienced editors. ...dave souza, talk 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. There are many templates like this that are placed in articles to call attention to specific things that need to be addressed.  It is quite useful, especially for an encyclopedia that everyone is allowed to edit.  I have used it before on articles with content that has been pasted from an older public-domain source (like the 1911 encyclopedia) that used more florid language than is customary for today's encyclopedias.  It doesn't mean the content is bad, just that the language or writing style should be worked on.  The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not going to take this template as a personal insult and be driven from the project.  I agree, the Guide to writing better articles page can be expanded to provide more details and help about this.  --JW1805 (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I also disagree. Any problem with the 'Tone' tag has, in my admittedly limited (1 example) experience, been based more with the character of an editor in an unreasonable reaction to the placing of the tag than in any flaw based within the tag itself. Frankly, no editor who is incapable of quite succinctly winning an argument with someone who is comparatively (or supposedly) ignorant deserves to be considered an "expert" - I find the suggestion that expert users are being forced out of wikipedia by pov pushing ludicrous for this very reason. With regard to how this issue became an issue i agree wholeheartedly with JW1805 that the vast majority of wikipedians would not take this tag as a personal insult - and that there are those who do/would is a condemnation of their character rather than of the tag itself. As for improving the tag i certainly think this is possible. It should probably be expected that anytime the tag is placed it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of exactly why it has been placed upon the talk page of an article for starters. siarach 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see general agreement that the tag had problems: I've made a minimal modification to make it match the guidance it links to: improved guidance on "tone" in the Guide to writing better articles will be welcome, though such a change should of course be carefully discussed to reach consensus. The problem of getting editors placing the tag to clarify their concerns on the talk page has not been addressed: suggestions for this would be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is inappropriate tone?
As various editors have pointed out, there is no guidance as to the mysterious "tone" or official requirement for this "tone" to meet some editor's tastes. This is something that can be discussed on the talk page of the guide to writing better articles, not a vague label to stick on articles where you personally don't like the style. ..dave souza, talk 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is rather clear; it is certainly much clearer than "improvement in writing style", which could mean just about anything. Encyclopedic tone does not mean simply "well-written". Don't revert to implement a change that everyone but you has disagreed with. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your thought that is is rather clear is not matched by any guidance as to what is meant, and in practice this is a matter of individual taste. If an editor cleaning up can't see what the problem is by reading the article, they're hardly likely to share that taste and they're not going to be in a position to mind read the editor who added the tag: As siarach says, "It should probably be expected that anytime the tag is placed it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of exactly why it has been placed upon the talk page of an article for starters." The change was proposed in principle in the section above to meet concerns expressed by other editors, and no objections were raised. In the section two editors disagreed with my description of the problem, hardly surprising as they had added the tags in the incident which drew this to my attention. Of them, one agreed that "As for improving the tag i certainly think this is possible" without commenting either way on my proposal, while the other agreed that "the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page can be expanded to provide more details and help about this". So far such expansion has not been made or even discussed. Your objection is noted, and in the interim I've adjusted the tag to make the guidance situation clear. My proposed tag is shown below for discussion. ...dave souza, talk 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If the editor cleaning up thinks it is in an encyclopedic tone, they can just remove the tag. A whole policy page is not needed for every little quality tag. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revised tag
This article could benefit from improvement in writing style to reach the quality described in the guide to writing the perfect article. Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the |talk page. Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles gives further suggestions.

In my opinion this proposed tag alerts editors to the opinion that improvement is needed in a positive way, and as discussed above editors who have a particular issue with "tone" can add a comment to the talk page clarifying their concern rather than leaving authors to hunt in vain for guidance or possibly giving the impression that a critic is attacking their writing abilities. ..dave souza, talk 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose – this does not mention the main problem this template is all about – not the “quality” of the article in general, but specifically its style itself. A humoristic science fiction novel might have its style perfected, nevertheless, it does not fit into an encyclopedia. This template should say the style of this article is… well… different from that you are used to in a serious encyclopedia. --Mormegil 16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed archnemesis tag
This article, like so many editors of Wikipedia, is a sore need of a sense of humor. Please add wry comments, witty asides, knock-knock jokes and hilarious anecdotes from your misspent youth. Thank you and have a nice day. :P

Requested edit: "article or section" parameter
I would like to request that the "article or section" language be updated with optional data field parameter. Most cleanup templates provide this option. Specifically, should be " ". Thank you, Satori Son 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Luna Santin 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal tone
I added a generic description of formal tone to the Guide to writing better articles in the Other issues section. This should help address the fact that this template sent people on a wild goose chase looking for guidance. It basically just says to follow WP:RS:

 * Formal tone : Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. The standards for formal tone will vary depending on the subject matter, but should follow the style typically used by reliable sources in the subject area. Formal tone does not mean that the article should be written in unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or that it should be filled with jargon; it simply means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Dhaluza 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for information, Guide to writing better articles now gives the needed guidance, with the shortcut WP:TONE linking to the tone subsection. ... dave souza, talk 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone
Would an admin please edit this protected template to wikilink formal tone as in Inappropriate person. Dhaluza 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink "formal tone" to WP:TONE Dhaluza 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, have done the latter. ...... dave souza, talk 09:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bolding weirdness
The text presently reads: This is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Please improve it or discuss changes on the |talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. The lack of boldness is off-putting. It should probably be: This is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Please improve it or discuss changes on the |talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. Could an admin fix this? --Elyscape 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the template to reflect usage
I've been looking through some of the pages tagged with Inappropriate tone, and it seems that only a minority of them are actually written in an excessively informal tone. Some have problems that aren't really about tone as such -- they're written like instruction manuals, or have some neutral point-of-view issues. In those that do have problems with tone, often the issue has nothing at all to do with formality. The tone may be essay-like, yet perfectly formal. Often the template is used to mark the kind of style that you get in older scholarship or reference works like the 1911 Britannica; above, JW1805 gave this as an example of what the tag ought to be used for. Yet this kind of writing is actually very formal and scholarly -- it's just dated in most people's view.

In some cases -- about a third of those I looked at -- I was unable to figure out why the tag had been placed at all, even after digging around in history to find out what the article looked like when it was placed. The editors who tagged these articles presumably thought something was wrong with them, but we may never know what that was. The tag will sit there until someone gets around to removing it, annoying the editors who wrote the article (as User:dave souza pointed out above) while accomplishing nothing constructive.

I suggest changing the text of this tag to better reflect actual usage, to encourage explaining the issues in talk, and to avoid the impression that it represents a judgment from some impartial authority (rather than one editor's possibly idiosyncratic view). How about:

An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Specific concerns may be found on the |talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

 —Cel ithemis  00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I ran into another one of these recently: Simon Mayor. This has a problematic tone, yes, but the problem is not really one of formality; it's more a matter of non-neutral tone.  The template, as it stands, would probably just confuse the person who wrote the article.

 * Unless there are any objections to the above language, I'll place an editprotected request soon.  —Cel ithemis  02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, and given the lack of objections so far will implement the change. .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I just copy-edited the template to remove the fluff. The word "may" is sufficient, not to mention the obvious fact that an editor would have had to express concern to place the tag in the first place. — Deckiller 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

General Clean up
please remove the Template:Not verified and Template:Unsourced from the see also section as they redirect to other listed templates. additionally please use Transclusion for the non-template content of this template. Jeepday (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to talk page section
This template should have a mandatory talk page section parameter. Otherwise it's just another pastel box that doesn't help anyone fix the problem. Shinobu (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tracking category
Please add the tracking category Category:All articles needing style editing between the includeonly tags. Thanks. MER-C 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Done - Nihiltres { t .l } 12:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename...
to for consistency? Stevage 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Since that's already a redirect, I think it's okay to leave it as it is. In fact, this template has nine different redirects to it  that should cover all the bases.  — Satori Son 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it has a redirect. That's no reason not to rename something. The main issue is which name shows up in Category:Cleanup templates. Stevage 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Format the date
editprotected Format the date just like the other cleanup templates. To do this, replace:

suggestions.

With:

suggestions.

This will add a space after the period and before the date, and it will show the date italicized rather than bold, to conform with the other cleanup templates. Gary King ( talk ) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Soxπed93 (blag) 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct font size
editprotected

Change:

To:

To get the same font size as other templates. Gary King ( talk ) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Soxπed93 (blag) 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks
I've made some tweaks to the template style in the new sandbox to match similar templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * ✅ Done The  Helpful  One  21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Re-enabling for a few more tweaks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

may be found
"Specific concerns may be found on the talk page"

This statement ought to serve two purposes - advice to the reader, but also advice to the person who places the template. As such, might it be better to say "should be listed" instead of "may be found". Because often, templates like this get placed without a list of concerns being put on the talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 * IMO that's because frequently there's no need to elaborate; the issue is evident from a cursory look at the article. If the problem is more subtle, for instance the occasional but still fairly heavy use of sympathetic phrasing, it can be discussed on talk. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I've been noticing more and more that maintenance tags are being used without explaination, and occasionally as a form of "scarlet letter" against articles\other editors whith whom the attaching editor has some sort of grievance against. Regardless of that though, what may seem obvious to one person may not seem at all obvious to another (especially, as often seems to be the case with these templates, if there is some POV conflict). Clarifying the language as Ben advocates here is a start, but we should also attach a parameter to all of these maintenance templates in order to link directly to a talk page section. I would even go so far as to create a warning message if the parameter is not used, but that's likely a minority idea. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the minority is at least two! I find this template far more problematic for the encyclopedia than any improvements it seems to engender. It is useless remarking about "tone" unless someone is going to do something about it. In my view the tagger is just as well placed as anyone else to improve matters. At the very least the tagger should give guidance about what he finds problematic. I often come across this tag and can only see that the article is somewhat conversational yet may be entirely satisfactory in conveying information. So yes, more detail should always be associated with this tag. Sorry about all that! An article I had a bit to do with was tagged and I wish the tagger had put in the effort to do something about it. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Parameter for talk page section
Please add a "section" parameter to the talk page portion of the message, in order to link directly to a talk page section (ie.: #{{{section}}}|talk page ). Thanks. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 06:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some code to the /sandbox but it's not working yet. Perhaps you can fix it and then replace the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the only thing missing was a pipe character in the #if statement. I'm certainly no expert on template syntax, but I have at least read through (most of) the template and parser functions documentation, and I think that what is in this revision will work. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the pipe is certainly needed, but unfortunately it still doesn't work. For example

{{Inappropriate tone/sandbox|section=foo}}
 * produces:

{{Inappropriate tone/sandbox|section=foo}}
 * It's to do with the way that Wiki sytax uses the # for numbered lists. I'm sure there is a way to fix this; perhaps by using the ASCII code for # instead, whatever that is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Works now. I\We just left an axtra pipe character in there. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now works. I created a test implementation at User:Ohms law/Sandbox/Template talk section link — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

time issues
What is the correct flag when an article says "recently" about something that is now months or years old? How about when a paragraph begins with "later" (or "earlier") and there is no clear time period for this to refer to? The best tag I have found is unencyclopedic tone, but I would rather something that clearly said it's a time issue.  Randall Bart    Talk   20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * See as of. --Thnidu (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording change
Seems we need to clarify the wording on this template. The first sentence currently reads:

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose:

This article's tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia.

Thus rather than using the generic I-don't-like-it term of "not appropriate", we're saying why it doesn't work as it stands, and saying what the proper use is. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 * And done. Now suggesting a move from  to  for the same reason.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, no - let's make the move target . SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Even better - just, to keep it simple. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 * And done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed "formal" to "encyclopedic". I just tagged an article for being overly formal: Darug people recognise Sir William Dawes of the first fleet and flagship the Sirius for having the grace and intelligence of humanity to record the original traditional dalang (tongue) of the elder people of Sydney Darugule-wayaun. Way too formal for an encyclopedia: it read like a treaty. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Linked to an essay?
This template contains a link to an essay which may not be mandatory nor be reliable to be obeyed. It is neither a guideline nor policy. I wonder if there are other alternatives to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick look - the link was added in 2005 and since then, people have mentioned updating the essay in response to concerns raised on this talk page in the past. Many people seem to have been involved in editing Writing better articles as well. So I think that to remove the link could be controversial and it would need more of a consensus. Hence, I'll deactivate the request for now. Tra (Talk) 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, either RFC or "Village pump (proposal)", correct? --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, either of those would probably get some more participation. It's also worth raising the issue on Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles to get input from people involved with that page. Tra (Talk) 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing this template?
I don't have a proposal yet, so I wonder what to do with this template. The essay that was linked within this template is neither a policy nor guideline nor considered to be recommended. Are there any policy, how-tos, guideline, or any other consensus-accepted ones related to this template? --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Seems no-one has commented so... what's your preference? Do you want to keep it how it is, have the link taken out, or did you find anything else to replace it? Tra (Talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I have lost interest, and essays may be good advices. What is yours? --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind so much. The wording of the template "see...for suggestions" doesn't imply that that the page has any weight so I'm happy to just leave it as it is. Tra (Talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2014
where it is: Wikipedia:Writing better articles please replace with: Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone

Fgnievinski (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "tone" already links to there. Do we really need both links to point there? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't even noticed that word was linked; it could even be unlinked if necessary. From a user experience point of view, we should improve the one link that users are being told to follow. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2015
It is necessary to add another link to WP:Tone. On pages such as this one, the template appears in an abbreviated form and does not include any links to relevant policies or guidelines. This suggested link has already been included in the template's sandbox, so it should added in this template as well.

Jarble (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this would read better with the wikilink in the middle of the bolded text, rather than at the beginning: This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- John of Reading (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be easier to understand. Jarble (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To subst or not to subst
(Following 's suggestion, I'm copying this here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse .)

Template:Tone/doc has the following sequence at and just after the end of the top section (with the TOC between them in reading view):

 * Note: This template is a self-reference, and.

 *  Usage
 * or

Those can't both be right. On the assumption that the explicit instruction is correct and the  example results from an editing error, I'm deleting the latter. But since I don't know what, if anything, is supposed to be in its place, I'm bringing the question here. Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone with admin permission, please add this navigation hatnote
This is a courtesy to other editors to ease annoyance of navigation. I would already have added it myself but the template is locked. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Add reason parameter
This seems like a template that should really need one. It has 29 invalid uses already.

I've made the associated changes in the sandbox and testcases pages. Requesting copy and paste. · • SUM1 • ·   (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

When used in Template:Multiple issues
Through experimentation, I found that the  field of this template is only displayed properly in the banner if this template is not grouped within Template:Multiple issues. Should that be added to the template's documentation? (Or maybe I was just doing something incorrectly...) Schazjmd   (talk)  20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is normal; to avoid overloading the top of the article, many of the warning templates display in an abbreviated form when used inside Multiple issues -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

New icon for template proposals

 * Gnome-vector-cleanup.svg (asterisk denoting a pause in musical notation)
 * Breathe-folder-music.svg
 * Baroque music icon.svg
 * Renaissance music icon.svg
 * 20th century music icon.svg

Yes, it's kind of a visual pun, but also more elegant and eye-catching for users to perhaps notice slightly more and thus help the "tone" of the article. Plus, beauty matters.

My favorite is probably a tie of #1 and #3. All but 1 are perhaps too literally musical and maybe the .svg broom could be added to the corner like in first proposal, but idk. The last depicts more of a "falling tone" too suggesting a poorer article, but also looks harsher. I just believe this, and similar cleanup templates that share the generic broom, need to change. Yea or Nay?-- ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Tone


text: User talk:69.158.145.148

title: User talk:69.158.145.148


text: Category:Greek alphabet

title: Category:Greek alphabet


text:
User talk:Valkov

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! You (Talk) 00:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Премахване на имена
Здравей! Донякъде оправдавам решението ти да махаш чужди имена от статиите за български градове, но на моменти според мен е хубаво да ги има — когато имат по-голямо историческо значение или има концентрация на определен етнос в областта. Примерно да махнеш турското име на Кърджали (не че е много различно :)) ми се струва твърде много, а пък латинските имена на Силистра са доста свързани с историята на града. Румънското също донякъде, в по-ново време румънците владяха Южна Добруджа за един период.

Български имена има и по статии за чужди градове, например на Kırklareli го има българското име Лозенград, на Thessaloniki е обяснено, че южните славяни му викаме Солун и т.н.

Освен това по принцип не е практика да се оставят само местното име и това на английски (транслитерацията), въпреки че обикновено става така, защото други имена просто няма. Да, да кажем не е уместно Filibe и Sofya да са редом с нашите си названия в най-предната част на страницата, но можем да ги споменем в историческите секции вместо да ги махаме.

Това е от мен, дано мнението ми е полезно. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 10:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Kardzhali
Hi. I had added the Turkish name to this article. Later on I noticed that you had removed it giving a reason which is not appropriate. I readded it and gave the reason in the relating talk page. Now, yot removed it again. I will insert the Turksih name now, and I ask you kindly to stop removing it. As you can understand, the town has a strong relationship with Turksih heritage. CeeGee 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kardzhali
здравей Христо. What are your objections to having the Turkish name at Kardzhali? The city has a large Turkish population and Turkish has special status there. Also, this is common practise on many pages, see Edirne for example. I don't see what the big deal is, it's useful for readers, and removing the word doesn't help the reader. — Khoikhoi 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, we can have both Dobra Paslieva and the Turkish name. Deal? — Khoikhoi 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Please do not remove the Turkish name of the city. It will be considered vandalism and can get you blocked. Of course, right the Dobra Paslieva and put all the relevant referenced information. Wikipedia is not censored. abakharev 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PRODding felinology
Hello, I recently proposed felinology for deletion due to it being a neologism. If I am incorrect in this assertion, please add a reputable source that uses the word, and remove the prod. Thank you. :3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pumeleon (talk • contribs).

Image permission problem with Image:Sliven-gerb.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sliven-gerb.gif I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valkov


text:
User talk:Ancheta Wis/Admin form

Ancheta Wis
[ Vote here] -->

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A.

title: User talk:Ancheta Wis/Admin form


text:
User:Michael Trigoboff

Michael Trigoboff's web site at Portland Community College, and the web site for his consulting business, MLT Software, Inc.

You can talk to me here.

title: User:Michael Trigoboff


text: User talk:68.9.116.184

title: User talk:68.9.116.184


text:
User talk:Carriewhite

Hi there,

hope i'm doing ok, checked out the Zeppelin sites and was happy to chat here. Not been on the net for this before, it's all new. Love Zeppelin, their part of my life (thank god). I admit I had the honour of meeting Peter Grant and boy what a character, gentle giant, with piercing blue eyes, ok maybe not so gentle but awesome all the same. I was hoping to find people here that have read a recently published book by Peter Grant and Zeppelin's best friend and to discuss this but i'm still hoping it seems. I apologise if this is not a chat site only all the sites dedicated to Zeppelin talk about everything but Zeppelin! I don't understand them!!!

title: User talk:Carriewhite


text:
Vänner och fiender

Vänner och fiender (Friends and Foes) is a Swedish soap opera that aired between 1996 and 2000. It was produced by Jarowskij and first broadcast on TV3, but in 1997 Kanal 5 purchased the rights to broadcast it. The channel did so until 2000 when the show was cancelled. A total of 720 episodes were shot.

The show takes place in a fictional town called Erikshamn.

A Norwegian version named Venner og fiender was also produced, with a total of 170 episodes. However, disappointingly low viewership caused the last 30 episodes to never be aired.

Cast

 * Allan Svensson as Sven-Olof Sundin
 * Leif Ahrle as Bosse Åqvist
 * Anki Lidén as Karin Sundin
 * Sussie Ericsson as Bitte Petersson
 * Louise Edlind as Marianne Åqvist (1996–2000)
 * Eric Donell as Jörgen Sjölinder
 * Rachel Mohlin as Kicki Lindberger
 * Jenny Ulving as Gabriella 'Bella' Åqvist
 * Henrik Norberg as Niklas Sundin (1996–2000)
 * Daniel Nyren as Henrik Rahm (1996–2000)
 * Anna Hansson as Pernilla Sundin
 * Miroslav Ozanic as Miro Rakovic
 * Martin De Marino as Dragan Rakovic
 * Niklas Engdahl as Toni Silvestri (1996–1999)
 * Anton Tyskling as Anton Rahm (1996–1999)
 * Sara Alström as Madeleine Åqvist (1997–1998)
 * Janne 'Loffe' Carlsson as Himself
 * Stig Engström as Leonard Alfvén (1999–2000)
 * Lisa Fabre as Lotta Grebke (1998–1999)
 * Per Holmberg as Kapten Grebke (1998–1999)
 * Petra Hultgren as Madeleine Åqvist (1996–1997)
 * Lisa Kock as Elinor Alfvén (1999)
 * Johanna Lazcano Osterman as Cecilia (1998–1999)
 * Ahnna Rasch as Jenny Eriksson (1997–1999)
 * Sara Sommerfeld as Susanna (1996–1997)
 * Mia Ternström as Stephanie (1999)
 * Henrik Liljegren as skater (1999)

title: Vänner och fiender


text:
Bowling analysis

In cricket, a bowling analysis (sometimes shortened to just analysis, especially in the phrase innings analysis, and also referred to as bowling figures) usually refers to a notation summarising a bowler's performance in terms of overs bowled, how many of those overs are maidens (i.e. with no runs conceded), total runs conceded and number of wickets taken. Bowling analyses are generally given for each innings in cricket scoreboards printed in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, newspapers and so on, but they are also sometimes quoted for other periods of time, such as a single spell of bowling. Typically, the analysis is given in the following format: Overs – Maidens – Runs conceded – Wickets.

In some cases, overs and maidens are omitted from bowling figures, and are recorded showing 'Wickets/Runs'; for example, 7/15 by Glenn McGrath against Namibia shows he took his 7 wickets for 15 runs.

Sometimes, in limited overs cricket, the 'maidens' figure is replaced by the number of dot balls bowled.

In Test cricket, the best bowling analysis for a single innings is 10/53 by Jim Laker. The best bowling analysis in an ODI is 8/19 by Chaminda Vaas. The best bowling analysis in a Twenty20 International is 6/7 by Deepak Chahar. In first-class cricket, the best bowling analysis for a single innings is 10/10 by Hedley Verity.

title: Bowling analysis


text: User talk:24.19.7.108

title: User talk:24.19.7.108


text: File:Meshuggah-Contradictions.jpg

title: File:Meshuggah-Contradictions.jpg